<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_05_0826246</id>
	<title>The Technology of <em>Neuromancer</em> After 25 Years</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246796100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>William Gibson's <em>Neuromancer</em> was first published 25 years ago.  <a href="mailto:kkkraska@hotmail.com" rel="nofollow">Dr\_Ken</a> writes with an excerpt from an article at MacWorld that delves into the current state of some of <a href="http://www.macworld.com/article/141500/2009/07/neuromancer\_25.html">the technology that drives the book</a>: <i>"'<em>Neuromancer</em> is important because of its astounding predictive power. Gibson's core idea in the novel is the direct integration of man and computer, with all the possibilities (and horrors) that such a union entails. The book eventually sold more than 160 million copies, but bringing the book to popular attention took a long time and a lot of word-of-mouth. The sci-fi community, however, was acutely aware of the novel's importance when it came out: <em>Neuromancer</em> ran the table on sci-fi's big three awards in 1984, winning the Hugo Award, the Philip K. Dick Memorial Award, and the Nebula Award.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>William Gibson 's Neuromancer was first published 25 years ago .
Dr \ _Ken writes with an excerpt from an article at MacWorld that delves into the current state of some of the technology that drives the book : " 'Neuromancer is important because of its astounding predictive power .
Gibson 's core idea in the novel is the direct integration of man and computer , with all the possibilities ( and horrors ) that such a union entails .
The book eventually sold more than 160 million copies , but bringing the book to popular attention took a long time and a lot of word-of-mouth .
The sci-fi community , however , was acutely aware of the novel 's importance when it came out : Neuromancer ran the table on sci-fi 's big three awards in 1984 , winning the Hugo Award , the Philip K. Dick Memorial Award , and the Nebula Award .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>William Gibson's Neuromancer was first published 25 years ago.
Dr\_Ken writes with an excerpt from an article at MacWorld that delves into the current state of some of the technology that drives the book: "'Neuromancer is important because of its astounding predictive power.
Gibson's core idea in the novel is the direct integration of man and computer, with all the possibilities (and horrors) that such a union entails.
The book eventually sold more than 160 million copies, but bringing the book to popular attention took a long time and a lot of word-of-mouth.
The sci-fi community, however, was acutely aware of the novel's importance when it came out: Neuromancer ran the table on sci-fi's big three awards in 1984, winning the Hugo Award, the Philip K. Dick Memorial Award, and the Nebula Award.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585987</id>
	<title>a psychoactive novel</title>
	<author>hoarier</author>
	<datestamp>1246803360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A reality check for all the litcritty and ther types who like to suggest that Gibson somehow created the web in this novel: Tim Berners-Lee and CERN created it.<br> <br>

The much-quoted descriptions of "cyberspace" in this oddly soporific novel may or may not be interesting but they're hardly prescient. Cyberspace is described as "unthinkable", but here we are thinking about it. There are "huge, shining, cities of data", uh, where exactly? Et cetera, but let's not labor the point.<br> <br>

For me, <i>Neuromancer</i> worked well as a sleeping pill; your dosage may vary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A reality check for all the litcritty and ther types who like to suggest that Gibson somehow created the web in this novel : Tim Berners-Lee and CERN created it .
The much-quoted descriptions of " cyberspace " in this oddly soporific novel may or may not be interesting but they 're hardly prescient .
Cyberspace is described as " unthinkable " , but here we are thinking about it .
There are " huge , shining , cities of data " , uh , where exactly ?
Et cetera , but let 's not labor the point .
For me , Neuromancer worked well as a sleeping pill ; your dosage may vary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A reality check for all the litcritty and ther types who like to suggest that Gibson somehow created the web in this novel: Tim Berners-Lee and CERN created it.
The much-quoted descriptions of "cyberspace" in this oddly soporific novel may or may not be interesting but they're hardly prescient.
Cyberspace is described as "unthinkable", but here we are thinking about it.
There are "huge, shining, cities of data", uh, where exactly?
Et cetera, but let's not labor the point.
For me, Neuromancer worked well as a sleeping pill; your dosage may vary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586013</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>g253</author>
	<datestamp>1246803900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're absolutely right, a particular 1946 short story worth mentioning (and reading!) is Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe" : <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Logic\_Named\_Joe" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Logic\_Named\_Joe</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're absolutely right , a particular 1946 short story worth mentioning ( and reading !
) is Murray Leinster 's " A Logic Named Joe " : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A \ _Logic \ _Named \ _Joe [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're absolutely right, a particular 1946 short story worth mentioning (and reading!
) is Murray Leinster's "A Logic Named Joe" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Logic\_Named\_Joe [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586021</id>
	<title>Re:Never forget the lesson of Neuromancer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246804080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>640 ought to be enough for anyone!</htmltext>
<tokenext>640 ought to be enough for anyone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>640 ought to be enough for anyone!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590299</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246807860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I hate the americanised version of novels, where they feel the needs to explain everything, at least 3 times, in case you missed it the first two, and very stupid.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't suppose you'd mind providing 3 Americanized versions of your post, for those of us that couldn't understand it the first time around?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate the americanised version of novels , where they feel the needs to explain everything , at least 3 times , in case you missed it the first two , and very stupid.I do n't suppose you 'd mind providing 3 Americanized versions of your post , for those of us that could n't understand it the first time around ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate the americanised version of novels, where they feel the needs to explain everything, at least 3 times, in case you missed it the first two, and very stupid.I don't suppose you'd mind providing 3 Americanized versions of your post, for those of us that couldn't understand it the first time around?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28589553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588197</id>
	<title>reflected in TV shows of the time</title>
	<author>SethJohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1246784700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking of pay phones / cell phones influencing story lines... If you go back and watch TV shows from the 70s and 80s, you'll see that a bunch of the stories just won't work today. Many of the plots turn on character X having to jump in a car and race to point Y to warn character Z about threat G. If these shows were re-shot to be set in modern times, the writers would have to perpetually make characters forget to charge their cell phones or put them in areas with spotty coverage.<br> <br>Seth</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of pay phones / cell phones influencing story lines... If you go back and watch TV shows from the 70s and 80s , you 'll see that a bunch of the stories just wo n't work today .
Many of the plots turn on character X having to jump in a car and race to point Y to warn character Z about threat G. If these shows were re-shot to be set in modern times , the writers would have to perpetually make characters forget to charge their cell phones or put them in areas with spotty coverage .
Seth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of pay phones / cell phones influencing story lines... If you go back and watch TV shows from the 70s and 80s, you'll see that a bunch of the stories just won't work today.
Many of the plots turn on character X having to jump in a car and race to point Y to warn character Z about threat G. If these shows were re-shot to be set in modern times, the writers would have to perpetually make characters forget to charge their cell phones or put them in areas with spotty coverage.
Seth</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588923</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246791180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of my favourite books is Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. I'm still not sure exactly what happens in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my favourite books is Dirk Gently 's Holistic Detective Agency .
I 'm still not sure exactly what happens in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my favourite books is Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.
I'm still not sure exactly what happens in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585977</id>
	<title>Can the attitude and pay your respect, boy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246803180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the man who coined the term "cyberspace"--first in "Johnny Mnemonic" in his 1982 <i>Burning Chrome</i> collection and popularized in <i>Neuromancer</i>--and imagined the representation of information as virtual/geographic landscapes. All of it pounded out using a manual typewriter. This <a href="http://www.wordyard.com/dmz/digicult/gibson-8-4-94.html" title="wordyard.com">15-year-old interview</a> [wordyard.com] may give you some sense of why Gibson's novel will probably matter more than any cultural artifact you or I will ever create.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the man who coined the term " cyberspace " --first in " Johnny Mnemonic " in his 1982 Burning Chrome collection and popularized in Neuromancer--and imagined the representation of information as virtual/geographic landscapes .
All of it pounded out using a manual typewriter .
This 15-year-old interview [ wordyard.com ] may give you some sense of why Gibson 's novel will probably matter more than any cultural artifact you or I will ever create .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the man who coined the term "cyberspace"--first in "Johnny Mnemonic" in his 1982 Burning Chrome collection and popularized in Neuromancer--and imagined the representation of information as virtual/geographic landscapes.
All of it pounded out using a manual typewriter.
This 15-year-old interview [wordyard.com] may give you some sense of why Gibson's novel will probably matter more than any cultural artifact you or I will ever create.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587701</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon, here I come!</title>
	<author>pjt33</author>
	<datestamp>1246823880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try reading it in poor translation. I just finished reading it in Spanish, and at some points I had to translate the Spanish to English, word for word, to work out what it meant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try reading it in poor translation .
I just finished reading it in Spanish , and at some points I had to translate the Spanish to English , word for word , to work out what it meant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try reading it in poor translation.
I just finished reading it in Spanish, and at some points I had to translate the Spanish to English, word for word, to work out what it meant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28592769</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246883580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tron was just fantasy.  I don't think the authors even considered the possibility of using that model as a user interface; they were just coming up with a fantasy world (controlled by the evil CPU) that tied to the real world (controlled by the evil corporate boss).  Our hero gets magically sucked from one world into the other, does some things in one world that have an effect on the other, then escapes back to home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tron was just fantasy .
I do n't think the authors even considered the possibility of using that model as a user interface ; they were just coming up with a fantasy world ( controlled by the evil CPU ) that tied to the real world ( controlled by the evil corporate boss ) .
Our hero gets magically sucked from one world into the other , does some things in one world that have an effect on the other , then escapes back to home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tron was just fantasy.
I don't think the authors even considered the possibility of using that model as a user interface; they were just coming up with a fantasy world (controlled by the evil CPU) that tied to the real world (controlled by the evil corporate boss).
Our hero gets magically sucked from one world into the other, does some things in one world that have an effect on the other, then escapes back to home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28591269</id>
	<title>Re:Antiquated References in Neuromancer</title>
	<author>Velocir</author>
	<datestamp>1246818720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to remember something about his deck running at 64 terahertz...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember something about his deck running at 64 terahertz.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember something about his deck running at 64 terahertz...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28608935</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1246984560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And don't forget Philp K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", where people communed with animal spirits in a virtual world</i></p><p>Uhh... I must've missed that part.  Last time I read it, it was about a real, entirely non-virtual, post-apocalyptic world in which humans where confined to dreary cities and took care of the few remaining animals, the possession of which was an outward expression of both social status and inherent humanity (people believe that compassion and empathy are uniquely human traits, thus taking care of animals is an outward expression of that trait).  Meanwhile, for those without the money to afford a real animal, mechanical substitutes would be used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n't forget Philp K. Dick 's " Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep " , where people communed with animal spirits in a virtual worldUhh... I must 've missed that part .
Last time I read it , it was about a real , entirely non-virtual , post-apocalyptic world in which humans where confined to dreary cities and took care of the few remaining animals , the possession of which was an outward expression of both social status and inherent humanity ( people believe that compassion and empathy are uniquely human traits , thus taking care of animals is an outward expression of that trait ) .
Meanwhile , for those without the money to afford a real animal , mechanical substitutes would be used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And don't forget Philp K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", where people communed with animal spirits in a virtual worldUhh... I must've missed that part.
Last time I read it, it was about a real, entirely non-virtual, post-apocalyptic world in which humans where confined to dreary cities and took care of the few remaining animals, the possession of which was an outward expression of both social status and inherent humanity (people believe that compassion and empathy are uniquely human traits, thus taking care of animals is an outward expression of that trait).
Meanwhile, for those without the money to afford a real animal, mechanical substitutes would be used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585889</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>LS</author>
	<datestamp>1246801620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you realize there are only 33 million people in canada right?  If 6.5 million copies were sold in canada, that means 1 out of 5 people read neuromancer.  Does that sound right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you realize there are only 33 million people in canada right ?
If 6.5 million copies were sold in canada , that means 1 out of 5 people read neuromancer .
Does that sound right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you realize there are only 33 million people in canada right?
If 6.5 million copies were sold in canada, that means 1 out of 5 people read neuromancer.
Does that sound right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586287</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246808160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Such global networks featured in the fiction of Heinlein, Asimov and plenty of others before Neuromancer was published. Plenty of authors predicted the growth and utility of world wide computer networks, although none (including Gibson) grasped the full implications of this.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I think you're incorrect about Heinlein.
If you look at his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert\_A.\_Heinlein\_bibliography" title="wikipedia.org">books</a> [wikipedia.org], the closest I think he comes is The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress in 1966. A big central computer on the moon becomes self-aware, and he can project a synthesized voice and image over a video phone network. He's also networked to a lot of stuff, and can, e.g., make toilets run backwards. However, it's really not depicted as anything at all resembling the internet. All he really did was take existing time-sharing systems (the Dartmouth time-sharing system started in 1964) and extrapolate to the case where the central computer was self-aware, and the network spread across the whole moon. The way humans use the network in the story is always as nothing more than a video phone network. There is only one computer, and nobody ever transfers any digital data other than video telephony. It's true that the network is described as global (meaning global on the moon), but it's really only depicted as a telephone network, and a global telephone network already existed in 1966. A global network of computers would have been an innovation, but Heinlein doesn't depict the existence of any other computers on the network.
</p><p>
Probably "A Logic Named Joe," by Murray Leinster, is the most relevant example that predates the actual internet.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Such global networks featured in the fiction of Heinlein , Asimov and plenty of others before Neuromancer was published .
Plenty of authors predicted the growth and utility of world wide computer networks , although none ( including Gibson ) grasped the full implications of this .
I think you 're incorrect about Heinlein .
If you look at his books [ wikipedia.org ] , the closest I think he comes is The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress in 1966 .
A big central computer on the moon becomes self-aware , and he can project a synthesized voice and image over a video phone network .
He 's also networked to a lot of stuff , and can , e.g. , make toilets run backwards .
However , it 's really not depicted as anything at all resembling the internet .
All he really did was take existing time-sharing systems ( the Dartmouth time-sharing system started in 1964 ) and extrapolate to the case where the central computer was self-aware , and the network spread across the whole moon .
The way humans use the network in the story is always as nothing more than a video phone network .
There is only one computer , and nobody ever transfers any digital data other than video telephony .
It 's true that the network is described as global ( meaning global on the moon ) , but it 's really only depicted as a telephone network , and a global telephone network already existed in 1966 .
A global network of computers would have been an innovation , but Heinlein does n't depict the existence of any other computers on the network .
Probably " A Logic Named Joe , " by Murray Leinster , is the most relevant example that predates the actual internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such global networks featured in the fiction of Heinlein, Asimov and plenty of others before Neuromancer was published.
Plenty of authors predicted the growth and utility of world wide computer networks, although none (including Gibson) grasped the full implications of this.
I think you're incorrect about Heinlein.
If you look at his books [wikipedia.org], the closest I think he comes is The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress in 1966.
A big central computer on the moon becomes self-aware, and he can project a synthesized voice and image over a video phone network.
He's also networked to a lot of stuff, and can, e.g., make toilets run backwards.
However, it's really not depicted as anything at all resembling the internet.
All he really did was take existing time-sharing systems (the Dartmouth time-sharing system started in 1964) and extrapolate to the case where the central computer was self-aware, and the network spread across the whole moon.
The way humans use the network in the story is always as nothing more than a video phone network.
There is only one computer, and nobody ever transfers any digital data other than video telephony.
It's true that the network is described as global (meaning global on the moon), but it's really only depicted as a telephone network, and a global telephone network already existed in 1966.
A global network of computers would have been an innovation, but Heinlein doesn't depict the existence of any other computers on the network.
Probably "A Logic Named Joe," by Murray Leinster, is the most relevant example that predates the actual internet.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587611</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246822980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Count Zero is one of my favorite Gibson books. If you liked Neuromancer, it's definitely worth reading. Mona Lisa Overdrive gets a bit slow at some points -- slow for Gibson, that is. His normal pace when it comes to storytelling is positively breakneck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Count Zero is one of my favorite Gibson books .
If you liked Neuromancer , it 's definitely worth reading .
Mona Lisa Overdrive gets a bit slow at some points -- slow for Gibson , that is .
His normal pace when it comes to storytelling is positively breakneck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Count Zero is one of my favorite Gibson books.
If you liked Neuromancer, it's definitely worth reading.
Mona Lisa Overdrive gets a bit slow at some points -- slow for Gibson, that is.
His normal pace when it comes to storytelling is positively breakneck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28602237</id>
	<title>Re:reflected in TV shows of the time</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1246887900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't someone do a 24 parody set in the early 90s? Oh yeah, <a href="http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/pilot-24-1994-p1.php" title="boreme.com">here</a> [boreme.com].  Actually a pretty accurate depiction of 1994 technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't someone do a 24 parody set in the early 90s ?
Oh yeah , here [ boreme.com ] .
Actually a pretty accurate depiction of 1994 technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't someone do a 24 parody set in the early 90s?
Oh yeah, here [boreme.com].
Actually a pretty accurate depiction of 1994 technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586209</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>dhudson0001</author>
	<datestamp>1246806960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it does say "eventually".We haven't collided with Andromeda yet...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it does say " eventually " .We have n't collided with Andromeda yet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it does say "eventually".We haven't collided with Andromeda yet...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586631</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Phones</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1246812540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree.  Nueromancer is important because it translates common themes into a new language.  This is all science fiction was and is.  A literary form that helps us deal with a technologies(the telling of skill) that the average person has increasingly difficulties understanding.  I think most people understood a pencil or a lever or even a car, but how many people understand a transistor, or the working of a stage two booster on a Saturn V, or how Little Boy is different from Fat Man.  I certainly don't.  I understand the effects, but not the details of the process. So we have a conflict, in the archaic language, of man versus machine.
<p>
The theme is old.  Hero is punished by god/king/country/corporation for a minor mistake.  Hero find a way to redemption, but a great personal costs, and in a morally dubious manner. Hero has help from friends picked up along the way.  Hero is double crossed.  Hero is more or less vindicated. The wonderful thing about Neuromancer is that Gibson translates this old theme into a context in which the hero is not based solely on physical strength, or cleaverness, or the ability to con with good looks, but on access to information and the ability to deal with machines.  This was kind of revolutionary.  Perhaps the phone think is not so important because the synchronous voice communications are inefficient and we may see it fall to a more efficient asynchronous data feed.
</p><p>
In any case, most science fiction gets most of the details wrong, and it matters little as it merely reflects the world the author is living in, not the fundamental conflict.  For instance, many pulp writers assumed we would get automatic house cleaning and diagnosticians before we got automatic astronavigation.  By the time star trek came around, and we had computers that did math, but not clean floors, this was corrected.  BTW, Star Trek was notable because it translated the form of The Odyssey into a modern language, just as Huckleberry Finn did before it.    The important thing about these, then, is not the predictive element, as a stopped clock will be right twice a day, but the preperation such books can give the reader to live with then not well known technologies,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
Nueromancer is important because it translates common themes into a new language .
This is all science fiction was and is .
A literary form that helps us deal with a technologies ( the telling of skill ) that the average person has increasingly difficulties understanding .
I think most people understood a pencil or a lever or even a car , but how many people understand a transistor , or the working of a stage two booster on a Saturn V , or how Little Boy is different from Fat Man .
I certainly do n't .
I understand the effects , but not the details of the process .
So we have a conflict , in the archaic language , of man versus machine .
The theme is old .
Hero is punished by god/king/country/corporation for a minor mistake .
Hero find a way to redemption , but a great personal costs , and in a morally dubious manner .
Hero has help from friends picked up along the way .
Hero is double crossed .
Hero is more or less vindicated .
The wonderful thing about Neuromancer is that Gibson translates this old theme into a context in which the hero is not based solely on physical strength , or cleaverness , or the ability to con with good looks , but on access to information and the ability to deal with machines .
This was kind of revolutionary .
Perhaps the phone think is not so important because the synchronous voice communications are inefficient and we may see it fall to a more efficient asynchronous data feed .
In any case , most science fiction gets most of the details wrong , and it matters little as it merely reflects the world the author is living in , not the fundamental conflict .
For instance , many pulp writers assumed we would get automatic house cleaning and diagnosticians before we got automatic astronavigation .
By the time star trek came around , and we had computers that did math , but not clean floors , this was corrected .
BTW , Star Trek was notable because it translated the form of The Odyssey into a modern language , just as Huckleberry Finn did before it .
The important thing about these , then , is not the predictive element , as a stopped clock will be right twice a day , but the preperation such books can give the reader to live with then not well known technologies,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
Nueromancer is important because it translates common themes into a new language.
This is all science fiction was and is.
A literary form that helps us deal with a technologies(the telling of skill) that the average person has increasingly difficulties understanding.
I think most people understood a pencil or a lever or even a car, but how many people understand a transistor, or the working of a stage two booster on a Saturn V, or how Little Boy is different from Fat Man.
I certainly don't.
I understand the effects, but not the details of the process.
So we have a conflict, in the archaic language, of man versus machine.
The theme is old.
Hero is punished by god/king/country/corporation for a minor mistake.
Hero find a way to redemption, but a great personal costs, and in a morally dubious manner.
Hero has help from friends picked up along the way.
Hero is double crossed.
Hero is more or less vindicated.
The wonderful thing about Neuromancer is that Gibson translates this old theme into a context in which the hero is not based solely on physical strength, or cleaverness, or the ability to con with good looks, but on access to information and the ability to deal with machines.
This was kind of revolutionary.
Perhaps the phone think is not so important because the synchronous voice communications are inefficient and we may see it fall to a more efficient asynchronous data feed.
In any case, most science fiction gets most of the details wrong, and it matters little as it merely reflects the world the author is living in, not the fundamental conflict.
For instance, many pulp writers assumed we would get automatic house cleaning and diagnosticians before we got automatic astronavigation.
By the time star trek came around, and we had computers that did math, but not clean floors, this was corrected.
BTW, Star Trek was notable because it translated the form of The Odyssey into a modern language, just as Huckleberry Finn did before it.
The important thing about these, then, is not the predictive element, as a stopped clock will be right twice a day, but the preperation such books can give the reader to live with then not well known technologies,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586367</id>
	<title>Excellent interview thanks</title>
	<author>biscon</author>
	<datestamp>1246809660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This quote in particular grabbed my attention:<p><div class="quote"><p>Gibson winces at the term "information superhighway" ("a nasty piece of buzzword engineering"), but has good things to say about the Internet: "I'm not a user, but I'm a big fan. I like the idea that it's extra-national, and no one particularly owns it. My concern now is whether it can be dismantled by corporate interests who want something more structured so they can sell us stuff - or whether there's some innate urge toward freedom inherent in the technology that will keep it evolving."</p></div><p>
Seems a bit like the current "quest for control and censorship" we hear about every week here, as well as the net neutrality controversy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This quote in particular grabbed my attention : Gibson winces at the term " information superhighway " ( " a nasty piece of buzzword engineering " ) , but has good things to say about the Internet : " I 'm not a user , but I 'm a big fan .
I like the idea that it 's extra-national , and no one particularly owns it .
My concern now is whether it can be dismantled by corporate interests who want something more structured so they can sell us stuff - or whether there 's some innate urge toward freedom inherent in the technology that will keep it evolving .
" Seems a bit like the current " quest for control and censorship " we hear about every week here , as well as the net neutrality controversy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This quote in particular grabbed my attention:Gibson winces at the term "information superhighway" ("a nasty piece of buzzword engineering"), but has good things to say about the Internet: "I'm not a user, but I'm a big fan.
I like the idea that it's extra-national, and no one particularly owns it.
My concern now is whether it can be dismantled by corporate interests who want something more structured so they can sell us stuff - or whether there's some innate urge toward freedom inherent in the technology that will keep it evolving.
"
Seems a bit like the current "quest for control and censorship" we hear about every week here, as well as the net neutrality controversy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586965</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1246816560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In contrast to garbage like Clancy where he explains everything every time, in every novel, as if retards are his target audience. I'll take Neuromancer, Mono Lisa Overdrive, Count Zero, Idoru, and Image Recognition any day. Although The Difference Engine I hated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In contrast to garbage like Clancy where he explains everything every time , in every novel , as if retards are his target audience .
I 'll take Neuromancer , Mono Lisa Overdrive , Count Zero , Idoru , and Image Recognition any day .
Although The Difference Engine I hated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In contrast to garbage like Clancy where he explains everything every time, in every novel, as if retards are his target audience.
I'll take Neuromancer, Mono Lisa Overdrive, Count Zero, Idoru, and Image Recognition any day.
Although The Difference Engine I hated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588945</id>
	<title>Wireless Communication in Neuromancer</title>
	<author>wintermute1974</author>
	<datestamp>1246791480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gibson didn't have cell phones, but he did have something even more interesting:1  When Molly goes to inquire about the Panther Moderns for the Sense/Net run, her contact thumbs a new 'soft into his socket and discovers that she's got "a rider".</p><p>Essentially, Molly was wired and Case could sense everything she did while he was plugged into his deck at home.  Sure, Gibson had pay phones, but he had some sort of wireless communications channel too for Molly and Case that's better than any cell phone to date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gibson did n't have cell phones , but he did have something even more interesting : 1 When Molly goes to inquire about the Panther Moderns for the Sense/Net run , her contact thumbs a new 'soft into his socket and discovers that she 's got " a rider " .Essentially , Molly was wired and Case could sense everything she did while he was plugged into his deck at home .
Sure , Gibson had pay phones , but he had some sort of wireless communications channel too for Molly and Case that 's better than any cell phone to date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gibson didn't have cell phones, but he did have something even more interesting:1  When Molly goes to inquire about the Panther Moderns for the Sense/Net run, her contact thumbs a new 'soft into his socket and discovers that she's got "a rider".Essentially, Molly was wired and Case could sense everything she did while he was plugged into his deck at home.
Sure, Gibson had pay phones, but he had some sort of wireless communications channel too for Molly and Case that's better than any cell phone to date.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28591365</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Phones</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1246819620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though pay phones still are around in certain places like train stations. Today's pay phones even do SMS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though pay phones still are around in certain places like train stations .
Today 's pay phones even do SMS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though pay phones still are around in certain places like train stations.
Today's pay phones even do SMS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590565</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Phones</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1246811100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not just release a new edition and change the MB into a ZB and that will buy you another 20 years of impressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not just release a new edition and change the MB into a ZB and that will buy you another 20 years of impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not just release a new edition and change the MB into a ZB and that will buy you another 20 years of impressive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585803</id>
	<title>Amazon, here I come!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246800240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This looks like something I ought to buy.
Also, this is my first first post ever!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This looks like something I ought to buy .
Also , this is my first first post ever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This looks like something I ought to buy.
Also, this is my first first post ever!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587673</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>jlaiho</author>
	<datestamp>1246823580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I should read it again, too. And I also should look for a copy of Count Zero, as that's one that is missing from my bookshelf.</p><p>You should read all the three; Mona Lisa Overdrive binds together a number of threads from the earlier books (as a conclusion of a trilogy should). All the three bounce quite a bit in time, place as well as persons, so these books are something to read in alert state; you need to keep quite a big record in your mind about all the things underway and persons interacting. The other way (which I think I should try some day) would be to read these while jotting the things down in a notebook, for later references.</p><p>I'd say these books are something that need to be reread for a few times before actually understanding the story (but then, I'm not a native English speaker, so that may have an effect). Also , they're not to be read in a hurry (like "I don't get this part, I'll just skip it and read on"). There's just too much to miss on a casual reading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I should read it again , too .
And I also should look for a copy of Count Zero , as that 's one that is missing from my bookshelf.You should read all the three ; Mona Lisa Overdrive binds together a number of threads from the earlier books ( as a conclusion of a trilogy should ) .
All the three bounce quite a bit in time , place as well as persons , so these books are something to read in alert state ; you need to keep quite a big record in your mind about all the things underway and persons interacting .
The other way ( which I think I should try some day ) would be to read these while jotting the things down in a notebook , for later references.I 'd say these books are something that need to be reread for a few times before actually understanding the story ( but then , I 'm not a native English speaker , so that may have an effect ) .
Also , they 're not to be read in a hurry ( like " I do n't get this part , I 'll just skip it and read on " ) .
There 's just too much to miss on a casual reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should read it again, too.
And I also should look for a copy of Count Zero, as that's one that is missing from my bookshelf.You should read all the three; Mona Lisa Overdrive binds together a number of threads from the earlier books (as a conclusion of a trilogy should).
All the three bounce quite a bit in time, place as well as persons, so these books are something to read in alert state; you need to keep quite a big record in your mind about all the things underway and persons interacting.
The other way (which I think I should try some day) would be to read these while jotting the things down in a notebook, for later references.I'd say these books are something that need to be reread for a few times before actually understanding the story (but then, I'm not a native English speaker, so that may have an effect).
Also , they're not to be read in a hurry (like "I don't get this part, I'll just skip it and read on").
There's just too much to miss on a casual reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586123</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1246805760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone know if the other two related stories are any good (Mono Lisa Overdrive, and Count Zero)?</p></div><p>As an open implementation of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Lisa Overdrive, I thought it was a pretty good attempt, although, as usual, it's a slavish imitation of a paradigm invented by others and released in closed-source format long ago.  What's especially weird in this case, though, is that the Lisa, which stole shamelessly from XEROX PARC, had to be overclocked in order to be able to run the bloated<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework, which itself, erm, "borrowed" many toolkit widgets that came out of over nearly decades of Macintosh development, which itself obsoleted the original Lisa project --- only to be being re-implemented in the opensource Mono project so that it could be run on a non-Windows OS stack.  Talk about chasing your own tail.  Especially since OS X has been out for about a decade, and XCode makes everything else pale by comparison.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone know if the other two related stories are any good ( Mono Lisa Overdrive , and Count Zero ) ? As an open implementation of .NET Lisa Overdrive , I thought it was a pretty good attempt , although , as usual , it 's a slavish imitation of a paradigm invented by others and released in closed-source format long ago .
What 's especially weird in this case , though , is that the Lisa , which stole shamelessly from XEROX PARC , had to be overclocked in order to be able to run the bloated .NET Framework , which itself , erm , " borrowed " many toolkit widgets that came out of over nearly decades of Macintosh development , which itself obsoleted the original Lisa project --- only to be being re-implemented in the opensource Mono project so that it could be run on a non-Windows OS stack .
Talk about chasing your own tail .
Especially since OS X has been out for about a decade , and XCode makes everything else pale by comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone know if the other two related stories are any good (Mono Lisa Overdrive, and Count Zero)?As an open implementation of .NET Lisa Overdrive, I thought it was a pretty good attempt, although, as usual, it's a slavish imitation of a paradigm invented by others and released in closed-source format long ago.
What's especially weird in this case, though, is that the Lisa, which stole shamelessly from XEROX PARC, had to be overclocked in order to be able to run the bloated .NET Framework, which itself, erm, "borrowed" many toolkit widgets that came out of over nearly decades of Macintosh development, which itself obsoleted the original Lisa project --- only to be being re-implemented in the opensource Mono project so that it could be run on a non-Windows OS stack.
Talk about chasing your own tail.
Especially since OS X has been out for about a decade, and XCode makes everything else pale by comparison.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587663</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Phones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246823520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody likes to focus on the technology when discussing William Gibson, but the real focus of his stories have always been about the psychology/sociology/culture of the people in his books.</p><p>Take the Bridge Trilogy. The virtual glasses which (in part) drive the stories are simply plot macguffins. The real focus of the stories is the San Francisco-Oakland bridge and the people on it, which is decidedly low-tech - an interstitial, lawless zone, where, due to the class divide, the city's poor and homeless have taken residency, living in makeshift cabins strapped to the suspension cables. A metalsmith on the bridge forges knife blades, hammered out of motorcycle chains, giving them a damascus-like blade, while a vendor sells soup from a pot that is never emptied, rather continuously adding new ingredients... the 'wild folk' living on the bridge are feared by those living on land, but on the bridge itself, there is a sense of cooperation and fellowship.</p><p>Compare to the real-life (and now demolished) city of Kowloon.</p><p>Anyway, if you focus too much on the tech, you're missing the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody likes to focus on the technology when discussing William Gibson , but the real focus of his stories have always been about the psychology/sociology/culture of the people in his books.Take the Bridge Trilogy .
The virtual glasses which ( in part ) drive the stories are simply plot macguffins .
The real focus of the stories is the San Francisco-Oakland bridge and the people on it , which is decidedly low-tech - an interstitial , lawless zone , where , due to the class divide , the city 's poor and homeless have taken residency , living in makeshift cabins strapped to the suspension cables .
A metalsmith on the bridge forges knife blades , hammered out of motorcycle chains , giving them a damascus-like blade , while a vendor sells soup from a pot that is never emptied , rather continuously adding new ingredients... the 'wild folk ' living on the bridge are feared by those living on land , but on the bridge itself , there is a sense of cooperation and fellowship.Compare to the real-life ( and now demolished ) city of Kowloon.Anyway , if you focus too much on the tech , you 're missing the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody likes to focus on the technology when discussing William Gibson, but the real focus of his stories have always been about the psychology/sociology/culture of the people in his books.Take the Bridge Trilogy.
The virtual glasses which (in part) drive the stories are simply plot macguffins.
The real focus of the stories is the San Francisco-Oakland bridge and the people on it, which is decidedly low-tech - an interstitial, lawless zone, where, due to the class divide, the city's poor and homeless have taken residency, living in makeshift cabins strapped to the suspension cables.
A metalsmith on the bridge forges knife blades, hammered out of motorcycle chains, giving them a damascus-like blade, while a vendor sells soup from a pot that is never emptied, rather continuously adding new ingredients... the 'wild folk' living on the bridge are feared by those living on land, but on the bridge itself, there is a sense of cooperation and fellowship.Compare to the real-life (and now demolished) city of Kowloon.Anyway, if you focus too much on the tech, you're missing the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585897</id>
	<title>I didn't think it was that good</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1246801800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I simply didn't find the book as compelling as the hype. I don't think it was predictive. It certainly pre-dated fiction like the Matrix, but the terminology, and the feel of how things work feel very much rooted in a sooped-up virtual reality extension of the technology that was around back then.</p><p>It's a while since I read it, and I'm not inclined to revisit it. Perhaps its just me *shrug*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I simply did n't find the book as compelling as the hype .
I do n't think it was predictive .
It certainly pre-dated fiction like the Matrix , but the terminology , and the feel of how things work feel very much rooted in a sooped-up virtual reality extension of the technology that was around back then.It 's a while since I read it , and I 'm not inclined to revisit it .
Perhaps its just me * shrug *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I simply didn't find the book as compelling as the hype.
I don't think it was predictive.
It certainly pre-dated fiction like the Matrix, but the terminology, and the feel of how things work feel very much rooted in a sooped-up virtual reality extension of the technology that was around back then.It's a while since I read it, and I'm not inclined to revisit it.
Perhaps its just me *shrug*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586595</id>
	<title>You have missed the point</title>
	<author>billybob\_jcv</author>
	<datestamp>1246812240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great sci-fi is rarely about the technology.  Neuromancer was first and foremost a great cyberpunk story.  The technology that the main character Case used was secondary to who Case was - a guy from the underbelly of society who lived by his own brand of ethics and was being manipulated by evil-doers.  The technoworld in which he lived is simply an interesting setting - like Sam Spade's San Francisco.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great sci-fi is rarely about the technology .
Neuromancer was first and foremost a great cyberpunk story .
The technology that the main character Case used was secondary to who Case was - a guy from the underbelly of society who lived by his own brand of ethics and was being manipulated by evil-doers .
The technoworld in which he lived is simply an interesting setting - like Sam Spade 's San Francisco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great sci-fi is rarely about the technology.
Neuromancer was first and foremost a great cyberpunk story.
The technology that the main character Case used was secondary to who Case was - a guy from the underbelly of society who lived by his own brand of ethics and was being manipulated by evil-doers.
The technoworld in which he lived is simply an interesting setting - like Sam Spade's San Francisco.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587125</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>mvdwege</author>
	<datestamp>1246818060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None grasped the implications? That's a bit strong. I think John Brunner did a very good job in 'The Shockwave Rider'. Heck, he was a acknowledged influence of Robert T. Morris. How is that for grasping the implications?</p><p>
Mart</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None grasped the implications ?
That 's a bit strong .
I think John Brunner did a very good job in 'The Shockwave Rider' .
Heck , he was a acknowledged influence of Robert T. Morris. How is that for grasping the implications ?
Mart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None grasped the implications?
That's a bit strong.
I think John Brunner did a very good job in 'The Shockwave Rider'.
Heck, he was a acknowledged influence of Robert T. Morris. How is that for grasping the implications?
Mart</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586007</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246803720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gibson is no easy read because he doesn't explain things. He writes as if he wrote a story for someone who lives in that time and needs no explanation of terms and technology. It makes it hard to read, but it also adds a lot to the atmosphere once you got into the mindset.</p><p>I don't like stories that explain everything in detail to make it easier for you to read. They take away from the experience IMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gibson is no easy read because he does n't explain things .
He writes as if he wrote a story for someone who lives in that time and needs no explanation of terms and technology .
It makes it hard to read , but it also adds a lot to the atmosphere once you got into the mindset.I do n't like stories that explain everything in detail to make it easier for you to read .
They take away from the experience IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gibson is no easy read because he doesn't explain things.
He writes as if he wrote a story for someone who lives in that time and needs no explanation of terms and technology.
It makes it hard to read, but it also adds a lot to the atmosphere once you got into the mindset.I don't like stories that explain everything in detail to make it easier for you to read.
They take away from the experience IMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859</id>
	<title>Pay Phones</title>
	<author>bhima</author>
	<datestamp>1246801320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, I enjoyed Neuromancer as much as anyone.  However, you can't talk about what Gibson got right without talking about what he missed... most interestingly he missed the invention of mobile phones and so pay phones make an appearance in the book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I enjoyed Neuromancer as much as anyone .
However , you ca n't talk about what Gibson got right without talking about what he missed... most interestingly he missed the invention of mobile phones and so pay phones make an appearance in the book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I enjoyed Neuromancer as much as anyone.
However, you can't talk about what Gibson got right without talking about what he missed... most interestingly he missed the invention of mobile phones and so pay phones make an appearance in the book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849</id>
	<title>Might read this again</title>
	<author>Daemonax</author>
	<datestamp>1246801080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps I should read this again. On the first reading it was incredibly hard to make much sense of the story. It does though drip with atmosphere, but some parts of the story are just so damn bizarre.
<br> <br>
Anyone know if the other two related stories are any good (Mono Lisa Overdrive, and Count Zero)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I should read this again .
On the first reading it was incredibly hard to make much sense of the story .
It does though drip with atmosphere , but some parts of the story are just so damn bizarre .
Anyone know if the other two related stories are any good ( Mono Lisa Overdrive , and Count Zero ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I should read this again.
On the first reading it was incredibly hard to make much sense of the story.
It does though drip with atmosphere, but some parts of the story are just so damn bizarre.
Anyone know if the other two related stories are any good (Mono Lisa Overdrive, and Count Zero)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587895</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246825500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Heinlein was spot on.  Friday.  The universal terminal on the farm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Heinlein was spot on .
Friday. The universal terminal on the farm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Heinlein was spot on.
Friday.  The universal terminal on the farm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586519</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1246811220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't like it if it becomes narrating/lecturing either, with some exceptions like HHGTTG. But some authors are very good at introducing it through the plot by having someone in the story who needs an explanation, is cause for a discussion around it, or pre-introduce it in the passing at some earlier point. When they do it right, it makes up for very good books without feeling like you're treated like a 5yo but it's a rare talent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like it if it becomes narrating/lecturing either , with some exceptions like HHGTTG .
But some authors are very good at introducing it through the plot by having someone in the story who needs an explanation , is cause for a discussion around it , or pre-introduce it in the passing at some earlier point .
When they do it right , it makes up for very good books without feeling like you 're treated like a 5yo but it 's a rare talent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like it if it becomes narrating/lecturing either, with some exceptions like HHGTTG.
But some authors are very good at introducing it through the plot by having someone in the story who needs an explanation, is cause for a discussion around it, or pre-introduce it in the passing at some earlier point.
When they do it right, it makes up for very good books without feeling like you're treated like a 5yo but it's a rare talent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585915</id>
	<title>Predictive? Not.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1246802100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Murray Leinster predicted the future of computer technology better in the '50s than Gibson did in the '90s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Murray Leinster predicted the future of computer technology better in the '50s than Gibson did in the '90s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murray Leinster predicted the future of computer technology better in the '50s than Gibson did in the '90s.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590777</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246813980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>although none (including Gibson) grasped the full implications of this</p></div></blockquote><p>Murray Leinster (Will F. Jenkins) grasped it in 1946 with his short story, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Logic\_Named\_Joe" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">"A Logic Named Joe"</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Sure, maybe he didn't get the "full implications" in the sense of tools like Sourceforge or the FOSS revolution. But the characters in that story use their terminals in very much the same way average people use the World Wide Web today -- for day-to-day utility tasks, replacing the encyclopedia, the phone book, researching products, family connections, etc.</p><p>And his description of terminals connecting to services run from remote "tanks" is the best description of the PC/data center relationship prior to the 1980s.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>although none ( including Gibson ) grasped the full implications of thisMurray Leinster ( Will F. Jenkins ) grasped it in 1946 with his short story , " A Logic Named Joe " [ wikipedia.org ] .Sure , maybe he did n't get the " full implications " in the sense of tools like Sourceforge or the FOSS revolution .
But the characters in that story use their terminals in very much the same way average people use the World Wide Web today -- for day-to-day utility tasks , replacing the encyclopedia , the phone book , researching products , family connections , etc.And his description of terminals connecting to services run from remote " tanks " is the best description of the PC/data center relationship prior to the 1980s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>although none (including Gibson) grasped the full implications of thisMurray Leinster (Will F. Jenkins) grasped it in 1946 with his short story, "A Logic Named Joe" [wikipedia.org].Sure, maybe he didn't get the "full implications" in the sense of tools like Sourceforge or the FOSS revolution.
But the characters in that story use their terminals in very much the same way average people use the World Wide Web today -- for day-to-day utility tasks, replacing the encyclopedia, the phone book, researching products, family connections, etc.And his description of terminals connecting to services run from remote "tanks" is the best description of the PC/data center relationship prior to the 1980s.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28591557</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon, here I come!</title>
	<author>bogjobber</author>
	<datestamp>1246821960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><i>SF is escapist fiction with a little futuristic science thrown in. It's not supposed to be Scientific American Time Travel Edition.</i></p></div>  </blockquote><p>For you, maybe.  But thankfully for the rest of us who enjoy <i>Neuromancer</i> you don't get to decide what science fiction is supposed to be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SF is escapist fiction with a little futuristic science thrown in .
It 's not supposed to be Scientific American Time Travel Edition .
For you , maybe .
But thankfully for the rest of us who enjoy Neuromancer you do n't get to decide what science fiction is supposed to be : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SF is escapist fiction with a little futuristic science thrown in.
It's not supposed to be Scientific American Time Travel Edition.
For you, maybe.
But thankfully for the rest of us who enjoy Neuromancer you don't get to decide what science fiction is supposed to be :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586121</id>
	<title>Well he sure predicted the color of the sky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246805760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>First line, oft quoted: "The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel"

When Billy wrote that that would have been grey, but today it's bright blue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First line , oft quoted : " The sky above the port was the color of television , tuned to a dead channel " When Billy wrote that that would have been grey , but today it 's bright blue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First line, oft quoted: "The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel"

When Billy wrote that that would have been grey, but today it's bright blue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587735</id>
	<title>To be fair, the tv switches itself to blue</title>
	<author>mrflash818</author>
	<datestamp>1246824240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the old days, if you went to a channel that had no broadcast signal, you would see gray black and white snow from you TV set.</p><p>Modern TVs, even before going all digital, have a internal circuit that just shows a 'blanking' signal when no broadcast signal is detected: a color, usually blue or black.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the old days , if you went to a channel that had no broadcast signal , you would see gray black and white snow from you TV set.Modern TVs , even before going all digital , have a internal circuit that just shows a 'blanking ' signal when no broadcast signal is detected : a color , usually blue or black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the old days, if you went to a channel that had no broadcast signal, you would see gray black and white snow from you TV set.Modern TVs, even before going all digital, have a internal circuit that just shows a 'blanking' signal when no broadcast signal is detected: a color, usually blue or black.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590947</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Phones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246815660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3MB of stolen RAM - you misunderstand, it's actually 3 Meta Boats of stolen Reciprocating AI Machines, worth a fortune!   Very impressive to have predicted such an amazing invention back in 1985 - I mean, these things are only just available to the military right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3MB of stolen RAM - you misunderstand , it 's actually 3 Meta Boats of stolen Reciprocating AI Machines , worth a fortune !
Very impressive to have predicted such an amazing invention back in 1985 - I mean , these things are only just available to the military right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3MB of stolen RAM - you misunderstand, it's actually 3 Meta Boats of stolen Reciprocating AI Machines, worth a fortune!
Very impressive to have predicted such an amazing invention back in 1985 - I mean, these things are only just available to the military right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586093</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1246805280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And don't forget Philp K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", where people communed with animal spirits in a virtual world, and the lines between religion, mind, and reality became increasingly blurred. I highly recommend it to people who only ever say "Blade Runner" and have no idea of the very different story that it was connected with.

Neuromancer was wonderful, and compelling, and intriguing. But it was nearly "Megabytes and sorcery" in the kind of magical spellcasting by mystical, incomprehensible beings who had to be channeled, rather than having to actually master definable rules about reality that is core to a lot of hard science fiction.

I'm afraid that we're seeing a lot of stories on Slashdot lately that are "look, I just got to my sophomore year and read this cool story! I bet it's completely new!" And a bunch of us older, more soldering iron burned geeks are laughing, and hopefully remembering when we were so excited. Let's be nice to the youngsters, and help them see where this stuff really came from.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n't forget Philp K. Dick 's " Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep " , where people communed with animal spirits in a virtual world , and the lines between religion , mind , and reality became increasingly blurred .
I highly recommend it to people who only ever say " Blade Runner " and have no idea of the very different story that it was connected with .
Neuromancer was wonderful , and compelling , and intriguing .
But it was nearly " Megabytes and sorcery " in the kind of magical spellcasting by mystical , incomprehensible beings who had to be channeled , rather than having to actually master definable rules about reality that is core to a lot of hard science fiction .
I 'm afraid that we 're seeing a lot of stories on Slashdot lately that are " look , I just got to my sophomore year and read this cool story !
I bet it 's completely new !
" And a bunch of us older , more soldering iron burned geeks are laughing , and hopefully remembering when we were so excited .
Let 's be nice to the youngsters , and help them see where this stuff really came from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And don't forget Philp K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", where people communed with animal spirits in a virtual world, and the lines between religion, mind, and reality became increasingly blurred.
I highly recommend it to people who only ever say "Blade Runner" and have no idea of the very different story that it was connected with.
Neuromancer was wonderful, and compelling, and intriguing.
But it was nearly "Megabytes and sorcery" in the kind of magical spellcasting by mystical, incomprehensible beings who had to be channeled, rather than having to actually master definable rules about reality that is core to a lot of hard science fiction.
I'm afraid that we're seeing a lot of stories on Slashdot lately that are "look, I just got to my sophomore year and read this cool story!
I bet it's completely new!
" And a bunch of us older, more soldering iron burned geeks are laughing, and hopefully remembering when we were so excited.
Let's be nice to the youngsters, and help them see where this stuff really came from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585885</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246801620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're fantastic, in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're fantastic , in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're fantastic, in my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586823</id>
	<title>Minus 8-9 million people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246815120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are being optimistic with that 33 million because Quebec is 8 or 9 million people and its 90\% french speaking.</p><p>So that's 6.5 million sold outof a potential basin of about 25million.</p><p>Since its not about hockey, I would venture that number to be wrong. Very wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are being optimistic with that 33 million because Quebec is 8 or 9 million people and its 90 \ % french speaking.So that 's 6.5 million sold outof a potential basin of about 25million.Since its not about hockey , I would venture that number to be wrong .
Very wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are being optimistic with that 33 million because Quebec is 8 or 9 million people and its 90\% french speaking.So that's 6.5 million sold outof a potential basin of about 25million.Since its not about hockey, I would venture that number to be wrong.
Very wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246803180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, to be honest, a lot of this article is basically bullshit.</p><blockquote><div><p>What Gibson introduced was the idea of a global network of millions of computers, which he described in astonishing detail--though the World Wide Web, as we know it today, was still more than a decade away</p></div></blockquote><p>Such global networks featured in the fiction of Heinlein, Asimov and plenty of others before Neuromancer was published.  Plenty of authors predicted the growth and utility of world wide computer networks, although none (including Gibson) grasped the full implications of this.  And basically, everyone here was copying the ideas of Vannevar Bush, anyway.</p><blockquote><div><p>But Gibson took the World Wide Web much further. By introducing the concept of cyberspace, he made the Web a habitable place, with all the world's data stores represented as visual, even palpable, structures arranged in an endless matrix.</p></div></blockquote><p>Gibson didn't "introduce the concept of cyberspace".  He may have invented the name that eventually became associated with it, but the idea of a visual 3D interface to computer networks was old by the time Neuromancer was published.  Hell, the film <i>Tron</i> was highly popular 6 years beforehand, and basically involved almost exactly the same concepts: a three dimensional world in which a person can interact on a physical level with the virtual components of a software system.  Sure, the way the world is presented is different, but the idea is basically the same.  And Bruce Sterling was writing stuff \_extremely\_ similar to Gibson's work a few years ahead of him.</p><p>This article is basically placing Neuromancer in a historical context that it does not warrant: it did not innovate these ideas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , to be honest , a lot of this article is basically bullshit.What Gibson introduced was the idea of a global network of millions of computers , which he described in astonishing detail--though the World Wide Web , as we know it today , was still more than a decade awaySuch global networks featured in the fiction of Heinlein , Asimov and plenty of others before Neuromancer was published .
Plenty of authors predicted the growth and utility of world wide computer networks , although none ( including Gibson ) grasped the full implications of this .
And basically , everyone here was copying the ideas of Vannevar Bush , anyway.But Gibson took the World Wide Web much further .
By introducing the concept of cyberspace , he made the Web a habitable place , with all the world 's data stores represented as visual , even palpable , structures arranged in an endless matrix.Gibson did n't " introduce the concept of cyberspace " .
He may have invented the name that eventually became associated with it , but the idea of a visual 3D interface to computer networks was old by the time Neuromancer was published .
Hell , the film Tron was highly popular 6 years beforehand , and basically involved almost exactly the same concepts : a three dimensional world in which a person can interact on a physical level with the virtual components of a software system .
Sure , the way the world is presented is different , but the idea is basically the same .
And Bruce Sterling was writing stuff \ _extremely \ _ similar to Gibson 's work a few years ahead of him.This article is basically placing Neuromancer in a historical context that it does not warrant : it did not innovate these ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, to be honest, a lot of this article is basically bullshit.What Gibson introduced was the idea of a global network of millions of computers, which he described in astonishing detail--though the World Wide Web, as we know it today, was still more than a decade awaySuch global networks featured in the fiction of Heinlein, Asimov and plenty of others before Neuromancer was published.
Plenty of authors predicted the growth and utility of world wide computer networks, although none (including Gibson) grasped the full implications of this.
And basically, everyone here was copying the ideas of Vannevar Bush, anyway.But Gibson took the World Wide Web much further.
By introducing the concept of cyberspace, he made the Web a habitable place, with all the world's data stores represented as visual, even palpable, structures arranged in an endless matrix.Gibson didn't "introduce the concept of cyberspace".
He may have invented the name that eventually became associated with it, but the idea of a visual 3D interface to computer networks was old by the time Neuromancer was published.
Hell, the film Tron was highly popular 6 years beforehand, and basically involved almost exactly the same concepts: a three dimensional world in which a person can interact on a physical level with the virtual components of a software system.
Sure, the way the world is presented is different, but the idea is basically the same.
And Bruce Sterling was writing stuff \_extremely\_ similar to Gibson's work a few years ahead of him.This article is basically placing Neuromancer in a historical context that it does not warrant: it did not innovate these ideas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587621</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>DMUTPeregrine</author>
	<datestamp>1246823040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream" (1967), or Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question" (1956). It's a much older concept than Neuromancer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget Harlan Ellison 's " I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream " ( 1967 ) , or Isaac Asimov 's " The Last Question " ( 1956 ) .
It 's a much older concept than Neuromancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget Harlan Ellison's "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream" (1967), or Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question" (1956).
It's a much older concept than Neuromancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587767</id>
	<title>Re:Well he sure predicted the color of the sky</title>
	<author>RDW</author>
	<datestamp>1246824660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'The sky was the perfect untroubled blue of a television screen, tuned to a dead channel' - Neil Gaiman, Neverwhere (yes, of course it's deliberate).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'The sky was the perfect untroubled blue of a television screen , tuned to a dead channel ' - Neil Gaiman , Neverwhere ( yes , of course it 's deliberate ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The sky was the perfect untroubled blue of a television screen, tuned to a dead channel' - Neil Gaiman, Neverwhere (yes, of course it's deliberate).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586949</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon, here I come!</title>
	<author>Steve Franklin</author>
	<datestamp>1246816440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[[NOTICE: THIS IS NOT FLAMEBAIT--at least it isn't meant to be]]</p><p>Actually, about all I remember about this novel other than the space station is that it was incredibly boring all the way to the even more boring space station sequence at the end: Gee, let's describe a trip on a miniature railroad in even more detail than Zelazny's descriptions of hellrides. Yes, it may have been prescient. But could it not have been readable too? Sorry, but I grew up reading Asimov, and enjoyed it, though he wasn't half as prescient. SF is escapist fiction with a little futuristic science thrown in. It's not supposed to be Scientific American Time Travel Edition. Oh well, mod me down if you wish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ [ NOTICE : THIS IS NOT FLAMEBAIT--at least it is n't meant to be ] ] Actually , about all I remember about this novel other than the space station is that it was incredibly boring all the way to the even more boring space station sequence at the end : Gee , let 's describe a trip on a miniature railroad in even more detail than Zelazny 's descriptions of hellrides .
Yes , it may have been prescient .
But could it not have been readable too ?
Sorry , but I grew up reading Asimov , and enjoyed it , though he was n't half as prescient .
SF is escapist fiction with a little futuristic science thrown in .
It 's not supposed to be Scientific American Time Travel Edition .
Oh well , mod me down if you wish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[[NOTICE: THIS IS NOT FLAMEBAIT--at least it isn't meant to be]]Actually, about all I remember about this novel other than the space station is that it was incredibly boring all the way to the even more boring space station sequence at the end: Gee, let's describe a trip on a miniature railroad in even more detail than Zelazny's descriptions of hellrides.
Yes, it may have been prescient.
But could it not have been readable too?
Sorry, but I grew up reading Asimov, and enjoyed it, though he wasn't half as prescient.
SF is escapist fiction with a little futuristic science thrown in.
It's not supposed to be Scientific American Time Travel Edition.
Oh well, mod me down if you wish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585981</id>
	<title>Meat is still important</title>
	<author>yacoob</author>
	<datestamp>1246803300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the funny bits in the book for me, is how they fly around from city to city to talk/meet with people, and fix things up. And at the same time they have a worldwide computer network...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the funny bits in the book for me , is how they fly around from city to city to talk/meet with people , and fix things up .
And at the same time they have a worldwide computer network... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the funny bits in the book for me, is how they fly around from city to city to talk/meet with people, and fix things up.
And at the same time they have a worldwide computer network... :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586467</id>
	<title>Ice as the figure for a firewall</title>
	<author>AtomicJake</author>
	<datestamp>1246810620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I liked most in Neuromancer, is the use of figures, such as ice as a firewall, and the hero hacking and melting through it to access the protected part.  I could easily imagine this in a movie<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I liked most in Neuromancer , is the use of figures , such as ice as a firewall , and the hero hacking and melting through it to access the protected part .
I could easily imagine this in a movie .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I liked most in Neuromancer, is the use of figures, such as ice as a firewall, and the hero hacking and melting through it to access the protected part.
I could easily imagine this in a movie ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28602149</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Phones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246887480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did ANYBODY get mobile phones? Seriously.  Nobody seems to have predicted them, even after transistorization should have gotten authors thinking along the lines of smaller, faster, cheaper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did ANYBODY get mobile phones ?
Seriously. Nobody seems to have predicted them , even after transistorization should have gotten authors thinking along the lines of smaller , faster , cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did ANYBODY get mobile phones?
Seriously.  Nobody seems to have predicted them, even after transistorization should have gotten authors thinking along the lines of smaller, faster, cheaper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585935</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Phones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246802460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He didn't predict <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">goatse</a> [goatse.fr] either. Or slashdot. Or niggers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He did n't predict goatse [ goatse.fr ] either .
Or slashdot .
Or niggers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He didn't predict goatse [goatse.fr] either.
Or slashdot.
Or niggers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586567</id>
	<title>Re:The Theme</title>
	<author>SoupIsGood Food</author>
	<datestamp>1246811880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Gibson's core idea in the novel is the direct integration of man and computer, with all the possibilities (and horrors) that such a union entails</p></div><p>It's been a few months since I read it but I remember the humans staying human all the way to the end.</p></div><p>They weren't human to begin with. Not a one of them, except, perhaps, the Finn and Maelcum.</p><p>Case, Molly, Armitage, Riviera, 3jane, Dixie Flatline - not a human in the bunch, all of them creatures - <i>monsters</i> - of the Information Age dystopia Gibson envisioned.</p><p>It was kind of the point of the book.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gibson 's core idea in the novel is the direct integration of man and computer , with all the possibilities ( and horrors ) that such a union entailsIt 's been a few months since I read it but I remember the humans staying human all the way to the end.They were n't human to begin with .
Not a one of them , except , perhaps , the Finn and Maelcum.Case , Molly , Armitage , Riviera , 3jane , Dixie Flatline - not a human in the bunch , all of them creatures - monsters - of the Information Age dystopia Gibson envisioned.It was kind of the point of the book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gibson's core idea in the novel is the direct integration of man and computer, with all the possibilities (and horrors) that such a union entailsIt's been a few months since I read it but I remember the humans staying human all the way to the end.They weren't human to begin with.
Not a one of them, except, perhaps, the Finn and Maelcum.Case, Molly, Armitage, Riviera, 3jane, Dixie Flatline - not a human in the bunch, all of them creatures - monsters - of the Information Age dystopia Gibson envisioned.It was kind of the point of the book.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28605665</id>
	<title>wrong on cyberspace, right on avatars</title>
	<author>spage</author>
	<datestamp>1246966020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>representation of information as landscapes has been a repeated dead end.</i> </p></div><p>Yup. Gibson saw cyberspace as a spatial representation of different corporations' data.  He talks quite specifically of jacking into the VR construct and navigating (via keyboard commands!) between the geometric data of different hosts, &quot;great corporate hotcores&quot; and below them used-car lots and tax accountants, and further out black zones of government agencies.  That's just not remotely how the internet works and I doubt connecting to different IP addresses will ever be presented that way.</p><p>However, Gibson tosses out dozens of resonant ideas in the Sprawl series (some of which the article mentions), like Zeiss Ikon recording eye implants, simstim, holographic porn, cyber guard dogs, microlights in zero G, rogue AIs, artistic AIs, etc.  Slotting slivers of microsoft to know stuff (&quot;knowledge lit him like an arcade game&quot;!), then the transition to biosoft making you nauseous with another's emotions is wonderful.  Although Neal Stephenson gets the credit for avatars in cyberspace, <i>Count Zero</i> has an eerily prescient description of virtual worlds like PlayStation Home when it describes Jaylene Slide's pad in L.A.  Lots of CZ quotations <a href="http://www.skierpage.com/blog/labels/William\%20Gibson.html" title="skierpage.com">here</a> [skierpage.com] and <a href="http://www.skierpage.com/gibson/czquotes.htm" title="skierpage.com">here</a> [skierpage.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>representation of information as landscapes has been a repeated dead end .
Yup. Gibson saw cyberspace as a spatial representation of different corporations ' data .
He talks quite specifically of jacking into the VR construct and navigating ( via keyboard commands !
) between the geometric data of different hosts , " great corporate hotcores " and below them used-car lots and tax accountants , and further out black zones of government agencies .
That 's just not remotely how the internet works and I doubt connecting to different IP addresses will ever be presented that way.However , Gibson tosses out dozens of resonant ideas in the Sprawl series ( some of which the article mentions ) , like Zeiss Ikon recording eye implants , simstim , holographic porn , cyber guard dogs , microlights in zero G , rogue AIs , artistic AIs , etc .
Slotting slivers of microsoft to know stuff ( " knowledge lit him like an arcade game " !
) , then the transition to biosoft making you nauseous with another 's emotions is wonderful .
Although Neal Stephenson gets the credit for avatars in cyberspace , Count Zero has an eerily prescient description of virtual worlds like PlayStation Home when it describes Jaylene Slide 's pad in L.A. Lots of CZ quotations here [ skierpage.com ] and here [ skierpage.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> representation of information as landscapes has been a repeated dead end.
Yup. Gibson saw cyberspace as a spatial representation of different corporations' data.
He talks quite specifically of jacking into the VR construct and navigating (via keyboard commands!
) between the geometric data of different hosts, "great corporate hotcores" and below them used-car lots and tax accountants, and further out black zones of government agencies.
That's just not remotely how the internet works and I doubt connecting to different IP addresses will ever be presented that way.However, Gibson tosses out dozens of resonant ideas in the Sprawl series (some of which the article mentions), like Zeiss Ikon recording eye implants, simstim, holographic porn, cyber guard dogs, microlights in zero G, rogue AIs, artistic AIs, etc.
Slotting slivers of microsoft to know stuff ("knowledge lit him like an arcade game"!
), then the transition to biosoft making you nauseous with another's emotions is wonderful.
Although Neal Stephenson gets the credit for avatars in cyberspace, Count Zero has an eerily prescient description of virtual worlds like PlayStation Home when it describes Jaylene Slide's pad in L.A.  Lots of CZ quotations here [skierpage.com] and here [skierpage.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586693</id>
	<title>Re:Well he sure predicted the color of the sky</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1246813380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First line, oft quoted: "The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel" When Billy wrote that that would have been grey, but today it's bright blue.</p></div><p>So maybe it was a pretty day out?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First line , oft quoted : " The sky above the port was the color of television , tuned to a dead channel " When Billy wrote that that would have been grey , but today it 's bright blue.So maybe it was a pretty day out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First line, oft quoted: "The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel" When Billy wrote that that would have been grey, but today it's bright blue.So maybe it was a pretty day out?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587463</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't think it was that good</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1246821420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's ok, I can't stand Snowcrash. (That's almost a crime on this forum.) No opinion on Neuromancer, since I haven't read it since middle school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's ok , I ca n't stand Snowcrash .
( That 's almost a crime on this forum .
) No opinion on Neuromancer , since I have n't read it since middle school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's ok, I can't stand Snowcrash.
(That's almost a crime on this forum.
) No opinion on Neuromancer, since I haven't read it since middle school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587805</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon, here I come!</title>
	<author>whiledo</author>
	<datestamp>1246824960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny you threw in the comment about Asimov, though I'm not sure how to take it.  I've always greatly admired Asimov, both as a writer and a human being.  I've really liked his ideas and recognize the huge impact he's had on the genre of sf.</p><p>But his writing style - meh.  Not since being a teenager with limited titles available at the library have I willingly read much of his fiction.  In reading comments over the year, I find that I'm not alone and this seems to be a general consensus.</p><p>There are some authors who I still read even with bad writing styles, simply for the fantastic ideas.  I will never make the mistake of reading another Robert L. Forward title again, though.  I never thought I could be so bored and interested at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny you threw in the comment about Asimov , though I 'm not sure how to take it .
I 've always greatly admired Asimov , both as a writer and a human being .
I 've really liked his ideas and recognize the huge impact he 's had on the genre of sf.But his writing style - meh .
Not since being a teenager with limited titles available at the library have I willingly read much of his fiction .
In reading comments over the year , I find that I 'm not alone and this seems to be a general consensus.There are some authors who I still read even with bad writing styles , simply for the fantastic ideas .
I will never make the mistake of reading another Robert L. Forward title again , though .
I never thought I could be so bored and interested at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny you threw in the comment about Asimov, though I'm not sure how to take it.
I've always greatly admired Asimov, both as a writer and a human being.
I've really liked his ideas and recognize the huge impact he's had on the genre of sf.But his writing style - meh.
Not since being a teenager with limited titles available at the library have I willingly read much of his fiction.
In reading comments over the year, I find that I'm not alone and this seems to be a general consensus.There are some authors who I still read even with bad writing styles, simply for the fantastic ideas.
I will never make the mistake of reading another Robert L. Forward title again, though.
I never thought I could be so bored and interested at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586787</id>
	<title>bluetooth headsets</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1246814760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>most interestingly he missed the invention of mobile phones and so pay phones make an appearance in the book.</p></div></blockquote><p>

It's true that he doesn't have any mobile phones and seems to prefer implants, but he had a lot of those that do similar functions to a phone.  E.g., Molly has some sort of implant that gives the time, and radio functions and then Case monitors her position through his cyberspace rig (more than just her position, her whole sensory apparatus), of which a video conferencing phone might be considered a clumsy version.  Also, throughout the book, one sees people who insert some sort of chip called a "microsoft" into a jack behind their ear that give them some extra knowledge, or some enhancement.  When those Bluetooth headsets became popular and people just started wearing them around like they were an item of clothing, it reminded me precisely of those "microsofts" in Neuromancer, or whatever they were called.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>most interestingly he missed the invention of mobile phones and so pay phones make an appearance in the book .
It 's true that he does n't have any mobile phones and seems to prefer implants , but he had a lot of those that do similar functions to a phone .
E.g. , Molly has some sort of implant that gives the time , and radio functions and then Case monitors her position through his cyberspace rig ( more than just her position , her whole sensory apparatus ) , of which a video conferencing phone might be considered a clumsy version .
Also , throughout the book , one sees people who insert some sort of chip called a " microsoft " into a jack behind their ear that give them some extra knowledge , or some enhancement .
When those Bluetooth headsets became popular and people just started wearing them around like they were an item of clothing , it reminded me precisely of those " microsofts " in Neuromancer , or whatever they were called .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most interestingly he missed the invention of mobile phones and so pay phones make an appearance in the book.
It's true that he doesn't have any mobile phones and seems to prefer implants, but he had a lot of those that do similar functions to a phone.
E.g., Molly has some sort of implant that gives the time, and radio functions and then Case monitors her position through his cyberspace rig (more than just her position, her whole sensory apparatus), of which a video conferencing phone might be considered a clumsy version.
Also, throughout the book, one sees people who insert some sort of chip called a "microsoft" into a jack behind their ear that give them some extra knowledge, or some enhancement.
When those Bluetooth headsets became popular and people just started wearing them around like they were an item of clothing, it reminded me precisely of those "microsofts" in Neuromancer, or whatever they were called.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587135</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>amrs</author>
	<datestamp>1246818240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really depends on what you like. I like Neuromancer mostly because it has mostly cool, competent people doing interesting stuff. Of course all the advanced tech is interesting too since I'm a technophile. Wouldn't mind having some of that.</p><p>In contrast, both Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive are boring. There are multiple plots, all boring and/or nonsensical. The people are also boring, usually losers, doing boring and/or nonsensical things. In the end the plots tie together, but that doesn't really help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really depends on what you like .
I like Neuromancer mostly because it has mostly cool , competent people doing interesting stuff .
Of course all the advanced tech is interesting too since I 'm a technophile .
Would n't mind having some of that.In contrast , both Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive are boring .
There are multiple plots , all boring and/or nonsensical .
The people are also boring , usually losers , doing boring and/or nonsensical things .
In the end the plots tie together , but that does n't really help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really depends on what you like.
I like Neuromancer mostly because it has mostly cool, competent people doing interesting stuff.
Of course all the advanced tech is interesting too since I'm a technophile.
Wouldn't mind having some of that.In contrast, both Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive are boring.
There are multiple plots, all boring and/or nonsensical.
The people are also boring, usually losers, doing boring and/or nonsensical things.
In the end the plots tie together, but that doesn't really help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586017</id>
	<title>Who are you calling "boy", kid?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1246804080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read just about all of Gibson's novels the week they came out, and they were super cool... but they have had about zero predictive power.</p><p>The word "cyberspace" almost always means that the person using it has no idea what they're talking about. Oh, there are exceptions, but the people who are most taken by Gibson's vision are sorely lacking in insight.</p><p>The representation of information as landscapes has been a repeated dead end.</p><p>Not believing in the predictive power of Gibson's novels doesn't mean I don't consider them important, it just means I'm aware that they're fiction.</p><p>Lord of the Rings is a great cultural artifact without having people yammering on about Ringwraiths being real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read just about all of Gibson 's novels the week they came out , and they were super cool... but they have had about zero predictive power.The word " cyberspace " almost always means that the person using it has no idea what they 're talking about .
Oh , there are exceptions , but the people who are most taken by Gibson 's vision are sorely lacking in insight.The representation of information as landscapes has been a repeated dead end.Not believing in the predictive power of Gibson 's novels does n't mean I do n't consider them important , it just means I 'm aware that they 're fiction.Lord of the Rings is a great cultural artifact without having people yammering on about Ringwraiths being real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read just about all of Gibson's novels the week they came out, and they were super cool... but they have had about zero predictive power.The word "cyberspace" almost always means that the person using it has no idea what they're talking about.
Oh, there are exceptions, but the people who are most taken by Gibson's vision are sorely lacking in insight.The representation of information as landscapes has been a repeated dead end.Not believing in the predictive power of Gibson's novels doesn't mean I don't consider them important, it just means I'm aware that they're fiction.Lord of the Rings is a great cultural artifact without having people yammering on about Ringwraiths being real.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586185</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Phones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246806540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, there are definitely parts of Neuromancer that are hilariously dated.  The one that always sticks out for me is the part where Case has 3MB of stolen RAM that he's trying to move.  It sounded impressively futuristic in 1985.  Today, not so much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , there are definitely parts of Neuromancer that are hilariously dated .
The one that always sticks out for me is the part where Case has 3MB of stolen RAM that he 's trying to move .
It sounded impressively futuristic in 1985 .
Today , not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, there are definitely parts of Neuromancer that are hilariously dated.
The one that always sticks out for me is the part where Case has 3MB of stolen RAM that he's trying to move.
It sounded impressively futuristic in 1985.
Today, not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587057</id>
	<title>Re:Well he sure predicted the color of the sky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246817520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was an astute observation when it was made ten years ago. Recent TVs autotune: there's no dead channel screen at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was an astute observation when it was made ten years ago .
Recent TVs autotune : there 's no dead channel screen at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was an astute observation when it was made ten years ago.
Recent TVs autotune: there's no dead channel screen at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586115</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't think it was that good</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246805640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's not just you.  The same happened to me.  I read it when I was 18 or 19 years old on the enthusiastic recommendation of friends and strangers alike, and I found it extremely weird and hard to follow.  I "got" most of the plot and theme, I just didn't care much for it.</p><p>I then tried to give it another chance later on, when in my 30s, thinking that perhaps I was too young to grasp and appreciate the book on my first read.  You see, I fell for the hype (again), and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing out on something grand.  Alas, no; I felt even more removed from it, and just could not understand what so many saw in it.</p><p>I must admit that reading the plot synopsis in Wikipedia is very interesting: somehow the wiki-editors managed to make sense and explain in a coherent and entertaining fashion, in just a few paragraphs, what Gibson couldn't do in endless pages of freaky and overwrought exposition and technobabble.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's not just you .
The same happened to me .
I read it when I was 18 or 19 years old on the enthusiastic recommendation of friends and strangers alike , and I found it extremely weird and hard to follow .
I " got " most of the plot and theme , I just did n't care much for it.I then tried to give it another chance later on , when in my 30s , thinking that perhaps I was too young to grasp and appreciate the book on my first read .
You see , I fell for the hype ( again ) , and wanted to make sure I was n't missing out on something grand .
Alas , no ; I felt even more removed from it , and just could not understand what so many saw in it.I must admit that reading the plot synopsis in Wikipedia is very interesting : somehow the wiki-editors managed to make sense and explain in a coherent and entertaining fashion , in just a few paragraphs , what Gibson could n't do in endless pages of freaky and overwrought exposition and technobabble .
      -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's not just you.
The same happened to me.
I read it when I was 18 or 19 years old on the enthusiastic recommendation of friends and strangers alike, and I found it extremely weird and hard to follow.
I "got" most of the plot and theme, I just didn't care much for it.I then tried to give it another chance later on, when in my 30s, thinking that perhaps I was too young to grasp and appreciate the book on my first read.
You see, I fell for the hype (again), and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing out on something grand.
Alas, no; I felt even more removed from it, and just could not understand what so many saw in it.I must admit that reading the plot synopsis in Wikipedia is very interesting: somehow the wiki-editors managed to make sense and explain in a coherent and entertaining fashion, in just a few paragraphs, what Gibson couldn't do in endless pages of freaky and overwrought exposition and technobabble.
      -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809</id>
	<title>160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>trawg</author>
	<datestamp>1246800420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>160 million sounds like.... a lot.</p><p>BBC <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William\_Gibson" title="wikipedia.org">tells me</a> [wikipedia.org] Da Vinci code sold 30 million (back in 2006). Wikipedia refers me to <a href="http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2006/03/01/the-lrc-100-canada-s-most-important-books-part-2/" title="reviewcanada.ca">this article</a> [reviewcanada.ca] from 2006 which says Neuromancer sold around 6.5 million copies - which seems a bit more believable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>160 million sounds like.... a lot.BBC tells me [ wikipedia.org ] Da Vinci code sold 30 million ( back in 2006 ) .
Wikipedia refers me to this article [ reviewcanada.ca ] from 2006 which says Neuromancer sold around 6.5 million copies - which seems a bit more believable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>160 million sounds like.... a lot.BBC tells me [wikipedia.org] Da Vinci code sold 30 million (back in 2006).
Wikipedia refers me to this article [reviewcanada.ca] from 2006 which says Neuromancer sold around 6.5 million copies - which seems a bit more believable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588903</id>
	<title>Antiquated References in Neuromancer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246791000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the reference to memory size in Neuromancer is horribly dated.  But I can't think of another case where the book still doesn't seem fresh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the reference to memory size in Neuromancer is horribly dated .
But I ca n't think of another case where the book still does n't seem fresh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the reference to memory size in Neuromancer is horribly dated.
But I can't think of another case where the book still doesn't seem fresh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587719</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1246824000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Iirc, gibson said he got the inspiration of neuromancer from a apple ad.</p><p>Funny thing is that if one look at it closely, the internet is basically a collection of now graphical bbs's, with packet switched connections between, rather then the line switched phone system.</p><p>Take the bbs's and the phone system, give it a 3d sensory spin and presto...</p><p>The really big change is the jump to packet switching, as it allowed all manner of tricks, like rerouting a call mid-sentence with little disruption to get around a problem spot...</p><p>Its kinda interesting to read hacker crackdown today, and consider how evolutionary things have been...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Iirc , gibson said he got the inspiration of neuromancer from a apple ad.Funny thing is that if one look at it closely , the internet is basically a collection of now graphical bbs 's , with packet switched connections between , rather then the line switched phone system.Take the bbs 's and the phone system , give it a 3d sensory spin and presto...The really big change is the jump to packet switching , as it allowed all manner of tricks , like rerouting a call mid-sentence with little disruption to get around a problem spot...Its kinda interesting to read hacker crackdown today , and consider how evolutionary things have been.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iirc, gibson said he got the inspiration of neuromancer from a apple ad.Funny thing is that if one look at it closely, the internet is basically a collection of now graphical bbs's, with packet switched connections between, rather then the line switched phone system.Take the bbs's and the phone system, give it a 3d sensory spin and presto...The really big change is the jump to packet switching, as it allowed all manner of tricks, like rerouting a call mid-sentence with little disruption to get around a problem spot...Its kinda interesting to read hacker crackdown today, and consider how evolutionary things have been...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585799</id>
	<title>The Theme</title>
	<author>newcastlejon</author>
	<datestamp>1246800240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gibson's core idea in the novel is the direct integration of man and computer, with all the possibilities (and horrors) that such a union entails</p></div><p>It's been a few months since I read it but I remember the humans staying human all the way to the end.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gibson 's core idea in the novel is the direct integration of man and computer , with all the possibilities ( and horrors ) that such a union entailsIt 's been a few months since I read it but I remember the humans staying human all the way to the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gibson's core idea in the novel is the direct integration of man and computer, with all the possibilities (and horrors) that such a union entailsIt's been a few months since I read it but I remember the humans staying human all the way to the end.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586105</id>
	<title>Re:Never forget the lesson of Neuromancer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246805460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either that, or extrapolate based on Moore's law etc. for the time in which your story is set.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either that , or extrapolate based on Moore 's law etc .
for the time in which your story is set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either that, or extrapolate based on Moore's law etc.
for the time in which your story is set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585911</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246801980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If wikipedia can be trusted, that's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William\_Gibson" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">6.5 million sales <i>worldwide</i> </a> [wikipedia.org]. That sounds a whole hell of a lot more reasonable than 160 million. For comparison's sake, it is estimated that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen\_King" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Stephen King has sold 300-350 million copies of <i>everything</i> he's written.</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If wikipedia can be trusted , that 's 6.5 million sales worldwide [ wikipedia.org ] .
That sounds a whole hell of a lot more reasonable than 160 million .
For comparison 's sake , it is estimated that Stephen King has sold 300-350 million copies of everything he 's written .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If wikipedia can be trusted, that's 6.5 million sales worldwide  [wikipedia.org].
That sounds a whole hell of a lot more reasonable than 160 million.
For comparison's sake, it is estimated that Stephen King has sold 300-350 million copies of everything he's written.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28593745</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246891020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pff.  You're forgetting Minerva in "Time Enough for Love" (1973) and the consoles in Friday (1982).  Personally I'd say Minerva's functionality is step *beyond* the internet.  She has access to all kinds of information and can provide it in any format for the asking.</p><p>Of course, you're right insofar as I don't recall Heinlein ever using a decentralized network.  Minerva, Mycroft, Athene et al were all very much centralized systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pff .
You 're forgetting Minerva in " Time Enough for Love " ( 1973 ) and the consoles in Friday ( 1982 ) .
Personally I 'd say Minerva 's functionality is step * beyond * the internet .
She has access to all kinds of information and can provide it in any format for the asking.Of course , you 're right insofar as I do n't recall Heinlein ever using a decentralized network .
Minerva , Mycroft , Athene et al were all very much centralized systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pff.
You're forgetting Minerva in "Time Enough for Love" (1973) and the consoles in Friday (1982).
Personally I'd say Minerva's functionality is step *beyond* the internet.
She has access to all kinds of information and can provide it in any format for the asking.Of course, you're right insofar as I don't recall Heinlein ever using a decentralized network.
Minerva, Mycroft, Athene et al were all very much centralized systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586329</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Phones</title>
	<author>bhima</author>
	<datestamp>1246808820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some reason that storage space business got me more in the film adaption of Johnny Mnemonic with Keanu Reeves, than the books.  Though admittedly I'm sure I had more RAM in my own computer the last time I read Neuromancer.</p><p>They could have easily slipped in another SI prefix...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason that storage space business got me more in the film adaption of Johnny Mnemonic with Keanu Reeves , than the books .
Though admittedly I 'm sure I had more RAM in my own computer the last time I read Neuromancer.They could have easily slipped in another SI prefix.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason that storage space business got me more in the film adaption of Johnny Mnemonic with Keanu Reeves, than the books.
Though admittedly I'm sure I had more RAM in my own computer the last time I read Neuromancer.They could have easily slipped in another SI prefix...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585933</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>Aggrajag</author>
	<datestamp>1246802400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a trilogy so yes you should read them all. And I would suggest
reading Johnny Mnemonic as well. I really cannot say which one
is the best as I've always thought about it as one work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a trilogy so yes you should read them all .
And I would suggest reading Johnny Mnemonic as well .
I really can not say which one is the best as I 've always thought about it as one work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a trilogy so yes you should read them all.
And I would suggest
reading Johnny Mnemonic as well.
I really cannot say which one
is the best as I've always thought about it as one work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586669</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1246813020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Such global networks featured in the fiction of Heinlein, Asimov and plenty of others before Neuromancer was published. Plenty of authors predicted the growth and utility of world wide computer networks, although none (including Gibson) grasped the full implications of this. And basically, everyone here was copying the ideas of Vannevar Bush, anyway.</p></div></blockquote><p>But... where does Al Gore fit in this!?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Such global networks featured in the fiction of Heinlein , Asimov and plenty of others before Neuromancer was published .
Plenty of authors predicted the growth and utility of world wide computer networks , although none ( including Gibson ) grasped the full implications of this .
And basically , everyone here was copying the ideas of Vannevar Bush , anyway.But... where does Al Gore fit in this !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Such global networks featured in the fiction of Heinlein, Asimov and plenty of others before Neuromancer was published.
Plenty of authors predicted the growth and utility of world wide computer networks, although none (including Gibson) grasped the full implications of this.
And basically, everyone here was copying the ideas of Vannevar Bush, anyway.But... where does Al Gore fit in this!
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28589761</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>pregister</author>
	<datestamp>1246801140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there are two kinds of readers in regards to this.  I'm also a big fan of Glen Cook's \_Black Company\_ series of fantasy/sword and sorcery books.  One of the things I love about his books, like I do about Gibson's, are the lack of explanations about various things in the world.  They use evocative names which might give an inkling of meaning and you have to pick the rest up from context.  I'm rereading the Cook books right now and spent some time reading the Amazon reviews.  2 groups of people.  Those who hated the books because they felt lost and those who liked the books for the very same reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there are two kinds of readers in regards to this .
I 'm also a big fan of Glen Cook 's \ _Black Company \ _ series of fantasy/sword and sorcery books .
One of the things I love about his books , like I do about Gibson 's , are the lack of explanations about various things in the world .
They use evocative names which might give an inkling of meaning and you have to pick the rest up from context .
I 'm rereading the Cook books right now and spent some time reading the Amazon reviews .
2 groups of people .
Those who hated the books because they felt lost and those who liked the books for the very same reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there are two kinds of readers in regards to this.
I'm also a big fan of Glen Cook's \_Black Company\_ series of fantasy/sword and sorcery books.
One of the things I love about his books, like I do about Gibson's, are the lack of explanations about various things in the world.
They use evocative names which might give an inkling of meaning and you have to pick the rest up from context.
I'm rereading the Cook books right now and spent some time reading the Amazon reviews.
2 groups of people.
Those who hated the books because they felt lost and those who liked the books for the very same reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586053</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Phones</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1246804560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats the thing about scifi, it will most often just project the experimental tech of "today" into the future, making it smaller and lighter...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats the thing about scifi , it will most often just project the experimental tech of " today " into the future , making it smaller and lighter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats the thing about scifi, it will most often just project the experimental tech of "today" into the future, making it smaller and lighter...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586421</id>
	<title>Re:Never forget the lesson of Neuromancer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246810200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, you're telling me I can't get rich from fencing 4MB of memory on the street?  Way to shatter my dreams of being a hot interface cowboy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , you 're telling me I ca n't get rich from fencing 4MB of memory on the street ?
Way to shatter my dreams of being a hot interface cowboy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, you're telling me I can't get rich from fencing 4MB of memory on the street?
Way to shatter my dreams of being a hot interface cowboy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585853</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>downix</author>
	<datestamp>1246801080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that is 6.5 million copies... in Canada, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that is 6.5 million copies... in Canada , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that is 6.5 million copies... in Canada, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585907</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>charlie</author>
	<datestamp>1246801920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Terry Pratchett's total career sales track is around 66 million books.

Steven King sold somewhere upwards of 100 million, total.

J. K. Rowling is around the 70-120 million mark, worldwide.

I call bullshit, by at least one (and probably two) orders of magnitude.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Terry Pratchett 's total career sales track is around 66 million books .
Steven King sold somewhere upwards of 100 million , total .
J. K. Rowling is around the 70-120 million mark , worldwide .
I call bullshit , by at least one ( and probably two ) orders of magnitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terry Pratchett's total career sales track is around 66 million books.
Steven King sold somewhere upwards of 100 million, total.
J. K. Rowling is around the 70-120 million mark, worldwide.
I call bullshit, by at least one (and probably two) orders of magnitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28589271</id>
	<title>Appropriate for today.</title>
	<author>B5\_geek</author>
	<datestamp>1246795080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just finishing my bike-camping trip when I saw a street-sign called:  Wintermute Ave.  I giggled and took a picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just finishing my bike-camping trip when I saw a street-sign called : Wintermute Ave. I giggled and took a picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just finishing my bike-camping trip when I saw a street-sign called:  Wintermute Ave.  I giggled and took a picture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587399</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon, here I come!</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1246820700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gee, let's describe a trip on a miniature railroad in even more detail than Zelazny's descriptions of hellrides.</p></div><p>Hmm.  I always enjoyed the descriptions of the hellrides.  What I always found myself skimming was the blow-by-blow descriptions over several pages of hand-to-hand combat.  (Sword fights, too, although those tended to be quicker and more interesting.  It's the long wrestling matches I couldn't stay awake through...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , let 's describe a trip on a miniature railroad in even more detail than Zelazny 's descriptions of hellrides.Hmm .
I always enjoyed the descriptions of the hellrides .
What I always found myself skimming was the blow-by-blow descriptions over several pages of hand-to-hand combat .
( Sword fights , too , although those tended to be quicker and more interesting .
It 's the long wrestling matches I could n't stay awake through... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, let's describe a trip on a miniature railroad in even more detail than Zelazny's descriptions of hellrides.Hmm.
I always enjoyed the descriptions of the hellrides.
What I always found myself skimming was the blow-by-blow descriptions over several pages of hand-to-hand combat.
(Sword fights, too, although those tended to be quicker and more interesting.
It's the long wrestling matches I couldn't stay awake through...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588007</id>
	<title>Re:Can the attitude and pay your respect, boy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246826520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Can the attitude and pay your respect, boy.</i></p><p>Fuck you, sycophant. Lift your head from Gibson's crotch for a second and see the world has moved on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can the attitude and pay your respect , boy.Fuck you , sycophant .
Lift your head from Gibson 's crotch for a second and see the world has moved on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can the attitude and pay your respect, boy.Fuck you, sycophant.
Lift your head from Gibson's crotch for a second and see the world has moved on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585843</id>
	<title>Never forget the lesson of Neuromancer</title>
	<author>FourthAge</author>
	<datestamp>1246801020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When stating the specifications of future computers, never, ever use real units such as "megabytes", because whatever number you use, it will be hopelessly wrong within a few years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When stating the specifications of future computers , never , ever use real units such as " megabytes " , because whatever number you use , it will be hopelessly wrong within a few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When stating the specifications of future computers, never, ever use real units such as "megabytes", because whatever number you use, it will be hopelessly wrong within a few years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587069</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1246817640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heinlein came closer to the 'WWW' model in a couple of his later books, for instance, 'Time Enough For Love' (1973) where he wrote about massive computer systems actually running and managing a planetary government.  He didn't predict almost universal access to that network, though.  Most of Heinlein's 'computer systems' tend to be humoungus 'heavy metal', limited access, heavily centralised machines that wake up and become 'human' - Mike in 'Moon Is A Harsh Mistress', Teena in 'Time Enough For Love'.  I don't include Minerva in this, as she 'took on a human body', downloaded herself into a human body.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heinlein came closer to the 'WWW ' model in a couple of his later books , for instance , 'Time Enough For Love ' ( 1973 ) where he wrote about massive computer systems actually running and managing a planetary government .
He did n't predict almost universal access to that network , though .
Most of Heinlein 's 'computer systems ' tend to be humoungus 'heavy metal ' , limited access , heavily centralised machines that wake up and become 'human ' - Mike in 'Moon Is A Harsh Mistress ' , Teena in 'Time Enough For Love' .
I do n't include Minerva in this , as she 'took on a human body ' , downloaded herself into a human body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heinlein came closer to the 'WWW' model in a couple of his later books, for instance, 'Time Enough For Love' (1973) where he wrote about massive computer systems actually running and managing a planetary government.
He didn't predict almost universal access to that network, though.
Most of Heinlein's 'computer systems' tend to be humoungus 'heavy metal', limited access, heavily centralised machines that wake up and become 'human' - Mike in 'Moon Is A Harsh Mistress', Teena in 'Time Enough For Love'.
I don't include Minerva in this, as she 'took on a human body', downloaded herself into a human body.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588901</id>
	<title>Re:Pay Phones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246790940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just for interest, cutting-edge <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoresistive\_Random\_Access\_Memory" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">MRAM</a> [wikipedia.org] tech would certainly be worth moving around the black market today, even at the megabyte level. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoresistive\_Random\_Access\_Memory#History" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia info on current status</a> [wikipedia.org] for the technology says a 4 Mbit MRAM chip goes for $25, so say $250 street for 3 megs or so of it. (I think I remember in the story that the memory had pictures of Linda in it, so I guess it wouldn't have be normal DRAM in any case)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for interest , cutting-edge MRAM [ wikipedia.org ] tech would certainly be worth moving around the black market today , even at the megabyte level .
The Wikipedia info on current status [ wikipedia.org ] for the technology says a 4 Mbit MRAM chip goes for $ 25 , so say $ 250 street for 3 megs or so of it .
( I think I remember in the story that the memory had pictures of Linda in it , so I guess it would n't have be normal DRAM in any case )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for interest, cutting-edge MRAM [wikipedia.org] tech would certainly be worth moving around the black market today, even at the megabyte level.
The Wikipedia info on current status [wikipedia.org] for the technology says a 4 Mbit MRAM chip goes for $25, so say $250 street for 3 megs or so of it.
(I think I remember in the story that the memory had pictures of Linda in it, so I guess it wouldn't have be normal DRAM in any case)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588641</id>
	<title>Re:160 million copies!?</title>
	<author>HarryCaul</author>
	<datestamp>1246788660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your Rowling figure is off by a considerable amount.  Last estimate was 400+ million copies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your Rowling figure is off by a considerable amount .
Last estimate was 400 + million copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your Rowling figure is off by a considerable amount.
Last estimate was 400+ million copies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28597099</id>
	<title>Re:Never forget the lesson of Neuromancer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246906740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not to be pedantic, but old RAM is actually quite valuable nowdays,  a lot of custom hardware is built around hard to get old chips and anyone with a big stock of them is laughing...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...as a case in point, one of the machines used to make the highest resolution photomasks used in semiconductor manufacturing is stuff full of 4K Bit RAM chips that now mostly come out of resalvaged BBC home micro and sinclair spectrums.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not to be pedantic , but old RAM is actually quite valuable nowdays , a lot of custom hardware is built around hard to get old chips and anyone with a big stock of them is laughing... ...as a case in point , one of the machines used to make the highest resolution photomasks used in semiconductor manufacturing is stuff full of 4K Bit RAM chips that now mostly come out of resalvaged BBC home micro and sinclair spectrums .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not to be pedantic, but old RAM is actually quite valuable nowdays,  a lot of custom hardware is built around hard to get old chips and anyone with a big stock of them is laughing... ...as a case in point, one of the machines used to make the highest resolution photomasks used in semiconductor manufacturing is stuff full of 4K Bit RAM chips that now mostly come out of resalvaged BBC home micro and sinclair spectrums.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586621</id>
	<title>Re:Amazon, here I come!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246812480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an old hand hereabouts, fuckoff.</p><p>Also, only dummies say "first first".  You a stuttering dummy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an old hand hereabouts , fuckoff.Also , only dummies say " first first " .
You a stuttering dummy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an old hand hereabouts, fuckoff.Also, only dummies say "first first".
You a stuttering dummy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585803</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586889</id>
	<title>Re:I didn't think it was that good</title>
	<author>cmprsdchse</author>
	<datestamp>1246815900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't like it much either.  However,  I really got into the book Idoru, which was the middle book in another trilogy he wrote later on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't like it much either .
However , I really got into the book Idoru , which was the middle book in another trilogy he wrote later on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't like it much either.
However,  I really got into the book Idoru, which was the middle book in another trilogy he wrote later on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590339</id>
	<title>Re:Never forget the lesson of Neuromancer</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246808280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When stating the specifications of future computers, never, ever use real units such as "megabytes", because whatever number you use, it will be hopelessly wrong within a few years.</p></div><p>This, a thousand times this. BT (the electronic music artist) has one track where the guy doing vocals raps something about "graphics like pentium II, 3DFX". That was cool in 1998 but that track dated <i>badly</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When stating the specifications of future computers , never , ever use real units such as " megabytes " , because whatever number you use , it will be hopelessly wrong within a few years.This , a thousand times this .
BT ( the electronic music artist ) has one track where the guy doing vocals raps something about " graphics like pentium II , 3DFX " .
That was cool in 1998 but that track dated badly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When stating the specifications of future computers, never, ever use real units such as "megabytes", because whatever number you use, it will be hopelessly wrong within a few years.This, a thousand times this.
BT (the electronic music artist) has one track where the guy doing vocals raps something about "graphics like pentium II, 3DFX".
That was cool in 1998 but that track dated badly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586289</id>
	<title>Panther Moderns and Lo-Teks</title>
	<author>lelitsch</author>
	<datestamp>1246808160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weirdly, this article about <a href="http://www.bizarremag.com/weird-news/tattoos-body-art/7801/body\_inflation.html" title="bizarremag.com"> saline face modification</a> [bizarremag.com] in Bizarre magazine. Makes me want to reread Neuromancer and Johnny Mnemonic (but definitely not watch the movie again)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Weirdly , this article about saline face modification [ bizarremag.com ] in Bizarre magazine .
Makes me want to reread Neuromancer and Johnny Mnemonic ( but definitely not watch the movie again )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weirdly, this article about  saline face modification [bizarremag.com] in Bizarre magazine.
Makes me want to reread Neuromancer and Johnny Mnemonic (but definitely not watch the movie again)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586069</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>mihalis</author>
	<datestamp>1246804800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone know if the other two related stories are any good (Mono Lisa Overdrive, and Count Zero)?</p></div><p>They are good, but as Gibson himself said Mona Lisa Overdrive was where he started to run out of material a little. Still they hold up much better than, say, the last couple of Dune books (in my opinion).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone know if the other two related stories are any good ( Mono Lisa Overdrive , and Count Zero ) ? They are good , but as Gibson himself said Mona Lisa Overdrive was where he started to run out of material a little .
Still they hold up much better than , say , the last couple of Dune books ( in my opinion ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone know if the other two related stories are any good (Mono Lisa Overdrive, and Count Zero)?They are good, but as Gibson himself said Mona Lisa Overdrive was where he started to run out of material a little.
Still they hold up much better than, say, the last couple of Dune books (in my opinion).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28589553</id>
	<title>Re:Might read this again</title>
	<author>mgblst</author>
	<datestamp>1246798620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate the americanised version of novels, where they feel the needs to explain everything, at least 3 times, in case you missed it the first two, and very stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate the americanised version of novels , where they feel the needs to explain everything , at least 3 times , in case you missed it the first two , and very stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate the americanised version of novels, where they feel the needs to explain everything, at least 3 times, in case you missed it the first two, and very stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28595847</id>
	<title>Re:The Theme</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1246901700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>of course they remain human! but they join cyberspace with the deck. it couldn't be done without it. think of them as "augmented"</htmltext>
<tokenext>of course they remain human !
but they join cyberspace with the deck .
it could n't be done without it .
think of them as " augmented "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course they remain human!
but they join cyberspace with the deck.
it couldn't be done without it.
think of them as "augmented"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585799</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28591557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28591269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28595847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28608935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585885
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28591365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28602237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28602149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28605665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28597099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28593745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28589761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28592769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_0826246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28589553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28592769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586287
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587719
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587621
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28593745
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587895
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587069
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586093
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28608935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585853
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585889
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586823
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28589761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28589553
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586949
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587399
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28591557
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28595847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28589271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590947
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588901
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28602149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28591365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588197
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28602237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28587463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588903
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28591269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28597099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28590339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28585977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28588007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586017
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28605665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_0826246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_0826246.28586595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
