<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_05_1948233</id>
	<title>Gaikai Drawing Interest With Low-Key Demo, Believable Claims</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246787700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Earlier this week, we discussed news that games industry veteran Dave Perry had posted a demo of his upcoming <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/07/01/1522210/Dave-Perry-Shows-Off-Cloud-Gaming-Service-Gaikai">cloud gaming service Gaikai</a>. Now that people have had time to speak with Perry and evaluate the demo, reaction has been surprisingly positive. Quoting Eurogamer: "What struck me about the presentation was that <a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gaikai-cloud-computing-gameplay-that-works-blog-entry">there was absolutely nothing unbelievable in it whatsoever</a>. There were no claims of streaming 720p gameplay at 60 frames per second &mdash; games were running in differently sized windows according to how difficult they were to compress, and video itself runs at the internet standard 30FPS. There was no talk of world-beating compression systems that annihilate the work of the best minds in video encoding today, the demo was using the exact same h264 codec that we use ... And finally, there was nothing here to suggest that we were looking at a technological breakthrough that would make our PS3s and Xbox 360s obsolete... just that this was a brand new way to play games in an ultra-accessible manner." By contrast, OnLive was received with <a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/gdc-why-onlive-cant-possibly-work-article">much more criticism</a>, in part due to their dramatic promises. While playing online games with Gaikai will naturally add some amount of latency, the article points out that single-player games need not lag more than you'd <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3725/measuring\_responsiveness\_in\_video\_.php">expect from a console controller</a>. Meanwhile, unlike OnLive, Gaikai is not trying to compete directly with the major console manufacturers, instead trying to work with them in order to <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/news/6212860.html">deliver their first-party games to new audiences</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Earlier this week , we discussed news that games industry veteran Dave Perry had posted a demo of his upcoming cloud gaming service Gaikai .
Now that people have had time to speak with Perry and evaluate the demo , reaction has been surprisingly positive .
Quoting Eurogamer : " What struck me about the presentation was that there was absolutely nothing unbelievable in it whatsoever .
There were no claims of streaming 720p gameplay at 60 frames per second    games were running in differently sized windows according to how difficult they were to compress , and video itself runs at the internet standard 30FPS .
There was no talk of world-beating compression systems that annihilate the work of the best minds in video encoding today , the demo was using the exact same h264 codec that we use ... And finally , there was nothing here to suggest that we were looking at a technological breakthrough that would make our PS3s and Xbox 360s obsolete... just that this was a brand new way to play games in an ultra-accessible manner .
" By contrast , OnLive was received with much more criticism , in part due to their dramatic promises .
While playing online games with Gaikai will naturally add some amount of latency , the article points out that single-player games need not lag more than you 'd expect from a console controller .
Meanwhile , unlike OnLive , Gaikai is not trying to compete directly with the major console manufacturers , instead trying to work with them in order to deliver their first-party games to new audiences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earlier this week, we discussed news that games industry veteran Dave Perry had posted a demo of his upcoming cloud gaming service Gaikai.
Now that people have had time to speak with Perry and evaluate the demo, reaction has been surprisingly positive.
Quoting Eurogamer: "What struck me about the presentation was that there was absolutely nothing unbelievable in it whatsoever.
There were no claims of streaming 720p gameplay at 60 frames per second — games were running in differently sized windows according to how difficult they were to compress, and video itself runs at the internet standard 30FPS.
There was no talk of world-beating compression systems that annihilate the work of the best minds in video encoding today, the demo was using the exact same h264 codec that we use ... And finally, there was nothing here to suggest that we were looking at a technological breakthrough that would make our PS3s and Xbox 360s obsolete... just that this was a brand new way to play games in an ultra-accessible manner.
" By contrast, OnLive was received with much more criticism, in part due to their dramatic promises.
While playing online games with Gaikai will naturally add some amount of latency, the article points out that single-player games need not lag more than you'd expect from a console controller.
Meanwhile, unlike OnLive, Gaikai is not trying to compete directly with the major console manufacturers, instead trying to work with them in order to deliver their first-party games to new audiences.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589799</id>
	<title>Re:Did I miss the ping time revolution?</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1246801440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most gamers don't play 'FPS' games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most gamers do n't play 'FPS ' games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most gamers don't play 'FPS' games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28592549</id>
	<title>Re:This may be the future</title>
	<author>aerton</author>
	<datestamp>1246880040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Less piracy, but you simply can not sell that to whole regions that do not have fast enough internet.
<br> <br>
2. So, instead of needing high-end console or computer you'll need the fastest, expensive internet connection. You may have a lot of bandwidth now, but that would require a lot of bandwidth coupled with low-latency. If you don't notice if youtube playback or start of download is delayed by a second, you will with a game.
<br> <br>
3. True for PC, but consoles do not suffer from hardware compatibility already. If you are trying to imply a cross-platform play, then I will say that mouse, keyboard or iphone touch screen are not adequate replacements for dualshock or wiimote.
<br> <br>
So it may work as an addition from the traditional gaming, but as a replacement? Not in foreseable years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Less piracy , but you simply can not sell that to whole regions that do not have fast enough internet .
2. So , instead of needing high-end console or computer you 'll need the fastest , expensive internet connection .
You may have a lot of bandwidth now , but that would require a lot of bandwidth coupled with low-latency .
If you do n't notice if youtube playback or start of download is delayed by a second , you will with a game .
3. True for PC , but consoles do not suffer from hardware compatibility already .
If you are trying to imply a cross-platform play , then I will say that mouse , keyboard or iphone touch screen are not adequate replacements for dualshock or wiimote .
So it may work as an addition from the traditional gaming , but as a replacement ?
Not in foreseable years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Less piracy, but you simply can not sell that to whole regions that do not have fast enough internet.
2. So, instead of needing high-end console or computer you'll need the fastest, expensive internet connection.
You may have a lot of bandwidth now, but that would require a lot of bandwidth coupled with low-latency.
If you don't notice if youtube playback or start of download is delayed by a second, you will with a game.
3. True for PC, but consoles do not suffer from hardware compatibility already.
If you are trying to imply a cross-platform play, then I will say that mouse, keyboard or iphone touch screen are not adequate replacements for dualshock or wiimote.
So it may work as an addition from the traditional gaming, but as a replacement?
Not in foreseable years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589055</id>
	<title>Did I miss the ping time revolution?</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1246792620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How exactly are they reducing the latency from the controller to the cloud?  Let alone the roundtrip latency of the video/sound.</p><p>Anything more than 100ms ping time is gunna kill this thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly are they reducing the latency from the controller to the cloud ?
Let alone the roundtrip latency of the video/sound.Anything more than 100ms ping time is gunna kill this thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly are they reducing the latency from the controller to the cloud?
Let alone the roundtrip latency of the video/sound.Anything more than 100ms ping time is gunna kill this thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589265</id>
	<title>Chicken and Egg</title>
	<author>hofmny</author>
	<datestamp>1246795020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hear what you are saying, but there is a chicken and egg problem here. All of these games run on emulators of last gen systems. I could see how a service *like* this could kill consoles, but not *this* service. The way this service works, there needs to be games and a system for which the games came out on. What do you want the developers to program their games for if this kills the consoles and no new consoles come out? PC (will we come full circle)? The console makers have to make the consoles, in which the developers then create games based around (using the hardware and software dev kits from Sony, MS, and Nintendo). That defines how the games will come out.
<br> <br>
These guys are one step down the food chain and simply take the games that already came out for the consoles, and put them online. I don't see how anyone would object to this. It's very easy for Nintendo, or Sony. to only release certain titles on this network as to not interfere with their profit model.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear what you are saying , but there is a chicken and egg problem here .
All of these games run on emulators of last gen systems .
I could see how a service * like * this could kill consoles , but not * this * service .
The way this service works , there needs to be games and a system for which the games came out on .
What do you want the developers to program their games for if this kills the consoles and no new consoles come out ?
PC ( will we come full circle ) ?
The console makers have to make the consoles , in which the developers then create games based around ( using the hardware and software dev kits from Sony , MS , and Nintendo ) .
That defines how the games will come out .
These guys are one step down the food chain and simply take the games that already came out for the consoles , and put them online .
I do n't see how anyone would object to this .
It 's very easy for Nintendo , or Sony .
to only release certain titles on this network as to not interfere with their profit model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear what you are saying, but there is a chicken and egg problem here.
All of these games run on emulators of last gen systems.
I could see how a service *like* this could kill consoles, but not *this* service.
The way this service works, there needs to be games and a system for which the games came out on.
What do you want the developers to program their games for if this kills the consoles and no new consoles come out?
PC (will we come full circle)?
The console makers have to make the consoles, in which the developers then create games based around (using the hardware and software dev kits from Sony, MS, and Nintendo).
That defines how the games will come out.
These guys are one step down the food chain and simply take the games that already came out for the consoles, and put them online.
I don't see how anyone would object to this.
It's very easy for Nintendo, or Sony.
to only release certain titles on this network as to not interfere with their profit model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589373</id>
	<title>Re:Having read TFA...</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1246796520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree. It doesn't make much sense for MS to release Halo 4 or Sony to release Little Big Planet 2 right away, but what about their backed catalog? It wouldn't hurt Nintendo (or anyone else) to release older games (everything from old arcacde through the last generation) on this kind of a service. It's just one more way to take people's money.</p><p>Heck. Maybe after playing Zelda or Halo 1 or something, I'd go out and buy the new version of the console, thus increasing revnue.</p><p>Makes sense to me, as long as you keep this away from new games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
It does n't make much sense for MS to release Halo 4 or Sony to release Little Big Planet 2 right away , but what about their backed catalog ?
It would n't hurt Nintendo ( or anyone else ) to release older games ( everything from old arcacde through the last generation ) on this kind of a service .
It 's just one more way to take people 's money.Heck .
Maybe after playing Zelda or Halo 1 or something , I 'd go out and buy the new version of the console , thus increasing revnue.Makes sense to me , as long as you keep this away from new games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
It doesn't make much sense for MS to release Halo 4 or Sony to release Little Big Planet 2 right away, but what about their backed catalog?
It wouldn't hurt Nintendo (or anyone else) to release older games (everything from old arcacde through the last generation) on this kind of a service.
It's just one more way to take people's money.Heck.
Maybe after playing Zelda or Halo 1 or something, I'd go out and buy the new version of the console, thus increasing revnue.Makes sense to me, as long as you keep this away from new games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590951</id>
	<title>Next: timesharing!</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1246815720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The next step in the evolution of gaming sofwtware is to host it on a large server -- what can we call it?  Hmm, it's kind of centralized or main center of application execution; and they all execute in the same framework -- maybe Mainframework, or Mainframe for short? Once we do that, we can allocate slices of time to each game that's running -- at computer speeds, there would never be a noticeable delay to the user!  We'll even have the screen rendering done on this "mainframe", and just push the screen to the end user.
<p>
When are people going to start realizing that the "cloud" is an old idea with new hardware, and that reinventing a concept by putting it on the 'new' cloud platform isn't a business model that stands on its own?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next step in the evolution of gaming sofwtware is to host it on a large server -- what can we call it ?
Hmm , it 's kind of centralized or main center of application execution ; and they all execute in the same framework -- maybe Mainframework , or Mainframe for short ?
Once we do that , we can allocate slices of time to each game that 's running -- at computer speeds , there would never be a noticeable delay to the user !
We 'll even have the screen rendering done on this " mainframe " , and just push the screen to the end user .
When are people going to start realizing that the " cloud " is an old idea with new hardware , and that reinventing a concept by putting it on the 'new ' cloud platform is n't a business model that stands on its own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next step in the evolution of gaming sofwtware is to host it on a large server -- what can we call it?
Hmm, it's kind of centralized or main center of application execution; and they all execute in the same framework -- maybe Mainframework, or Mainframe for short?
Once we do that, we can allocate slices of time to each game that's running -- at computer speeds, there would never be a noticeable delay to the user!
We'll even have the screen rendering done on this "mainframe", and just push the screen to the end user.
When are people going to start realizing that the "cloud" is an old idea with new hardware, and that reinventing a concept by putting it on the 'new' cloud platform isn't a business model that stands on its own?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590587</id>
	<title>Scalability?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246811520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A big part of my job for the last ten years has been running game servers for PC-based video games (Counter-Strike, Battlefield, etc - your standard dedicated-server based games, mostly FPS).</p><p>Over the years as games have become more complicated, the trend has been for these games to consume more and more CPU. They support more players, they're doing complicated collision detection and physics and tracking stats and doing all sorts of other things. CPU usage and memory usage just goes up and up and up.</p><p>Say we can fit several hundred people (depending on the game type) on one, physical game server, spread out over several software servers running on it (usually just Windows applications). This isn't a huge amount - we have a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/lot/ of physical servers, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear. We're just one of many game providers in Australia (population roughly 20 million). It is a massive investment to provide this many game servers.</p><p>Now, think about this from the perspective of doing all that crunching for the client side. We're not doing ANY of the rendering, or client side physics, or handling of input. When I start thinking about how to support that many game clients - the whole end-to-end experience - on normal hardware, I just can't figure out how many servers we'd need. We buy high-density blade servers - just asked our Ops guys, and apparently they do have expansion slots in which you could put a video card, but they're small slots so you couldn't put in, for example, a quad-SLI thing to try and crunch lots of video at once, or something.</p><p>So yeh, I'm super-curious to know how they plan to scale this sort of technology. I am interested in it from the perspective of reducing the impact of cheating in online games, but it also just sounds cool. I played with the OnLive stuff at GDC really briefly this year and it looked sort of cool, but I had the same questions (...which noone on the floor could, or would, answer).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A big part of my job for the last ten years has been running game servers for PC-based video games ( Counter-Strike , Battlefield , etc - your standard dedicated-server based games , mostly FPS ) .Over the years as games have become more complicated , the trend has been for these games to consume more and more CPU .
They support more players , they 're doing complicated collision detection and physics and tracking stats and doing all sorts of other things .
CPU usage and memory usage just goes up and up and up.Say we can fit several hundred people ( depending on the game type ) on one , physical game server , spread out over several software servers running on it ( usually just Windows applications ) .
This is n't a huge amount - we have a /lot/ of physical servers , hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear .
We 're just one of many game providers in Australia ( population roughly 20 million ) .
It is a massive investment to provide this many game servers.Now , think about this from the perspective of doing all that crunching for the client side .
We 're not doing ANY of the rendering , or client side physics , or handling of input .
When I start thinking about how to support that many game clients - the whole end-to-end experience - on normal hardware , I just ca n't figure out how many servers we 'd need .
We buy high-density blade servers - just asked our Ops guys , and apparently they do have expansion slots in which you could put a video card , but they 're small slots so you could n't put in , for example , a quad-SLI thing to try and crunch lots of video at once , or something.So yeh , I 'm super-curious to know how they plan to scale this sort of technology .
I am interested in it from the perspective of reducing the impact of cheating in online games , but it also just sounds cool .
I played with the OnLive stuff at GDC really briefly this year and it looked sort of cool , but I had the same questions ( ...which noone on the floor could , or would , answer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big part of my job for the last ten years has been running game servers for PC-based video games (Counter-Strike, Battlefield, etc - your standard dedicated-server based games, mostly FPS).Over the years as games have become more complicated, the trend has been for these games to consume more and more CPU.
They support more players, they're doing complicated collision detection and physics and tracking stats and doing all sorts of other things.
CPU usage and memory usage just goes up and up and up.Say we can fit several hundred people (depending on the game type) on one, physical game server, spread out over several software servers running on it (usually just Windows applications).
This isn't a huge amount - we have a /lot/ of physical servers, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear.
We're just one of many game providers in Australia (population roughly 20 million).
It is a massive investment to provide this many game servers.Now, think about this from the perspective of doing all that crunching for the client side.
We're not doing ANY of the rendering, or client side physics, or handling of input.
When I start thinking about how to support that many game clients - the whole end-to-end experience - on normal hardware, I just can't figure out how many servers we'd need.
We buy high-density blade servers - just asked our Ops guys, and apparently they do have expansion slots in which you could put a video card, but they're small slots so you couldn't put in, for example, a quad-SLI thing to try and crunch lots of video at once, or something.So yeh, I'm super-curious to know how they plan to scale this sort of technology.
I am interested in it from the perspective of reducing the impact of cheating in online games, but it also just sounds cool.
I played with the OnLive stuff at GDC really briefly this year and it looked sort of cool, but I had the same questions (...which noone on the floor could, or would, answer).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589691</id>
	<title>Re:this is DRM</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1246800240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't even benefit game companies because it basically hands all the control over to the console manufacturer that can pull your game at any moment forbidding your consumers from being able to play it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't even benefit game companies because it basically hands all the control over to the console manufacturer that can pull your game at any moment forbidding your consumers from being able to play it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't even benefit game companies because it basically hands all the control over to the console manufacturer that can pull your game at any moment forbidding your consumers from being able to play it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28595835</id>
	<title>SPROCKET define PERFECTLY &amp; AVAILABILITY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246901700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject-line above, &amp; this data, \_Sprocket\_, you troll</p><p> <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+\%2299.999\%22+and+\%22NASDAQ\%22+and+\%22Ken+Richmond\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+\%2299.999\%22+and+\%22NASDAQ\%22+and+\%22Ken+Richmond\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] </p><p> <b>NASDAQ</b> </p><p>Spokesperson: <b>Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering</b> <br>Situation:</p><p>Largest U.S. electronic stock market<br>Replacing aging Tandem systems<br>Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing</p><p> <b>Solution:</b> </p><p> <b>MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System</b> <br>5K txs/second, 100K queries/day<br>Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability</p><p> <b>Benefits:</b> </p><p> <b>Enterprise availability</b> <br>Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day<br>Lower total cost of ownership<br>Real-time reporting<br>Developer agility</p><p> <b>KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less</b> (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY, which Sprocket your fellow troll REFUSES to define that term for us in this thread as well, vs. what is quoted below in regards to "PERFECTLY") here:</p><p>----</p><p>"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked <b>perfectly</b> for us" - <b>Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.</b> </p><p>FROM -&gt; <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271</a> [microsoft.com] </p><p>----</p><p> <b>WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE</b> (which lists 99.999\% no less) -&gt; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High\_availability" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High\_availability</a> [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Need more?</p><p> <b>"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):</b> </p><p>"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999\% availability)" -&gt; <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219" title="linkedin.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219</a> [linkedin.com] </p><p>"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999\% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -&gt; <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm\%3Fid\%3D7369+\%22Enterprise+Availability\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us" title="74.125.47.132" rel="nofollow">http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm\%3Fid\%3D7369+\%22Enterprise+Availability\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us</a> [74.125.47.132] </p><p> <b>So please, \_Sprocket\_:</b> </p><p> <b>Would you define the terms PERFECTLY and ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY please?</b> </p><p>(They BOTH equate to 99.999\% uptime... period!)</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Why did you refuse to define the word "PERFECT" or "PERFECTLY" over in that thread -&gt; <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&amp;cid=28584687" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&amp;cid=28584687</a> [slashdot.org] , \_Sprocket\_? Hmmm?? <b>Maybe because you shot your loud mouth off spouting words you now have to eat? You ran like the troll you are, &amp; it served you right... nicest part is? I do get that "last laugh", on YOU</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject-line above , &amp; this data , \ _Sprocket \ _ , you troll http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : 7u5zusUtjUIJ : https : //thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx + \ % 2299.999 \ % 22 + and + \ % 22NASDAQ \ % 22 + and + \ % 22Ken + Richmond \ % 22&amp;cd = 1&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] NASDAQ Spokesperson : Ken Richmond , Vice President of Software Engineering Situation : Largest U.S. electronic stock marketReplacing aging Tandem systemsWanted to update system for real-time trade summary , risk management and broker clearing Solution : MDDS : Market Data Dissemination System 5K txs/second , 100K queries/dayRunning on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability Benefits : Enterprise availability Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per dayLower total cost of ownershipReal-time reportingDeveloper agility KEYWORD , LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS , is " Enterprise Availability " , by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less ( who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY , which Sprocket your fellow troll REFUSES to define that term for us in this thread as well , vs. what is quoted below in regards to " PERFECTLY " ) here : ---- " We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data .
It has worked perfectly for us " - Ken Richmond , vice president for software engineering , market information systems at NASDAQ .
FROM - &gt; http : //www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case \ _Study \ _Detail.aspx ? CaseStudyID = 49271 [ microsoft.com ] ---- WIKIPEDIA " HIGH AVAILABILITY " DEFINITION PAGE ( which lists 99.999 \ % no less ) - &gt; http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High \ _availability [ wikipedia.org ] [ wikipedia.org ] Need more ?
" ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY " / " HIGH AVAILABILITY " definitions ( from various sources ) : " for the high availability enterprise servers ( 99.999 \ % availability ) " - &gt; http : //www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219 [ linkedin.com ] " Device techniques for high availability For years , enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999 \ % availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver .
This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service .
If enterprise networks are to support IP phones , they too must deliver similar availability " - &gt; http : //74.125.47.132/search ? q = cache : kMTHFHnbIpwJ : www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm \ % 3Fid \ % 3D7369 + \ % 22Enterprise + Availability \ % 22 + and + \ % 2299.999 \ % 25 \ % 22&amp;cd = 1&amp;hl = en&amp;ct = clnk&amp;gl = us [ 74.125.47.132 ] So please , \ _Sprocket \ _ : Would you define the terms PERFECTLY and ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY please ?
( They BOTH equate to 99.999 \ % uptime.. .
period ! ) APKP.S. = &gt; Why did you refuse to define the word " PERFECT " or " PERFECTLY " over in that thread - &gt; http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1290967&amp;cid = 28584687 [ slashdot.org ] , \ _Sprocket \ _ ?
Hmmm ? ? Maybe because you shot your loud mouth off spouting words you now have to eat ?
You ran like the troll you are , &amp; it served you right... nicest part is ?
I do get that " last laugh " , on YOU</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject-line above, &amp; this data, \_Sprocket\_, you troll http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+\%2299.999\%22+and+\%22NASDAQ\%22+and+\%22Ken+Richmond\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132]  NASDAQ Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering Situation:Largest U.S. electronic stock marketReplacing aging Tandem systemsWanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing Solution:  MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System 5K txs/second, 100K queries/dayRunning on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability Benefits:  Enterprise availability Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per dayLower total cost of ownershipReal-time reportingDeveloper agility KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY, which Sprocket your fellow troll REFUSES to define that term for us in this thread as well, vs. what is quoted below in regards to "PERFECTLY") here:----"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data.
It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
FROM -&gt; http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case\_Study\_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271 [microsoft.com] ---- WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999\% no less) -&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High\_availability [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources): "for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999\% availability)" -&gt; http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219 [linkedin.com] "Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999\% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver.
This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service.
If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -&gt; http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm\%3Fid\%3D7369+\%22Enterprise+Availability\%22+and+\%2299.999\%25\%22&amp;cd=1&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us [74.125.47.132]  So please, \_Sprocket\_:  Would you define the terms PERFECTLY and ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY please?
(They BOTH equate to 99.999\% uptime...
period!)APKP.S.=&gt; Why did you refuse to define the word "PERFECT" or "PERFECTLY" over in that thread -&gt; http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&amp;cid=28584687 [slashdot.org] , \_Sprocket\_?
Hmmm?? Maybe because you shot your loud mouth off spouting words you now have to eat?
You ran like the troll you are, &amp; it served you right... nicest part is?
I do get that "last laugh", on YOU</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28591179</id>
	<title>Waste of Bandwidth and Ressources</title>
	<author>pwilli</author>
	<datestamp>1246817700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Software developers have optimized their multiplayer games to only transfer the necessary information, and leaving the less important stuff to the rest of the clients. Thats why up to 5 people can play FPS online games at the same time without problems at my house (only 700KBit up/2.5MBit down DSL). With this technology that would be reduced 1 or at most 2 (estimate based on my experience with streaming movies). Who will pay the server that creates content in
high quality based on complex calculations and  on information of other clients AND compresses it good enough to go through my pipe without losing to much quality, in real time? <br> <br>

This whole system imho sounds like the regularly repeated idea, that a huge solar collector plattform placed in the dessert of North Africa could produce enough electricity for the whole world. Of course, it can. But no one lives in the dessert to use that power and transporting the power to where its needed is hard or impossible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Software developers have optimized their multiplayer games to only transfer the necessary information , and leaving the less important stuff to the rest of the clients .
Thats why up to 5 people can play FPS online games at the same time without problems at my house ( only 700KBit up/2.5MBit down DSL ) .
With this technology that would be reduced 1 or at most 2 ( estimate based on my experience with streaming movies ) .
Who will pay the server that creates content in high quality based on complex calculations and on information of other clients AND compresses it good enough to go through my pipe without losing to much quality , in real time ?
This whole system imho sounds like the regularly repeated idea , that a huge solar collector plattform placed in the dessert of North Africa could produce enough electricity for the whole world .
Of course , it can .
But no one lives in the dessert to use that power and transporting the power to where its needed is hard or impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Software developers have optimized their multiplayer games to only transfer the necessary information, and leaving the less important stuff to the rest of the clients.
Thats why up to 5 people can play FPS online games at the same time without problems at my house (only 700KBit up/2.5MBit down DSL).
With this technology that would be reduced 1 or at most 2 (estimate based on my experience with streaming movies).
Who will pay the server that creates content in
high quality based on complex calculations and  on information of other clients AND compresses it good enough to go through my pipe without losing to much quality, in real time?
This whole system imho sounds like the regularly repeated idea, that a huge solar collector plattform placed in the dessert of North Africa could produce enough electricity for the whole world.
Of course, it can.
But no one lives in the dessert to use that power and transporting the power to where its needed is hard or impossible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589403</id>
	<title>Re:Did I miss the ping time revolution?</title>
	<author>FourthAge</author>
	<datestamp>1246797060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. And there is video compression and decompression delay. And, on top of that, current low-latency applications don't send much data. Do you still get low latency if you're receiving at 1MBit/s or higher? In both directions? Reliably? There can be no client-side prediction to smooth out lag: your connection must be perfect all of the time.</p><p>I don't believe in this idea at all. I don't think they've done the math correctly. I'm sure it works wonderfully on their LAN, but over the Internet..?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
And there is video compression and decompression delay .
And , on top of that , current low-latency applications do n't send much data .
Do you still get low latency if you 're receiving at 1MBit/s or higher ?
In both directions ?
Reliably ? There can be no client-side prediction to smooth out lag : your connection must be perfect all of the time.I do n't believe in this idea at all .
I do n't think they 've done the math correctly .
I 'm sure it works wonderfully on their LAN , but over the Internet.. ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
And there is video compression and decompression delay.
And, on top of that, current low-latency applications don't send much data.
Do you still get low latency if you're receiving at 1MBit/s or higher?
In both directions?
Reliably? There can be no client-side prediction to smooth out lag: your connection must be perfect all of the time.I don't believe in this idea at all.
I don't think they've done the math correctly.
I'm sure it works wonderfully on their LAN, but over the Internet..?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588961</id>
	<title>this is DRM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246791600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop giving it press.</p><p>Gaming is already ultra-accessible, this is the solution to a problem that, for consumers, doesn't exist.  The only people this will benefit is the game companies.</p><p>I will not rent my game software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop giving it press.Gaming is already ultra-accessible , this is the solution to a problem that , for consumers , does n't exist .
The only people this will benefit is the game companies.I will not rent my game software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop giving it press.Gaming is already ultra-accessible, this is the solution to a problem that, for consumers, doesn't exist.
The only people this will benefit is the game companies.I will not rent my game software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589031</id>
	<title>Cloud Gaming?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246792200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, huh? So what's next, cloud fucking?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , huh ?
So what 's next , cloud fucking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, huh?
So what's next, cloud fucking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590201</id>
	<title>This may be the future</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1246806420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may be the future of gaming, eventually supplanting console and PC gaming.</p><p>Reasons :<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1.  This is a DRM system that would be nearly impossible to beat.  As long as the game code is only given to these hosts, it would be vastly more difficult to pirate games.  Not impossible - workers at the hosting company could leak the game to the internet, but it would be much more difficult.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Strong DRM means the publishers would get paid for every game they sell, yet they could easily offer fully functional 'demos' of the game, or sell time for a game.  It might be easier for a lesser known publisher to sell 10 hours of a game for $10 than the entire game for $50.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2.  It removes the need for the users to buy expensive hardware, whether that be a console or a high end gaming PC.  You instead just lease time on the big iron.  More advanced games with more advanced graphics would become available much sooner, since publishers wouldn't have to wait for the next generation of console to become common with consumers, or for PC owners to finally get upgrade their graphics cards.  A publisher could offer games with state of the art, photo realistic graphics much sooner : it would just cost more per hour to play a game like that.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3.  It solves the nightmare of hardware incompatibility and hardware failures.  Since your netbook/living room console/old PC would merely be decoding video, there would be far fewer ways things could go wrong.</p><p>Problems : using flash is not a long term solution, flash has many problems : later generations of this service will need their own, optimized decoder code.  ISPs will have to work with the companies offering hosted games, and configure their networks to deliver the ultra low latency, guaranteed bandwidth needed for a gaming session to actually work.</p><p>I think this idea is going to take off.  It'll be a few years before ISPs really get their act together to support this kind of service, but it will gradually happen, and I think it will completely supplant the game console.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may be the future of gaming , eventually supplanting console and PC gaming.Reasons :     1 .
This is a DRM system that would be nearly impossible to beat .
As long as the game code is only given to these hosts , it would be vastly more difficult to pirate games .
Not impossible - workers at the hosting company could leak the game to the internet , but it would be much more difficult .
    Strong DRM means the publishers would get paid for every game they sell , yet they could easily offer fully functional 'demos ' of the game , or sell time for a game .
It might be easier for a lesser known publisher to sell 10 hours of a game for $ 10 than the entire game for $ 50 .
    2 .
It removes the need for the users to buy expensive hardware , whether that be a console or a high end gaming PC .
You instead just lease time on the big iron .
More advanced games with more advanced graphics would become available much sooner , since publishers would n't have to wait for the next generation of console to become common with consumers , or for PC owners to finally get upgrade their graphics cards .
A publisher could offer games with state of the art , photo realistic graphics much sooner : it would just cost more per hour to play a game like that .
      3 .
It solves the nightmare of hardware incompatibility and hardware failures .
Since your netbook/living room console/old PC would merely be decoding video , there would be far fewer ways things could go wrong.Problems : using flash is not a long term solution , flash has many problems : later generations of this service will need their own , optimized decoder code .
ISPs will have to work with the companies offering hosted games , and configure their networks to deliver the ultra low latency , guaranteed bandwidth needed for a gaming session to actually work.I think this idea is going to take off .
It 'll be a few years before ISPs really get their act together to support this kind of service , but it will gradually happen , and I think it will completely supplant the game console .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may be the future of gaming, eventually supplanting console and PC gaming.Reasons :
    1.
This is a DRM system that would be nearly impossible to beat.
As long as the game code is only given to these hosts, it would be vastly more difficult to pirate games.
Not impossible - workers at the hosting company could leak the game to the internet, but it would be much more difficult.
    Strong DRM means the publishers would get paid for every game they sell, yet they could easily offer fully functional 'demos' of the game, or sell time for a game.
It might be easier for a lesser known publisher to sell 10 hours of a game for $10 than the entire game for $50.
    2.
It removes the need for the users to buy expensive hardware, whether that be a console or a high end gaming PC.
You instead just lease time on the big iron.
More advanced games with more advanced graphics would become available much sooner, since publishers wouldn't have to wait for the next generation of console to become common with consumers, or for PC owners to finally get upgrade their graphics cards.
A publisher could offer games with state of the art, photo realistic graphics much sooner : it would just cost more per hour to play a game like that.
      3.
It solves the nightmare of hardware incompatibility and hardware failures.
Since your netbook/living room console/old PC would merely be decoding video, there would be far fewer ways things could go wrong.Problems : using flash is not a long term solution, flash has many problems : later generations of this service will need their own, optimized decoder code.
ISPs will have to work with the companies offering hosted games, and configure their networks to deliver the ultra low latency, guaranteed bandwidth needed for a gaming session to actually work.I think this idea is going to take off.
It'll be a few years before ISPs really get their act together to support this kind of service, but it will gradually happen, and I think it will completely supplant the game console.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590409</id>
	<title>Re:Next step</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1246809120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft will buy them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft will buy them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft will buy them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28594465</id>
	<title>Re:Personal Implementation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246895280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&amp;cid=28586733" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&amp;cid=28586733</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1290967&amp;cid = 28586733 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1290967&amp;cid=28586733 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588957</id>
	<title>Next step</title>
	<author>itomato</author>
	<datestamp>1246791480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sell out?</p><p>Who'd buy these guys, a gaming company or a streaming media company?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sell out ? Who 'd buy these guys , a gaming company or a streaming media company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sell out?Who'd buy these guys, a gaming company or a streaming media company?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589161</id>
	<title>Re:Having read TFA...</title>
	<author>WillyWanker</author>
	<datestamp>1246793880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hardly. Console manufacturers don't make money on the hardware, they make money on the software. Those that want the best experience (hi-def, surround sound, etc.) will still buy the hardware. Those that don't or can't afford to now don't have to. But they still need to buy the games. Cha-ching! You've now sold a game to someone who didn't have a console. How exactly is this going to hurt them?<br><br>And EMI's stupidity in not embracing 21st century technology shouldn't be held up as a banner example. I'd like to think gaming companies are a tad bit smarter than the recording industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly .
Console manufacturers do n't make money on the hardware , they make money on the software .
Those that want the best experience ( hi-def , surround sound , etc .
) will still buy the hardware .
Those that do n't or ca n't afford to now do n't have to .
But they still need to buy the games .
Cha-ching ! You 've now sold a game to someone who did n't have a console .
How exactly is this going to hurt them ? And EMI 's stupidity in not embracing 21st century technology should n't be held up as a banner example .
I 'd like to think gaming companies are a tad bit smarter than the recording industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly.
Console manufacturers don't make money on the hardware, they make money on the software.
Those that want the best experience (hi-def, surround sound, etc.
) will still buy the hardware.
Those that don't or can't afford to now don't have to.
But they still need to buy the games.
Cha-ching! You've now sold a game to someone who didn't have a console.
How exactly is this going to hurt them?And EMI's stupidity in not embracing 21st century technology shouldn't be held up as a banner example.
I'd like to think gaming companies are a tad bit smarter than the recording industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979</id>
	<title>Having read TFA...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1246791720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having read the first 2 pages of TFA, I still don't see how fast of a connection you need for these to become playable. I mean, where I live, the best connection you can get is a ~1 Megabit DSL connection.<p><div class="quote"><p> Um... yes? "How many Nintendo games are going to appear on OnLive? The answer is none," Perry adds. "And some of the best games in the world are from Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft... I'm already talking to Nintendo. I'm talking to all the major publishers.</p> </div><p>

So in the end this service is going to end up as nothing more than PC games? Its not a good sign when a company who makes most of the classic games that people remember rejects your ideas, and I'm not sure Sony or MS wants to jump on the bandwagon (though it wouldn't surprise me if MS bought the company if they managed to turn out a decent product).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read the first 2 pages of TFA , I still do n't see how fast of a connection you need for these to become playable .
I mean , where I live , the best connection you can get is a ~ 1 Megabit DSL connection .
Um... yes ?
" How many Nintendo games are going to appear on OnLive ?
The answer is none , " Perry adds .
" And some of the best games in the world are from Sony , Nintendo , Microsoft... I 'm already talking to Nintendo .
I 'm talking to all the major publishers .
So in the end this service is going to end up as nothing more than PC games ?
Its not a good sign when a company who makes most of the classic games that people remember rejects your ideas , and I 'm not sure Sony or MS wants to jump on the bandwagon ( though it would n't surprise me if MS bought the company if they managed to turn out a decent product ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read the first 2 pages of TFA, I still don't see how fast of a connection you need for these to become playable.
I mean, where I live, the best connection you can get is a ~1 Megabit DSL connection.
Um... yes?
"How many Nintendo games are going to appear on OnLive?
The answer is none," Perry adds.
"And some of the best games in the world are from Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft... I'm already talking to Nintendo.
I'm talking to all the major publishers.
So in the end this service is going to end up as nothing more than PC games?
Its not a good sign when a company who makes most of the classic games that people remember rejects your ideas, and I'm not sure Sony or MS wants to jump on the bandwagon (though it wouldn't surprise me if MS bought the company if they managed to turn out a decent product).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589227</id>
	<title>Pickup, Play, and Resume on Multiple Devices</title>
	<author>hofmny</author>
	<datestamp>1246794540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think of this...<br>
You're at home, you log onto Gaikai, and see a PS2 RPG you always wanted to play. Awesome! So you start playing it on the PC. The next day, you have to fly out somewhere (business trip, home for the holidays), and while you're at the airport, you use your iPhone and continue playing your game. No need to copy your emulator files over, deal with incompatibilities, buggy software (there isn't even a ps2 emu for iPhone and I doubt its powerful enough). While on your trip, you decide to retire for the night. You bring up your laptop, and can once again resume your PS2 RPG.
<br> <br>
I think this will open a whole new market for gaming to people who either never own consoles or people that do own consoles, and want to play last generation titles that they missed out on and no longer own the older system or don't; have it hooked up anymore (especially now that Sony took out PS2 backwards compatibility)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of this.. . You 're at home , you log onto Gaikai , and see a PS2 RPG you always wanted to play .
Awesome ! So you start playing it on the PC .
The next day , you have to fly out somewhere ( business trip , home for the holidays ) , and while you 're at the airport , you use your iPhone and continue playing your game .
No need to copy your emulator files over , deal with incompatibilities , buggy software ( there is n't even a ps2 emu for iPhone and I doubt its powerful enough ) .
While on your trip , you decide to retire for the night .
You bring up your laptop , and can once again resume your PS2 RPG .
I think this will open a whole new market for gaming to people who either never own consoles or people that do own consoles , and want to play last generation titles that they missed out on and no longer own the older system or do n't ; have it hooked up anymore ( especially now that Sony took out PS2 backwards compatibility )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of this...
You're at home, you log onto Gaikai, and see a PS2 RPG you always wanted to play.
Awesome! So you start playing it on the PC.
The next day, you have to fly out somewhere (business trip, home for the holidays), and while you're at the airport, you use your iPhone and continue playing your game.
No need to copy your emulator files over, deal with incompatibilities, buggy software (there isn't even a ps2 emu for iPhone and I doubt its powerful enough).
While on your trip, you decide to retire for the night.
You bring up your laptop, and can once again resume your PS2 RPG.
I think this will open a whole new market for gaming to people who either never own consoles or people that do own consoles, and want to play last generation titles that they missed out on and no longer own the older system or don't; have it hooked up anymore (especially now that Sony took out PS2 backwards compatibility)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589339</id>
	<title>Re:No hacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246796160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A client side application that does image interpretation could enable cheating...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A client side application that does image interpretation could enable cheating.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A client side application that does image interpretation could enable cheating...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28592029</id>
	<title>Nothing unbelievable?</title>
	<author>Bazzargh</author>
	<datestamp>1246871940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They claim: <em>We are not using any out-of-the-box virtualization, it's all custom built by our team for this purpose.</em>, or and similarly that its their own custom operating system (specifically so that the photoshop demo is a single window)</p><p>The company was formed in November 2008.</p><p>So, seriously: nothing unbelievable about that? I'd be wondering whose software they are really using there, because the development timescale doesn't add up. If they'd said nothing or said it was off-the-shelf tech that would be a bit more likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They claim : We are not using any out-of-the-box virtualization , it 's all custom built by our team for this purpose. , or and similarly that its their own custom operating system ( specifically so that the photoshop demo is a single window ) The company was formed in November 2008.So , seriously : nothing unbelievable about that ?
I 'd be wondering whose software they are really using there , because the development timescale does n't add up .
If they 'd said nothing or said it was off-the-shelf tech that would be a bit more likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They claim: We are not using any out-of-the-box virtualization, it's all custom built by our team for this purpose., or and similarly that its their own custom operating system (specifically so that the photoshop demo is a single window)The company was formed in November 2008.So, seriously: nothing unbelievable about that?
I'd be wondering whose software they are really using there, because the development timescale doesn't add up.
If they'd said nothing or said it was off-the-shelf tech that would be a bit more likely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590475</id>
	<title>Re:This may be the future</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1246809960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am not going to start the familiar rant that DRM is evil.<br>The fact is that a stronger DRM will enable stronger restrictions on usage while freeing PC's from the debilitating effects of <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/10/sony\_drm\_trojan/" title="theregister.co.uk">DRM and Virus</a> [theregister.co.uk]<br>This does not necessarily translate to better games or even more demos.<br>On the contrary, it will lead to more profit taking and more of the same crap games.<br>For instance, Company of Heroes was ground-breaking when it came out. I upgraded my PC to play it. The subsequent Opposing Fronts was even more ground breaking.<br>BUT, the law of average returns states that companies should screw up: Tales of Valor.<br>BioShock was ground breaking. Subsequent sequels were not.<br>Age of Empires was ground breaking. Subsequent sequels were not.<br>A company innovates only once. Then the MBA's take over and consider it a cash cow and all that crap.<br>This rule is applicable not only for Games, but also to movies, songs, books, etc.: Tremors, Star Wars, Star Trek, FRIENDS, Joey, etc.<br>DRM only seeks to reinforce what the company does without providing an incentive for it to improve.<br>Leasing the Big Iron is time sharing: this is not a new concept. I don't need a high-end PC is false: I need a high speed processor and RAM to make sure i can continue to stream AND send back responses to the Big Iron. Dumb Terminals they can't be.<br>Not even an S/390 box can accommodate the  entire population of war craft or Spore.<br>Thirdly, AMD, ATI, nVidia would actively sabotage these efforts by suing/buying out/bankrupting this company to protect their investments,<br>In short, the idea is worthwhile IF Jesus were ruling the world: Unfortunately he is not, so live with it. Like a zillion ideas before, this too shall bite the dust, quietly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am not going to start the familiar rant that DRM is evil.The fact is that a stronger DRM will enable stronger restrictions on usage while freeing PC 's from the debilitating effects of DRM and Virus [ theregister.co.uk ] This does not necessarily translate to better games or even more demos.On the contrary , it will lead to more profit taking and more of the same crap games.For instance , Company of Heroes was ground-breaking when it came out .
I upgraded my PC to play it .
The subsequent Opposing Fronts was even more ground breaking.BUT , the law of average returns states that companies should screw up : Tales of Valor.BioShock was ground breaking .
Subsequent sequels were not.Age of Empires was ground breaking .
Subsequent sequels were not.A company innovates only once .
Then the MBA 's take over and consider it a cash cow and all that crap.This rule is applicable not only for Games , but also to movies , songs , books , etc .
: Tremors , Star Wars , Star Trek , FRIENDS , Joey , etc.DRM only seeks to reinforce what the company does without providing an incentive for it to improve.Leasing the Big Iron is time sharing : this is not a new concept .
I do n't need a high-end PC is false : I need a high speed processor and RAM to make sure i can continue to stream AND send back responses to the Big Iron .
Dumb Terminals they ca n't be.Not even an S/390 box can accommodate the entire population of war craft or Spore.Thirdly , AMD , ATI , nVidia would actively sabotage these efforts by suing/buying out/bankrupting this company to protect their investments,In short , the idea is worthwhile IF Jesus were ruling the world : Unfortunately he is not , so live with it .
Like a zillion ideas before , this too shall bite the dust , quietly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am not going to start the familiar rant that DRM is evil.The fact is that a stronger DRM will enable stronger restrictions on usage while freeing PC's from the debilitating effects of DRM and Virus [theregister.co.uk]This does not necessarily translate to better games or even more demos.On the contrary, it will lead to more profit taking and more of the same crap games.For instance, Company of Heroes was ground-breaking when it came out.
I upgraded my PC to play it.
The subsequent Opposing Fronts was even more ground breaking.BUT, the law of average returns states that companies should screw up: Tales of Valor.BioShock was ground breaking.
Subsequent sequels were not.Age of Empires was ground breaking.
Subsequent sequels were not.A company innovates only once.
Then the MBA's take over and consider it a cash cow and all that crap.This rule is applicable not only for Games, but also to movies, songs, books, etc.
: Tremors, Star Wars, Star Trek, FRIENDS, Joey, etc.DRM only seeks to reinforce what the company does without providing an incentive for it to improve.Leasing the Big Iron is time sharing: this is not a new concept.
I don't need a high-end PC is false: I need a high speed processor and RAM to make sure i can continue to stream AND send back responses to the Big Iron.
Dumb Terminals they can't be.Not even an S/390 box can accommodate the  entire population of war craft or Spore.Thirdly, AMD, ATI, nVidia would actively sabotage these efforts by suing/buying out/bankrupting this company to protect their investments,In short, the idea is worthwhile IF Jesus were ruling the world: Unfortunately he is not, so live with it.
Like a zillion ideas before, this too shall bite the dust, quietly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590201</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590767</id>
	<title>Perfect for demoing</title>
	<author>ratboot</author>
	<datestamp>1246813860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reading the comments already posted, I understand that some persons think that the service will be used to play games in whole (i.e. replace completly your PC or your console)...

But if they'd RTFA, these persons would understand that Gaikai is mainly intented to demo games before getting them (now IMHO, that's a promising idea).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading the comments already posted , I understand that some persons think that the service will be used to play games in whole ( i.e .
replace completly your PC or your console ) .. . But if they 'd RTFA , these persons would understand that Gaikai is mainly intented to demo games before getting them ( now IMHO , that 's a promising idea ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading the comments already posted, I understand that some persons think that the service will be used to play games in whole (i.e.
replace completly your PC or your console)...

But if they'd RTFA, these persons would understand that Gaikai is mainly intented to demo games before getting them (now IMHO, that's a promising idea).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589713</id>
	<title>Re:this is DRM</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1246800540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The millions playing World of Warcrack beg to differ.  The software is useless without the monthly access fee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The millions playing World of Warcrack beg to differ .
The software is useless without the monthly access fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The millions playing World of Warcrack beg to differ.
The software is useless without the monthly access fee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590163</id>
	<title>Re:Having read TFA...</title>
	<author>Bored Grammar Nazi</author>
	<datestamp>1246805940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Having read the first 2 pages of TFA, I still don't see how fast of a connection you need for these to become playable. I mean, where I live, the best connection you can get is a ~1 Megabit DSL connection.</i> </p><p>Not everybody lives where you live. Here in Japan the standard is now fiber optics at 100Mbps. I could see it working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read the first 2 pages of TFA , I still do n't see how fast of a connection you need for these to become playable .
I mean , where I live , the best connection you can get is a ~ 1 Megabit DSL connection .
Not everybody lives where you live .
Here in Japan the standard is now fiber optics at 100Mbps .
I could see it working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Having read the first 2 pages of TFA, I still don't see how fast of a connection you need for these to become playable.
I mean, where I live, the best connection you can get is a ~1 Megabit DSL connection.
Not everybody lives where you live.
Here in Japan the standard is now fiber optics at 100Mbps.
I could see it working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28604265</id>
	<title>Re:Next: timesharing!</title>
	<author>aCC</author>
	<datestamp>1246905120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When are people going to start realizing that the "cloud" is an old idea with new hardware, and that reinventing a concept by putting it on the 'new' cloud platform isn't a business model that stands on its own?</p></div><p>You're probably right, but still miss the point. I have never had access to a mainframe, but on the "cloud" I am able - as a private person or company! - to use something similar for very little costs. This is the major difference and changes everything about it. It's like saying the internet was no new thing because there were global networks (e.g. of companies like IBM) before. That would be correct in one aspect (global network), but so wrong on so many other levels.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When are people going to start realizing that the " cloud " is an old idea with new hardware , and that reinventing a concept by putting it on the 'new ' cloud platform is n't a business model that stands on its own ? You 're probably right , but still miss the point .
I have never had access to a mainframe , but on the " cloud " I am able - as a private person or company !
- to use something similar for very little costs .
This is the major difference and changes everything about it .
It 's like saying the internet was no new thing because there were global networks ( e.g .
of companies like IBM ) before .
That would be correct in one aspect ( global network ) , but so wrong on so many other levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When are people going to start realizing that the "cloud" is an old idea with new hardware, and that reinventing a concept by putting it on the 'new' cloud platform isn't a business model that stands on its own?You're probably right, but still miss the point.
I have never had access to a mainframe, but on the "cloud" I am able - as a private person or company!
- to use something similar for very little costs.
This is the major difference and changes everything about it.
It's like saying the internet was no new thing because there were global networks (e.g.
of companies like IBM) before.
That would be correct in one aspect (global network), but so wrong on so many other levels.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590037</id>
	<title>Re:Having read TFA...</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1246804440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Having read the first 2 pages of TFA, I still don't see how fast of a connection you need for these to become playable. I mean, where I live, the best connection you can get is a ~1 Megabit DSL connection.</i></p><p>Really? Here in Portugal the *minimum* you can get is 3Mbps at about 20, and we have expensive ISPs compared to most other countries in Europe. And a new ISP is saying they'll offer symmetrical 50Mbps for 15 without any subscription to keep you locked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read the first 2 pages of TFA , I still do n't see how fast of a connection you need for these to become playable .
I mean , where I live , the best connection you can get is a ~ 1 Megabit DSL connection.Really ?
Here in Portugal the * minimum * you can get is 3Mbps at about 20 , and we have expensive ISPs compared to most other countries in Europe .
And a new ISP is saying they 'll offer symmetrical 50Mbps for 15 without any subscription to keep you locked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read the first 2 pages of TFA, I still don't see how fast of a connection you need for these to become playable.
I mean, where I live, the best connection you can get is a ~1 Megabit DSL connection.Really?
Here in Portugal the *minimum* you can get is 3Mbps at about 20, and we have expensive ISPs compared to most other countries in Europe.
And a new ISP is saying they'll offer symmetrical 50Mbps for 15 without any subscription to keep you locked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590177</id>
	<title>I want to run my own server</title>
	<author>Sark666</author>
	<datestamp>1246806120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine being at a friend's and being able to stream your own games in this method.  That would be the best of both worlds, you have the killer rig at home for the latest and greatest, and you can stream your games while on the go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine being at a friend 's and being able to stream your own games in this method .
That would be the best of both worlds , you have the killer rig at home for the latest and greatest , and you can stream your games while on the go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine being at a friend's and being able to stream your own games in this method.
That would be the best of both worlds, you have the killer rig at home for the latest and greatest, and you can stream your games while on the go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28593411</id>
	<title>Re:wow</title>
	<author>xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D</author>
	<datestamp>1246888920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm with you on this one. I've never owned a gaming console in my life. I've never run a Windows operating system in my life (on my own system; at work we have them, but you can't install games on there). The only games I get to play are through DOSBox (no complaints there) or Flash games (a lot of complaints there). Yes, you can argue I've made my choice. I've chosen not to make video games a priority in my life and I have no right to complain. I agree: I don't have a right to complain; but I certainly have a right to get excited about things like this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with you on this one .
I 've never owned a gaming console in my life .
I 've never run a Windows operating system in my life ( on my own system ; at work we have them , but you ca n't install games on there ) .
The only games I get to play are through DOSBox ( no complaints there ) or Flash games ( a lot of complaints there ) .
Yes , you can argue I 've made my choice .
I 've chosen not to make video games a priority in my life and I have no right to complain .
I agree : I do n't have a right to complain ; but I certainly have a right to get excited about things like this : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with you on this one.
I've never owned a gaming console in my life.
I've never run a Windows operating system in my life (on my own system; at work we have them, but you can't install games on there).
The only games I get to play are through DOSBox (no complaints there) or Flash games (a lot of complaints there).
Yes, you can argue I've made my choice.
I've chosen not to make video games a priority in my life and I have no right to complain.
I agree: I don't have a right to complain; but I certainly have a right to get excited about things like this :D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589073</id>
	<title>No hacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246792860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd see the biggest benefit of something like this is NO CHEATING, which is the bane of most PC games, FPS types especially.  It's pretty hard to be running a wall hack on your client if you only get sent an already rendered image from a central server!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd see the biggest benefit of something like this is NO CHEATING , which is the bane of most PC games , FPS types especially .
It 's pretty hard to be running a wall hack on your client if you only get sent an already rendered image from a central server !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd see the biggest benefit of something like this is NO CHEATING, which is the bane of most PC games, FPS types especially.
It's pretty hard to be running a wall hack on your client if you only get sent an already rendered image from a central server!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589323</id>
	<title>One place it could be useful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246795920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've gone back to student life, and have a Core2Duo laptop with Integrated Intel graphics, and an internet connection that speed tests to 86,468kbps @ 0ms ping. I'd be happy to pay a small sum for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've gone back to student life , and have a Core2Duo laptop with Integrated Intel graphics , and an internet connection that speed tests to 86,468kbps @ 0ms ping .
I 'd be happy to pay a small sum for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've gone back to student life, and have a Core2Duo laptop with Integrated Intel graphics, and an internet connection that speed tests to 86,468kbps @ 0ms ping.
I'd be happy to pay a small sum for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589059</id>
	<title>wow</title>
	<author>WillyWanker</author>
	<datestamp>1246792680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, I guess I'm the only one excited by this technology. I really don't see any downsides. I think you guys are just being whiners, as seems to be the usual around here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I guess I 'm the only one excited by this technology .
I really do n't see any downsides .
I think you guys are just being whiners , as seems to be the usual around here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I guess I'm the only one excited by this technology.
I really don't see any downsides.
I think you guys are just being whiners, as seems to be the usual around here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589337</id>
	<title>Re:No hacking</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1246796160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it certainly would be more difficult, but you could maintain a collection of the maps in different games then construct overlays based on inputs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it certainly would be more difficult , but you could maintain a collection of the maps in different games then construct overlays based on inputs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it certainly would be more difficult, but you could maintain a collection of the maps in different games then construct overlays based on inputs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28592499</id>
	<title>Re:Pickup, Play, and Resume on Multiple Devices</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246879080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How are you going to map the controls? I just don't see how can you replace the gamepad (more than dozen keys + 2 sticks) with iphone input method. Even mouse + keyboard would be a poor substitute
<br> <br>
How are you going to copy the saved game?
<br> <br>
How fast will you kill the battery receiving video stream over the internet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How are you going to map the controls ?
I just do n't see how can you replace the gamepad ( more than dozen keys + 2 sticks ) with iphone input method .
Even mouse + keyboard would be a poor substitute How are you going to copy the saved game ?
How fast will you kill the battery receiving video stream over the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are you going to map the controls?
I just don't see how can you replace the gamepad (more than dozen keys + 2 sticks) with iphone input method.
Even mouse + keyboard would be a poor substitute
 
How are you going to copy the saved game?
How fast will you kill the battery receiving video stream over the internet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589049</id>
	<title>Re:Having read TFA...</title>
	<author>blitzkrieg3</author>
	<datestamp>1246792440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Its not a good sign when a company who makes most of the classic games that people remember rejects your ideas, and I'm not sure Sony or MS wants to jump on the bandwagon (though it wouldn't surprise me if MS bought the company if they managed to turn out a decent product).</p></div><p>The console manufacturers have everything to lose and nothing to gain by helping out.  If this service succedes no one will be buying specalized gaming systems anymore and this company will be buying comodity hardware to run these games.  At best they could each have their own roku type box that connects to the service. Even with the pc games eventually this company will end up wanting volume licensing and start taking a cut of the sale.
<br> <br>
This is like going to EMI and asking to license their entire catalog for a new mp3 downloading website.  Eventually Apple and Amazon got them to do it, but this is like asking them in 2001.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not a good sign when a company who makes most of the classic games that people remember rejects your ideas , and I 'm not sure Sony or MS wants to jump on the bandwagon ( though it would n't surprise me if MS bought the company if they managed to turn out a decent product ) .The console manufacturers have everything to lose and nothing to gain by helping out .
If this service succedes no one will be buying specalized gaming systems anymore and this company will be buying comodity hardware to run these games .
At best they could each have their own roku type box that connects to the service .
Even with the pc games eventually this company will end up wanting volume licensing and start taking a cut of the sale .
This is like going to EMI and asking to license their entire catalog for a new mp3 downloading website .
Eventually Apple and Amazon got them to do it , but this is like asking them in 2001 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not a good sign when a company who makes most of the classic games that people remember rejects your ideas, and I'm not sure Sony or MS wants to jump on the bandwagon (though it wouldn't surprise me if MS bought the company if they managed to turn out a decent product).The console manufacturers have everything to lose and nothing to gain by helping out.
If this service succedes no one will be buying specalized gaming systems anymore and this company will be buying comodity hardware to run these games.
At best they could each have their own roku type box that connects to the service.
Even with the pc games eventually this company will end up wanting volume licensing and start taking a cut of the sale.
This is like going to EMI and asking to license their entire catalog for a new mp3 downloading website.
Eventually Apple and Amazon got them to do it, but this is like asking them in 2001.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589665</id>
	<title>Personal Implementation</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1246799880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to have this available for personal implementation.  Granted - I'm thinking of very niche use.  But I've attempted similar things with VNC and WoW in the past - with painful results.  I'm not expecting to take my remote display in to a raid or battleground.  But it'd be nice to be able to do auction house tasks, crafting, mailbox, banks, etc. wherever I happen to be at the time; reasonably quick tasks where a little latency isn't an issue.</p><p>Of course - it looks like their intent goes well beyond this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to have this available for personal implementation .
Granted - I 'm thinking of very niche use .
But I 've attempted similar things with VNC and WoW in the past - with painful results .
I 'm not expecting to take my remote display in to a raid or battleground .
But it 'd be nice to be able to do auction house tasks , crafting , mailbox , banks , etc .
wherever I happen to be at the time ; reasonably quick tasks where a little latency is n't an issue.Of course - it looks like their intent goes well beyond this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to have this available for personal implementation.
Granted - I'm thinking of very niche use.
But I've attempted similar things with VNC and WoW in the past - with painful results.
I'm not expecting to take my remote display in to a raid or battleground.
But it'd be nice to be able to do auction house tasks, crafting, mailbox, banks, etc.
wherever I happen to be at the time; reasonably quick tasks where a little latency isn't an issue.Of course - it looks like their intent goes well beyond this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28594769</id>
	<title>Re:this is DRM</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1246896900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I will not rent my game software.</i></p><p>Why not? There are a few games which I have bought that I wish I didn't pay full price for.</p><p>There are some classics which I have made several backups of for "just in case", but seriously... Do you play games these day? 90\% of them are shovel ware and stastically were allays going to get duped by a developer or shiny graphics (I'm LOOKING at you European Total War!) and we wish we didn't pay full price for because in a month we throw the box in a bin and forget about that game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will not rent my game software.Why not ?
There are a few games which I have bought that I wish I did n't pay full price for.There are some classics which I have made several backups of for " just in case " , but seriously... Do you play games these day ?
90 \ % of them are shovel ware and stastically were allays going to get duped by a developer or shiny graphics ( I 'm LOOKING at you European Total War !
) and we wish we did n't pay full price for because in a month we throw the box in a bin and forget about that game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will not rent my game software.Why not?
There are a few games which I have bought that I wish I didn't pay full price for.There are some classics which I have made several backups of for "just in case", but seriously... Do you play games these day?
90\% of them are shovel ware and stastically were allays going to get duped by a developer or shiny graphics (I'm LOOKING at you European Total War!
) and we wish we didn't pay full price for because in a month we throw the box in a bin and forget about that game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28592185</id>
	<title>Re:No hacking</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246874220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of proper cheat codes is, <em>to make it fun again</em>! This means that if you are stuck, and the game stops being fun, you can shortly use a cheat code and be done with it.</p><p>Cheating in multiplayer games is just a result of bad balancing. You actually have more fun when you lose half the time, than when you win all the time. If you you lose more than halt the time, something with the balancing (which includes the [automated] right choice of other players!!!) is wrong.</p><p>As a game designer, there is just no excuse for cheating players. It is your fault. Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of proper cheat codes is , to make it fun again !
This means that if you are stuck , and the game stops being fun , you can shortly use a cheat code and be done with it.Cheating in multiplayer games is just a result of bad balancing .
You actually have more fun when you lose half the time , than when you win all the time .
If you you lose more than halt the time , something with the balancing ( which includes the [ automated ] right choice of other players ! ! !
) is wrong.As a game designer , there is just no excuse for cheating players .
It is your fault .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of proper cheat codes is, to make it fun again!
This means that if you are stuck, and the game stops being fun, you can shortly use a cheat code and be done with it.Cheating in multiplayer games is just a result of bad balancing.
You actually have more fun when you lose half the time, than when you win all the time.
If you you lose more than halt the time, something with the balancing (which includes the [automated] right choice of other players!!!
) is wrong.As a game designer, there is just no excuse for cheating players.
It is your fault.
Period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28591877</id>
	<title>Re:Pickup, Play, and Resume on Multiple Devices</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1246913040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>there isn't even a ps2 emu for iPhone and I doubt its powerful enough</i></p><p>I think we can assume you're correct.  The fastest iPhone has a 600 MHz ARM Cortex processor with 2 execution units, whose base instruction set is 32-bit, but which supports 128-bit SIMD.  The PS2 has a ~400MHz 64-bit MIPS-compatible processor with 2 execution units, also implementing 128-bit SIMD.  Therefore, while the iPhone with a best-theoretically-possible emulator might manage to match or even beat the SIMD performace of the PS2, ordinary 64 bit instructions would necessarily be a little slower (taking 2 x 32-bit instructions to implement them), resulting in only a maximum of 600 being retired each microsecond, rather than 800 as the PS2 is (at least theoretically) capable of.  This is ignoring emulation overheads, of course.  And the question of emulation of the PS2's vector units, which would have to be mapped to the iPhone's GPU somehow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is n't even a ps2 emu for iPhone and I doubt its powerful enoughI think we can assume you 're correct .
The fastest iPhone has a 600 MHz ARM Cortex processor with 2 execution units , whose base instruction set is 32-bit , but which supports 128-bit SIMD .
The PS2 has a ~ 400MHz 64-bit MIPS-compatible processor with 2 execution units , also implementing 128-bit SIMD .
Therefore , while the iPhone with a best-theoretically-possible emulator might manage to match or even beat the SIMD performace of the PS2 , ordinary 64 bit instructions would necessarily be a little slower ( taking 2 x 32-bit instructions to implement them ) , resulting in only a maximum of 600 being retired each microsecond , rather than 800 as the PS2 is ( at least theoretically ) capable of .
This is ignoring emulation overheads , of course .
And the question of emulation of the PS2 's vector units , which would have to be mapped to the iPhone 's GPU somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there isn't even a ps2 emu for iPhone and I doubt its powerful enoughI think we can assume you're correct.
The fastest iPhone has a 600 MHz ARM Cortex processor with 2 execution units, whose base instruction set is 32-bit, but which supports 128-bit SIMD.
The PS2 has a ~400MHz 64-bit MIPS-compatible processor with 2 execution units, also implementing 128-bit SIMD.
Therefore, while the iPhone with a best-theoretically-possible emulator might manage to match or even beat the SIMD performace of the PS2, ordinary 64 bit instructions would necessarily be a little slower (taking 2 x 32-bit instructions to implement them), resulting in only a maximum of 600 being retired each microsecond, rather than 800 as the PS2 is (at least theoretically) capable of.
This is ignoring emulation overheads, of course.
And the question of emulation of the PS2's vector units, which would have to be mapped to the iPhone's GPU somehow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590623</id>
	<title>No Thanks. I'll play my own games on my hardware</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1246811820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate these silly game streaming ideas. Its too limiting. I would rather own my games and play them on my own hardware.</p><p>Its just a form of DRM. I would rather own POWERFUL computer hardware and the software I run on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate these silly game streaming ideas .
Its too limiting .
I would rather own my games and play them on my own hardware.Its just a form of DRM .
I would rather own POWERFUL computer hardware and the software I run on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate these silly game streaming ideas.
Its too limiting.
I would rather own my games and play them on my own hardware.Its just a form of DRM.
I would rather own POWERFUL computer hardware and the software I run on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589033</id>
	<title>Re:Next step</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1246792200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about a company trying to do all this. The answer is MS, a company with a wad of cash and markets for this (Halo on a Zune?).</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a company trying to do all this .
The answer is MS , a company with a wad of cash and markets for this ( Halo on a Zune ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a company trying to do all this.
The answer is MS, a company with a wad of cash and markets for this (Halo on a Zune?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28591935</id>
	<title>Re:Having read TFA...</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1246913940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Having read the first 2 pages of TFA, I still don't see how fast of a connection you need for these to become playable. I mean, where I live, the best connection you can get is a ~1 Megabit DSL connection</i></p><p>The company's site states that it will work with a 512kbit connection, but that for best quality you should have 2Mbit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read the first 2 pages of TFA , I still do n't see how fast of a connection you need for these to become playable .
I mean , where I live , the best connection you can get is a ~ 1 Megabit DSL connectionThe company 's site states that it will work with a 512kbit connection , but that for best quality you should have 2Mbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read the first 2 pages of TFA, I still don't see how fast of a connection you need for these to become playable.
I mean, where I live, the best connection you can get is a ~1 Megabit DSL connectionThe company's site states that it will work with a 512kbit connection, but that for best quality you should have 2Mbit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589429</id>
	<title>Re:No hacking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246797240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have been framebuffer capture based aim bots in the past already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been framebuffer capture based aim bots in the past already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been framebuffer capture based aim bots in the past already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589169</id>
	<title>Re:Having read TFA...</title>
	<author>Sporkinum</author>
	<datestamp>1246794000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Likewise.. 1 meg DSL is all we have here. The other negative, from a gamer perspective, is that this does away with resale of old software.. The used game market. I also took away from this, is that it is scaled down and in a window based on your bandwidth. Something like my connection would get 640x480 or something like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Likewise.. 1 meg DSL is all we have here .
The other negative , from a gamer perspective , is that this does away with resale of old software.. The used game market .
I also took away from this , is that it is scaled down and in a window based on your bandwidth .
Something like my connection would get 640x480 or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Likewise.. 1 meg DSL is all we have here.
The other negative, from a gamer perspective, is that this does away with resale of old software.. The used game market.
I also took away from this, is that it is scaled down and in a window based on your bandwidth.
Something like my connection would get 640x480 or something like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28604265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28594465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28591935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28595835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28591877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28594769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28592499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28592549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28593411
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_05_1948233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28592185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28604265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28592185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28593411
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589031
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28594769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28592549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28595835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28594465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28591877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28592499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28588979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589049
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589373
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28589161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28591935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_05_1948233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_05_1948233.28590587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
