<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_15_1715218</id>
	<title>Wi-Fi Direct Overlaps Bluetooth Territory For Connecting Devices</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1255627560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Reber Is Reber writes <i>"The Wi-Fi Alliance announced a new wireless networking <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/173699/wifi\_direct\_could\_be\_the\_death\_of\_bluetooth.html">specification which will enable devices to establish simple peer-to-peer wireless connections</a> without the need for a wireless router or hotspot. Wi-Fi Direct has a wide array of potential uses, many of which encroach on Bluetooth territory and threaten to make the competing wireless protocol obsolete. 'Wi-Fi Direct represents a leap forward for our industry. Wi-Fi users worldwide will benefit from a single-technology solution to transfer content and share applications quickly and easily among devices, even when a Wi-Fi access point isn't available,' said Wi-Fi Alliance executive director Edgar Figueroa. 'The impact is that Wi-Fi will become even more pervasive and useful for consumers and across the enterprise.' Ad hoc wireless networking has always been more complex and cumbersome than it is worth, and it maxes out at 11 mbps. Wi-Fi Direct will connect at existing Wi-Fi speeds-- up to 250 mbps. Wi-Fi Direct devices will also be able to broadcast their availability and seek out other Wi-Fi Direct devices. Wi-Fi Direct overlaps into Bluetooth territory. Bluetooth is a virtually ubiquitous technology used for wireless connection of devices like headphones, mice, or the ever-popular Bluetooth earpiece sticking out of everyone's head. Bluetooth uses less power, but also has a much shorter range and slower transfer speeds. Wi-Fi Direct can enable the same device connectivity as Bluetooth, but at ranges and speeds equivalent to what users experience with existing Wi-Fi connections."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reber Is Reber writes " The Wi-Fi Alliance announced a new wireless networking specification which will enable devices to establish simple peer-to-peer wireless connections without the need for a wireless router or hotspot .
Wi-Fi Direct has a wide array of potential uses , many of which encroach on Bluetooth territory and threaten to make the competing wireless protocol obsolete .
'Wi-Fi Direct represents a leap forward for our industry .
Wi-Fi users worldwide will benefit from a single-technology solution to transfer content and share applications quickly and easily among devices , even when a Wi-Fi access point is n't available, ' said Wi-Fi Alliance executive director Edgar Figueroa .
'The impact is that Wi-Fi will become even more pervasive and useful for consumers and across the enterprise .
' Ad hoc wireless networking has always been more complex and cumbersome than it is worth , and it maxes out at 11 mbps .
Wi-Fi Direct will connect at existing Wi-Fi speeds-- up to 250 mbps .
Wi-Fi Direct devices will also be able to broadcast their availability and seek out other Wi-Fi Direct devices .
Wi-Fi Direct overlaps into Bluetooth territory .
Bluetooth is a virtually ubiquitous technology used for wireless connection of devices like headphones , mice , or the ever-popular Bluetooth earpiece sticking out of everyone 's head .
Bluetooth uses less power , but also has a much shorter range and slower transfer speeds .
Wi-Fi Direct can enable the same device connectivity as Bluetooth , but at ranges and speeds equivalent to what users experience with existing Wi-Fi connections .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reber Is Reber writes "The Wi-Fi Alliance announced a new wireless networking specification which will enable devices to establish simple peer-to-peer wireless connections without the need for a wireless router or hotspot.
Wi-Fi Direct has a wide array of potential uses, many of which encroach on Bluetooth territory and threaten to make the competing wireless protocol obsolete.
'Wi-Fi Direct represents a leap forward for our industry.
Wi-Fi users worldwide will benefit from a single-technology solution to transfer content and share applications quickly and easily among devices, even when a Wi-Fi access point isn't available,' said Wi-Fi Alliance executive director Edgar Figueroa.
'The impact is that Wi-Fi will become even more pervasive and useful for consumers and across the enterprise.
' Ad hoc wireless networking has always been more complex and cumbersome than it is worth, and it maxes out at 11 mbps.
Wi-Fi Direct will connect at existing Wi-Fi speeds-- up to 250 mbps.
Wi-Fi Direct devices will also be able to broadcast their availability and seek out other Wi-Fi Direct devices.
Wi-Fi Direct overlaps into Bluetooth territory.
Bluetooth is a virtually ubiquitous technology used for wireless connection of devices like headphones, mice, or the ever-popular Bluetooth earpiece sticking out of everyone's head.
Bluetooth uses less power, but also has a much shorter range and slower transfer speeds.
Wi-Fi Direct can enable the same device connectivity as Bluetooth, but at ranges and speeds equivalent to what users experience with existing Wi-Fi connections.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29768803</id>
	<title>Ad hoc?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255708740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought my laptop already does this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought my laptop already does this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought my laptop already does this...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762801</id>
	<title>The great unsolved problem of modern computing</title>
	<author>syncrotic</author>
	<datestamp>1255602360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have two computers right next to each other. You want to get a file from one to other... good luck with that. For some totally inexplicable reason, this common situation presents us with a problem that's never been adequately solved. I've seen people sitting next to each other with laptops log on to their webmail accounts to send a file. Only to find that they can't, because the file is too large. Etc.</p><p>Let's review your options:</p><p>USB's architecture means two hosts can't talk to each other.</p><p>Firewire isn't common enough a port, and there are two connector types to worry about.</p><p>Ethernet is universal, the cables are cheap, and people might actually carry them around. You no longer need to worry about crossover cables, it's the fastest external interface on the modern PC... do we have a winner?</p><p>802.11g/n is also universal. Making a peer-to-peer network in windows isn't exactly easy though, and then you have to convince the other guy to disconnect from whatever network he's on, search the area, connect to yours... several minutes of work and a huge pain in the ass.</p><p>And all of the above suffer from the problem that they set up TCP/IP connections. Even with the autoconfig addresses that you'll get after Windows gives up on DHCP, two machines connected over TCP/IP have no practical way to talk to each other. What are you going to do, set up an FTP server? Connect to the C$ share of the other machine? Even if you were to do anything like that, you'd still need to ask for the guy's IP address first. Have fun teaching Ted from accounting about ipconfig.</p><p>What we need is something that's more than just a TCP/IP connection... something that automatically discovers the devices around you and gives you the option to easily send them a file. The standard has to specify everything right up to the application layer.</p><p>So... we need bluetooth. This is exactly the kind of problem it was made to solve.</p><p>The potential of it was ruined by two factors. First is that bluetooth continues to be a $30 option (for a $0.30 chip) on a lot of laptops. Second, and more importantly, there's the matter of the windows bluetooth stack; god help us all. Make the machine discoverable, get the other guy to search for devices in the area, pair them, exchange passkeys... all through an interface that, at least on XP, confuses the shit out of everyone.</p><p>In order for Wi-Fi direct to be useful, it will have to be more than just another way to establish a TCP/IP connection, and it will have to let go of this ridiculous obsession with security: pairing and discoverability and pass keys and all that nonsense. Christ, just let two machines talk to each other.</p><p>Remember IRDA? It wasn't exactly popular, but it worked. Two computers get in range, windows makes a neat little sound, and you get a systray icon you can click to immediately send files. That's the way it should be. The one time I ever managed to use it, it was glorious.</p><p>The solution we've managed to come up with in the absence of this capability is sneakernet for the 21st century: the USB flash drive. At least they're cheap and common now... there was a time when two computers sitting next to each other really had *no* options at all. Now we have these... they're not particularly fast, you're likely but by no means guaranteed to have one lying around, and whatever disposable cereal-box prize you're likely to be using will always have just a little less capacity than you need.</p><p>Damn it, it's the future. I want to beam files from one computer to another. Why can't I?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have two computers right next to each other .
You want to get a file from one to other... good luck with that .
For some totally inexplicable reason , this common situation presents us with a problem that 's never been adequately solved .
I 've seen people sitting next to each other with laptops log on to their webmail accounts to send a file .
Only to find that they ca n't , because the file is too large .
Etc.Let 's review your options : USB 's architecture means two hosts ca n't talk to each other.Firewire is n't common enough a port , and there are two connector types to worry about.Ethernet is universal , the cables are cheap , and people might actually carry them around .
You no longer need to worry about crossover cables , it 's the fastest external interface on the modern PC... do we have a winner ? 802.11g/n is also universal .
Making a peer-to-peer network in windows is n't exactly easy though , and then you have to convince the other guy to disconnect from whatever network he 's on , search the area , connect to yours... several minutes of work and a huge pain in the ass.And all of the above suffer from the problem that they set up TCP/IP connections .
Even with the autoconfig addresses that you 'll get after Windows gives up on DHCP , two machines connected over TCP/IP have no practical way to talk to each other .
What are you going to do , set up an FTP server ?
Connect to the C $ share of the other machine ?
Even if you were to do anything like that , you 'd still need to ask for the guy 's IP address first .
Have fun teaching Ted from accounting about ipconfig.What we need is something that 's more than just a TCP/IP connection... something that automatically discovers the devices around you and gives you the option to easily send them a file .
The standard has to specify everything right up to the application layer.So... we need bluetooth .
This is exactly the kind of problem it was made to solve.The potential of it was ruined by two factors .
First is that bluetooth continues to be a $ 30 option ( for a $ 0.30 chip ) on a lot of laptops .
Second , and more importantly , there 's the matter of the windows bluetooth stack ; god help us all .
Make the machine discoverable , get the other guy to search for devices in the area , pair them , exchange passkeys... all through an interface that , at least on XP , confuses the shit out of everyone.In order for Wi-Fi direct to be useful , it will have to be more than just another way to establish a TCP/IP connection , and it will have to let go of this ridiculous obsession with security : pairing and discoverability and pass keys and all that nonsense .
Christ , just let two machines talk to each other.Remember IRDA ?
It was n't exactly popular , but it worked .
Two computers get in range , windows makes a neat little sound , and you get a systray icon you can click to immediately send files .
That 's the way it should be .
The one time I ever managed to use it , it was glorious.The solution we 've managed to come up with in the absence of this capability is sneakernet for the 21st century : the USB flash drive .
At least they 're cheap and common now... there was a time when two computers sitting next to each other really had * no * options at all .
Now we have these... they 're not particularly fast , you 're likely but by no means guaranteed to have one lying around , and whatever disposable cereal-box prize you 're likely to be using will always have just a little less capacity than you need.Damn it , it 's the future .
I want to beam files from one computer to another .
Why ca n't I ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have two computers right next to each other.
You want to get a file from one to other... good luck with that.
For some totally inexplicable reason, this common situation presents us with a problem that's never been adequately solved.
I've seen people sitting next to each other with laptops log on to their webmail accounts to send a file.
Only to find that they can't, because the file is too large.
Etc.Let's review your options:USB's architecture means two hosts can't talk to each other.Firewire isn't common enough a port, and there are two connector types to worry about.Ethernet is universal, the cables are cheap, and people might actually carry them around.
You no longer need to worry about crossover cables, it's the fastest external interface on the modern PC... do we have a winner?802.11g/n is also universal.
Making a peer-to-peer network in windows isn't exactly easy though, and then you have to convince the other guy to disconnect from whatever network he's on, search the area, connect to yours... several minutes of work and a huge pain in the ass.And all of the above suffer from the problem that they set up TCP/IP connections.
Even with the autoconfig addresses that you'll get after Windows gives up on DHCP, two machines connected over TCP/IP have no practical way to talk to each other.
What are you going to do, set up an FTP server?
Connect to the C$ share of the other machine?
Even if you were to do anything like that, you'd still need to ask for the guy's IP address first.
Have fun teaching Ted from accounting about ipconfig.What we need is something that's more than just a TCP/IP connection... something that automatically discovers the devices around you and gives you the option to easily send them a file.
The standard has to specify everything right up to the application layer.So... we need bluetooth.
This is exactly the kind of problem it was made to solve.The potential of it was ruined by two factors.
First is that bluetooth continues to be a $30 option (for a $0.30 chip) on a lot of laptops.
Second, and more importantly, there's the matter of the windows bluetooth stack; god help us all.
Make the machine discoverable, get the other guy to search for devices in the area, pair them, exchange passkeys... all through an interface that, at least on XP, confuses the shit out of everyone.In order for Wi-Fi direct to be useful, it will have to be more than just another way to establish a TCP/IP connection, and it will have to let go of this ridiculous obsession with security: pairing and discoverability and pass keys and all that nonsense.
Christ, just let two machines talk to each other.Remember IRDA?
It wasn't exactly popular, but it worked.
Two computers get in range, windows makes a neat little sound, and you get a systray icon you can click to immediately send files.
That's the way it should be.
The one time I ever managed to use it, it was glorious.The solution we've managed to come up with in the absence of this capability is sneakernet for the 21st century: the USB flash drive.
At least they're cheap and common now... there was a time when two computers sitting next to each other really had *no* options at all.
Now we have these... they're not particularly fast, you're likely but by no means guaranteed to have one lying around, and whatever disposable cereal-box prize you're likely to be using will always have just a little less capacity than you need.Damn it, it's the future.
I want to beam files from one computer to another.
Why can't I?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29771081</id>
	<title>Re:The beef of Bluetooth is in profiles, not the l</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255720140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Bluetooth 3.0 + HS spec does exactly what you mentioned -- it takes the Bluetooth profiles, and runs them on top of WiFi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Bluetooth 3.0 + HS spec does exactly what you mentioned -- it takes the Bluetooth profiles , and runs them on top of WiFi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Bluetooth 3.0 + HS spec does exactly what you mentioned -- it takes the Bluetooth profiles, and runs them on top of WiFi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761037</id>
	<title>Re:The beef of Bluetooth is in profiles, not the l</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1255637700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The nice thing is not the physical link, it's the fact that I can grab any headset and connect it with any phone.</p></div></blockquote><p>So I'm guessing you've never actually used bluetooth devices?</p><p>I've used bluetooth on many different devices.  Phones, PCs, cars, ect.  I can only think of ONE time that bluetooth has 'just worked'.  And by just worked I mean it paired off the start and worked the first time.  Second use it just didn't.</p><p>I'm not sure what devices you are using, but in my experience bluetooth is a buggy unfriendly useless pile of shit that just adds another transmitter receiver pair to a device which already has two actually useful radios already on it.</p><p>Bluetooth pairing and profiles may be a great idea, but if the implementations are any indication of how it would be over wifi, then let the worthless POS die now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The nice thing is not the physical link , it 's the fact that I can grab any headset and connect it with any phone.So I 'm guessing you 've never actually used bluetooth devices ? I 've used bluetooth on many different devices .
Phones , PCs , cars , ect .
I can only think of ONE time that bluetooth has 'just worked' .
And by just worked I mean it paired off the start and worked the first time .
Second use it just did n't.I 'm not sure what devices you are using , but in my experience bluetooth is a buggy unfriendly useless pile of shit that just adds another transmitter receiver pair to a device which already has two actually useful radios already on it.Bluetooth pairing and profiles may be a great idea , but if the implementations are any indication of how it would be over wifi , then let the worthless POS die now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The nice thing is not the physical link, it's the fact that I can grab any headset and connect it with any phone.So I'm guessing you've never actually used bluetooth devices?I've used bluetooth on many different devices.
Phones, PCs, cars, ect.
I can only think of ONE time that bluetooth has 'just worked'.
And by just worked I mean it paired off the start and worked the first time.
Second use it just didn't.I'm not sure what devices you are using, but in my experience bluetooth is a buggy unfriendly useless pile of shit that just adds another transmitter receiver pair to a device which already has two actually useful radios already on it.Bluetooth pairing and profiles may be a great idea, but if the implementations are any indication of how it would be over wifi, then let the worthless POS die now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760245</id>
	<title>Proper Brain Preparation</title>
	<author>TheMeuge</author>
	<datestamp>1255633920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On behalf of the zombie coaltion, I'm going to ask you to discontinue your suggestions that transmit power of your microwave devices be turned down. Currently, the power emitted is sufficient to get your brains to just the right consistency and temperature to provide a perfect snack. That will not be the case with lower-power devices, and I, for instance, simply don't think that anyone can appreciate a cold brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On behalf of the zombie coaltion , I 'm going to ask you to discontinue your suggestions that transmit power of your microwave devices be turned down .
Currently , the power emitted is sufficient to get your brains to just the right consistency and temperature to provide a perfect snack .
That will not be the case with lower-power devices , and I , for instance , simply do n't think that anyone can appreciate a cold brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On behalf of the zombie coaltion, I'm going to ask you to discontinue your suggestions that transmit power of your microwave devices be turned down.
Currently, the power emitted is sufficient to get your brains to just the right consistency and temperature to provide a perfect snack.
That will not be the case with lower-power devices, and I, for instance, simply don't think that anyone can appreciate a cold brain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29767549</id>
	<title>Re:Bluetooth Improvement</title>
	<author>Tejin</author>
	<datestamp>1255701060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tangential thought here <p>
Is there a chip that can do both wifi and bluetooth? They seem fairly similar, would it not be just a bit of firmware hocus pocus, and maybe two different antennae, to make either one work? RF communication is RF communication, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tangential thought here Is there a chip that can do both wifi and bluetooth ?
They seem fairly similar , would it not be just a bit of firmware hocus pocus , and maybe two different antennae , to make either one work ?
RF communication is RF communication , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tangential thought here 
Is there a chip that can do both wifi and bluetooth?
They seem fairly similar, would it not be just a bit of firmware hocus pocus, and maybe two different antennae, to make either one work?
RF communication is RF communication, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753</id>
	<title>"bluetooth uses less power"</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1255631880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bluetooth uses less power"  Well, yes and no.</p><p>At full transmit power, yea, by a lot.  Dial back the dB of the anteanna, and you can make WiFi would for very similar, and possibly less power draw.</p><p>If an intelligent WiFi driver is added, power use could by dytnamic, scaling up and down based on range and interference, for the direct connect devices.  A multi radio device could potentially use 2 anteanna, one for short range and 1 for traditional AP connections, simultaneously, and might have a quite reasonable power draw compared to using both WiFi and bluetooth concurrently.</p><p>Since it has yet to be released in such a fashion, we don;t really have any good data on the energy draw.</p><p>A simple P2P only connection, without WiFi otherwise active, yea, bluetooth is probably going to use less power.  How many of us have WiFi enabled devices where the WiFi is not left on 24x7 when the device is on regardless of the connectivity, so one could easily argue that WiFi P2P has 0 additional power draw, and simply turning bluetooth on would draw more power.</p><p>I can turn off WiFi on the iPhone, but it's a pain to have to do so all the time.  It's worse on most other devices...  With WiFi on 24x7, my phone outlasts my use needs each day.  turning off bluetooth (which i did recently when I cruched a headset and had to wait a few weeks to get a new one) improved the battery life dramatically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bluetooth uses less power " Well , yes and no.At full transmit power , yea , by a lot .
Dial back the dB of the anteanna , and you can make WiFi would for very similar , and possibly less power draw.If an intelligent WiFi driver is added , power use could by dytnamic , scaling up and down based on range and interference , for the direct connect devices .
A multi radio device could potentially use 2 anteanna , one for short range and 1 for traditional AP connections , simultaneously , and might have a quite reasonable power draw compared to using both WiFi and bluetooth concurrently.Since it has yet to be released in such a fashion , we don ; t really have any good data on the energy draw.A simple P2P only connection , without WiFi otherwise active , yea , bluetooth is probably going to use less power .
How many of us have WiFi enabled devices where the WiFi is not left on 24x7 when the device is on regardless of the connectivity , so one could easily argue that WiFi P2P has 0 additional power draw , and simply turning bluetooth on would draw more power.I can turn off WiFi on the iPhone , but it 's a pain to have to do so all the time .
It 's worse on most other devices... With WiFi on 24x7 , my phone outlasts my use needs each day .
turning off bluetooth ( which i did recently when I cruched a headset and had to wait a few weeks to get a new one ) improved the battery life dramatically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bluetooth uses less power"  Well, yes and no.At full transmit power, yea, by a lot.
Dial back the dB of the anteanna, and you can make WiFi would for very similar, and possibly less power draw.If an intelligent WiFi driver is added, power use could by dytnamic, scaling up and down based on range and interference, for the direct connect devices.
A multi radio device could potentially use 2 anteanna, one for short range and 1 for traditional AP connections, simultaneously, and might have a quite reasonable power draw compared to using both WiFi and bluetooth concurrently.Since it has yet to be released in such a fashion, we don;t really have any good data on the energy draw.A simple P2P only connection, without WiFi otherwise active, yea, bluetooth is probably going to use less power.
How many of us have WiFi enabled devices where the WiFi is not left on 24x7 when the device is on regardless of the connectivity, so one could easily argue that WiFi P2P has 0 additional power draw, and simply turning bluetooth on would draw more power.I can turn off WiFi on the iPhone, but it's a pain to have to do so all the time.
It's worse on most other devices...  With WiFi on 24x7, my phone outlasts my use needs each day.
turning off bluetooth (which i did recently when I cruched a headset and had to wait a few weeks to get a new one) improved the battery life dramatically.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759695</id>
	<title>Security</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1255631640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wi-Fi Direct will include support for WPA2 (Wi-Fi Protected Access 2) and AES encryption for more secure connections and measures are being developed to enable IT admins to exert some control over Wi-Fi Direct networks within their environment.</p></div><p>Please don't "include support"<br>You're writing the spec, REQUIRE THAT IT BE USED.</p><p>We're in the 21st century, security should no longer be an after thought.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wi-Fi Direct will include support for WPA2 ( Wi-Fi Protected Access 2 ) and AES encryption for more secure connections and measures are being developed to enable IT admins to exert some control over Wi-Fi Direct networks within their environment.Please do n't " include support " You 're writing the spec , REQUIRE THAT IT BE USED.We 're in the 21st century , security should no longer be an after thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wi-Fi Direct will include support for WPA2 (Wi-Fi Protected Access 2) and AES encryption for more secure connections and measures are being developed to enable IT admins to exert some control over Wi-Fi Direct networks within their environment.Please don't "include support"You're writing the spec, REQUIRE THAT IT BE USED.We're in the 21st century, security should no longer be an after thought.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761143</id>
	<title>Re:"bluetooth uses less power"</title>
	<author>BOFslime</author>
	<datestamp>1255638240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can turn off WiFi on the iPhone, but it's a pain to have to do so all the time.  It's worse on most other devices...  With WiFi on 24x7, my phone outlasts my use needs each day.  turning off bluetooth (which i did recently when I cruched a headset and had to wait a few weeks to get a new one) improved the battery life dramatically.</p></div><p>This is actually incredibly easy on the android platform, apps made this easier in 1.0, widgets made this accessible from the home screens in 1.5, and 1.6 added native support with a control bar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can turn off WiFi on the iPhone , but it 's a pain to have to do so all the time .
It 's worse on most other devices... With WiFi on 24x7 , my phone outlasts my use needs each day .
turning off bluetooth ( which i did recently when I cruched a headset and had to wait a few weeks to get a new one ) improved the battery life dramatically.This is actually incredibly easy on the android platform , apps made this easier in 1.0 , widgets made this accessible from the home screens in 1.5 , and 1.6 added native support with a control bar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can turn off WiFi on the iPhone, but it's a pain to have to do so all the time.
It's worse on most other devices...  With WiFi on 24x7, my phone outlasts my use needs each day.
turning off bluetooth (which i did recently when I cruched a headset and had to wait a few weeks to get a new one) improved the battery life dramatically.This is actually incredibly easy on the android platform, apps made this easier in 1.0, widgets made this accessible from the home screens in 1.5, and 1.6 added native support with a control bar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685</id>
	<title>The beef of Bluetooth is in profiles, not the link</title>
	<author>Zarhan</author>
	<datestamp>1255631640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless they come up with feature equivalent to the tons of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth\_profile" title="wikipedia.org">profiles</a> [wikipedia.org] that Bluetooth has, I doubt it'll catch on. The nice thing is not the physical link, it's the fact that I can grab any headset and connect it with any phone. I recently bought a new car that has bluetooth-supporting radio, I can pair my Nokia phone with it, and so can my friend with his Samsung phone. The thing can also import names to the hands-free operated phonebook using the SIM access profile.</p><p>Of course, if they'll just use the profiles part of bluetooth spec and change the physical radio interface to 802.11...well, I guess you could do that, but what's the point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they come up with feature equivalent to the tons of profiles [ wikipedia.org ] that Bluetooth has , I doubt it 'll catch on .
The nice thing is not the physical link , it 's the fact that I can grab any headset and connect it with any phone .
I recently bought a new car that has bluetooth-supporting radio , I can pair my Nokia phone with it , and so can my friend with his Samsung phone .
The thing can also import names to the hands-free operated phonebook using the SIM access profile.Of course , if they 'll just use the profiles part of bluetooth spec and change the physical radio interface to 802.11...well , I guess you could do that , but what 's the point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they come up with feature equivalent to the tons of profiles [wikipedia.org] that Bluetooth has, I doubt it'll catch on.
The nice thing is not the physical link, it's the fact that I can grab any headset and connect it with any phone.
I recently bought a new car that has bluetooth-supporting radio, I can pair my Nokia phone with it, and so can my friend with his Samsung phone.
The thing can also import names to the hands-free operated phonebook using the SIM access profile.Of course, if they'll just use the profiles part of bluetooth spec and change the physical radio interface to 802.11...well, I guess you could do that, but what's the point?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760093</id>
	<title>Peer-to-peer cell networks</title>
	<author>Nerdposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1255633320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...peer to peer telephony. If it got big enough we could put the cell companies out of business.</p></div></blockquote><p>I've thought about this too, and it's REALLY cool idea, but I'm not sure if it would work. Even with the internet, not every user's computer is also a server or switch. Phones add the complication of intermittent connections and limited battery power.</p><p>Could a mesh network of cell phones function independent of towers? Does anybody who has more knowledge of networking than I do want to chime in?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...peer to peer telephony .
If it got big enough we could put the cell companies out of business.I 've thought about this too , and it 's REALLY cool idea , but I 'm not sure if it would work .
Even with the internet , not every user 's computer is also a server or switch .
Phones add the complication of intermittent connections and limited battery power.Could a mesh network of cell phones function independent of towers ?
Does anybody who has more knowledge of networking than I do want to chime in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...peer to peer telephony.
If it got big enough we could put the cell companies out of business.I've thought about this too, and it's REALLY cool idea, but I'm not sure if it would work.
Even with the internet, not every user's computer is also a server or switch.
Phones add the complication of intermittent connections and limited battery power.Could a mesh network of cell phones function independent of towers?
Does anybody who has more knowledge of networking than I do want to chime in?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759733</id>
	<title>Re:P2P=Pirate2Pirate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255631820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/9599/piracyjq1.png" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">file sharing is not piracy</a> [imageshack.us]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>file sharing is not piracy [ imageshack.us ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>file sharing is not piracy [imageshack.us]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761881</id>
	<title>Re:The beef of Bluetooth is in profiles, not the l</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1255598760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I recently bought a new car that has bluetooth-supporting radio, I can pair my Nokia phone with it, and so can my friend with his Samsung phone. The thing can also import names to the hands-free operated phonebook using the SIM access profile.</p></div><p>Yeah, this has been trickling down through the car market for a few years.  My 2005 can do the pairing and the phonebook, and with the car's voice command system I can just push a button then say "Call Home" or "Call Victor" or "Call CowboyNeal" and it finds and dials the number.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently bought a new car that has bluetooth-supporting radio , I can pair my Nokia phone with it , and so can my friend with his Samsung phone .
The thing can also import names to the hands-free operated phonebook using the SIM access profile.Yeah , this has been trickling down through the car market for a few years .
My 2005 can do the pairing and the phonebook , and with the car 's voice command system I can just push a button then say " Call Home " or " Call Victor " or " Call CowboyNeal " and it finds and dials the number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently bought a new car that has bluetooth-supporting radio, I can pair my Nokia phone with it, and so can my friend with his Samsung phone.
The thing can also import names to the hands-free operated phonebook using the SIM access profile.Yeah, this has been trickling down through the car market for a few years.
My 2005 can do the pairing and the phonebook, and with the car's voice command system I can just push a button then say "Call Home" or "Call Victor" or "Call CowboyNeal" and it finds and dials the number.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29767197</id>
	<title>Used to be called</title>
	<author>Geheimagent</author>
	<datestamp>1255696920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ad-Hoc Mode. What's new about this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ad-Hoc Mode .
What 's new about this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ad-Hoc Mode.
What's new about this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760631</id>
	<title>Re:Wireless devices with Master Mode Support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255635720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One can only hope.  Ubiquitous wireless mesh networking would be cool, not to mention very damage resistant.  I would love for all my devices at home to be able to use something like this.  Imagine your TV streaming Hidef content from your computer in another room, or your appliances all hooked into the home network so you can optimize power draw... essentially making your entire house a small smart grid.  If every device that has one of these is given a little bit of router smarts then everything could interconnect and router traffic throughout teh home.  There really are a lot of possibilities for tech like this.  You could for instance have one in your car and have it connected to your home network.  Find where you want to go and your GPS in the car could be automatically programmed to have that destination.  Make a new playlist and have the music player in the car automatically updated with the songs you want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One can only hope .
Ubiquitous wireless mesh networking would be cool , not to mention very damage resistant .
I would love for all my devices at home to be able to use something like this .
Imagine your TV streaming Hidef content from your computer in another room , or your appliances all hooked into the home network so you can optimize power draw... essentially making your entire house a small smart grid .
If every device that has one of these is given a little bit of router smarts then everything could interconnect and router traffic throughout teh home .
There really are a lot of possibilities for tech like this .
You could for instance have one in your car and have it connected to your home network .
Find where you want to go and your GPS in the car could be automatically programmed to have that destination .
Make a new playlist and have the music player in the car automatically updated with the songs you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can only hope.
Ubiquitous wireless mesh networking would be cool, not to mention very damage resistant.
I would love for all my devices at home to be able to use something like this.
Imagine your TV streaming Hidef content from your computer in another room, or your appliances all hooked into the home network so you can optimize power draw... essentially making your entire house a small smart grid.
If every device that has one of these is given a little bit of router smarts then everything could interconnect and router traffic throughout teh home.
There really are a lot of possibilities for tech like this.
You could for instance have one in your car and have it connected to your home network.
Find where you want to go and your GPS in the car could be automatically programmed to have that destination.
Make a new playlist and have the music player in the car automatically updated with the songs you want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760083</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>mpoulton</author>
	<datestamp>1255633260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Please don't "include support"
You're writing the spec, REQUIRE THAT IT BE USED.</p><p>We're in the 21st century, security should no longer be an after thought.</p></div><p>

What if I don't want to encrypt something?  You think I should be required to, even if there's absolutely no reason to do it in a particular application?  Encryption is simply not required in every context.  Recall that, until the last decade or so, most wireless voice systems used plain analog radios which could be received with common equipment - and it rarely caused problems.  I'll choose whether to encrypt, thank you very much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please do n't " include support " You 're writing the spec , REQUIRE THAT IT BE USED.We 're in the 21st century , security should no longer be an after thought .
What if I do n't want to encrypt something ?
You think I should be required to , even if there 's absolutely no reason to do it in a particular application ?
Encryption is simply not required in every context .
Recall that , until the last decade or so , most wireless voice systems used plain analog radios which could be received with common equipment - and it rarely caused problems .
I 'll choose whether to encrypt , thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please don't "include support"
You're writing the spec, REQUIRE THAT IT BE USED.We're in the 21st century, security should no longer be an after thought.
What if I don't want to encrypt something?
You think I should be required to, even if there's absolutely no reason to do it in a particular application?
Encryption is simply not required in every context.
Recall that, until the last decade or so, most wireless voice systems used plain analog radios which could be received with common equipment - and it rarely caused problems.
I'll choose whether to encrypt, thank you very much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759995</id>
	<title>Re:"bluetooth uses less power"</title>
	<author>autocracy</author>
	<datestamp>1255632900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The antenna isn't what determines the amount of power used to transmit. A suited antenna can make a transmitter more efficient; alternately, it can be so badly tuned that the transmitter fries because most of the energy is reflected back. My handheld amateur radio can transmit on 2 meters at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.05, 1, 2.5 or 5 watts. Regardless of power used, unless the load is so big it would melt the antenna, the same antenna is optimal regardless of the power input. I know my Linksys access point could have its settings changed and the transmitter powered adjusted at will.<br><br>In terms of the iPhone, my understanding is this: the WiFi system is only on when the phone is active (lit screen). Nothing ever wakes the iPhone by WiFi. I don't feel up for testing it because I'm not at home, but you can check this by trying to ping your phone when it is asleep. The bluetooth system is always listening (it takes power to listen, so this draw is constant even when the phone is in your pocket) because devices will initiate a connection to the phone. The same with the cellular bands so you can receive calls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The antenna is n't what determines the amount of power used to transmit .
A suited antenna can make a transmitter more efficient ; alternately , it can be so badly tuned that the transmitter fries because most of the energy is reflected back .
My handheld amateur radio can transmit on 2 meters at .05 , 1 , 2.5 or 5 watts .
Regardless of power used , unless the load is so big it would melt the antenna , the same antenna is optimal regardless of the power input .
I know my Linksys access point could have its settings changed and the transmitter powered adjusted at will.In terms of the iPhone , my understanding is this : the WiFi system is only on when the phone is active ( lit screen ) .
Nothing ever wakes the iPhone by WiFi .
I do n't feel up for testing it because I 'm not at home , but you can check this by trying to ping your phone when it is asleep .
The bluetooth system is always listening ( it takes power to listen , so this draw is constant even when the phone is in your pocket ) because devices will initiate a connection to the phone .
The same with the cellular bands so you can receive calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The antenna isn't what determines the amount of power used to transmit.
A suited antenna can make a transmitter more efficient; alternately, it can be so badly tuned that the transmitter fries because most of the energy is reflected back.
My handheld amateur radio can transmit on 2 meters at .05, 1, 2.5 or 5 watts.
Regardless of power used, unless the load is so big it would melt the antenna, the same antenna is optimal regardless of the power input.
I know my Linksys access point could have its settings changed and the transmitter powered adjusted at will.In terms of the iPhone, my understanding is this: the WiFi system is only on when the phone is active (lit screen).
Nothing ever wakes the iPhone by WiFi.
I don't feel up for testing it because I'm not at home, but you can check this by trying to ping your phone when it is asleep.
The bluetooth system is always listening (it takes power to listen, so this draw is constant even when the phone is in your pocket) because devices will initiate a connection to the phone.
The same with the cellular bands so you can receive calls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760331</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1255634220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But I think it will be a while, at least for the phones. Just about all cell phones have bluetooth, but I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi.</p></div></blockquote><p>


Then you haven't been looking. T-Mobile offers a Wifi UMA service (Hotspot or whatever they are calling it this week). There are a few blackberries, Nokia and Samsung phones that support this. However, this is traditional WiFi, not any kind of peer-to-peer capability and<b> battery life with the WiFi radio turned on is about half without WiFi.</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I think it will be a while , at least for the phones .
Just about all cell phones have bluetooth , but I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi .
Then you have n't been looking .
T-Mobile offers a Wifi UMA service ( Hotspot or whatever they are calling it this week ) .
There are a few blackberries , Nokia and Samsung phones that support this .
However , this is traditional WiFi , not any kind of peer-to-peer capability and battery life with the WiFi radio turned on is about half without WiFi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I think it will be a while, at least for the phones.
Just about all cell phones have bluetooth, but I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi.
Then you haven't been looking.
T-Mobile offers a Wifi UMA service (Hotspot or whatever they are calling it this week).
There are a few blackberries, Nokia and Samsung phones that support this.
However, this is traditional WiFi, not any kind of peer-to-peer capability and battery life with the WiFi radio turned on is about half without WiFi.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</id>
	<title>Sounds good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255631520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I think it will be a while, at least for the phones. Just about all cell phones have bluetooth, but I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi.</p><p>Also, with phones, bluetooth makes a bit more sense to me, as it seems that (I could be wrong) bluetooth would use less power than wifi, why else its more limited range?</p><p>What excites me about this is something I've thought about for a while and mentioned once or twice here -- peer to peer telephony. If it got big enough we could put the cell companies out of business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I think it will be a while , at least for the phones .
Just about all cell phones have bluetooth , but I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi.Also , with phones , bluetooth makes a bit more sense to me , as it seems that ( I could be wrong ) bluetooth would use less power than wifi , why else its more limited range ? What excites me about this is something I 've thought about for a while and mentioned once or twice here -- peer to peer telephony .
If it got big enough we could put the cell companies out of business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I think it will be a while, at least for the phones.
Just about all cell phones have bluetooth, but I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi.Also, with phones, bluetooth makes a bit more sense to me, as it seems that (I could be wrong) bluetooth would use less power than wifi, why else its more limited range?What excites me about this is something I've thought about for a while and mentioned once or twice here -- peer to peer telephony.
If it got big enough we could put the cell companies out of business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762651</id>
	<title>Re:up to 250 mbps?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255601820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>so what do expect out of a wireless connection? 250gbps = 250 billibits per second?</htmltext>
<tokenext>so what do expect out of a wireless connection ?
250gbps = 250 billibits per second ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so what do expect out of a wireless connection?
250gbps = 250 billibits per second?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29764109</id>
	<title>Bluetooth is dying? Good Riddance</title>
	<author>mbessey</author>
	<datestamp>1255609440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having been involved with certifying portable electronics for both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi standards, let me say that anything that kills off Bluetooth is alright with me. That's the most bizarre, obtuse standard it's ever been my displeasure to work with.</p><p>The folks at the Bluetooth SIG are nice enough to deal with, but their standard is ridiculously over-the-top. It's thousands of pages, and almost everything in it is optional. If I was looking for a case study in how not to develop a standard for interoperability, I know right where I'd start.</p><p>It's basically a miracle if anything other than passphrase-based connect and the Headset profile works between any two Bluetooth-enabled devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having been involved with certifying portable electronics for both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi standards , let me say that anything that kills off Bluetooth is alright with me .
That 's the most bizarre , obtuse standard it 's ever been my displeasure to work with.The folks at the Bluetooth SIG are nice enough to deal with , but their standard is ridiculously over-the-top .
It 's thousands of pages , and almost everything in it is optional .
If I was looking for a case study in how not to develop a standard for interoperability , I know right where I 'd start.It 's basically a miracle if anything other than passphrase-based connect and the Headset profile works between any two Bluetooth-enabled devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having been involved with certifying portable electronics for both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi standards, let me say that anything that kills off Bluetooth is alright with me.
That's the most bizarre, obtuse standard it's ever been my displeasure to work with.The folks at the Bluetooth SIG are nice enough to deal with, but their standard is ridiculously over-the-top.
It's thousands of pages, and almost everything in it is optional.
If I was looking for a case study in how not to develop a standard for interoperability, I know right where I'd start.It's basically a miracle if anything other than passphrase-based connect and the Headset profile works between any two Bluetooth-enabled devices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763213</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1255604280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention, I don't want a high power radio device right next to my head.</p><p>Bluetooth is one thing, but have you seen how hot some of those Wifi chipsets/antennas get? Now imagine all that stuff being blasted through your head. If you believe any of the cancer claims, stick with lower output wireless like Bluetooth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention , I do n't want a high power radio device right next to my head.Bluetooth is one thing , but have you seen how hot some of those Wifi chipsets/antennas get ?
Now imagine all that stuff being blasted through your head .
If you believe any of the cancer claims , stick with lower output wireless like Bluetooth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention, I don't want a high power radio device right next to my head.Bluetooth is one thing, but have you seen how hot some of those Wifi chipsets/antennas get?
Now imagine all that stuff being blasted through your head.
If you believe any of the cancer claims, stick with lower output wireless like Bluetooth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29767003</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1255693260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if you do encrypt when you don't need it, all you lose is a fraction of performance.<br>If you don't encrypt when you do need it, all you lose could be all you have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you do encrypt when you do n't need it , all you lose is a fraction of performance.If you do n't encrypt when you do need it , all you lose could be all you have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you do encrypt when you don't need it, all you lose is a fraction of performance.If you don't encrypt when you do need it, all you lose could be all you have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760373</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1255634400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's pile on here.</p><p>My wife's Curve has WiFi, but doesn't make calls on it.</p><p>My G1 ditto.</p><p>It would be interesting to do P2P, especially when she asks again how to put 'music on her phone'.</p><p>And for you pirate-baiters, it's HER music.  Written, produced, and performed by her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's pile on here.My wife 's Curve has WiFi , but does n't make calls on it.My G1 ditto.It would be interesting to do P2P , especially when she asks again how to put 'music on her phone'.And for you pirate-baiters , it 's HER music .
Written , produced , and performed by her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's pile on here.My wife's Curve has WiFi, but doesn't make calls on it.My G1 ditto.It would be interesting to do P2P, especially when she asks again how to put 'music on her phone'.And for you pirate-baiters, it's HER music.
Written, produced, and performed by her.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762127</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>steve\_bryan</author>
	<datestamp>1255600080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Were those phones available more than two years ago? That is when the first iPhones and iPod touches became available and loudly proclaimed their wifi capability. Even now almost all the public wifi use is by Apple products including MacBooks, iPhones, and iPod touches according to reports that have been published. It hardly seems appropriate that the original poster be pilloried or that Apple marketing be ascribed some magical power to cloud the minds of the masses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Were those phones available more than two years ago ?
That is when the first iPhones and iPod touches became available and loudly proclaimed their wifi capability .
Even now almost all the public wifi use is by Apple products including MacBooks , iPhones , and iPod touches according to reports that have been published .
It hardly seems appropriate that the original poster be pilloried or that Apple marketing be ascribed some magical power to cloud the minds of the masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were those phones available more than two years ago?
That is when the first iPhones and iPod touches became available and loudly proclaimed their wifi capability.
Even now almost all the public wifi use is by Apple products including MacBooks, iPhones, and iPod touches according to reports that have been published.
It hardly seems appropriate that the original poster be pilloried or that Apple marketing be ascribed some magical power to cloud the minds of the masses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760127</id>
	<title>Power Consumption</title>
	<author>dlevitan</author>
	<datestamp>1255633440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of Bluetooth is not to transfer gigabytes of data. The point of bluetooth is to be able to connect a headset to a cell phone while barely lowering the battery life. The point of bluetooth is to be able to have wireless headphones that can run on a small battery. Wifi direct will be great for printers and the like, but Bluetooth is not going anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of Bluetooth is not to transfer gigabytes of data .
The point of bluetooth is to be able to connect a headset to a cell phone while barely lowering the battery life .
The point of bluetooth is to be able to have wireless headphones that can run on a small battery .
Wifi direct will be great for printers and the like , but Bluetooth is not going anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of Bluetooth is not to transfer gigabytes of data.
The point of bluetooth is to be able to connect a headset to a cell phone while barely lowering the battery life.
The point of bluetooth is to be able to have wireless headphones that can run on a small battery.
Wifi direct will be great for printers and the like, but Bluetooth is not going anywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760773</id>
	<title>Far too slow</title>
	<author>ebbe11</author>
	<datestamp>1255636440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A speed of 250 mbps is not going to cut it. They need speeds measured in Mbps if it is going to be a success.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A speed of 250 mbps is not going to cut it .
They need speeds measured in Mbps if it is going to be a success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A speed of 250 mbps is not going to cut it.
They need speeds measured in Mbps if it is going to be a success.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761893</id>
	<title>Re:Wireless devices with Master Mode Support</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1255598940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think this is more of a way to certify ad-hoc mode. Infrastructure mode is what the WiFi Alliance tends to test the most, but ad-hoc can be quite iffy - it sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. That and security settings make it somewhat interesting. (Note that ad-hoc mode has been well-defined by the 802.11 spec).</p><p>I think this is a way to standardize security and setup of ad-hoc mode devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think this is more of a way to certify ad-hoc mode .
Infrastructure mode is what the WiFi Alliance tends to test the most , but ad-hoc can be quite iffy - it sometimes works , sometimes does n't .
That and security settings make it somewhat interesting .
( Note that ad-hoc mode has been well-defined by the 802.11 spec ) .I think this is a way to standardize security and setup of ad-hoc mode devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think this is more of a way to certify ad-hoc mode.
Infrastructure mode is what the WiFi Alliance tends to test the most, but ad-hoc can be quite iffy - it sometimes works, sometimes doesn't.
That and security settings make it somewhat interesting.
(Note that ad-hoc mode has been well-defined by the 802.11 spec).I think this is a way to standardize security and setup of ad-hoc mode devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760081</id>
	<title>Wireless devices with Master Mode Support</title>
	<author>falckon</author>
	<datestamp>1255633260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct me if I'm wrong but the technological "leap" here seems to be that any node can be the server of a wireless communication.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Wi-Fi Direct devices can connect in pairs or in groups. With Wi-Fi Direct only one of the devices needs to be compliant with Wi-Fi Direct to establish the peer-to-peer connection. So, for example, a Wi-Fi Direct-enabled mobile phone could establish a connection with a non-Wi-Fi Direct notebook computer to transfer files between the two.</p></div><p>Seems to be suggesting that a Wi-Fi Direct device will host an access point for the notebook computer to connect to. Otherwise how could such communication with a non Wi-Fi Direct node be possible? There are already certain wireless cards that allow running your device in master mode (appearing as an access point) so that others can connect to you. Combined with a repeater configuration and wireless N speeds and you have the equivalent connectivity of Wi-Fi Direct. So is the leap here that it will be made easy and standard?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong but the technological " leap " here seems to be that any node can be the server of a wireless communication.Wi-Fi Direct devices can connect in pairs or in groups .
With Wi-Fi Direct only one of the devices needs to be compliant with Wi-Fi Direct to establish the peer-to-peer connection .
So , for example , a Wi-Fi Direct-enabled mobile phone could establish a connection with a non-Wi-Fi Direct notebook computer to transfer files between the two.Seems to be suggesting that a Wi-Fi Direct device will host an access point for the notebook computer to connect to .
Otherwise how could such communication with a non Wi-Fi Direct node be possible ?
There are already certain wireless cards that allow running your device in master mode ( appearing as an access point ) so that others can connect to you .
Combined with a repeater configuration and wireless N speeds and you have the equivalent connectivity of Wi-Fi Direct .
So is the leap here that it will be made easy and standard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong but the technological "leap" here seems to be that any node can be the server of a wireless communication.Wi-Fi Direct devices can connect in pairs or in groups.
With Wi-Fi Direct only one of the devices needs to be compliant with Wi-Fi Direct to establish the peer-to-peer connection.
So, for example, a Wi-Fi Direct-enabled mobile phone could establish a connection with a non-Wi-Fi Direct notebook computer to transfer files between the two.Seems to be suggesting that a Wi-Fi Direct device will host an access point for the notebook computer to connect to.
Otherwise how could such communication with a non Wi-Fi Direct node be possible?
There are already certain wireless cards that allow running your device in master mode (appearing as an access point) so that others can connect to you.
Combined with a repeater configuration and wireless N speeds and you have the equivalent connectivity of Wi-Fi Direct.
So is the leap here that it will be made easy and standard?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760811</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1255636620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What if I don't want to encrypt something? You think I should be required to, even if there's absolutely no reason to do it in a particular application? Encryption is simply not required in every context.</p></div><p>Then don't encrypt it.<br>I'm saying that encryption needs to be the default option. Opt-out, not opt-in.</p><p>Ubiquitous wireless is the future and that future is going to leak like a sieve unless encryption also becomes ubiquitous.<br>I don't particularly care if encryption is seamless or programming-the-vcr hard, it eventually has to be done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if I do n't want to encrypt something ?
You think I should be required to , even if there 's absolutely no reason to do it in a particular application ?
Encryption is simply not required in every context.Then do n't encrypt it.I 'm saying that encryption needs to be the default option .
Opt-out , not opt-in.Ubiquitous wireless is the future and that future is going to leak like a sieve unless encryption also becomes ubiquitous.I do n't particularly care if encryption is seamless or programming-the-vcr hard , it eventually has to be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if I don't want to encrypt something?
You think I should be required to, even if there's absolutely no reason to do it in a particular application?
Encryption is simply not required in every context.Then don't encrypt it.I'm saying that encryption needs to be the default option.
Opt-out, not opt-in.Ubiquitous wireless is the future and that future is going to leak like a sieve unless encryption also becomes ubiquitous.I don't particularly care if encryption is seamless or programming-the-vcr hard, it eventually has to be done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29778047</id>
	<title>Wi-Fi Ad-Hoc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255799100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so they invented ad-hoc mode now?<br>Really, it's not even Not Invented Here problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so they invented ad-hoc mode now ? Really , it 's not even Not Invented Here problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so they invented ad-hoc mode now?Really, it's not even Not Invented Here problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760407</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1255634520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Just about all cell phones have bluetooth, but I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi."</i>
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=blackberry+wifi" title="google.com">are</a> [google.com] <br>
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=android+g1+wifi" title="google.com">you</a> [google.com] <br>
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=windows+mobile+phone+with+wifi" title="google.com">kidding?</a> [google.com]
<br> <br>
Just about every smartphone that exists offers a version with built-in wifi, but the fact that a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reader thought the iPhone is the only cell phone with wifi just means Apple Marketing is doing a helluva good job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Just about all cell phones have bluetooth , but I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi .
" are [ google.com ] you [ google.com ] kidding ?
[ google.com ] Just about every smartphone that exists offers a version with built-in wifi , but the fact that a / .
reader thought the iPhone is the only cell phone with wifi just means Apple Marketing is doing a helluva good job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Just about all cell phones have bluetooth, but I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi.
"
 
are [google.com] 
you [google.com] 
kidding?
[google.com]
 
Just about every smartphone that exists offers a version with built-in wifi, but the fact that a /.
reader thought the iPhone is the only cell phone with wifi just means Apple Marketing is doing a helluva good job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29766585</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>OutOfMyTree</author>
	<datestamp>1255686000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>".... I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi"</p><p>Now that is really living out in the boondocks. Never seen an Android, Pre, a newish Blackberry, some Nokias etc etc?</p><p>Wifi certainly helps me to preserve my "as much as you can eat, providing you don't eat too much" data plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" .... I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi " Now that is really living out in the boondocks .
Never seen an Android , Pre , a newish Blackberry , some Nokias etc etc ? Wifi certainly helps me to preserve my " as much as you can eat , providing you do n't eat too much " data plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>".... I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi"Now that is really living out in the boondocks.
Never seen an Android, Pre, a newish Blackberry, some Nokias etc etc?Wifi certainly helps me to preserve my "as much as you can eat, providing you don't eat too much" data plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761639</id>
	<title>Sounds good, but is it?</title>
	<author>Mathinker</author>
	<datestamp>1255597620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; peer to peer telephony. If it got big enough we could put the cell companies out of business.</p><p>Well, it would only work reliably in places where the density of telephones was fairly significant and constant, like urban areas. So we'd be trading an expensive option which <i>sometimes</i> gives coverage of less populated areas with a cheap option which would give <i>practically no coverage</i> of less populated areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; peer to peer telephony .
If it got big enough we could put the cell companies out of business.Well , it would only work reliably in places where the density of telephones was fairly significant and constant , like urban areas .
So we 'd be trading an expensive option which sometimes gives coverage of less populated areas with a cheap option which would give practically no coverage of less populated areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; peer to peer telephony.
If it got big enough we could put the cell companies out of business.Well, it would only work reliably in places where the density of telephones was fairly significant and constant, like urban areas.
So we'd be trading an expensive option which sometimes gives coverage of less populated areas with a cheap option which would give practically no coverage of less populated areas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759647</id>
	<title>P2P=Pirate2Pirate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255631460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Admit it. You're all a bunch of thieves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Admit it .
You 're all a bunch of thieves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Admit it.
You're all a bunch of thieves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761977</id>
	<title>Bluetooth hops while Wifi doesn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255599420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I highly doubt that Direct Wifi will replace Bluetooth. One reason is that Wifi works on a single channel and does not hop and thus is more susceptible to interference. Bluetooth on the other hand hops across different channels to avoid interfering with other protocols and even other bluetooth devices. Also, Wifi is a big power drain as compared to bluetooth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I highly doubt that Direct Wifi will replace Bluetooth .
One reason is that Wifi works on a single channel and does not hop and thus is more susceptible to interference .
Bluetooth on the other hand hops across different channels to avoid interfering with other protocols and even other bluetooth devices .
Also , Wifi is a big power drain as compared to bluetooth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I highly doubt that Direct Wifi will replace Bluetooth.
One reason is that Wifi works on a single channel and does not hop and thus is more susceptible to interference.
Bluetooth on the other hand hops across different channels to avoid interfering with other protocols and even other bluetooth devices.
Also, Wifi is a big power drain as compared to bluetooth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760969</id>
	<title>Good!  Bluetooth sucks</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1255637340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GREAT!  I'm so sick of dealing with shitty bluetooth stacks that don't work reliably.  Doesn't seem to matter where the stack is or what it pairs too, the whole system is a horrible buggy pile of partially interoperable shit.</p><p>Bluetooth needs to die an incredible fast death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GREAT !
I 'm so sick of dealing with shitty bluetooth stacks that do n't work reliably .
Does n't seem to matter where the stack is or what it pairs too , the whole system is a horrible buggy pile of partially interoperable shit.Bluetooth needs to die an incredible fast death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GREAT!
I'm so sick of dealing with shitty bluetooth stacks that don't work reliably.
Doesn't seem to matter where the stack is or what it pairs too, the whole system is a horrible buggy pile of partially interoperable shit.Bluetooth needs to die an incredible fast death.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763915</id>
	<title>Re:"bluetooth uses less power"</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1255608480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All of our bluetooth headsetsand mice seem to work as long as we stay in range. My wireless signal occasionally falls apart even though my laptop is about 3 feet from the router. My sister's Wi-Fi goes out anytime they use their cordless home phone. So from my perspective, I think they need to work on making Wi-Fi as reliable as Bluetooth before trying to replace Bluetooth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of our bluetooth headsetsand mice seem to work as long as we stay in range .
My wireless signal occasionally falls apart even though my laptop is about 3 feet from the router .
My sister 's Wi-Fi goes out anytime they use their cordless home phone .
So from my perspective , I think they need to work on making Wi-Fi as reliable as Bluetooth before trying to replace Bluetooth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of our bluetooth headsetsand mice seem to work as long as we stay in range.
My wireless signal occasionally falls apart even though my laptop is about 3 feet from the router.
My sister's Wi-Fi goes out anytime they use their cordless home phone.
So from my perspective, I think they need to work on making Wi-Fi as reliable as Bluetooth before trying to replace Bluetooth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760659</id>
	<title>Re:The beef of Bluetooth is in profiles, not the l</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1255635840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I really like the profiles and the interoperability, the more devices that you get in your "circle of stuff" the harder it is to have all your devices continue to default to doing the "right thing".</p><p>With one phone, one headset, one computer, one handheld, it's pretty simple.  With multiple phones sharing a single hands-free provider (as might be the case of a car Bluetooth system), or multiple computers that might share other components (networking, A2DP headsets) it's harder for it to continue to do the right thing without manual configuration steps.  Those steps are pretty easy on a general purpose computer, but hard on a limited-interface device such as a headset.</p><p>I don't know how a shift to 802.xx would make that better, easier, harder or just different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I really like the profiles and the interoperability , the more devices that you get in your " circle of stuff " the harder it is to have all your devices continue to default to doing the " right thing " .With one phone , one headset , one computer , one handheld , it 's pretty simple .
With multiple phones sharing a single hands-free provider ( as might be the case of a car Bluetooth system ) , or multiple computers that might share other components ( networking , A2DP headsets ) it 's harder for it to continue to do the right thing without manual configuration steps .
Those steps are pretty easy on a general purpose computer , but hard on a limited-interface device such as a headset.I do n't know how a shift to 802.xx would make that better , easier , harder or just different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I really like the profiles and the interoperability, the more devices that you get in your "circle of stuff" the harder it is to have all your devices continue to default to doing the "right thing".With one phone, one headset, one computer, one handheld, it's pretty simple.
With multiple phones sharing a single hands-free provider (as might be the case of a car Bluetooth system), or multiple computers that might share other components (networking, A2DP headsets) it's harder for it to continue to do the right thing without manual configuration steps.
Those steps are pretty easy on a general purpose computer, but hard on a limited-interface device such as a headset.I don't know how a shift to 802.xx would make that better, easier, harder or just different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29764051</id>
	<title>Re:up to 250 mbps?</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1255609080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure that's <b>mega</b>bit, not millibit.</p><p>1 millibit = 1 thousandths of a bit (0.001).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that 's megabit , not millibit.1 millibit = 1 thousandths of a bit ( 0.001 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that's megabit, not millibit.1 millibit = 1 thousandths of a bit (0.001).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761067</id>
	<title>Bluetooth Improvement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255637880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they want to improve on Bluetooth then switch it off the busy 2450 MHz <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM\_band" title="wikipedia.org">ISM Band</a> [wikipedia.org] to the practically unused 5150 to 5250 MHz <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-NII" title="wikipedia.org">U-NII Low Band</a> [wikipedia.org] <br> <br>Otherwise, we don't need *another* physical layer spec for the service we already have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they want to improve on Bluetooth then switch it off the busy 2450 MHz ISM Band [ wikipedia.org ] to the practically unused 5150 to 5250 MHz U-NII Low Band [ wikipedia.org ] Otherwise , we do n't need * another * physical layer spec for the service we already have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they want to improve on Bluetooth then switch it off the busy 2450 MHz ISM Band [wikipedia.org] to the practically unused 5150 to 5250 MHz U-NII Low Band [wikipedia.org]  Otherwise, we don't need *another* physical layer spec for the service we already have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761249</id>
	<title>Re:Peer-to-peer cell networks</title>
	<author>bn-7bc</author>
	<datestamp>1255638960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone\_number\_mapping" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ENUM</a> [wikipedia.org] and dyndns can help, and when we get IPv6 (finally no more need for port forwarding etc) it might take off. The question is will cellphone firmware an/or cell operators allow voip?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well ENUM [ wikipedia.org ] and dyndns can help , and when we get IPv6 ( finally no more need for port forwarding etc ) it might take off .
The question is will cellphone firmware an/or cell operators allow voip ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well ENUM [wikipedia.org] and dyndns can help, and when we get IPv6 (finally no more need for port forwarding etc) it might take off.
The question is will cellphone firmware an/or cell operators allow voip?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763293</id>
	<title>YO DAWG...</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1255604760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I herd you like wireless, so we put bluetoof in your wifi so ur gadgets can talk while u talk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I herd you like wireless , so we put bluetoof in your wifi so ur gadgets can talk while u talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I herd you like wireless, so we put bluetoof in your wifi so ur gadgets can talk while u talk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29767413</id>
	<title>Re:The beef of Bluetooth is in profiles, not the l</title>
	<author>Zarhan</author>
	<datestamp>1255699800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So I'm guessing you've never actually used bluetooth devices?</i></p><p>Actually, I have conducted interoperability testing for Bluetooth protocol stack (HCI, L2CAP, SDP, OBEX, RFCOMM) with quite a long list of devices as part of my career. While there are some genuine problems with some devices with bad implementations, most of the isses were really security related. For example the good old Nokia 6310i allowed you to make phone calls WITHOUT authenticating (giving you full Hayes AT command set) if you ignored the service discovery and just connected via rfcomm to another channel instead to the offered "Dial-up networking" service. (If you have the phone and Linux, you can test this yourself with "sdptool browse " and rfcomm connect<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:))</p><p>However, for the most part, if you just want to use a headset or transfer some files, no issues whatsoever tend to occur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm guessing you 've never actually used bluetooth devices ? Actually , I have conducted interoperability testing for Bluetooth protocol stack ( HCI , L2CAP , SDP , OBEX , RFCOMM ) with quite a long list of devices as part of my career .
While there are some genuine problems with some devices with bad implementations , most of the isses were really security related .
For example the good old Nokia 6310i allowed you to make phone calls WITHOUT authenticating ( giving you full Hayes AT command set ) if you ignored the service discovery and just connected via rfcomm to another channel instead to the offered " Dial-up networking " service .
( If you have the phone and Linux , you can test this yourself with " sdptool browse " and rfcomm connect : ) ) However , for the most part , if you just want to use a headset or transfer some files , no issues whatsoever tend to occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm guessing you've never actually used bluetooth devices?Actually, I have conducted interoperability testing for Bluetooth protocol stack (HCI, L2CAP, SDP, OBEX, RFCOMM) with quite a long list of devices as part of my career.
While there are some genuine problems with some devices with bad implementations, most of the isses were really security related.
For example the good old Nokia 6310i allowed you to make phone calls WITHOUT authenticating (giving you full Hayes AT command set) if you ignored the service discovery and just connected via rfcomm to another channel instead to the offered "Dial-up networking" service.
(If you have the phone and Linux, you can test this yourself with "sdptool browse " and rfcomm connect :))However, for the most part, if you just want to use a headset or transfer some files, no issues whatsoever tend to occur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759669</id>
	<title>Upgrade to Ad-Hoc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255631580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks to me to be an upgrade to Ad-Hoc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks to me to be an upgrade to Ad-Hoc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks to me to be an upgrade to Ad-Hoc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760077</id>
	<title>Well, they announced the announcement anyway</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1255633200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are zero technical details. It's difficult to even know what this standard includes. Zeroconf maybe? Maybe not?</p><p>All of the articles contain the same information from the press release. I've contacted several of the magazine authors, and none of them know anything either. Not that that stopped them from telling everyone about how great whatever-it-is is going to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are zero technical details .
It 's difficult to even know what this standard includes .
Zeroconf maybe ?
Maybe not ? All of the articles contain the same information from the press release .
I 've contacted several of the magazine authors , and none of them know anything either .
Not that that stopped them from telling everyone about how great whatever-it-is is going to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are zero technical details.
It's difficult to even know what this standard includes.
Zeroconf maybe?
Maybe not?All of the articles contain the same information from the press release.
I've contacted several of the magazine authors, and none of them know anything either.
Not that that stopped them from telling everyone about how great whatever-it-is is going to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763119</id>
	<title>Re:The beef of Bluetooth is in profiles, not the l</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1255603800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe you're using really crappy devices?  My phone (N80) talks quite happily to:
<ol>
<li>My laptop (MacBook Pro, but it also works with my old PowerBook) for providing dial-up access and syncing contacts.  Oh, and both Object Exchange (for quickly sending objects from the phone to the computer) and the File Transfer Profile (for browsing the phone from the computer) work nicely too.</li>
<li>My ThinkOutside Bluetooth folding keyboard.</li>
<li>My Nokia 770 (providing Internet access).</li>
<li>My no-brand earpiece.</li>
</ol><p>
My laptop can also talk to my Bluetooth earpiece for and my 770 to my keyboard, without any problems.  I've also never had a problem sending contacts from my phone (or the two phones I had before it; Nokia N70 and Ericsson T68) to other people's phones, without pairing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you 're using really crappy devices ?
My phone ( N80 ) talks quite happily to : My laptop ( MacBook Pro , but it also works with my old PowerBook ) for providing dial-up access and syncing contacts .
Oh , and both Object Exchange ( for quickly sending objects from the phone to the computer ) and the File Transfer Profile ( for browsing the phone from the computer ) work nicely too .
My ThinkOutside Bluetooth folding keyboard .
My Nokia 770 ( providing Internet access ) .
My no-brand earpiece .
My laptop can also talk to my Bluetooth earpiece for and my 770 to my keyboard , without any problems .
I 've also never had a problem sending contacts from my phone ( or the two phones I had before it ; Nokia N70 and Ericsson T68 ) to other people 's phones , without pairing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you're using really crappy devices?
My phone (N80) talks quite happily to:

My laptop (MacBook Pro, but it also works with my old PowerBook) for providing dial-up access and syncing contacts.
Oh, and both Object Exchange (for quickly sending objects from the phone to the computer) and the File Transfer Profile (for browsing the phone from the computer) work nicely too.
My ThinkOutside Bluetooth folding keyboard.
My Nokia 770 (providing Internet access).
My no-brand earpiece.
My laptop can also talk to my Bluetooth earpiece for and my 770 to my keyboard, without any problems.
I've also never had a problem sending contacts from my phone (or the two phones I had before it; Nokia N70 and Ericsson T68) to other people's phones, without pairing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761285</id>
	<title>Re:"bluetooth uses less power"</title>
	<author>Nethead</author>
	<datestamp>1255639140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is this "optimal" HT antenna you speak of?</p><p>73, w7com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is this " optimal " HT antenna you speak of ? 73 , w7com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is this "optimal" HT antenna you speak of?73, w7com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29764741</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1255615020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha hah hahh...</p><p>But seriously.. what happens to the other devices on the same bus when you plug your 1.x mouse into it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha hah hahh...But seriously.. what happens to the other devices on the same bus when you plug your 1.x mouse into it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha hah hahh...But seriously.. what happens to the other devices on the same bus when you plug your 1.x mouse into it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760713</id>
	<title>Already Been Done?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255636260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate to sound like an Apple Fanboy, but hasn't this already been done with Apple's <a href="http://www.zeroconf.org/" title="zeroconf.org" rel="nofollow">ZeroConf</a> [zeroconf.org] spec?  It's not like it's only available for the Mac either.  There are implementations for Windows, Linux, and the BSDs.  The spec is out there for anyone to use, so it's not like a hardware manufacturer couldn't roll their own implementation.  Why do we need yet another specification that does basically the same thing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to sound like an Apple Fanboy , but has n't this already been done with Apple 's ZeroConf [ zeroconf.org ] spec ?
It 's not like it 's only available for the Mac either .
There are implementations for Windows , Linux , and the BSDs .
The spec is out there for anyone to use , so it 's not like a hardware manufacturer could n't roll their own implementation .
Why do we need yet another specification that does basically the same thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to sound like an Apple Fanboy, but hasn't this already been done with Apple's ZeroConf [zeroconf.org] spec?
It's not like it's only available for the Mac either.
There are implementations for Windows, Linux, and the BSDs.
The spec is out there for anyone to use, so it's not like a hardware manufacturer couldn't roll their own implementation.
Why do we need yet another specification that does basically the same thing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760527</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1255635120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"What excites me about this is something I've thought about for a while and mentioned once or twice here -- peer to peer telephony. If it got big enough we could put the cell companies out of business."</i>
<br> <br>
do you even know what you're talking about?  After the "iPhone only cell phone with wifi" comment I'm starting to wonder if you didn't just buy your low 5-digit slashdot account.
<br> <br>
You might be able to call someone in the other room with peer to peer, but exactly how would this work across the country when you can't even drive cross country and maintain a simple wi-fi connection when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE\_802.11" title="wikipedia.org">802.11a/b has been out for 10 years now and 802.11g for 6?</a> [wikipedia.org].  But sure, if this got big enough in 20+ years and everyone was dumb enough to let anyone access their phone (you don't secure your wifi router, right?) maybe then the cell companies would be out of business and we can ice skate in hell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What excites me about this is something I 've thought about for a while and mentioned once or twice here -- peer to peer telephony .
If it got big enough we could put the cell companies out of business .
" do you even know what you 're talking about ?
After the " iPhone only cell phone with wifi " comment I 'm starting to wonder if you did n't just buy your low 5-digit slashdot account .
You might be able to call someone in the other room with peer to peer , but exactly how would this work across the country when you ca n't even drive cross country and maintain a simple wi-fi connection when 802.11a/b has been out for 10 years now and 802.11g for 6 ?
[ wikipedia.org ] . But sure , if this got big enough in 20 + years and everyone was dumb enough to let anyone access their phone ( you do n't secure your wifi router , right ?
) maybe then the cell companies would be out of business and we can ice skate in hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What excites me about this is something I've thought about for a while and mentioned once or twice here -- peer to peer telephony.
If it got big enough we could put the cell companies out of business.
"
 
do you even know what you're talking about?
After the "iPhone only cell phone with wifi" comment I'm starting to wonder if you didn't just buy your low 5-digit slashdot account.
You might be able to call someone in the other room with peer to peer, but exactly how would this work across the country when you can't even drive cross country and maintain a simple wi-fi connection when 802.11a/b has been out for 10 years now and 802.11g for 6?
[wikipedia.org].  But sure, if this got big enough in 20+ years and everyone was dumb enough to let anyone access their phone (you don't secure your wifi router, right?
) maybe then the cell companies would be out of business and we can ice skate in hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760367</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1255634400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Higher speed so you can talk faster.</p></div><p>

Or do things you couldn't do before, like transfer large files at high rates of speed or stream HD video.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Higher speed so you can talk faster .
Or do things you could n't do before , like transfer large files at high rates of speed or stream HD video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Higher speed so you can talk faster.
Or do things you couldn't do before, like transfer large files at high rates of speed or stream HD video.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760119</id>
	<title>up to 250 mbps?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255633380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>250 mbps = 250 millibits per second.  That's slow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>250 mbps = 250 millibits per second .
That 's slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>250 mbps = 250 millibits per second.
That's slow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759771</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>loftwyr</author>
	<datestamp>1255631940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are lots of phones with WiFi and many more that can get it though third pary add-ons.  The iPhone was hardly the leader in that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lots of phones with WiFi and many more that can get it though third pary add-ons .
The iPhone was hardly the leader in that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lots of phones with WiFi and many more that can get it though third pary add-ons.
The iPhone was hardly the leader in that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763337</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1255605060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I've had my HTC since 2006 and that has Wifi. It also has HSDPA and GPS. I also get to choose who I connect through and nobody tries to brick it with updates. It's rare I use the wifi though as having HSDPA makes it plenty quick enough, and uses less power. So all those reports could be true. Conspicuous usage is a condition I associate with apple users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 've had my HTC since 2006 and that has Wifi .
It also has HSDPA and GPS .
I also get to choose who I connect through and nobody tries to brick it with updates .
It 's rare I use the wifi though as having HSDPA makes it plenty quick enough , and uses less power .
So all those reports could be true .
Conspicuous usage is a condition I associate with apple users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I've had my HTC since 2006 and that has Wifi.
It also has HSDPA and GPS.
I also get to choose who I connect through and nobody tries to brick it with updates.
It's rare I use the wifi though as having HSDPA makes it plenty quick enough, and uses less power.
So all those reports could be true.
Conspicuous usage is a condition I associate with apple users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29765155</id>
	<title>Re:Peer-to-peer cell networks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255619160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like... skype?</p><p>Anyway the phone companies are usually also the ISPs...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like... skype ? Anyway the phone companies are usually also the ISPs.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like... skype?Anyway the phone companies are usually also the ISPs...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760393</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255634460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi."</p><p>Really?  Have you looked at other phones?  I mean, I know this is a very small nit to pick, but most HTC smartphones, all the new Blackberries, Samsung smartphones, etc. all have wifi.  I know that at least HTC was including wifi well before the iphone was a glimmer in Steve's eye.  I'm not a hater, i think the iphone is pretty cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi. " Really ?
Have you looked at other phones ?
I mean , I know this is a very small nit to pick , but most HTC smartphones , all the new Blackberries , Samsung smartphones , etc .
all have wifi .
I know that at least HTC was including wifi well before the iphone was a glimmer in Steve 's eye .
I 'm not a hater , i think the iphone is pretty cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi."Really?
Have you looked at other phones?
I mean, I know this is a very small nit to pick, but most HTC smartphones, all the new Blackberries, Samsung smartphones, etc.
all have wifi.
I know that at least HTC was including wifi well before the iphone was a glimmer in Steve's eye.
I'm not a hater, i think the iphone is pretty cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759879</id>
	<title>It's not a Bluetooth killer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255632420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Battery life on mobile devices is still a large issue, and if you are just connecting headsets and syncing up with PCs the extra range isn't needed.  So WiFi Direct sounds better for some applications maybe.  But we are all sick of our phones crapping out after an hour or two of "heavy" use, and trading range for battery life doesn't make sense for nearly all of the existing uses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Battery life on mobile devices is still a large issue , and if you are just connecting headsets and syncing up with PCs the extra range is n't needed .
So WiFi Direct sounds better for some applications maybe .
But we are all sick of our phones crapping out after an hour or two of " heavy " use , and trading range for battery life does n't make sense for nearly all of the existing uses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Battery life on mobile devices is still a large issue, and if you are just connecting headsets and syncing up with PCs the extra range isn't needed.
So WiFi Direct sounds better for some applications maybe.
But we are all sick of our phones crapping out after an hour or two of "heavy" use, and trading range for battery life doesn't make sense for nearly all of the existing uses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760259</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255633980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my t-mobile wing has wi-fi and i can use it to tether my laptop to it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my t-mobile wing has wi-fi and i can use it to tether my laptop to it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my t-mobile wing has wi-fi and i can use it to tether my laptop to it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763865</id>
	<title>Re:Peer-to-peer cell networks</title>
	<author>michael\_cain</author>
	<datestamp>1255608180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Good quality voice communication has fairly low bandwidth requirements, but very tight latency limits. Above 20ms, you start to notice the lag. Above 50ms, it gets rather annoying. Beyond 150ms, you wouldn't want to use it for anything but absolute emergencies.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Indeed.
Many years ago,
when I did telephony testing work at Bell Labs,
the upper bound on round-trip delay was about 250 ms.
That's about the point where people begin "interpreting"
the delay in emotional terms.
One common form of that was business people's perception that
the other party was trying to be extremely careful
about their choice of words,
so was probably hiding something.
As a result,
when satellites were introduced,
only one direction of a two-way trunk
was carried on a satellite;
the other direction was terrestrial in order to keep round-trip delay down.
</p><p>
500 ms is the point where people decide that
the other person has not understood the question
and try to rephrase it.
It's always fun to watch an untrained news reporter
attempt to conduct an interview over
a two-way satellite connection,
where the latency is just over 500 ms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good quality voice communication has fairly low bandwidth requirements , but very tight latency limits .
Above 20ms , you start to notice the lag .
Above 50ms , it gets rather annoying .
Beyond 150ms , you would n't want to use it for anything but absolute emergencies .
Indeed . Many years ago , when I did telephony testing work at Bell Labs , the upper bound on round-trip delay was about 250 ms . That 's about the point where people begin " interpreting " the delay in emotional terms .
One common form of that was business people 's perception that the other party was trying to be extremely careful about their choice of words , so was probably hiding something .
As a result , when satellites were introduced , only one direction of a two-way trunk was carried on a satellite ; the other direction was terrestrial in order to keep round-trip delay down .
500 ms is the point where people decide that the other person has not understood the question and try to rephrase it .
It 's always fun to watch an untrained news reporter attempt to conduct an interview over a two-way satellite connection , where the latency is just over 500 ms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good quality voice communication has fairly low bandwidth requirements, but very tight latency limits.
Above 20ms, you start to notice the lag.
Above 50ms, it gets rather annoying.
Beyond 150ms, you wouldn't want to use it for anything but absolute emergencies.
Indeed.
Many years ago,
when I did telephony testing work at Bell Labs,
the upper bound on round-trip delay was about 250 ms.
That's about the point where people begin "interpreting"
the delay in emotional terms.
One common form of that was business people's perception that
the other party was trying to be extremely careful
about their choice of words,
so was probably hiding something.
As a result,
when satellites were introduced,
only one direction of a two-way trunk
was carried on a satellite;
the other direction was terrestrial in order to keep round-trip delay down.
500 ms is the point where people decide that
the other person has not understood the question
and try to rephrase it.
It's always fun to watch an untrained news reporter
attempt to conduct an interview over
a two-way satellite connection,
where the latency is just over 500 ms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759767</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1255631940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, with phones, bluetooth makes a bit more sense to me</p></div><p>Indeed.  I don't need to use my car's mic/speaker system with my cell phone while the phone is 50 to 100 feet (or more) from the car, but I do want to squeeze as long of life out of my cell phone's battery as I can.</p><p>The same applies to my laptop's mouse, or my Wiimotes, or indeed anything else that I have that currently uses Bluetooth.</p><p>Mesh WiFi sounds good if it means I can leech WiFi off generous people acting as mobile bridges to their cell provider's unlimited data plan.  But in terms of revolutionizing devices, it doesn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , with phones , bluetooth makes a bit more sense to meIndeed .
I do n't need to use my car 's mic/speaker system with my cell phone while the phone is 50 to 100 feet ( or more ) from the car , but I do want to squeeze as long of life out of my cell phone 's battery as I can.The same applies to my laptop 's mouse , or my Wiimotes , or indeed anything else that I have that currently uses Bluetooth.Mesh WiFi sounds good if it means I can leech WiFi off generous people acting as mobile bridges to their cell provider 's unlimited data plan .
But in terms of revolutionizing devices , it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, with phones, bluetooth makes a bit more sense to meIndeed.
I don't need to use my car's mic/speaker system with my cell phone while the phone is 50 to 100 feet (or more) from the car, but I do want to squeeze as long of life out of my cell phone's battery as I can.The same applies to my laptop's mouse, or my Wiimotes, or indeed anything else that I have that currently uses Bluetooth.Mesh WiFi sounds good if it means I can leech WiFi off generous people acting as mobile bridges to their cell provider's unlimited data plan.
But in terms of revolutionizing devices, it doesn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760041</id>
	<title>Aren't they overlooking something?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255633080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the difference between Wi-Fi being DSSS (direct sequencing spread spectrum, meaning it uses one fixed slice of the spectrum) vs Bluetooth's FHSS (frequency hopping spread spectrum, meaning it hops around the spectrum in a pseudorandom way such that multiple bluetooth devices will never interfere with each other)?  Unless the new Wi-Fi standard includes something smarter than "default to channel 6" these devices will not be as friendly to each other as Bluetooth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the difference between Wi-Fi being DSSS ( direct sequencing spread spectrum , meaning it uses one fixed slice of the spectrum ) vs Bluetooth 's FHSS ( frequency hopping spread spectrum , meaning it hops around the spectrum in a pseudorandom way such that multiple bluetooth devices will never interfere with each other ) ?
Unless the new Wi-Fi standard includes something smarter than " default to channel 6 " these devices will not be as friendly to each other as Bluetooth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the difference between Wi-Fi being DSSS (direct sequencing spread spectrum, meaning it uses one fixed slice of the spectrum) vs Bluetooth's FHSS (frequency hopping spread spectrum, meaning it hops around the spectrum in a pseudorandom way such that multiple bluetooth devices will never interfere with each other)?
Unless the new Wi-Fi standard includes something smarter than "default to channel 6" these devices will not be as friendly to each other as Bluetooth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29765845</id>
	<title>Re:"bluetooth uses less power"</title>
	<author>fragMasterFlash</author>
	<datestamp>1255628340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Bluetooth uses less power".</p></div><p>With its limited range and channel hopping abilities Bluetooth avoids having to compete as much for bandwidth in the very congested spectrum occupied by WiFi. In a perfect world WiFi power consumption may be able to compete with Bluetooth, but Bluetooth remains power efficient even under less than ideal conditions, aka the real world of office buildings, apartment complexes. I really wish UWB would have gained traction in the market. Having a fat pipe at power levels comparable to Bluetooth really opens up some interesting possibilities.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bluetooth uses less power " .With its limited range and channel hopping abilities Bluetooth avoids having to compete as much for bandwidth in the very congested spectrum occupied by WiFi .
In a perfect world WiFi power consumption may be able to compete with Bluetooth , but Bluetooth remains power efficient even under less than ideal conditions , aka the real world of office buildings , apartment complexes .
I really wish UWB would have gained traction in the market .
Having a fat pipe at power levels comparable to Bluetooth really opens up some interesting possibilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bluetooth uses less power".With its limited range and channel hopping abilities Bluetooth avoids having to compete as much for bandwidth in the very congested spectrum occupied by WiFi.
In a perfect world WiFi power consumption may be able to compete with Bluetooth, but Bluetooth remains power efficient even under less than ideal conditions, aka the real world of office buildings, apartment complexes.
I really wish UWB would have gained traction in the market.
Having a fat pipe at power levels comparable to Bluetooth really opens up some interesting possibilities.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29768489</id>
	<title>Glitches, ya'll...</title>
	<author>taobeastie</author>
	<datestamp>1255707300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hooray! Another glitch, just waiting to happen!
--TaoBeastie</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hooray !
Another glitch , just waiting to happen !
--TaoBeastie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hooray!
Another glitch, just waiting to happen!
--TaoBeastie</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762735</id>
	<title>Re:up to 250 mbps?</title>
	<author>majid\_aldo</author>
	<datestamp>1255602060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i understand your point but you can't have a fraction of a bit so it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/must/ be mega.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i understand your point but you ca n't have a fraction of a bit so it /must/ be mega .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i understand your point but you can't have a fraction of a bit so it /must/ be mega.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759653</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255631520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Higher speed so you can talk faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Higher speed so you can talk faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Higher speed so you can talk faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760415</id>
	<title>Re:Peer-to-peer cell networks</title>
	<author>pla</author>
	<datestamp>1255634580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Could a mesh network of cell phones function independent of towers? Does
anybody who has more knowledge of networking than I do want to chime in?</i> <br>
<br>
One word - Latency.<br>
<br>
Good quality voice communication has fairly low bandwidth requirements, but very tight latency limits.  Above 20ms,
you start to notice the lag.  Above 50ms, it gets rather annoying.  Beyond 150ms, you wouldn't want to use it for
anything but absolute emergencies.<br>
<br>
Not to mention, you would have the same problem with finding peers that you do now with finding towers - In densely populated
areas, you'll have no problems finding them; In rural areas (the same places you can't get a signal <i>now</i>), you
likely won't find enough peers to maintain a connection anyway.  The one exception to this, peering would probably help
somewhat with dead spots inside areas that otherwise have a great signal (basements in a city, for example).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could a mesh network of cell phones function independent of towers ?
Does anybody who has more knowledge of networking than I do want to chime in ?
One word - Latency .
Good quality voice communication has fairly low bandwidth requirements , but very tight latency limits .
Above 20ms , you start to notice the lag .
Above 50ms , it gets rather annoying .
Beyond 150ms , you would n't want to use it for anything but absolute emergencies .
Not to mention , you would have the same problem with finding peers that you do now with finding towers - In densely populated areas , you 'll have no problems finding them ; In rural areas ( the same places you ca n't get a signal now ) , you likely wo n't find enough peers to maintain a connection anyway .
The one exception to this , peering would probably help somewhat with dead spots inside areas that otherwise have a great signal ( basements in a city , for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could a mesh network of cell phones function independent of towers?
Does
anybody who has more knowledge of networking than I do want to chime in?
One word - Latency.
Good quality voice communication has fairly low bandwidth requirements, but very tight latency limits.
Above 20ms,
you start to notice the lag.
Above 50ms, it gets rather annoying.
Beyond 150ms, you wouldn't want to use it for
anything but absolute emergencies.
Not to mention, you would have the same problem with finding peers that you do now with finding towers - In densely populated
areas, you'll have no problems finding them; In rural areas (the same places you can't get a signal now), you
likely won't find enough peers to maintain a connection anyway.
The one exception to this, peering would probably help
somewhat with dead spots inside areas that otherwise have a great signal (basements in a city, for example).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29765195</id>
	<title>Missing the point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255619700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think most of the commenters are missing the main point...<br>a. Bluetooth is great for phones and all, I don't expect that the next year's headsets will use Wi-Fi<br>b. Wi-fi already has peer-to-peer mode... so what?</p><p>I think the point is to:<br>a. Have a *better* peer-to-peer mode<br>and (and I'm speculating here...)<br>b. Have higher level interoperability.</p><p>For example, if you have p2p Wi-Fi now, and you manage to connect two devices, then... ?<br>Nothing.  It doesn't work on half the devices, it's a pain on the other half, and all you get is raw TCP/IP if you *do* get it to work.<br>Compare that with bluetooth's standard file transfer, lack of need of DNS, etc.</p><p>If Wi-fi direct can specify something like Apple's bonjour be mandatory for Finding devices and services, and then certain standard services like bluetooth has, then things will become much more automagically usable.  Case in point, two PSPs can quickly form a p2p network and the games work easily and well.  This is theoretically possible with any PC software or other devices, but it hasn't actually been made to happen yet by anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most of the commenters are missing the main point...a. Bluetooth is great for phones and all , I do n't expect that the next year 's headsets will use Wi-Fib .
Wi-fi already has peer-to-peer mode... so what ? I think the point is to : a. Have a * better * peer-to-peer modeand ( and I 'm speculating here... ) b. Have higher level interoperability.For example , if you have p2p Wi-Fi now , and you manage to connect two devices , then... ? Nothing. It does n't work on half the devices , it 's a pain on the other half , and all you get is raw TCP/IP if you * do * get it to work.Compare that with bluetooth 's standard file transfer , lack of need of DNS , etc.If Wi-fi direct can specify something like Apple 's bonjour be mandatory for Finding devices and services , and then certain standard services like bluetooth has , then things will become much more automagically usable .
Case in point , two PSPs can quickly form a p2p network and the games work easily and well .
This is theoretically possible with any PC software or other devices , but it has n't actually been made to happen yet by anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think most of the commenters are missing the main point...a. Bluetooth is great for phones and all, I don't expect that the next year's headsets will use Wi-Fib.
Wi-fi already has peer-to-peer mode... so what?I think the point is to:a. Have a *better* peer-to-peer modeand (and I'm speculating here...)b. Have higher level interoperability.For example, if you have p2p Wi-Fi now, and you manage to connect two devices, then... ?Nothing.  It doesn't work on half the devices, it's a pain on the other half, and all you get is raw TCP/IP if you *do* get it to work.Compare that with bluetooth's standard file transfer, lack of need of DNS, etc.If Wi-fi direct can specify something like Apple's bonjour be mandatory for Finding devices and services, and then certain standard services like bluetooth has, then things will become much more automagically usable.
Case in point, two PSPs can quickly form a p2p network and the games work easily and well.
This is theoretically possible with any PC software or other devices, but it hasn't actually been made to happen yet by anyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29764039</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>moonbender</author>
	<datestamp>1255609080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were any number of phones with wifi two years ago. Obviously those weren't the usual budget devices you saw every day, though none of them were nearly as expensive as the iPhone. The big rush of phones was around the time that Apple released their phone. My current and my previous Nokia phone both have wifi, both of them were less than 250 EUR without a contract.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were any number of phones with wifi two years ago .
Obviously those were n't the usual budget devices you saw every day , though none of them were nearly as expensive as the iPhone .
The big rush of phones was around the time that Apple released their phone .
My current and my previous Nokia phone both have wifi , both of them were less than 250 EUR without a contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were any number of phones with wifi two years ago.
Obviously those weren't the usual budget devices you saw every day, though none of them were nearly as expensive as the iPhone.
The big rush of phones was around the time that Apple released their phone.
My current and my previous Nokia phone both have wifi, both of them were less than 250 EUR without a contract.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760855</id>
	<title>Re:"bluetooth uses less power"</title>
	<author>HamburglerJones</author>
	<datestamp>1255636860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In terms of the iPhone, my understanding is this: the WiFi system is only on when the phone is active (lit screen). Nothing ever wakes the iPhone by WiFi. I don't feel up for testing it because I'm not at home, but you can check this by trying to ping your phone when it is asleep.</p></div><p>Yep, I used to have a jail-broken iPhone, and in order to SSH into it I had to turn the screen on to enable WiFi.  Once I had an active connection with it though, turning off the screen didn't kill the WiFi.  I think it's the same with any background process - if the email app is updating, it will finish up even if the screen isn't on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In terms of the iPhone , my understanding is this : the WiFi system is only on when the phone is active ( lit screen ) .
Nothing ever wakes the iPhone by WiFi .
I do n't feel up for testing it because I 'm not at home , but you can check this by trying to ping your phone when it is asleep.Yep , I used to have a jail-broken iPhone , and in order to SSH into it I had to turn the screen on to enable WiFi .
Once I had an active connection with it though , turning off the screen did n't kill the WiFi .
I think it 's the same with any background process - if the email app is updating , it will finish up even if the screen is n't on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In terms of the iPhone, my understanding is this: the WiFi system is only on when the phone is active (lit screen).
Nothing ever wakes the iPhone by WiFi.
I don't feel up for testing it because I'm not at home, but you can check this by trying to ping your phone when it is asleep.Yep, I used to have a jail-broken iPhone, and in order to SSH into it I had to turn the screen on to enable WiFi.
Once I had an active connection with it though, turning off the screen didn't kill the WiFi.
I think it's the same with any background process - if the email app is updating, it will finish up even if the screen isn't on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762967</id>
	<title>Bluetoothe distributes the 8 kHz clock.</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1255603140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bluetooth doesn't just ship data.  It also forwards the network's 8 kHz clock, which is used for digitizing audio and keeping it synchronized with the (pre-IP) telephone network's digital transport and the far-end D-to-A converters which turn the samples back into audio.  This simplifies handsets and avoids "frame-slip" clicking and other audio artifacts from timing irregularities.</p><p>Does this new WiFi-variant include a network clock distribution?  Or does it fall back on some of the other, more crunch-intensive and less robust solutions to the problem (which are part of the source of VoIP artifacts)?  If the latter it may have a harder row to hoe than one might expect.  (Though, like VHS vs. Betamax, other things than signal quality may prove to be the important drivers of adoption.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bluetooth does n't just ship data .
It also forwards the network 's 8 kHz clock , which is used for digitizing audio and keeping it synchronized with the ( pre-IP ) telephone network 's digital transport and the far-end D-to-A converters which turn the samples back into audio .
This simplifies handsets and avoids " frame-slip " clicking and other audio artifacts from timing irregularities.Does this new WiFi-variant include a network clock distribution ?
Or does it fall back on some of the other , more crunch-intensive and less robust solutions to the problem ( which are part of the source of VoIP artifacts ) ?
If the latter it may have a harder row to hoe than one might expect .
( Though , like VHS vs. Betamax , other things than signal quality may prove to be the important drivers of adoption .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bluetooth doesn't just ship data.
It also forwards the network's 8 kHz clock, which is used for digitizing audio and keeping it synchronized with the (pre-IP) telephone network's digital transport and the far-end D-to-A converters which turn the samples back into audio.
This simplifies handsets and avoids "frame-slip" clicking and other audio artifacts from timing irregularities.Does this new WiFi-variant include a network clock distribution?
Or does it fall back on some of the other, more crunch-intensive and less robust solutions to the problem (which are part of the source of VoIP artifacts)?
If the latter it may have a harder row to hoe than one might expect.
(Though, like VHS vs. Betamax, other things than signal quality may prove to be the important drivers of adoption.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760831</id>
	<title>Re:Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>ElSupreme</author>
	<datestamp>1255636740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah and mouse faster. I will NOT BUY a USB1.0 mouse EVER. I need 2.0 or 3.0!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah and mouse faster .
I will NOT BUY a USB1.0 mouse EVER .
I need 2.0 or 3.0 ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah and mouse faster.
I will NOT BUY a USB1.0 mouse EVER.
I need 2.0 or 3.0!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29773629</id>
	<title>And this is different because?</title>
	<author>FurtiveGlancer</author>
	<datestamp>1255691700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I already have that capability in an Ad Hoc wifi connection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I already have that capability in an Ad Hoc wifi connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already have that capability in an Ad Hoc wifi connection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760159</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds good</title>
	<author>LanMan04</author>
	<datestamp>1255633560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I think it will be a while, at least for the phones. Just about all cell phones have bluetooth, but I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi.</p></div><p>Err, there are a ton of smartphones with wifi...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I think it will be a while , at least for the phones .
Just about all cell phones have bluetooth , but I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi.Err , there are a ton of smartphones with wifi.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I think it will be a while, at least for the phones.
Just about all cell phones have bluetooth, but I have yet to see one besides the iPhone with wifi.Err, there are a ton of smartphones with wifi...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761743</id>
	<title>Re:The beef of Bluetooth is in profiles, not the l</title>
	<author>Tweenk</author>
	<datestamp>1255598160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very true. Similarly, the success of USB is not in using the same plug for everything but in standard device interfaces. You can grab any USB HID device and it will work everywhere, because one can write an unified driver for all current and future USB HID devices. Same for USB mass storage, audio, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true .
Similarly , the success of USB is not in using the same plug for everything but in standard device interfaces .
You can grab any USB HID device and it will work everywhere , because one can write an unified driver for all current and future USB HID devices .
Same for USB mass storage , audio , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true.
Similarly, the success of USB is not in using the same plug for everything but in standard device interfaces.
You can grab any USB HID device and it will work everywhere, because one can write an unified driver for all current and future USB HID devices.
Same for USB mass storage, audio, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29767413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29766585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29767549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29765155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29771081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29764051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29764039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29764741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29765845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29767003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_15_1715218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761037
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29767413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29771081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29767549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760083
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29767003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760093
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761249
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29765155
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760415
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762127
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763337
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29764039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29766585
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759879
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29764051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29763915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29765845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29761977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29759653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29764741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29760713
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_15_1715218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_15_1715218.29762801
</commentlist>
</conversation>
