<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_17_0422231</id>
	<title>California Moving Forward With Big-Screen TV Power Restrictions</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1255781760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The Los Angeles Times reports that California regulators are poised to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bigtvs14-2009oct14,0,4908205.story">pass the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions</a> just as they did with refrigerators, air conditioners and dozens of other products since the 1970s. 'We would not <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/09/19/1757250/California-Publishes-Television-Efficiency-Standards-For-2011">propose TV efficiency standards</a> if we thought there was any evidence in the record that they will hurt the economy,' said Commissioner Julia Levin, who has been in charge of the two-year rule-making procedure. 'This will actually save consumers money and help the California economy grow and create new clean, sustainable jobs.' California's estimated 35 million TVs and related electronic devices account for about 10\% of all household electricity consumption, but manufacturers quickly are coming up with new technologies that are making even 50-inch-screen models much more economical to operate. Sets with screens of up to 58 inches <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1220664/California-set-ban-energy-guzzling-big-screen-TVs.html">would have until the start of 2011 to comply</a> with a minimum efficiency standard, with more stringent rules being introduced two years later. If all TVs met state standards, California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant, says Ken Rider, a commission staff engineer. Switching to more-efficient TVs could have an estimated net benefit to the state of $8.1 billion, the commission staff reported."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The Los Angeles Times reports that California regulators are poised to pass the nation 's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions just as they did with refrigerators , air conditioners and dozens of other products since the 1970s .
'We would not propose TV efficiency standards if we thought there was any evidence in the record that they will hurt the economy, ' said Commissioner Julia Levin , who has been in charge of the two-year rule-making procedure .
'This will actually save consumers money and help the California economy grow and create new clean , sustainable jobs .
' California 's estimated 35 million TVs and related electronic devices account for about 10 \ % of all household electricity consumption , but manufacturers quickly are coming up with new technologies that are making even 50-inch-screen models much more economical to operate .
Sets with screens of up to 58 inches would have until the start of 2011 to comply with a minimum efficiency standard , with more stringent rules being introduced two years later .
If all TVs met state standards , California could avoid the $ 600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant , says Ken Rider , a commission staff engineer .
Switching to more-efficient TVs could have an estimated net benefit to the state of $ 8.1 billion , the commission staff reported .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The Los Angeles Times reports that California regulators are poised to pass the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions just as they did with refrigerators, air conditioners and dozens of other products since the 1970s.
'We would not propose TV efficiency standards if we thought there was any evidence in the record that they will hurt the economy,' said Commissioner Julia Levin, who has been in charge of the two-year rule-making procedure.
'This will actually save consumers money and help the California economy grow and create new clean, sustainable jobs.
' California's estimated 35 million TVs and related electronic devices account for about 10\% of all household electricity consumption, but manufacturers quickly are coming up with new technologies that are making even 50-inch-screen models much more economical to operate.
Sets with screens of up to 58 inches would have until the start of 2011 to comply with a minimum efficiency standard, with more stringent rules being introduced two years later.
If all TVs met state standards, California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant, says Ken Rider, a commission staff engineer.
Switching to more-efficient TVs could have an estimated net benefit to the state of $8.1 billion, the commission staff reported.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777335</id>
	<title>Why are they legislating this?</title>
	<author>Zarf\_is\_with\_you</author>
	<datestamp>1255792320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really how low can the energy requirements go?<br><br>I have a old TV I rarely use in thing its a about 20 inches I have had it since 1995 it still works fine. I noticed that it says it requires over 600watts!<br><br>I have a Rear projection TV that I purchased in about 2001 43 inch, it only requires 480 on surge to startup and it looks less than 190 watts to run.<br><br>I ran it off a Voltage inverter and a car battery during long winter blackout, I never gave a second thought to how much power the TV used and I was VERY surprised and thankful at how little it did use during that time of emergency.<br><br>I have new a 24 inch HD LCD monitor I have never seen anything so clear and bright and sharp and the bonus is that it draws about &lt;65watts!<br><br>Why are they legislating this?<br><br>When things are already moving in the correct direction, how much lower can you go?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really how low can the energy requirements go ? I have a old TV I rarely use in thing its a about 20 inches I have had it since 1995 it still works fine .
I noticed that it says it requires over 600watts ! I have a Rear projection TV that I purchased in about 2001 43 inch , it only requires 480 on surge to startup and it looks less than 190 watts to run.I ran it off a Voltage inverter and a car battery during long winter blackout , I never gave a second thought to how much power the TV used and I was VERY surprised and thankful at how little it did use during that time of emergency.I have new a 24 inch HD LCD monitor I have never seen anything so clear and bright and sharp and the bonus is that it draws about Why are they legislating this ? When things are already moving in the correct direction , how much lower can you go ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really how low can the energy requirements go?I have a old TV I rarely use in thing its a about 20 inches I have had it since 1995 it still works fine.
I noticed that it says it requires over 600watts!I have a Rear projection TV that I purchased in about 2001 43 inch, it only requires 480 on surge to startup and it looks less than 190 watts to run.I ran it off a Voltage inverter and a car battery during long winter blackout, I never gave a second thought to how much power the TV used and I was VERY surprised and thankful at how little it did use during that time of emergency.I have new a 24 inch HD LCD monitor I have never seen anything so clear and bright and sharp and the bonus is that it draws about Why are they legislating this?When things are already moving in the correct direction, how much lower can you go?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776823</id>
	<title>how about doing something about cable / sat boxes</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1255786860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how about doing something about cable / sat boxes as well? Why can't they go into a lower power mode / HD spin down when off / not recording something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about doing something about cable / sat boxes as well ?
Why ca n't they go into a lower power mode / HD spin down when off / not recording something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about doing something about cable / sat boxes as well?
Why can't they go into a lower power mode / HD spin down when off / not recording something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778991</id>
	<title>energy future</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255808220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We do need to think about our future energy needs both with respect to the environment and energy security. What we don't need is silly government micro management of our lives.</i></p><p>I agree here.</p><p><i>So yes that means we need to subsidize nuclear, wind and solar power.</i></p><p>Here I disagree.  There should be no subsidies.  Let people pay the full cost of the energy they use and they're more likely to be conservative.</p><p><i>The problem is that the greenies block everything.</i></p><p>What's with the FUD?</p><p><i>greenies don't want to allow wind power on mountains in Vermont and New Hampshire even though no-one lives on the top of a mountain.</i> </p><p>Here is one who supports geothermal, solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources.  And most of those I know also support them.  Googling falcon geothermal or solar or wind site:slashdot.org you can see where I have repeatedly supported renewable energy.  For instance with the <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/22/2244222" title="slashdot.org">" Wind Could Provide 100\% of World Energy Needs"</a> [slashdot.org] thread I posted a number of tymes in support of alternative energy.  I have also posted the <a href="http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/atlas\_index.html" title="nrel.gov">Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States</a> [nrel.gov] which details the wind potential of various parts of the US.  The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to supply the 48 continuous states with power.  In some of my posts I posted I supported the <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan" title="scientificamerican.com">Solar Grand Plan</a> [scientificamerican.com].  In it they conclude solar energy could "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050."</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do need to think about our future energy needs both with respect to the environment and energy security .
What we do n't need is silly government micro management of our lives.I agree here.So yes that means we need to subsidize nuclear , wind and solar power.Here I disagree .
There should be no subsidies .
Let people pay the full cost of the energy they use and they 're more likely to be conservative.The problem is that the greenies block everything.What 's with the FUD ? greenies do n't want to allow wind power on mountains in Vermont and New Hampshire even though no-one lives on the top of a mountain .
Here is one who supports geothermal , solar , wind , and other renewable energy sources .
And most of those I know also support them .
Googling falcon geothermal or solar or wind site : slashdot.org you can see where I have repeatedly supported renewable energy .
For instance with the " Wind Could Provide 100 \ % of World Energy Needs " [ slashdot.org ] thread I posted a number of tymes in support of alternative energy .
I have also posted the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States [ nrel.gov ] which details the wind potential of various parts of the US .
The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to supply the 48 continuous states with power .
In some of my posts I posted I supported the Solar Grand Plan [ scientificamerican.com ] .
In it they conclude solar energy could " supply 69 percent of the U.S. 's electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050 .
" Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do need to think about our future energy needs both with respect to the environment and energy security.
What we don't need is silly government micro management of our lives.I agree here.So yes that means we need to subsidize nuclear, wind and solar power.Here I disagree.
There should be no subsidies.
Let people pay the full cost of the energy they use and they're more likely to be conservative.The problem is that the greenies block everything.What's with the FUD?greenies don't want to allow wind power on mountains in Vermont and New Hampshire even though no-one lives on the top of a mountain.
Here is one who supports geothermal, solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources.
And most of those I know also support them.
Googling falcon geothermal or solar or wind site:slashdot.org you can see where I have repeatedly supported renewable energy.
For instance with the " Wind Could Provide 100\% of World Energy Needs" [slashdot.org] thread I posted a number of tymes in support of alternative energy.
I have also posted the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States [nrel.gov] which details the wind potential of various parts of the US.
The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to supply the 48 continuous states with power.
In some of my posts I posted I supported the Solar Grand Plan [scientificamerican.com].
In it they conclude solar energy could "supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.
"

Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29790221</id>
	<title>Re:Ban tumble dryers instead?</title>
	<author>Desirsar</author>
	<datestamp>1255888860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She does put fox urine around the borders of her property instead of fences, right?  (Not sure what you use to ward off the foxes, though...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She does put fox urine around the borders of her property instead of fences , right ?
( Not sure what you use to ward off the foxes , though... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She does put fox urine around the borders of her property instead of fences, right?
(Not sure what you use to ward off the foxes, though...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777753</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778137</id>
	<title>Pointless</title>
	<author>Conspicuous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1255800300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Banning certain gadgets that are judged by the powers that be to have "unreasonable" energy consumption is as pointless as it is wrong headed. </p><p>Firstly, as long as demand for consumer products continues to grow exponentially any efficiency savings will just be eaten up by increased demand.<br> Secondly, while society has a right to limit the amount of carbon each individual pumps into the atmosphere in an act of collective self-preservation, it has no right to tell individuals how to use their carbon allocation. </p><p>What we need is carbon rationing, and a massive program of alternative energy research and construction. This kind of crap is just an attempt to make people feel like the climate crisis is being handled and provide a talking point without doing anything so politically dangerous as actually addressing it. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Banning certain gadgets that are judged by the powers that be to have " unreasonable " energy consumption is as pointless as it is wrong headed .
Firstly , as long as demand for consumer products continues to grow exponentially any efficiency savings will just be eaten up by increased demand .
Secondly , while society has a right to limit the amount of carbon each individual pumps into the atmosphere in an act of collective self-preservation , it has no right to tell individuals how to use their carbon allocation .
What we need is carbon rationing , and a massive program of alternative energy research and construction .
This kind of crap is just an attempt to make people feel like the climate crisis is being handled and provide a talking point without doing anything so politically dangerous as actually addressing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Banning certain gadgets that are judged by the powers that be to have "unreasonable" energy consumption is as pointless as it is wrong headed.
Firstly, as long as demand for consumer products continues to grow exponentially any efficiency savings will just be eaten up by increased demand.
Secondly, while society has a right to limit the amount of carbon each individual pumps into the atmosphere in an act of collective self-preservation, it has no right to tell individuals how to use their carbon allocation.
What we need is carbon rationing, and a massive program of alternative energy research and construction.
This kind of crap is just an attempt to make people feel like the climate crisis is being handled and provide a talking point without doing anything so politically dangerous as actually addressing it. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29780863</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255783440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Picking one TV out of thousands of models is as worthless as anecdotal evidence. It's almost worse because of the dishonesty involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Picking one TV out of thousands of models is as worthless as anecdotal evidence .
It 's almost worse because of the dishonesty involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Picking one TV out of thousands of models is as worthless as anecdotal evidence.
It's almost worse because of the dishonesty involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778403</id>
	<title>Re:Misses The Point</title>
	<author>John Whitley</author>
	<datestamp>1255802640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the non-sequitur rant.  In this case, it's probably a fine idea for a bunch of reasons.  First off, I expect there will be a ton of low hanging fruit by way of energy efficiency gains in <em>non-portable</em> consumer electronics.  Techniques that we take for granted in cellphones, laptops, etc. simply aren't applied to most devices hanging off of a wall-outlet.  E.g. idle power draw (e.g. during "soft off") is often appaling, sometimes nearly as high as full-draw when "on".  Why?  Because no one bothered to do any basic power management work.</p><p>Now companies at many levels in the production chain will have incentive to get their act together as regards power draw.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the non-sequitur rant .
In this case , it 's probably a fine idea for a bunch of reasons .
First off , I expect there will be a ton of low hanging fruit by way of energy efficiency gains in non-portable consumer electronics .
Techniques that we take for granted in cellphones , laptops , etc .
simply are n't applied to most devices hanging off of a wall-outlet .
E.g. idle power draw ( e.g .
during " soft off " ) is often appaling , sometimes nearly as high as full-draw when " on " .
Why ? Because no one bothered to do any basic power management work.Now companies at many levels in the production chain will have incentive to get their act together as regards power draw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the non-sequitur rant.
In this case, it's probably a fine idea for a bunch of reasons.
First off, I expect there will be a ton of low hanging fruit by way of energy efficiency gains in non-portable consumer electronics.
Techniques that we take for granted in cellphones, laptops, etc.
simply aren't applied to most devices hanging off of a wall-outlet.
E.g. idle power draw (e.g.
during "soft off") is often appaling, sometimes nearly as high as full-draw when "on".
Why?  Because no one bothered to do any basic power management work.Now companies at many levels in the production chain will have incentive to get their act together as regards power draw.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778539</id>
	<title>Choice quote from TFA</title>
	<author>Murple the Purple</author>
	<datestamp>1255803960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Representatives of some TV makers, including top-seller Vizio Inc. of Irvine, said they would have little trouble complying with tighter state standards without substantially increasing prices.</p></div><p>Oh, I see. They would have little trouble increasing prices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Representatives of some TV makers , including top-seller Vizio Inc. of Irvine , said they would have little trouble complying with tighter state standards without substantially increasing prices.Oh , I see .
They would have little trouble increasing prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Representatives of some TV makers, including top-seller Vizio Inc. of Irvine, said they would have little trouble complying with tighter state standards without substantially increasing prices.Oh, I see.
They would have little trouble increasing prices.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29781923</id>
	<title>Re:Misses The Point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255800180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're going to force the citizens of California to spend how many billions of dollars on new TVs to avoid spending how many millions of dollars on a new power plant?  BRILLIANT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're going to force the citizens of California to spend how many billions of dollars on new TVs to avoid spending how many millions of dollars on a new power plant ?
BRILLIANT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're going to force the citizens of California to spend how many billions of dollars on new TVs to avoid spending how many millions of dollars on a new power plant?
BRILLIANT!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776889</id>
	<title>The Governator...</title>
	<author>MindPrison</author>
	<datestamp>1255787940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is BACK,</p><p>and he saw himself on a 50 inch TV and thought - "too much detail", ban all 50" inch TV's, I got to look good on TV.<br>(Spoken with Arnoldish accent of course)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is BACK,and he saw himself on a 50 inch TV and thought - " too much detail " , ban all 50 " inch TV 's , I got to look good on TV .
( Spoken with Arnoldish accent of course ) ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is BACK,and he saw himself on a 50 inch TV and thought - "too much detail", ban all 50" inch TV's, I got to look good on TV.
(Spoken with Arnoldish accent of course) ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777873</id>
	<title>more regulation, less freedom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255797600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One more restriction, one more reduction in freedom.  Americans may be brave but we are no longer free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One more restriction , one more reduction in freedom .
Americans may be brave but we are no longer free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One more restriction, one more reduction in freedom.
Americans may be brave but we are no longer free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778609</id>
	<title>Create jobs?</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1255804500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see, what TVs are made in the US?  Oh, yeah.  None.  None at all.  The last US TV manufacturer I believe was Magnavox with the Quasar brand.  Zenith bit the dust before that, as did RCA, GE, and every other single manufacturer of consumer electronics.  None of this stuff is made in the US any longer because it is not cost effective to do so.  Primarily because of labor costs - why pay someone $30,000 a year to build TV sets when the same job pays $1500 overseas?</p><p>Perhaps the jobs being referred to would be TV investigators.  California could lead the nation in environmental impact jobs by employing people to ride bicycles around checking up on people's TVs and maybe other appliances.  If they found larger than permitted TVs or other energy-wasting appliances they could be confiscated.  That would lead to more jobs - people driving the trucks to collect these appliances and more people to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, I guess sell them to other states.</p><p>The problem is, the electricity crisis is just about upon us.  We hear constantly about large power companies proposing to build new coal generating plants to meet the growing demand.  When was the last time you actually saw one of these plants being built?  Maybe in the 1970s?  Obama has vowed to tax such plants into oblivion also, so even if they got through the environmental regulations somehow they would never actually be built.  Nuclear isn't happening in the US for political reasons - there are no real reasons not to build these plants - except it would take too long and we will be in a shortage of power long before any nuclear plant came on line.</p><p>So California might have the right idea with having applicance police.  I seriously doubt they would actually do that, but someone is going to have to do something to stop the growth in electric power consumption.  The population in the US keeps growing from immigration and we keep finding new and exciting ways to consume electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , what TVs are made in the US ?
Oh , yeah .
None. None at all .
The last US TV manufacturer I believe was Magnavox with the Quasar brand .
Zenith bit the dust before that , as did RCA , GE , and every other single manufacturer of consumer electronics .
None of this stuff is made in the US any longer because it is not cost effective to do so .
Primarily because of labor costs - why pay someone $ 30,000 a year to build TV sets when the same job pays $ 1500 overseas ? Perhaps the jobs being referred to would be TV investigators .
California could lead the nation in environmental impact jobs by employing people to ride bicycles around checking up on people 's TVs and maybe other appliances .
If they found larger than permitted TVs or other energy-wasting appliances they could be confiscated .
That would lead to more jobs - people driving the trucks to collect these appliances and more people to ... well , I guess sell them to other states.The problem is , the electricity crisis is just about upon us .
We hear constantly about large power companies proposing to build new coal generating plants to meet the growing demand .
When was the last time you actually saw one of these plants being built ?
Maybe in the 1970s ?
Obama has vowed to tax such plants into oblivion also , so even if they got through the environmental regulations somehow they would never actually be built .
Nuclear is n't happening in the US for political reasons - there are no real reasons not to build these plants - except it would take too long and we will be in a shortage of power long before any nuclear plant came on line.So California might have the right idea with having applicance police .
I seriously doubt they would actually do that , but someone is going to have to do something to stop the growth in electric power consumption .
The population in the US keeps growing from immigration and we keep finding new and exciting ways to consume electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, what TVs are made in the US?
Oh, yeah.
None.  None at all.
The last US TV manufacturer I believe was Magnavox with the Quasar brand.
Zenith bit the dust before that, as did RCA, GE, and every other single manufacturer of consumer electronics.
None of this stuff is made in the US any longer because it is not cost effective to do so.
Primarily because of labor costs - why pay someone $30,000 a year to build TV sets when the same job pays $1500 overseas?Perhaps the jobs being referred to would be TV investigators.
California could lead the nation in environmental impact jobs by employing people to ride bicycles around checking up on people's TVs and maybe other appliances.
If they found larger than permitted TVs or other energy-wasting appliances they could be confiscated.
That would lead to more jobs - people driving the trucks to collect these appliances and more people to ... well, I guess sell them to other states.The problem is, the electricity crisis is just about upon us.
We hear constantly about large power companies proposing to build new coal generating plants to meet the growing demand.
When was the last time you actually saw one of these plants being built?
Maybe in the 1970s?
Obama has vowed to tax such plants into oblivion also, so even if they got through the environmental regulations somehow they would never actually be built.
Nuclear isn't happening in the US for political reasons - there are no real reasons not to build these plants - except it would take too long and we will be in a shortage of power long before any nuclear plant came on line.So California might have the right idea with having applicance police.
I seriously doubt they would actually do that, but someone is going to have to do something to stop the growth in electric power consumption.
The population in the US keeps growing from immigration and we keep finding new and exciting ways to consume electricity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777385</id>
	<title>Re:Misses The Point</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1255792740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Agreed, to a large extent; what surprises me is this:</p><p> <i>California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant, says Ken Rider, a commission staff engineer.</i> </p><p>With all of California's power problems, it's incredibly short sighted.  Is the population not increasing?  Are they not building new homes?</p></div><p>You are quite obviously right - if they build a new $600-million natural-gas-fired power plant just for the additional power needed for new inefficient big screen TVs (compared to either the old or new efficient ones), they don't have to worry about any population increase. Not if those people don't use any electricity, or they send storm troopers to smash inefficient TVs and other devices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , to a large extent ; what surprises me is this : California could avoid the $ 600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant , says Ken Rider , a commission staff engineer .
With all of California 's power problems , it 's incredibly short sighted .
Is the population not increasing ?
Are they not building new homes ? You are quite obviously right - if they build a new $ 600-million natural-gas-fired power plant just for the additional power needed for new inefficient big screen TVs ( compared to either the old or new efficient ones ) , they do n't have to worry about any population increase .
Not if those people do n't use any electricity , or they send storm troopers to smash inefficient TVs and other devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, to a large extent; what surprises me is this: California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant, says Ken Rider, a commission staff engineer.
With all of California's power problems, it's incredibly short sighted.
Is the population not increasing?
Are they not building new homes?You are quite obviously right - if they build a new $600-million natural-gas-fired power plant just for the additional power needed for new inefficient big screen TVs (compared to either the old or new efficient ones), they don't have to worry about any population increase.
Not if those people don't use any electricity, or they send storm troopers to smash inefficient TVs and other devices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778561</id>
	<title>Re:Misses The Point</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1255804140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're part correct, but part grossly wrong. <br>
&nbsp; <br>I grew up in the mountains of Vermont and NH, and it's NOT the greens who are against putting turbines in the hills. It's the average joe who lives in a town around where they want to put them that's firmly against them. The reasons:<br>
&nbsp; <br>a) That's traditional stomping grounds for many. Hunting, hiking, etc. <br>b) We like our pristine, forest covered hills. We hate the power-line cuts which mar lots of the hills already, and we hate the ski areas which do as well. This would be another "slash a road up the side of a mountain, then clearcut chunks of it.<br>c) It might cost us jobs. VT and NH make tons of money off tourism. People come to see the unspoiled (after we spent 150 years growing it back from the clearcutting) forests and beautiful, trackless hills. If our local hills get a wind farm on them, that tourism money goes to some other town.<br>d) The corporations planning on wind farms are doing it behind the backs of the people that live there. Not asking them, not telling them anything. The first they know about it is that there are some folks from NYC or Boston surveying a mountain in their backyard. After the appropriate amount of outrage, the corporation holds a town-hall meeting where they lay out their plan to hack up the woods and stick towers up and fence parts of it off, and then act surprised when most of the people who live there don't support them. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Yes, the ultra-green group is irritating, and stops all sort of progress. But in the NE, it's generally not the greens who are the problem. It's the average citizen who's getting shafted by some corporation that forms the bulk of the opposition to new power generation plants. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Nobody likes it when some corporation from out of state comes in, whacks a bunch of trees down, and slaps a structure in. The corporations don't bother pitching it to the locals, they just assume that they can do whatever the fuck they want, wherever they want to do it. I watched this happen in the town next to where I grew up, where I used to go hunting. The plan was to close off the mountain, hack a road up it, and clearcut for a windfarm. The first the locals heard about it was when someone stumbled across the environmental impact statement buried on the state website. The people who surveyed the mountain came in from the back side, and never set foot in the town. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Yes, green power might be good, but when the corporation who does it is just another sneaky, fuck the consumers and citizens corporation, it doesn't matter. For a lot of the people in the NE, a power corporation is a power corporation, no matter if it's oil, nuclear, or wind. They're all just a bunch of lying, money grubbing, citizen-screwing, faceless corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're part correct , but part grossly wrong .
  I grew up in the mountains of Vermont and NH , and it 's NOT the greens who are against putting turbines in the hills .
It 's the average joe who lives in a town around where they want to put them that 's firmly against them .
The reasons :   a ) That 's traditional stomping grounds for many .
Hunting , hiking , etc .
b ) We like our pristine , forest covered hills .
We hate the power-line cuts which mar lots of the hills already , and we hate the ski areas which do as well .
This would be another " slash a road up the side of a mountain , then clearcut chunks of it.c ) It might cost us jobs .
VT and NH make tons of money off tourism .
People come to see the unspoiled ( after we spent 150 years growing it back from the clearcutting ) forests and beautiful , trackless hills .
If our local hills get a wind farm on them , that tourism money goes to some other town.d ) The corporations planning on wind farms are doing it behind the backs of the people that live there .
Not asking them , not telling them anything .
The first they know about it is that there are some folks from NYC or Boston surveying a mountain in their backyard .
After the appropriate amount of outrage , the corporation holds a town-hall meeting where they lay out their plan to hack up the woods and stick towers up and fence parts of it off , and then act surprised when most of the people who live there do n't support them .
  Yes , the ultra-green group is irritating , and stops all sort of progress .
But in the NE , it 's generally not the greens who are the problem .
It 's the average citizen who 's getting shafted by some corporation that forms the bulk of the opposition to new power generation plants .
  Nobody likes it when some corporation from out of state comes in , whacks a bunch of trees down , and slaps a structure in .
The corporations do n't bother pitching it to the locals , they just assume that they can do whatever the fuck they want , wherever they want to do it .
I watched this happen in the town next to where I grew up , where I used to go hunting .
The plan was to close off the mountain , hack a road up it , and clearcut for a windfarm .
The first the locals heard about it was when someone stumbled across the environmental impact statement buried on the state website .
The people who surveyed the mountain came in from the back side , and never set foot in the town .
  Yes , green power might be good , but when the corporation who does it is just another sneaky , fuck the consumers and citizens corporation , it does n't matter .
For a lot of the people in the NE , a power corporation is a power corporation , no matter if it 's oil , nuclear , or wind .
They 're all just a bunch of lying , money grubbing , citizen-screwing , faceless corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're part correct, but part grossly wrong.
  I grew up in the mountains of Vermont and NH, and it's NOT the greens who are against putting turbines in the hills.
It's the average joe who lives in a town around where they want to put them that's firmly against them.
The reasons:
  a) That's traditional stomping grounds for many.
Hunting, hiking, etc.
b) We like our pristine, forest covered hills.
We hate the power-line cuts which mar lots of the hills already, and we hate the ski areas which do as well.
This would be another "slash a road up the side of a mountain, then clearcut chunks of it.c) It might cost us jobs.
VT and NH make tons of money off tourism.
People come to see the unspoiled (after we spent 150 years growing it back from the clearcutting) forests and beautiful, trackless hills.
If our local hills get a wind farm on them, that tourism money goes to some other town.d) The corporations planning on wind farms are doing it behind the backs of the people that live there.
Not asking them, not telling them anything.
The first they know about it is that there are some folks from NYC or Boston surveying a mountain in their backyard.
After the appropriate amount of outrage, the corporation holds a town-hall meeting where they lay out their plan to hack up the woods and stick towers up and fence parts of it off, and then act surprised when most of the people who live there don't support them.
  Yes, the ultra-green group is irritating, and stops all sort of progress.
But in the NE, it's generally not the greens who are the problem.
It's the average citizen who's getting shafted by some corporation that forms the bulk of the opposition to new power generation plants.
  Nobody likes it when some corporation from out of state comes in, whacks a bunch of trees down, and slaps a structure in.
The corporations don't bother pitching it to the locals, they just assume that they can do whatever the fuck they want, wherever they want to do it.
I watched this happen in the town next to where I grew up, where I used to go hunting.
The plan was to close off the mountain, hack a road up it, and clearcut for a windfarm.
The first the locals heard about it was when someone stumbled across the environmental impact statement buried on the state website.
The people who surveyed the mountain came in from the back side, and never set foot in the town.
  Yes, green power might be good, but when the corporation who does it is just another sneaky, fuck the consumers and citizens corporation, it doesn't matter.
For a lot of the people in the NE, a power corporation is a power corporation, no matter if it's oil, nuclear, or wind.
They're all just a bunch of lying, money grubbing, citizen-screwing, faceless corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777333</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1255792320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It makes the whole process of enforcement and monitoring more complicated, more expensive and prone to corruption.</p></div></blockquote><p>Evidence of corruption please?<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </p><blockquote><div><p>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes.</p></div></blockquote><p>Everytime I hear this, I shudder - because 'real cost' is actually code meaning 'make it expensive, really expensive' as there is no universally recognized method of ascertaining 'real costs', only a bewildering thicket of politically motivated ones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes the whole process of enforcement and monitoring more complicated , more expensive and prone to corruption.Evidence of corruption please ?
    The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline , to reflect the real cost of the commodity , through taxes.Everytime I hear this , I shudder - because 'real cost ' is actually code meaning 'make it expensive , really expensive ' as there is no universally recognized method of ascertaining 'real costs ' , only a bewildering thicket of politically motivated ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes the whole process of enforcement and monitoring more complicated, more expensive and prone to corruption.Evidence of corruption please?
  
  The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes.Everytime I hear this, I shudder - because 'real cost' is actually code meaning 'make it expensive, really expensive' as there is no universally recognized method of ascertaining 'real costs', only a bewildering thicket of politically motivated ones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777825</id>
	<title>Any corporation that can ruin the world is okay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255797000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lead, tetraethyl lead, polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT, mercury, methylmercury, friable asbestos, BPA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>there's no end to the good things corporations would bring you-the-consumer if it weren't for we-the-people interfering.</p><p>Be grateful and participate in our government.  It's you.  The corporation isn't.</p><p>Oh, and remember -- don't lick your fingers:<br><a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48084/title/Science\_\%2B\_the\_Public\_\_Concerned\_about\_BPA\_Check\_your\_receipts" title="sciencenews.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48084/title/Science\_\%2B\_the\_Public\_\_Concerned\_about\_BPA\_Check\_your\_receipts</a> [sciencenews.org]</p><p>"... "When people talk about polycarbonate bottles, they talk about nanogram quantities of BPA [leaching out]," Warner observes. "The average cash register receipt that's out there and uses the BPA technology will have 60 to 100 milligrams of free BPA." By free, he explains, it's not bound into a polymer, like the BPA in polycarbonates. It's just the individual molecules loose and ready for uptake.</p><p>As such, he argues, when it comes to BPA in the urban environment, "the biggest exposures, in my opinion, will be these cash register receipts." Once on the fingers, BPA can be transferred to foods. And keep in mind, he adds, some hormones -- like estrogen in certain birth-control formulations -- are delivered through the skin by controlled-release patches. So, he argues, estrogen mimics like BPA might similarly enter the skin...."</p><p>Just remember -- better living through chemistry, but they didn't say \_whose\_ living would be bettered.<br>KaChing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lead , tetraethyl lead , polychlorinated biphenyls , DDT , mercury , methylmercury , friable asbestos , BPA ...there 's no end to the good things corporations would bring you-the-consumer if it were n't for we-the-people interfering.Be grateful and participate in our government .
It 's you .
The corporation is n't.Oh , and remember -- do n't lick your fingers : http : //www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48084/title/Science \ _ \ % 2B \ _the \ _Public \ _ \ _Concerned \ _about \ _BPA \ _Check \ _your \ _receipts [ sciencenews.org ] " ... " When people talk about polycarbonate bottles , they talk about nanogram quantities of BPA [ leaching out ] , " Warner observes .
" The average cash register receipt that 's out there and uses the BPA technology will have 60 to 100 milligrams of free BPA .
" By free , he explains , it 's not bound into a polymer , like the BPA in polycarbonates .
It 's just the individual molecules loose and ready for uptake.As such , he argues , when it comes to BPA in the urban environment , " the biggest exposures , in my opinion , will be these cash register receipts .
" Once on the fingers , BPA can be transferred to foods .
And keep in mind , he adds , some hormones -- like estrogen in certain birth-control formulations -- are delivered through the skin by controlled-release patches .
So , he argues , estrogen mimics like BPA might similarly enter the skin.... " Just remember -- better living through chemistry , but they did n't say \ _whose \ _ living would be bettered.KaChing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lead, tetraethyl lead, polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT, mercury, methylmercury, friable asbestos, BPA ...there's no end to the good things corporations would bring you-the-consumer if it weren't for we-the-people interfering.Be grateful and participate in our government.
It's you.
The corporation isn't.Oh, and remember -- don't lick your fingers:http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48084/title/Science\_\%2B\_the\_Public\_\_Concerned\_about\_BPA\_Check\_your\_receipts [sciencenews.org]"... "When people talk about polycarbonate bottles, they talk about nanogram quantities of BPA [leaching out]," Warner observes.
"The average cash register receipt that's out there and uses the BPA technology will have 60 to 100 milligrams of free BPA.
" By free, he explains, it's not bound into a polymer, like the BPA in polycarbonates.
It's just the individual molecules loose and ready for uptake.As such, he argues, when it comes to BPA in the urban environment, "the biggest exposures, in my opinion, will be these cash register receipts.
" Once on the fingers, BPA can be transferred to foods.
And keep in mind, he adds, some hormones -- like estrogen in certain birth-control formulations -- are delivered through the skin by controlled-release patches.
So, he argues, estrogen mimics like BPA might similarly enter the skin...."Just remember -- better living through chemistry, but they didn't say \_whose\_ living would be bettered.KaChing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777183</id>
	<title>Re:Idiots</title>
	<author>jcorno</author>
	<datestamp>1255791060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Glad i don't live there. ( and hope their stupidity doesn't spread ).</p></div></blockquote><p>The economics of this situation is more complicated than "costs more money = bad."  People don't take energy efficiency into account when they make a big purchase like this.  That means it's in the best interest of the manufacturer to save 5 bucks on manufacturing costs, even it means an extra $100 in electricity bills for the consumer.  Legislation is the only really effective way to balance out the costs in a case like this, unless you can figure out how to make people pay for the electricity up front.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad i do n't live there .
( and hope their stupidity does n't spread ) .The economics of this situation is more complicated than " costs more money = bad .
" People do n't take energy efficiency into account when they make a big purchase like this .
That means it 's in the best interest of the manufacturer to save 5 bucks on manufacturing costs , even it means an extra $ 100 in electricity bills for the consumer .
Legislation is the only really effective way to balance out the costs in a case like this , unless you can figure out how to make people pay for the electricity up front .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad i don't live there.
( and hope their stupidity doesn't spread ).The economics of this situation is more complicated than "costs more money = bad.
"  People don't take energy efficiency into account when they make a big purchase like this.
That means it's in the best interest of the manufacturer to save 5 bucks on manufacturing costs, even it means an extra $100 in electricity bills for the consumer.
Legislation is the only really effective way to balance out the costs in a case like this, unless you can figure out how to make people pay for the electricity up front.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776943</id>
	<title>Re:Create More Hobs ???</title>
	<author>just\_a\_monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1255789080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't see were any jobs would be created?</p></div><p>
English teachers. Badly needed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see were any jobs would be created ?
English teachers .
Badly needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see were any jobs would be created?
English teachers.
Badly needed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>polar red</author>
	<datestamp>1255787940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes</p></div><p>hey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ? Without government intervention, he won't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline , to reflect the real cost of the commodity , through taxeshey Einstein , how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ?
Without government intervention , he wo n't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxeshey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ?
Without government intervention, he won't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777163</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1255790880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes. That way, there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance.</p></div><p>That is not the logical and simpler solution.<br>Why? Because California doesn't want to take that extra money and build a powerplant.<br>Nor do they want to externalize that cost of fixing TVs over [EVERY appliance].<br>Further, even after [EVERY appliance] is more efficient, the tax still exists.</p><p>And seriously, in what world are taxes a "natural economic pressure"?<br>They're no more or less natural than arbitrary regulation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline , to reflect the real cost of the commodity , through taxes .
That way , there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance.That is not the logical and simpler solution.Why ?
Because California does n't want to take that extra money and build a powerplant.Nor do they want to externalize that cost of fixing TVs over [ EVERY appliance ] .Further , even after [ EVERY appliance ] is more efficient , the tax still exists.And seriously , in what world are taxes a " natural economic pressure " ? They 're no more or less natural than arbitrary regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes.
That way, there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance.That is not the logical and simpler solution.Why?
Because California doesn't want to take that extra money and build a powerplant.Nor do they want to externalize that cost of fixing TVs over [EVERY appliance].Further, even after [EVERY appliance] is more efficient, the tax still exists.And seriously, in what world are taxes a "natural economic pressure"?They're no more or less natural than arbitrary regulation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779185</id>
	<title>Re:A Government that can...</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1255809960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why we have a democracy. The government is YOU and a lot of other people who got together. If they people of California were sufficiently unhappy about this, we would get together and vote the legislators out of office. The limits of government is what we are willing to put up with.<br> <br>
Our government could enslave all the people of a certain race if it wanted to. It could round up all those of a different race and put them in concentration camps if it wanted to. It's all a matter of what the people are willing to put up with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why we have a democracy .
The government is YOU and a lot of other people who got together .
If they people of California were sufficiently unhappy about this , we would get together and vote the legislators out of office .
The limits of government is what we are willing to put up with .
Our government could enslave all the people of a certain race if it wanted to .
It could round up all those of a different race and put them in concentration camps if it wanted to .
It 's all a matter of what the people are willing to put up with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why we have a democracy.
The government is YOU and a lot of other people who got together.
If they people of California were sufficiently unhappy about this, we would get together and vote the legislators out of office.
The limits of government is what we are willing to put up with.
Our government could enslave all the people of a certain race if it wanted to.
It could round up all those of a different race and put them in concentration camps if it wanted to.
It's all a matter of what the people are willing to put up with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777727</id>
	<title>Called it!</title>
	<author>SoundGuyNoise</author>
	<datestamp>1255795980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>January 7, 2009:<br>

<a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1083795&amp;cid=26362801" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1083795&amp;cid=26362801</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>January 7 , 2009 : http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1083795&amp;cid = 26362801 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>January 7, 2009:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1083795&amp;cid=26362801 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777517</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>pommiekiwifruit</author>
	<datestamp>1255793820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ?</i>
<p>He or she looks at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_Union\_energy\_label" title="wikipedia.org">giant letter</a> [wikipedia.org] on the front of the fridge in the salesroom saying "A++" rated (good) or "E" rated (bad). Requiring information on goodness/badness is not the same as banning bad things. If he or she passed maths class at school he or she could further make calculations based on the actual usage in kWH/year (for a certain climate) printed in slightly smaller print next to the giant letter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ?
He or she looks at the giant letter [ wikipedia.org ] on the front of the fridge in the salesroom saying " A + + " rated ( good ) or " E " rated ( bad ) .
Requiring information on goodness/badness is not the same as banning bad things .
If he or she passed maths class at school he or she could further make calculations based on the actual usage in kWH/year ( for a certain climate ) printed in slightly smaller print next to the giant letter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ?
He or she looks at the giant letter [wikipedia.org] on the front of the fridge in the salesroom saying "A++" rated (good) or "E" rated (bad).
Requiring information on goodness/badness is not the same as banning bad things.
If he or she passed maths class at school he or she could further make calculations based on the actual usage in kWH/year (for a certain climate) printed in slightly smaller print next to the giant letter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779217</id>
	<title>Re:Create More Hobs ???</title>
	<author>davester666</author>
	<datestamp>1255810320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if all cars switched over to being powered by electricity, how many new power plants would need to be built?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if all cars switched over to being powered by electricity , how many new power plants would need to be built ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if all cars switched over to being powered by electricity, how many new power plants would need to be built?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777235</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1255791420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're comparing a 28" CRT to a 37" LCD.  Gee, I wonder why the 37" uses just a few percent more.  At least compare it to a 28" LCD to get a good comparison.  Comparing one tv to another that has 75\% more area without doing any scaling is deceptive. Also, that is peak power consumed, not the average consumed while on.  Hell, my 40" LED uses about 85w normally while the power supply is rated for 140w to handle peak loads.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're comparing a 28 " CRT to a 37 " LCD .
Gee , I wonder why the 37 " uses just a few percent more .
At least compare it to a 28 " LCD to get a good comparison .
Comparing one tv to another that has 75 \ % more area without doing any scaling is deceptive .
Also , that is peak power consumed , not the average consumed while on .
Hell , my 40 " LED uses about 85w normally while the power supply is rated for 140w to handle peak loads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're comparing a 28" CRT to a 37" LCD.
Gee, I wonder why the 37" uses just a few percent more.
At least compare it to a 28" LCD to get a good comparison.
Comparing one tv to another that has 75\% more area without doing any scaling is deceptive.
Also, that is peak power consumed, not the average consumed while on.
Hell, my 40" LED uses about 85w normally while the power supply is rated for 140w to handle peak loads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779161</id>
	<title>California Spoilers</title>
	<author>nefus</author>
	<datestamp>1255809720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm tired of California spoiling things for the rest of us.  Maybe some of the smaller states need to come out with some silly restrictions that would drive California crazy for once.  Perhaps a few crazy laws on things exported from them for a change.  I'm sick and tired of seeing tags that say, "Known to cause cancer in the state of California."  I actually bought a power tool with that sticker once.  This nutty idea of banning black cars... just wait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of California spoiling things for the rest of us .
Maybe some of the smaller states need to come out with some silly restrictions that would drive California crazy for once .
Perhaps a few crazy laws on things exported from them for a change .
I 'm sick and tired of seeing tags that say , " Known to cause cancer in the state of California .
" I actually bought a power tool with that sticker once .
This nutty idea of banning black cars... just wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of California spoiling things for the rest of us.
Maybe some of the smaller states need to come out with some silly restrictions that would drive California crazy for once.
Perhaps a few crazy laws on things exported from them for a change.
I'm sick and tired of seeing tags that say, "Known to cause cancer in the state of California.
"  I actually bought a power tool with that sticker once.
This nutty idea of banning black cars... just wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777403</id>
	<title>Re:Ban tumble dryers instead?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255792920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Sydney, Australia it is illegal in most apartment blocks also because of the danger of something falling, but also the unsightliness of seeing your neighbours underwear from the street. I fully support this, and although I live in an apartment myself I still use an internal drying rack to dry most of my stuff all year around. I probably only have to resort to the dryer about 4 times per year. Americans are going to have a shock when their 'god given right' to cheap energy disappears because as dollar becomes rightly so much more weaker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Sydney , Australia it is illegal in most apartment blocks also because of the danger of something falling , but also the unsightliness of seeing your neighbours underwear from the street .
I fully support this , and although I live in an apartment myself I still use an internal drying rack to dry most of my stuff all year around .
I probably only have to resort to the dryer about 4 times per year .
Americans are going to have a shock when their 'god given right ' to cheap energy disappears because as dollar becomes rightly so much more weaker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Sydney, Australia it is illegal in most apartment blocks also because of the danger of something falling, but also the unsightliness of seeing your neighbours underwear from the street.
I fully support this, and although I live in an apartment myself I still use an internal drying rack to dry most of my stuff all year around.
I probably only have to resort to the dryer about 4 times per year.
Americans are going to have a shock when their 'god given right' to cheap energy disappears because as dollar becomes rightly so much more weaker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777093</id>
	<title>Re:Create More Hobs ???</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1255790400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Considering all TVs are now designed and produced overseas I can't see were any jobs would be created?</p></div><p>Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that American companies (for the most part) don't innovate until forced by law (or the market has long passed them by).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering all TVs are now designed and produced overseas I ca n't see were any jobs would be created ? Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that American companies ( for the most part ) do n't innovate until forced by law ( or the market has long passed them by ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering all TVs are now designed and produced overseas I can't see were any jobs would be created?Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that American companies (for the most part) don't innovate until forced by law (or the market has long passed them by).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777347</id>
	<title>Re:A Government that can...</title>
	<author>cbope</author>
	<datestamp>1255792440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777551</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Miamicanes</author>
	<datestamp>1255794180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe most CRTs actually consumed less power in active use than comparable *LCD* sets circa 2007 did. From what I know about electrical engineering, the main culprit was the power supply. CRTs had a fairly small AC-DC power supply, and drew most of their power from a transformer that converted 110VAC/220VAC into a few thousand volts... with relatively high efficiency. In contrast, LCD panels need lots of DC, much of which needs to be tightly regulated. To save money, they often use linear power supplies. Generalizing a bit, a linear supply draws about as many amperes of source voltage as it outputs in target voltage.</p><p>Here's an example. Suppose your LCD needs to draw 10 amperes at 5v, and you're feeding it 12vdc that came from a transformer and ran through a diode bridge. It's going to draw at least 10 amperes of 12v at the input end. In contrast, if you're using a more efficient (but slightly more expensive to build) active power supply, you might need ~6-8amperes of 12v input power to supply 5v @ 5A on the output side. CRTs had linear power supplies that were inefficient too, but the power needs of the tuner and control circuitry were pretty minimal, so it didn't matter much. Simply replacing the linear power supply with an active one can dramatically cut the power consumption. It would be insane to spend $25 more on the power supply for a wireless access point that draws ~150mA and sells for $20 on sale right now, but makes quite a bit of sense to do it for a $600 TV that draws hundreds of times more power.</p><p>As for the regulation, I think it's heavy handed. California could achieve most of the same benefit, with lower compliance cost, by simply requiring that stores clearly indicate the total amperes the TV draws from 4 hours of continuous use, and the estimated annual cost of that use based on the moving 5-year average price of power in California (with the state publishing the official value to be used for the next 12 months' of calculations each year). Let consumers see that TV A (on sale for $499) will cost them $10/month more to use than TV B (not on sale, $699), enable them to easily determine that TV A will ultimately cost a LOT more than TV B if they keep it more than 20 months, and Adam Smith's invisible hand will do its job just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe most CRTs actually consumed less power in active use than comparable * LCD * sets circa 2007 did .
From what I know about electrical engineering , the main culprit was the power supply .
CRTs had a fairly small AC-DC power supply , and drew most of their power from a transformer that converted 110VAC/220VAC into a few thousand volts... with relatively high efficiency .
In contrast , LCD panels need lots of DC , much of which needs to be tightly regulated .
To save money , they often use linear power supplies .
Generalizing a bit , a linear supply draws about as many amperes of source voltage as it outputs in target voltage.Here 's an example .
Suppose your LCD needs to draw 10 amperes at 5v , and you 're feeding it 12vdc that came from a transformer and ran through a diode bridge .
It 's going to draw at least 10 amperes of 12v at the input end .
In contrast , if you 're using a more efficient ( but slightly more expensive to build ) active power supply , you might need ~ 6-8amperes of 12v input power to supply 5v @ 5A on the output side .
CRTs had linear power supplies that were inefficient too , but the power needs of the tuner and control circuitry were pretty minimal , so it did n't matter much .
Simply replacing the linear power supply with an active one can dramatically cut the power consumption .
It would be insane to spend $ 25 more on the power supply for a wireless access point that draws ~ 150mA and sells for $ 20 on sale right now , but makes quite a bit of sense to do it for a $ 600 TV that draws hundreds of times more power.As for the regulation , I think it 's heavy handed .
California could achieve most of the same benefit , with lower compliance cost , by simply requiring that stores clearly indicate the total amperes the TV draws from 4 hours of continuous use , and the estimated annual cost of that use based on the moving 5-year average price of power in California ( with the state publishing the official value to be used for the next 12 months ' of calculations each year ) .
Let consumers see that TV A ( on sale for $ 499 ) will cost them $ 10/month more to use than TV B ( not on sale , $ 699 ) , enable them to easily determine that TV A will ultimately cost a LOT more than TV B if they keep it more than 20 months , and Adam Smith 's invisible hand will do its job just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe most CRTs actually consumed less power in active use than comparable *LCD* sets circa 2007 did.
From what I know about electrical engineering, the main culprit was the power supply.
CRTs had a fairly small AC-DC power supply, and drew most of their power from a transformer that converted 110VAC/220VAC into a few thousand volts... with relatively high efficiency.
In contrast, LCD panels need lots of DC, much of which needs to be tightly regulated.
To save money, they often use linear power supplies.
Generalizing a bit, a linear supply draws about as many amperes of source voltage as it outputs in target voltage.Here's an example.
Suppose your LCD needs to draw 10 amperes at 5v, and you're feeding it 12vdc that came from a transformer and ran through a diode bridge.
It's going to draw at least 10 amperes of 12v at the input end.
In contrast, if you're using a more efficient (but slightly more expensive to build) active power supply, you might need ~6-8amperes of 12v input power to supply 5v @ 5A on the output side.
CRTs had linear power supplies that were inefficient too, but the power needs of the tuner and control circuitry were pretty minimal, so it didn't matter much.
Simply replacing the linear power supply with an active one can dramatically cut the power consumption.
It would be insane to spend $25 more on the power supply for a wireless access point that draws ~150mA and sells for $20 on sale right now, but makes quite a bit of sense to do it for a $600 TV that draws hundreds of times more power.As for the regulation, I think it's heavy handed.
California could achieve most of the same benefit, with lower compliance cost, by simply requiring that stores clearly indicate the total amperes the TV draws from 4 hours of continuous use, and the estimated annual cost of that use based on the moving 5-year average price of power in California (with the state publishing the official value to be used for the next 12 months' of calculations each year).
Let consumers see that TV A (on sale for $499) will cost them $10/month more to use than TV B (not on sale, $699), enable them to easily determine that TV A will ultimately cost a LOT more than TV B if they keep it more than 20 months, and Adam Smith's invisible hand will do its job just fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29780541</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255779780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same way he knows which cars are fuel efficient. As soon as there is significant demand for energy efficient appliances, the companies will start designing and advertising new energy efficient appliances. Then all the government has to do is regulate the method of measurement and prevent false advertising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same way he knows which cars are fuel efficient .
As soon as there is significant demand for energy efficient appliances , the companies will start designing and advertising new energy efficient appliances .
Then all the government has to do is regulate the method of measurement and prevent false advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same way he knows which cars are fuel efficient.
As soon as there is significant demand for energy efficient appliances, the companies will start designing and advertising new energy efficient appliances.
Then all the government has to do is regulate the method of measurement and prevent false advertising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776871</id>
	<title>Re:Misses The Point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255787640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I totally agree. Well said.</p><p>Green is the new Red. (hammer and sickle)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree .
Well said.Green is the new Red .
( hammer and sickle )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree.
Well said.Green is the new Red.
(hammer and sickle)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>A Friendly Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1255789140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And if someone has the money to pay for the electricity consumed by his/her CRT TV, then let them.</p></div><p>I have a 28" Philips CRT TV. I can't find its papers and I cannot be bothered to look on its back for possible power consumption, but according to <a href="http://www.sust-it.net/energy\_saving.php?id=16" title="sust-it.net">this page</a> [sust-it.net], it shouldn't be using more than 110-120W. There weren't many larger CRTs made due to their sheer weight.</p><p>Now play around on that site and check out the power consumption of a <a href="http://www.sust-it.net/energy\_saving.php?id=95&amp;sd=1&amp;tariff=38" title="sust-it.net">37" LCD</a> [sust-it.net], which has roughly the same height as my CRT, but is wide-screen. Whoops, the most efficient one is 123W.</p><p>The numbers they have on that site probably aren't completely accurate, but CRTs really weren't the power hogs people make them to be. Today's LCD and plasma screens - especially since they come in larger sizes - use a LOT more power than the biggest CRTs in the old days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if someone has the money to pay for the electricity consumed by his/her CRT TV , then let them.I have a 28 " Philips CRT TV .
I ca n't find its papers and I can not be bothered to look on its back for possible power consumption , but according to this page [ sust-it.net ] , it should n't be using more than 110-120W .
There were n't many larger CRTs made due to their sheer weight.Now play around on that site and check out the power consumption of a 37 " LCD [ sust-it.net ] , which has roughly the same height as my CRT , but is wide-screen .
Whoops , the most efficient one is 123W.The numbers they have on that site probably are n't completely accurate , but CRTs really were n't the power hogs people make them to be .
Today 's LCD and plasma screens - especially since they come in larger sizes - use a LOT more power than the biggest CRTs in the old days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if someone has the money to pay for the electricity consumed by his/her CRT TV, then let them.I have a 28" Philips CRT TV.
I can't find its papers and I cannot be bothered to look on its back for possible power consumption, but according to this page [sust-it.net], it shouldn't be using more than 110-120W.
There weren't many larger CRTs made due to their sheer weight.Now play around on that site and check out the power consumption of a 37" LCD [sust-it.net], which has roughly the same height as my CRT, but is wide-screen.
Whoops, the most efficient one is 123W.The numbers they have on that site probably aren't completely accurate, but CRTs really weren't the power hogs people make them to be.
Today's LCD and plasma screens - especially since they come in larger sizes - use a LOT more power than the biggest CRTs in the old days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29780185</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1255776540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I don't know about the politics of Finland, but here in the U.S. this is essentially what Al Gore tried to do with the carbon tax. He failed. Pretty much every economist agrees with you and Al Gore, but it's just not going to happen in the U.S. People in the U.S. are used to having cheap energy. They don't realize that when we were at the top of the recent spike in gas prices, we were still paying less than most people throughout most of the world. Sometimes in politics you have to do what's possible, rather than what would theoretically be optimal.
</p><p>
There is also a question of the effect that these two alternative policies would have on rich people and poor people. When energy prices go up, either through taxation or through market mechanisms, it really hits poor people hard. A lot of poor people in the U.S. drive a long way to work. On the other hand, a law mandating higher efficiencies for gigantic TVs will have no economic effect on poor people, who don't own gigantic TVs. Of course all of this could be decoupled. You could tax energy while messing around with other areas of tax policy so that it didn't constitude a net loss for poor people and a net gain for rich people. But our political system isn't very good about decoupling issues like these.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline , to reflect the real cost of the commodity , through taxes .
I do n't know about the politics of Finland , but here in the U.S. this is essentially what Al Gore tried to do with the carbon tax .
He failed .
Pretty much every economist agrees with you and Al Gore , but it 's just not going to happen in the U.S. People in the U.S. are used to having cheap energy .
They do n't realize that when we were at the top of the recent spike in gas prices , we were still paying less than most people throughout most of the world .
Sometimes in politics you have to do what 's possible , rather than what would theoretically be optimal .
There is also a question of the effect that these two alternative policies would have on rich people and poor people .
When energy prices go up , either through taxation or through market mechanisms , it really hits poor people hard .
A lot of poor people in the U.S. drive a long way to work .
On the other hand , a law mandating higher efficiencies for gigantic TVs will have no economic effect on poor people , who do n't own gigantic TVs .
Of course all of this could be decoupled .
You could tax energy while messing around with other areas of tax policy so that it did n't constitude a net loss for poor people and a net gain for rich people .
But our political system is n't very good about decoupling issues like these .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes.
I don't know about the politics of Finland, but here in the U.S. this is essentially what Al Gore tried to do with the carbon tax.
He failed.
Pretty much every economist agrees with you and Al Gore, but it's just not going to happen in the U.S. People in the U.S. are used to having cheap energy.
They don't realize that when we were at the top of the recent spike in gas prices, we were still paying less than most people throughout most of the world.
Sometimes in politics you have to do what's possible, rather than what would theoretically be optimal.
There is also a question of the effect that these two alternative policies would have on rich people and poor people.
When energy prices go up, either through taxation or through market mechanisms, it really hits poor people hard.
A lot of poor people in the U.S. drive a long way to work.
On the other hand, a law mandating higher efficiencies for gigantic TVs will have no economic effect on poor people, who don't own gigantic TVs.
Of course all of this could be decoupled.
You could tax energy while messing around with other areas of tax policy so that it didn't constitude a net loss for poor people and a net gain for rich people.
But our political system isn't very good about decoupling issues like these.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777701</id>
	<title>Re:Misses The Point</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1255795620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree in general, I read a convincing article on how when you consider all costs, nuclear is the most expensive option per kilowatt.</p><p>I won't even give a link, because if you're going to refute just that one author then I have at least 3 more.  Does anyone have a good analysis of nuclear costs, including construction, waste disposal, and monitoring, which puts nuclear into a reasonable cost?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree in general , I read a convincing article on how when you consider all costs , nuclear is the most expensive option per kilowatt.I wo n't even give a link , because if you 're going to refute just that one author then I have at least 3 more .
Does anyone have a good analysis of nuclear costs , including construction , waste disposal , and monitoring , which puts nuclear into a reasonable cost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree in general, I read a convincing article on how when you consider all costs, nuclear is the most expensive option per kilowatt.I won't even give a link, because if you're going to refute just that one author then I have at least 3 more.
Does anyone have a good analysis of nuclear costs, including construction, waste disposal, and monitoring, which puts nuclear into a reasonable cost?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778951</id>
	<title>creating jobs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255807920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Creating jobs is the mantra of job-killers.
</p><p>
Seems to me, an increase in power needs, necessitating the building of another power-plant (nuclear has no carbon print) creates more jobs than hiring managers to oversee the shipping  of LCD's made in China.
</p><p>
Unless, of course, those new jobs are the special power consumption police.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Creating jobs is the mantra of job-killers .
Seems to me , an increase in power needs , necessitating the building of another power-plant ( nuclear has no carbon print ) creates more jobs than hiring managers to oversee the shipping of LCD 's made in China .
Unless , of course , those new jobs are the special power consumption police .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Creating jobs is the mantra of job-killers.
Seems to me, an increase in power needs, necessitating the building of another power-plant (nuclear has no carbon print) creates more jobs than hiring managers to oversee the shipping  of LCD's made in China.
Unless, of course, those new jobs are the special power consumption police.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773</id>
	<title>Create More Hobs ???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255785840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where are the jobs going to be created?  Best Buy and Walmart.  Considering all TVs are now designed and produced overseas I can't see were any jobs would be created?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are the jobs going to be created ?
Best Buy and Walmart .
Considering all TVs are now designed and produced overseas I ca n't see were any jobs would be created ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are the jobs going to be created?
Best Buy and Walmart.
Considering all TVs are now designed and produced overseas I can't see were any jobs would be created?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777981</id>
	<title>Long Term Future</title>
	<author>trout007</author>
	<datestamp>1255798680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is the problem I have with energy efficiency. We need to work on production not consumption. Human progress is marked by our ability to produce and control larger amounts of energy.  The big moments, fire, steam, steel(blast furnaces), oil, hydro, nuclear, rockets. I cannot imagine a future where people are better off producing less energy. We need more. Nuclear is the next obvious step. It has only been regulations that have been in the way. I am a capitalist but as such property rights are important. You can't let a power plant pollute because that harms my property. All manufacturing cannot be allowed to cause a measurable increase in pollutants on neighboring property. That means coal plants would be allowed but they can't put out measurable quantities of pollutants. Also if we stop our world empire we would stop subsidizing the costs of oil. Oil companies and shippers would have to pay for their own security and that would be rolled into the cost of oil. Nuclear is the most power dense solution especially if regulations for reprocessing are removed. We can truly move into the next stage of humanity if this technology is allowed to progress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the problem I have with energy efficiency .
We need to work on production not consumption .
Human progress is marked by our ability to produce and control larger amounts of energy .
The big moments , fire , steam , steel ( blast furnaces ) , oil , hydro , nuclear , rockets .
I can not imagine a future where people are better off producing less energy .
We need more .
Nuclear is the next obvious step .
It has only been regulations that have been in the way .
I am a capitalist but as such property rights are important .
You ca n't let a power plant pollute because that harms my property .
All manufacturing can not be allowed to cause a measurable increase in pollutants on neighboring property .
That means coal plants would be allowed but they ca n't put out measurable quantities of pollutants .
Also if we stop our world empire we would stop subsidizing the costs of oil .
Oil companies and shippers would have to pay for their own security and that would be rolled into the cost of oil .
Nuclear is the most power dense solution especially if regulations for reprocessing are removed .
We can truly move into the next stage of humanity if this technology is allowed to progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the problem I have with energy efficiency.
We need to work on production not consumption.
Human progress is marked by our ability to produce and control larger amounts of energy.
The big moments, fire, steam, steel(blast furnaces), oil, hydro, nuclear, rockets.
I cannot imagine a future where people are better off producing less energy.
We need more.
Nuclear is the next obvious step.
It has only been regulations that have been in the way.
I am a capitalist but as such property rights are important.
You can't let a power plant pollute because that harms my property.
All manufacturing cannot be allowed to cause a measurable increase in pollutants on neighboring property.
That means coal plants would be allowed but they can't put out measurable quantities of pollutants.
Also if we stop our world empire we would stop subsidizing the costs of oil.
Oil companies and shippers would have to pay for their own security and that would be rolled into the cost of oil.
Nuclear is the most power dense solution especially if regulations for reprocessing are removed.
We can truly move into the next stage of humanity if this technology is allowed to progress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777345</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255792380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>hey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ? Without government intervention, he won't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>In the UK and Australia at least we've had stickers on the likes of refrigerators, washing machines and dishwashers regarding power and (at least in Australia) water consumption. Its a nice simple system based around a 5 star model graphic so most Americans should even be able to understand. Water companies in Australia even provided rebates of something like $250AUD if you bought one of the more efficient washers. So not only saving you in consumption, you got the upfront additional expense back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hey Einstein , how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ?
Without government intervention , he wo n't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device ...In the UK and Australia at least we 've had stickers on the likes of refrigerators , washing machines and dishwashers regarding power and ( at least in Australia ) water consumption .
Its a nice simple system based around a 5 star model graphic so most Americans should even be able to understand .
Water companies in Australia even provided rebates of something like $ 250AUD if you bought one of the more efficient washers .
So not only saving you in consumption , you got the upfront additional expense back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ?
Without government intervention, he won't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device ...In the UK and Australia at least we've had stickers on the likes of refrigerators, washing machines and dishwashers regarding power and (at least in Australia) water consumption.
Its a nice simple system based around a 5 star model graphic so most Americans should even be able to understand.
Water companies in Australia even provided rebates of something like $250AUD if you bought one of the more efficient washers.
So not only saving you in consumption, you got the upfront additional expense back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776817</id>
	<title>Re:Misses The Point</title>
	<author>fredjh</author>
	<datestamp>1255786740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, to a large extent; what surprises me is this:</p><p><i>California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant, says Ken Rider, a commission staff engineer.</i></p><p>With all of California's power problems, it's incredibly short sighted.  Is the population not increasing?  Are they not building new homes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , to a large extent ; what surprises me is this : California could avoid the $ 600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant , says Ken Rider , a commission staff engineer.With all of California 's power problems , it 's incredibly short sighted .
Is the population not increasing ?
Are they not building new homes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, to a large extent; what surprises me is this:California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant, says Ken Rider, a commission staff engineer.With all of California's power problems, it's incredibly short sighted.
Is the population not increasing?
Are they not building new homes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29781427</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1255791420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>hey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ? Without government intervention, he won't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Here in Europe, every appliance sold in shops or otherwise, has the information about power consumption printed among the main properties of the product. I'm pretty sure the same is true for the USA. In other words, anyone can see how much a certain appliance consumes, before they buy it. It's exactly because of nannysms like the one we are talking about here, that the consumer doesn't look at it. It's just induced laziness, which however is easily curable - by drastically increasing the cost of electrical energy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hey Einstein , how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ?
Without government intervention , he wo n't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device ...Here in Europe , every appliance sold in shops or otherwise , has the information about power consumption printed among the main properties of the product .
I 'm pretty sure the same is true for the USA .
In other words , anyone can see how much a certain appliance consumes , before they buy it .
It 's exactly because of nannysms like the one we are talking about here , that the consumer does n't look at it .
It 's just induced laziness , which however is easily curable - by drastically increasing the cost of electrical energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ?
Without government intervention, he won't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device ...Here in Europe, every appliance sold in shops or otherwise, has the information about power consumption printed among the main properties of the product.
I'm pretty sure the same is true for the USA.
In other words, anyone can see how much a certain appliance consumes, before they buy it.
It's exactly because of nannysms like the one we are talking about here, that the consumer doesn't look at it.
It's just induced laziness, which however is easily curable - by drastically increasing the cost of electrical energy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29782589</id>
	<title>The government can't.</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1255898760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government can't tell you how much electricity your TV can consume, or how much water your toilet can flush.</p><p>If you have an old TV or an old toilet, the government can't force you to get a new one.</p><p>If you build a new television set from component parts in the basement of your own home, and this set consumes 20 amps of power, the government can't stop you.</p><p>What they can do is regulate the production, import, and sales of TVs and toilets. Which is exactly what they are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government ca n't tell you how much electricity your TV can consume , or how much water your toilet can flush.If you have an old TV or an old toilet , the government ca n't force you to get a new one.If you build a new television set from component parts in the basement of your own home , and this set consumes 20 amps of power , the government ca n't stop you.What they can do is regulate the production , import , and sales of TVs and toilets .
Which is exactly what they are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government can't tell you how much electricity your TV can consume, or how much water your toilet can flush.If you have an old TV or an old toilet, the government can't force you to get a new one.If you build a new television set from component parts in the basement of your own home, and this set consumes 20 amps of power, the government can't stop you.What they can do is regulate the production, import, and sales of TVs and toilets.
Which is exactly what they are doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777621</id>
	<title>Re:how about doing something about cable / sat box</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1255794660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget STBs, the don;t tend to use much power in use, not *that* much (typically). Perhaps they should do something about the ever-increasing power consumption of PCs. Some of these are used to stream video to the TV now, and they all tend to have a huge CPU and especially Graphics card requirements that are not necessary for this job (or the job of most home users - emails and web surfing).</p><p>California might make much more of a splash if they announced that instead. The computing (software) companies might also make sw that gets back to the old days of efficient use of computing resources instead of sucking up everything in sight to power the same old textboxes using a different framework. (yes, MS, looking at you).</p><p>They won't get such a thing passed, but it would start a very interesting debate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget STBs , the don ; t tend to use much power in use , not * that * much ( typically ) .
Perhaps they should do something about the ever-increasing power consumption of PCs .
Some of these are used to stream video to the TV now , and they all tend to have a huge CPU and especially Graphics card requirements that are not necessary for this job ( or the job of most home users - emails and web surfing ) .California might make much more of a splash if they announced that instead .
The computing ( software ) companies might also make sw that gets back to the old days of efficient use of computing resources instead of sucking up everything in sight to power the same old textboxes using a different framework .
( yes , MS , looking at you ) .They wo n't get such a thing passed , but it would start a very interesting debate : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget STBs, the don;t tend to use much power in use, not *that* much (typically).
Perhaps they should do something about the ever-increasing power consumption of PCs.
Some of these are used to stream video to the TV now, and they all tend to have a huge CPU and especially Graphics card requirements that are not necessary for this job (or the job of most home users - emails and web surfing).California might make much more of a splash if they announced that instead.
The computing (software) companies might also make sw that gets back to the old days of efficient use of computing resources instead of sucking up everything in sight to power the same old textboxes using a different framework.
(yes, MS, looking at you).They won't get such a thing passed, but it would start a very interesting debate :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29787865</id>
	<title>If electricity cost does not include externalities</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1255867800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then the government should pass that price along to producers or consumers of electricity according to their production or consumption of it.</p><p>What they're doing here amounts to the government singling out specific behaviors and lifestyles in a discriminatory fashion.</p><p>Shame on the citizens of California for standing for this. Were its major population centers not captured in large clouds of smug, I suspect they wouldn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then the government should pass that price along to producers or consumers of electricity according to their production or consumption of it.What they 're doing here amounts to the government singling out specific behaviors and lifestyles in a discriminatory fashion.Shame on the citizens of California for standing for this .
Were its major population centers not captured in large clouds of smug , I suspect they would n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then the government should pass that price along to producers or consumers of electricity according to their production or consumption of it.What they're doing here amounts to the government singling out specific behaviors and lifestyles in a discriminatory fashion.Shame on the citizens of California for standing for this.
Were its major population centers not captured in large clouds of smug, I suspect they wouldn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777611</id>
	<title>Re:Ban tumble dryers instead?</title>
	<author>pommiekiwifruit</author>
	<datestamp>1255794540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When drying clothes, I used tojust use a 50 watt pedestal fan pointed at a clothes horse in my lounge (preferably with the windows open and the sun shining, blowing perpendicular to the shirts), not being one of those fancy pants people with gardens<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
<p>It gets clothes dry quickly and they get less damaged I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When drying clothes , I used tojust use a 50 watt pedestal fan pointed at a clothes horse in my lounge ( preferably with the windows open and the sun shining , blowing perpendicular to the shirts ) , not being one of those fancy pants people with gardens : - ) It gets clothes dry quickly and they get less damaged I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When drying clothes, I used tojust use a 50 watt pedestal fan pointed at a clothes horse in my lounge (preferably with the windows open and the sun shining, blowing perpendicular to the shirts), not being one of those fancy pants people with gardens :-)
It gets clothes dry quickly and they get less damaged I think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778825</id>
	<title>If all TVs met state standards</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255806420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant,</i></p><p>This is simple, make Californians pay for the new power plants needed to feed their TVs.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>California could avoid the $ 600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant,This is simple , make Californians pay for the new power plants needed to feed their TVs .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant,This is simple, make Californians pay for the new power plants needed to feed their TVs.
Falcon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777279</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>jareth-0205</author>
	<datestamp>1255791840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes. That way, there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance.</p></div><p>Except... that hits different parts of the population massively differently. I don't think it's a good idea to effectively price the poor out of having certain things while letting the rich continue to do anything they want. Economic incentives hit different parts of the population in vastly different ways. Atleast a narrowly defined rule is going to do pretty much exactly what it intends to do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline , to reflect the real cost of the commodity , through taxes .
That way , there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance.Except... that hits different parts of the population massively differently .
I do n't think it 's a good idea to effectively price the poor out of having certain things while letting the rich continue to do anything they want .
Economic incentives hit different parts of the population in vastly different ways .
Atleast a narrowly defined rule is going to do pretty much exactly what it intends to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes.
That way, there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance.Except... that hits different parts of the population massively differently.
I don't think it's a good idea to effectively price the poor out of having certain things while letting the rich continue to do anything they want.
Economic incentives hit different parts of the population in vastly different ways.
Atleast a narrowly defined rule is going to do pretty much exactly what it intends to do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779181</id>
	<title>Re:Ban tumble dryers instead?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255809900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I used a clothes line, the birds would make sure I had to wash the clothes again.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>The clothes dryer is faster, and with natural gas doesn't cost much to run.  The water heater and furnace are the biggest natural gas consumers in this house.</p><p>Interestingly, while my electric bill is lower than most, all the computer equipment adds up to about 40\% of the kWh usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I used a clothes line , the birds would make sure I had to wash the clothes again .
: ( The clothes dryer is faster , and with natural gas does n't cost much to run .
The water heater and furnace are the biggest natural gas consumers in this house.Interestingly , while my electric bill is lower than most , all the computer equipment adds up to about 40 \ % of the kWh usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I used a clothes line, the birds would make sure I had to wash the clothes again.
:(The clothes dryer is faster, and with natural gas doesn't cost much to run.
The water heater and furnace are the biggest natural gas consumers in this house.Interestingly, while my electric bill is lower than most, all the computer equipment adds up to about 40\% of the kWh usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776837</id>
	<title>People's Republic of California</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255787280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hahaha....Jednak nie chcialbym mieszkac w amerykanskim kolchozie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hahaha....Jednak nie chcialbym mieszkac w amerykanskim kolchozie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hahaha....Jednak nie chcialbym mieszkac w amerykanskim kolchozie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781</id>
	<title>Misses The Point</title>
	<author>Raisey-raison</author>
	<datestamp>1255786080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We do need to think about our future energy needs both with respect to the environment and energy security. What we don't need is silly government micro management of our lives. So yes that means we need to subsidize nuclear, wind and solar power. The problem is that the greenies block everything. They block nuclear energy and they even block solar energy. Diane Feinstein plans on banning solar panels in the Mojave Desert even though that is one of the best places for them. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/20/MN4T19OTBJ.DTL" title="sfgate.com">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/20/MN4T19OTBJ.DTL</a> [sfgate.com] And then the greenies don't want to allow wind power on mountains in Vermont and New Hampshire even though no-one lives on the top of a mountain. They dig their heads on the sand and pretend that with a growing population we can just conserve our way out of this crisis - which is of course way out of reality. Then they try to impose draconian restrictions on the rest of us. I can just imagine the next step - banning video games because of energy use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do need to think about our future energy needs both with respect to the environment and energy security .
What we do n't need is silly government micro management of our lives .
So yes that means we need to subsidize nuclear , wind and solar power .
The problem is that the greenies block everything .
They block nuclear energy and they even block solar energy .
Diane Feinstein plans on banning solar panels in the Mojave Desert even though that is one of the best places for them .
http : //www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi ? f = /c/a/2009/09/20/MN4T19OTBJ.DTL [ sfgate.com ] And then the greenies do n't want to allow wind power on mountains in Vermont and New Hampshire even though no-one lives on the top of a mountain .
They dig their heads on the sand and pretend that with a growing population we can just conserve our way out of this crisis - which is of course way out of reality .
Then they try to impose draconian restrictions on the rest of us .
I can just imagine the next step - banning video games because of energy use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do need to think about our future energy needs both with respect to the environment and energy security.
What we don't need is silly government micro management of our lives.
So yes that means we need to subsidize nuclear, wind and solar power.
The problem is that the greenies block everything.
They block nuclear energy and they even block solar energy.
Diane Feinstein plans on banning solar panels in the Mojave Desert even though that is one of the best places for them.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/20/MN4T19OTBJ.DTL [sfgate.com] And then the greenies don't want to allow wind power on mountains in Vermont and New Hampshire even though no-one lives on the top of a mountain.
They dig their heads on the sand and pretend that with a growing population we can just conserve our way out of this crisis - which is of course way out of reality.
Then they try to impose draconian restrictions on the rest of us.
I can just imagine the next step - banning video games because of energy use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779213</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1255810260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have a 28" Philips CRT TV. I can't find its papers and I cannot be bothered to look on its back for possible power consumption, but according to this page [sust-it.net], it shouldn't be using more than 110-120W. There weren't many larger CRTs made due to their sheer weight.</p></div><p>According to the table, the Beko 28" uses 155W, standby. How do you know that your TV uses 35W less than the Beko, except on faith that somehow Philips is more energy efficient than the other brand?</p><p>The only way to be sure is to use an accurate, precise power meter, (but beware, some meters are neither).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a 28 " Philips CRT TV .
I ca n't find its papers and I can not be bothered to look on its back for possible power consumption , but according to this page [ sust-it.net ] , it should n't be using more than 110-120W .
There were n't many larger CRTs made due to their sheer weight.According to the table , the Beko 28 " uses 155W , standby .
How do you know that your TV uses 35W less than the Beko , except on faith that somehow Philips is more energy efficient than the other brand ? The only way to be sure is to use an accurate , precise power meter , ( but beware , some meters are neither ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a 28" Philips CRT TV.
I can't find its papers and I cannot be bothered to look on its back for possible power consumption, but according to this page [sust-it.net], it shouldn't be using more than 110-120W.
There weren't many larger CRTs made due to their sheer weight.According to the table, the Beko 28" uses 155W, standby.
How do you know that your TV uses 35W less than the Beko, except on faith that somehow Philips is more energy efficient than the other brand?The only way to be sure is to use an accurate, precise power meter, (but beware, some meters are neither).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29783317</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255870500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ? Without government intervention, he won't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>After buying appliances one could use something like kill-a-watt. Before buying one could check the sticker on them that says "A+ energy efficency" or just read the number next to aproximate kw/h per year with normal usage. At least that's what i did when i bougth new refigerator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hey Einstein , how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ?
Without government intervention , he wo n't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device ...After buying appliances one could use something like kill-a-watt .
Before buying one could check the sticker on them that says " A + energy efficency " or just read the number next to aproximate kw/h per year with normal usage .
At least that 's what i did when i bougth new refigerator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ?
Without government intervention, he won't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device ...After buying appliances one could use something like kill-a-watt.
Before buying one could check the sticker on them that says "A+ energy efficency" or just read the number next to aproximate kw/h per year with normal usage.
At least that's what i did when i bougth new refigerator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813</id>
	<title>A Government that can...</title>
	<author>rshol</author>
	<datestamp>1255786680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...tell you how much electricity your TV set can use or how much water your toilet can use per flush, has the power to do anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...tell you how much electricity your TV set can use or how much water your toilet can use per flush , has the power to do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...tell you how much electricity your TV set can use or how much water your toilet can use per flush, has the power to do anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777595</id>
	<title>Government Control...same as it ever was,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255794480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just the latest example of where Government creates a problem where it didn't exist before in order to propose a solution which nets them more control/power.  The Government mandated the switch to digital TV (SD/HD widescreen) and large formats from the lower power consumption CRT analog format.  As usual they didn't think past their asses as to what the consequences would be.  Now suddenly their prior mandates are bad and must be changed to "save the world" (sarcasm free of charge).  All Government regulation is for one purpose and one purpose only -  to grow Government and Government Control and Power.  I can't wait for the revolution to begin (no sarcasm intended).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just the latest example of where Government creates a problem where it did n't exist before in order to propose a solution which nets them more control/power .
The Government mandated the switch to digital TV ( SD/HD widescreen ) and large formats from the lower power consumption CRT analog format .
As usual they did n't think past their asses as to what the consequences would be .
Now suddenly their prior mandates are bad and must be changed to " save the world " ( sarcasm free of charge ) .
All Government regulation is for one purpose and one purpose only - to grow Government and Government Control and Power .
I ca n't wait for the revolution to begin ( no sarcasm intended ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just the latest example of where Government creates a problem where it didn't exist before in order to propose a solution which nets them more control/power.
The Government mandated the switch to digital TV (SD/HD widescreen) and large formats from the lower power consumption CRT analog format.
As usual they didn't think past their asses as to what the consequences would be.
Now suddenly their prior mandates are bad and must be changed to "save the world" (sarcasm free of charge).
All Government regulation is for one purpose and one purpose only -  to grow Government and Government Control and Power.
I can't wait for the revolution to begin (no sarcasm intended).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778603</id>
	<title>Re:Ban tumble dryers instead?</title>
	<author>Bazman</author>
	<datestamp>1255804440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the solution is to invent the combo-giant-TV-clothes-dryer? Don't try this at home, just yet. Those little vents on your TV are important...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the solution is to invent the combo-giant-TV-clothes-dryer ?
Do n't try this at home , just yet .
Those little vents on your TV are important.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the solution is to invent the combo-giant-TV-clothes-dryer?
Don't try this at home, just yet.
Those little vents on your TV are important...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777535</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1255794000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a 28" Philips CRT TV [...] There weren't many larger CRTs made due to their sheer weight.<p>Boy, you got <i>that</i> right. I have a 36" (91 cm) CRT set and it weighs so much that I need another strong body to help if I need it move it. It must weigh close to 200 pounds (91 kg).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a 28 " Philips CRT TV [ ... ] There were n't many larger CRTs made due to their sheer weight.Boy , you got that right .
I have a 36 " ( 91 cm ) CRT set and it weighs so much that I need another strong body to help if I need it move it .
It must weigh close to 200 pounds ( 91 kg ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a 28" Philips CRT TV [...] There weren't many larger CRTs made due to their sheer weight.Boy, you got that right.
I have a 36" (91 cm) CRT set and it weighs so much that I need another strong body to help if I need it move it.
It must weigh close to 200 pounds (91 kg).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776827</id>
	<title>Re:Create More Hobs ???</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1255786980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where are the jobs going to be created? Best Buy and Walmart. Considering all TVs are now designed and produced overseas I can't see were any jobs would be created?</p></div><p>Writing regulations, testing for compliance with regulations, putting amusing stickers on compliant units, smuggling noncompliant units into the country, putting forged stickers on noncompliant units, legal actions for flouting regulations, building bigger prisons for incarcerating those who flout the laws, lots of prison guards, parole officers, etc.<br> <br>
All the things the US excels in!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are the jobs going to be created ?
Best Buy and Walmart .
Considering all TVs are now designed and produced overseas I ca n't see were any jobs would be created ? Writing regulations , testing for compliance with regulations , putting amusing stickers on compliant units , smuggling noncompliant units into the country , putting forged stickers on noncompliant units , legal actions for flouting regulations , building bigger prisons for incarcerating those who flout the laws , lots of prison guards , parole officers , etc .
All the things the US excels in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are the jobs going to be created?
Best Buy and Walmart.
Considering all TVs are now designed and produced overseas I can't see were any jobs would be created?Writing regulations, testing for compliance with regulations, putting amusing stickers on compliant units, smuggling noncompliant units into the country, putting forged stickers on noncompliant units, legal actions for flouting regulations, building bigger prisons for incarcerating those who flout the laws, lots of prison guards, parole officers, etc.
All the things the US excels in!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29798509</id>
	<title>Re:Accelerated OLED panel development?</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1255984200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's already kind of happening.</p><p>The state of the art "LED TVs" out now are just LCDs with modulated LED backlights, rather than a single CCFL panel. These deliver much better dynamic contrast, but also take as little as 50\% of the power of a CCFL backlit LCD TV... and LCDs were already fairly low power. I calculated some years ago that, based on my average monitor use at my home office, I could pay for new LCD monitors to replace my CRTs in under three years, based largely on power savings. Now, consider that plasmas (the main class of display this legislation will affect) take about 3x as much power as a CRT of the same size... they're crazy power hungry. OLEDs will improve this yet again, for sure, but the power savings are pretty much already here. Plasma's been a failing concept for some years now, and rear project technologies LCoS and DLP are becoming marginalized as consumers overall demand thin screens (LCoS, Sony's SxRD and JVC's D-ILA, are pretty much dead in the consumer market, though they have applications).  DLP has already been a fairly low power technology for a television, and they've been moving to LED light sources since 2005, which cuts power consumption another 30\% or so. Laser DLPs are coming soon, and claim to use 1/3 the power of similar sized LCD televisions (I would assume that was based on CCFL backlights).</p><p>In short, all the cool new TV technologies are already low power. Many of these already have Energy Star certs... this isn't strictly an Californian concern.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's already kind of happening.The state of the art " LED TVs " out now are just LCDs with modulated LED backlights , rather than a single CCFL panel .
These deliver much better dynamic contrast , but also take as little as 50 \ % of the power of a CCFL backlit LCD TV... and LCDs were already fairly low power .
I calculated some years ago that , based on my average monitor use at my home office , I could pay for new LCD monitors to replace my CRTs in under three years , based largely on power savings .
Now , consider that plasmas ( the main class of display this legislation will affect ) take about 3x as much power as a CRT of the same size... they 're crazy power hungry .
OLEDs will improve this yet again , for sure , but the power savings are pretty much already here .
Plasma 's been a failing concept for some years now , and rear project technologies LCoS and DLP are becoming marginalized as consumers overall demand thin screens ( LCoS , Sony 's SxRD and JVC 's D-ILA , are pretty much dead in the consumer market , though they have applications ) .
DLP has already been a fairly low power technology for a television , and they 've been moving to LED light sources since 2005 , which cuts power consumption another 30 \ % or so .
Laser DLPs are coming soon , and claim to use 1/3 the power of similar sized LCD televisions ( I would assume that was based on CCFL backlights ) .In short , all the cool new TV technologies are already low power .
Many of these already have Energy Star certs... this is n't strictly an Californian concern .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's already kind of happening.The state of the art "LED TVs" out now are just LCDs with modulated LED backlights, rather than a single CCFL panel.
These deliver much better dynamic contrast, but also take as little as 50\% of the power of a CCFL backlit LCD TV... and LCDs were already fairly low power.
I calculated some years ago that, based on my average monitor use at my home office, I could pay for new LCD monitors to replace my CRTs in under three years, based largely on power savings.
Now, consider that plasmas (the main class of display this legislation will affect) take about 3x as much power as a CRT of the same size... they're crazy power hungry.
OLEDs will improve this yet again, for sure, but the power savings are pretty much already here.
Plasma's been a failing concept for some years now, and rear project technologies LCoS and DLP are becoming marginalized as consumers overall demand thin screens (LCoS, Sony's SxRD and JVC's D-ILA, are pretty much dead in the consumer market, though they have applications).
DLP has already been a fairly low power technology for a television, and they've been moving to LED light sources since 2005, which cuts power consumption another 30\% or so.
Laser DLPs are coming soon, and claim to use 1/3 the power of similar sized LCD televisions (I would assume that was based on CCFL backlights).In short, all the cool new TV technologies are already low power.
Many of these already have Energy Star certs... this isn't strictly an Californian concern.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777343</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1255792380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I posted in another thread, every fridge sold in the EU has <a href="http://www.energychoices.co.uk/images/General/energy\_rating\_label.jpg" title="energychoices.co.uk">a sticker like this one</a> [energychoices.co.uk] on it so you can compare them before buying them.  Displaying this information to the customer before purchase is a legal requirement in the EU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I posted in another thread , every fridge sold in the EU has a sticker like this one [ energychoices.co.uk ] on it so you can compare them before buying them .
Displaying this information to the customer before purchase is a legal requirement in the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I posted in another thread, every fridge sold in the EU has a sticker like this one [energychoices.co.uk] on it so you can compare them before buying them.
Displaying this information to the customer before purchase is a legal requirement in the EU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777315</id>
	<title>Outlaw everything</title>
	<author>jamesl</author>
	<datestamp>1255792200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Switching to more-efficient TVs could have an estimated net benefit to the state of $8.1 billion, the commission staff reported.</i></p><p>Imagine how much would be saved if California simply outlawed all TVs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Switching to more-efficient TVs could have an estimated net benefit to the state of $ 8.1 billion , the commission staff reported.Imagine how much would be saved if California simply outlawed all TVs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Switching to more-efficient TVs could have an estimated net benefit to the state of $8.1 billion, the commission staff reported.Imagine how much would be saved if California simply outlawed all TVs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043</id>
	<title>Ban tumble dryers instead?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255790040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it true that in some parts of California it's illegal to dry your laundry outside? That in parts of a state that is predominantly hot and dry the only legal way of getting your clothes dry is to heat them and rotate them in a sealed metal drum?</p><p>Compare with TV usage here:</p><p><a href="http://www.carbonfootprint.com/energyconsumption.html" title="carbonfootprint.com">http://www.carbonfootprint.com/energyconsumption.html</a> [carbonfootprint.com]</p><p>It's a bit less than a big TV, but if you've got free air drying outside your door, you can use it for zero-carbon, zero-cost drying. Except of course all that laundry flapping around is going to bring down the price of houses in the neighborhood, because prospective buyers will think you're all too poor to afford dryers. Conspicuous consumption at its most brillant.</p><p>[Or at least that's the reason I understand for outside laundry lines]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it true that in some parts of California it 's illegal to dry your laundry outside ?
That in parts of a state that is predominantly hot and dry the only legal way of getting your clothes dry is to heat them and rotate them in a sealed metal drum ? Compare with TV usage here : http : //www.carbonfootprint.com/energyconsumption.html [ carbonfootprint.com ] It 's a bit less than a big TV , but if you 've got free air drying outside your door , you can use it for zero-carbon , zero-cost drying .
Except of course all that laundry flapping around is going to bring down the price of houses in the neighborhood , because prospective buyers will think you 're all too poor to afford dryers .
Conspicuous consumption at its most brillant .
[ Or at least that 's the reason I understand for outside laundry lines ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it true that in some parts of California it's illegal to dry your laundry outside?
That in parts of a state that is predominantly hot and dry the only legal way of getting your clothes dry is to heat them and rotate them in a sealed metal drum?Compare with TV usage here:http://www.carbonfootprint.com/energyconsumption.html [carbonfootprint.com]It's a bit less than a big TV, but if you've got free air drying outside your door, you can use it for zero-carbon, zero-cost drying.
Except of course all that laundry flapping around is going to bring down the price of houses in the neighborhood, because prospective buyers will think you're all too poor to afford dryers.
Conspicuous consumption at its most brillant.
[Or at least that's the reason I understand for outside laundry lines]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777179</id>
	<title>Re:Misses The Point</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1255791060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...it's incredibly short sighted.</i></p><p>That can be cured with medicinal marijuana. They could pass a law requiring TVs to be made from hemp and powered by hacky sack generators operated by the unemployed and prison population. The Governator has <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqep14L2f7k" title="youtube.com">puffed</a> [youtube.com] his share, so he should approve.</p><p>Utopia!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...it 's incredibly short sighted.That can be cured with medicinal marijuana .
They could pass a law requiring TVs to be made from hemp and powered by hacky sack generators operated by the unemployed and prison population .
The Governator has puffed [ youtube.com ] his share , so he should approve.Utopia !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...it's incredibly short sighted.That can be cured with medicinal marijuana.
They could pass a law requiring TVs to be made from hemp and powered by hacky sack generators operated by the unemployed and prison population.
The Governator has puffed [youtube.com] his share, so he should approve.Utopia!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777329</id>
	<title>Re:Ban tumble dryers instead?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255792320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not illegal, but perhaps prohibited by a contract that came with the house (Called a CC&amp;R: Conditions, Covenant &amp; Restrictions) or by the landlord.  Typically these rules are instituted by the original developer to maintain a more consistent "look" in a group of homes they are building, and once the restriction is in place, difficult to remove.</p><p>Same sort of thing has rules to prevent parking your car on your lawn, painting your house pink with purple polka dots, etc</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not illegal , but perhaps prohibited by a contract that came with the house ( Called a CC&amp;R : Conditions , Covenant &amp; Restrictions ) or by the landlord .
Typically these rules are instituted by the original developer to maintain a more consistent " look " in a group of homes they are building , and once the restriction is in place , difficult to remove.Same sort of thing has rules to prevent parking your car on your lawn , painting your house pink with purple polka dots , etc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not illegal, but perhaps prohibited by a contract that came with the house (Called a CC&amp;R: Conditions, Covenant &amp; Restrictions) or by the landlord.
Typically these rules are instituted by the original developer to maintain a more consistent "look" in a group of homes they are building, and once the restriction is in place, difficult to remove.Same sort of thing has rules to prevent parking your car on your lawn, painting your house pink with purple polka dots, etc</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776879</id>
	<title>Accelerated OLED panel development?</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1255787760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this new law could fast-track the development of larger OLED flat panel TV's.</p><p>Since OLED's don't need backlighting, by definition it means very efficient power usage even on flat panel TV's over 50" in size. Don't be surprised that LG, Samsung, Panasonic and Sony start pouring in billions of dollars in R&amp;D to overcome the current technical issues and get these larger OLED flat panel TV's into production by 2012 at latest. And unlike LCD TVs, OLED TVs will have <i>extremely</i> fast response times, which means no motion blurring issues even with fast action scenes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this new law could fast-track the development of larger OLED flat panel TV 's.Since OLED 's do n't need backlighting , by definition it means very efficient power usage even on flat panel TV 's over 50 " in size .
Do n't be surprised that LG , Samsung , Panasonic and Sony start pouring in billions of dollars in R&amp;D to overcome the current technical issues and get these larger OLED flat panel TV 's into production by 2012 at latest .
And unlike LCD TVs , OLED TVs will have extremely fast response times , which means no motion blurring issues even with fast action scenes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this new law could fast-track the development of larger OLED flat panel TV's.Since OLED's don't need backlighting, by definition it means very efficient power usage even on flat panel TV's over 50" in size.
Don't be surprised that LG, Samsung, Panasonic and Sony start pouring in billions of dollars in R&amp;D to overcome the current technical issues and get these larger OLED flat panel TV's into production by 2012 at latest.
And unlike LCD TVs, OLED TVs will have extremely fast response times, which means no motion blurring issues even with fast action scenes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29782595</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1255898940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes. That way, there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance. And if someone has the money to pay for the electricity consumed by his/her CRT TV, then let them. Their money can be used to find better sources of abovementioned commodities. I.E. invest in research of algae-produced combustibles.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, consumers can pay the same price for high efficiency appliances as they did with their old low efficiency appliances?</p><p>Why shouldn't the consumers reap both the economic AND the environmental benefits of high efficiency appliances?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline , to reflect the real cost of the commodity , through taxes .
That way , there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance .
And if someone has the money to pay for the electricity consumed by his/her CRT TV , then let them .
Their money can be used to find better sources of abovementioned commodities .
I.E. invest in research of algae-produced combustibles.So , consumers can pay the same price for high efficiency appliances as they did with their old low efficiency appliances ? Why should n't the consumers reap both the economic AND the environmental benefits of high efficiency appliances ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes.
That way, there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance.
And if someone has the money to pay for the electricity consumed by his/her CRT TV, then let them.
Their money can be used to find better sources of abovementioned commodities.
I.E. invest in research of algae-produced combustibles.So, consumers can pay the same price for high efficiency appliances as they did with their old low efficiency appliances?Why shouldn't the consumers reap both the economic AND the environmental benefits of high efficiency appliances?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779209</id>
	<title>Nuclear power</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255810200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I read a convincing article on how when you consider all costs, nuclear is the most expensive option per kilowatt.</i></p><p>The Nuclear industry is <a href="http://www.cato.org/pub\_display.php?pub\_id=8792" title="cato.org">Hooked on Subsidies</a> [cato.org].</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read a convincing article on how when you consider all costs , nuclear is the most expensive option per kilowatt.The Nuclear industry is Hooked on Subsidies [ cato.org ] .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read a convincing article on how when you consider all costs, nuclear is the most expensive option per kilowatt.The Nuclear industry is Hooked on Subsidies [cato.org].
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777863</id>
	<title>Re:Accelerated OLED panel development?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255797480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really like the idea of OLED myself, except that for use in video games and computers, they have worse burn in problems than ANY other display tech. This is because the organic molecules that emit the light age faster than the phosphors found in CRT's and Plasma displays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really like the idea of OLED myself , except that for use in video games and computers , they have worse burn in problems than ANY other display tech .
This is because the organic molecules that emit the light age faster than the phosphors found in CRT 's and Plasma displays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really like the idea of OLED myself, except that for use in video games and computers, they have worse burn in problems than ANY other display tech.
This is because the organic molecules that emit the light age faster than the phosphors found in CRT's and Plasma displays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776869</id>
	<title>power efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255787580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why don't we just ask that all power supplies must have a 90\%+ efficiency? at least we'll know we use the electricitym and don't just waste it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why do n't we just ask that all power supplies must have a 90 \ % + efficiency ?
at least we 'll know we use the electricitym and do n't just waste it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why don't we just ask that all power supplies must have a 90\%+ efficiency?
at least we'll know we use the electricitym and don't just waste it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778477</id>
	<title>Re:A Government that can...</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1255803300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, today an efficient TV, tomorrow concentration camps....</p><p>+4 Insightful? Really?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , today an efficient TV , tomorrow concentration camps.... + 4 Insightful ?
Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, today an efficient TV, tomorrow concentration camps....+4 Insightful?
Really?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777975</id>
	<title>An alternative but just \_crazy\_ idea.</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1255798560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been kicking around this theory.  I think I'll unveil it on SlashDot first, then maybe go for wider publication and peer validation.  It could revolutionize \_everything\_.</p><p>OK, stick with me.  What if... man I'm sweating about this, it's so monumental.  OK, hold it together RightSaidFred99, hold it together.</p><p>Ready.  OK.  What if we charge more for goods and services, including power delivery, when we have an interest in seeing those goods and services used less.  I think this came to me in a fevered peyote dream or something, but I am willing to bet (just a small amount of money - it's only a theory) that if California raised the price of power just a little bit that usage would go down.  They could find the "sweet spot" (new term I coined) between price and availability of the resource and find some sort of balance.</p><p>Now the really crazy thing about this radical, revolutionary, mind-blowing idea of raising the price to quell demand is that it affects not only large TVs but \_everything\_!  It might make people turn off their lights and lower their utilization of other power-using appliances!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been kicking around this theory .
I think I 'll unveil it on SlashDot first , then maybe go for wider publication and peer validation .
It could revolutionize \ _everything \ _.OK , stick with me .
What if... man I 'm sweating about this , it 's so monumental .
OK , hold it together RightSaidFred99 , hold it together.Ready .
OK. What if we charge more for goods and services , including power delivery , when we have an interest in seeing those goods and services used less .
I think this came to me in a fevered peyote dream or something , but I am willing to bet ( just a small amount of money - it 's only a theory ) that if California raised the price of power just a little bit that usage would go down .
They could find the " sweet spot " ( new term I coined ) between price and availability of the resource and find some sort of balance.Now the really crazy thing about this radical , revolutionary , mind-blowing idea of raising the price to quell demand is that it affects not only large TVs but \ _everything \ _ !
It might make people turn off their lights and lower their utilization of other power-using appliances !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been kicking around this theory.
I think I'll unveil it on SlashDot first, then maybe go for wider publication and peer validation.
It could revolutionize \_everything\_.OK, stick with me.
What if... man I'm sweating about this, it's so monumental.
OK, hold it together RightSaidFred99, hold it together.Ready.
OK.  What if we charge more for goods and services, including power delivery, when we have an interest in seeing those goods and services used less.
I think this came to me in a fevered peyote dream or something, but I am willing to bet (just a small amount of money - it's only a theory) that if California raised the price of power just a little bit that usage would go down.
They could find the "sweet spot" (new term I coined) between price and availability of the resource and find some sort of balance.Now the really crazy thing about this radical, revolutionary, mind-blowing idea of raising the price to quell demand is that it affects not only large TVs but \_everything\_!
It might make people turn off their lights and lower their utilization of other power-using appliances!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777473</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1255793460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now play around on that site and check out the power consumption of a 37" LCD, which has roughly the same height as my CRT, but is wide-screen. Whoops, the most efficient one is 123W.</p></div><p>Definitely out of date.  The most efficient current model LCDs, which use LEDs as light sources, not fluorescent tubes like earlier models, are roughly 75w for a 40" display and 100w for ~55" display.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now play around on that site and check out the power consumption of a 37 " LCD , which has roughly the same height as my CRT , but is wide-screen .
Whoops , the most efficient one is 123W.Definitely out of date .
The most efficient current model LCDs , which use LEDs as light sources , not fluorescent tubes like earlier models , are roughly 75w for a 40 " display and 100w for ~ 55 " display .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now play around on that site and check out the power consumption of a 37" LCD, which has roughly the same height as my CRT, but is wide-screen.
Whoops, the most efficient one is 123W.Definitely out of date.
The most efficient current model LCDs, which use LEDs as light sources, not fluorescent tubes like earlier models, are roughly 75w for a 40" display and 100w for ~55" display.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777061</id>
	<title>Re:Create More Hobs ???</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255790220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And all those newly surviving people have to eat and live too. So they will buy their stuff at Best Buy and Walmart.</p><p>And the circle, as every working system in nature, closes. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And all those newly surviving people have to eat and live too .
So they will buy their stuff at Best Buy and Walmart.And the circle , as every working system in nature , closes .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all those newly surviving people have to eat and live too.
So they will buy their stuff at Best Buy and Walmart.And the circle, as every working system in nature, closes.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835</id>
	<title>Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255787220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mandating low consumption TV sets, or low consumption lightbulbs (here in Finland it's now forbidden to produce incandescent bulbs) is as dumb as mandating low consumption cars. It makes the whole process of enforcement and monitoring more complicated, more expensive and prone to corruption.</p><p>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes. That way, there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance. And if someone has the money to pay for the electricity consumed by his/her CRT TV, then let them. Their money can be used to find better sources of abovementioned commodities. I.E. invest in research of algae-produced combustibles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mandating low consumption TV sets , or low consumption lightbulbs ( here in Finland it 's now forbidden to produce incandescent bulbs ) is as dumb as mandating low consumption cars .
It makes the whole process of enforcement and monitoring more complicated , more expensive and prone to corruption.The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline , to reflect the real cost of the commodity , through taxes .
That way , there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance .
And if someone has the money to pay for the electricity consumed by his/her CRT TV , then let them .
Their money can be used to find better sources of abovementioned commodities .
I.E. invest in research of algae-produced combustibles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mandating low consumption TV sets, or low consumption lightbulbs (here in Finland it's now forbidden to produce incandescent bulbs) is as dumb as mandating low consumption cars.
It makes the whole process of enforcement and monitoring more complicated, more expensive and prone to corruption.The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes.
That way, there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance.
And if someone has the money to pay for the electricity consumed by his/her CRT TV, then let them.
Their money can be used to find better sources of abovementioned commodities.
I.E. invest in research of algae-produced combustibles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777965</id>
	<title>Watts per Pixel, Watts per Lumens</title>
	<author>Midnight Thunder</author>
	<datestamp>1255798500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the growing size of TV screens, they are going to outpace CRTs for power consumption, if they haven't already. A few people using such power hungry screens is not an issue, but when everyone does then suddenly out power sources aren't up to the task.</p><p>Any restriction is going to have be in the form of a ratio, that can easily be evolved as technology evolves. For example with TV screens (or even monitors) it would be something of the form of Watts/Pixel or Watts/Square Inch and lights it would be Watts/Lumens. I would like to see TV screen specifications specifying both the watts/pixel and the total power usage for an hour. The watts/pixel would represent the total power usage of a pixel for the size of the TV, so that if you added up the number of pixels in the TV they would equals the rated total power usage. The idea here is that for a matching technology both large and small screen should be consistent with power usage per pixel, with only the total wattage changing due to pixel count. Actually maybe it be both watts/pixel and watts/square inch to avoid manufacturers cheating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the growing size of TV screens , they are going to outpace CRTs for power consumption , if they have n't already .
A few people using such power hungry screens is not an issue , but when everyone does then suddenly out power sources are n't up to the task.Any restriction is going to have be in the form of a ratio , that can easily be evolved as technology evolves .
For example with TV screens ( or even monitors ) it would be something of the form of Watts/Pixel or Watts/Square Inch and lights it would be Watts/Lumens .
I would like to see TV screen specifications specifying both the watts/pixel and the total power usage for an hour .
The watts/pixel would represent the total power usage of a pixel for the size of the TV , so that if you added up the number of pixels in the TV they would equals the rated total power usage .
The idea here is that for a matching technology both large and small screen should be consistent with power usage per pixel , with only the total wattage changing due to pixel count .
Actually maybe it be both watts/pixel and watts/square inch to avoid manufacturers cheating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the growing size of TV screens, they are going to outpace CRTs for power consumption, if they haven't already.
A few people using such power hungry screens is not an issue, but when everyone does then suddenly out power sources aren't up to the task.Any restriction is going to have be in the form of a ratio, that can easily be evolved as technology evolves.
For example with TV screens (or even monitors) it would be something of the form of Watts/Pixel or Watts/Square Inch and lights it would be Watts/Lumens.
I would like to see TV screen specifications specifying both the watts/pixel and the total power usage for an hour.
The watts/pixel would represent the total power usage of a pixel for the size of the TV, so that if you added up the number of pixels in the TV they would equals the rated total power usage.
The idea here is that for a matching technology both large and small screen should be consistent with power usage per pixel, with only the total wattage changing due to pixel count.
Actually maybe it be both watts/pixel and watts/square inch to avoid manufacturers cheating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778661</id>
	<title>Corporate profits vs. environment</title>
	<author>Reemi</author>
	<datestamp>1255804980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good plan in my opinion.</p><p>Quite often, one can produce your product using component A or B. A is cheaper, but less environmentally friendly. Component B is more expensive.</p><p>As the price of a TV does not depend on the selected component (not significant), the cheaper option is selected. Volume starts making a difference.</p><p>Conclusion, environment is sold out to maximize profits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good plan in my opinion.Quite often , one can produce your product using component A or B. A is cheaper , but less environmentally friendly .
Component B is more expensive.As the price of a TV does not depend on the selected component ( not significant ) , the cheaper option is selected .
Volume starts making a difference.Conclusion , environment is sold out to maximize profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good plan in my opinion.Quite often, one can produce your product using component A or B. A is cheaper, but less environmentally friendly.
Component B is more expensive.As the price of a TV does not depend on the selected component (not significant), the cheaper option is selected.
Volume starts making a difference.Conclusion, environment is sold out to maximize profits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29782205</id>
	<title>Re:how about doing something about cable / sat box</title>
	<author>stmfreak</author>
	<datestamp>1255806180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be nice. We've got two DVRs in our house. When I measured them on the killowatt, I found that they pull about 50 watts on or off. That's stupid. Even if they need to listen for programming changes, they should be able to spin down the drive or reduce the cpu clock or something.</p><p>I've taken to turning one of them off at night by pulling the plug (via power strip switch). Takes a while to warm up in the morning, but I don't care. But this 50 watts an hour is costing me $15/month per DVR at California's top rate of $0.46 per KWh. It's enough for me to seriously consider cutting my DirecTV subscription entirely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be nice .
We 've got two DVRs in our house .
When I measured them on the killowatt , I found that they pull about 50 watts on or off .
That 's stupid .
Even if they need to listen for programming changes , they should be able to spin down the drive or reduce the cpu clock or something.I 've taken to turning one of them off at night by pulling the plug ( via power strip switch ) .
Takes a while to warm up in the morning , but I do n't care .
But this 50 watts an hour is costing me $ 15/month per DVR at California 's top rate of $ 0.46 per KWh .
It 's enough for me to seriously consider cutting my DirecTV subscription entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be nice.
We've got two DVRs in our house.
When I measured them on the killowatt, I found that they pull about 50 watts on or off.
That's stupid.
Even if they need to listen for programming changes, they should be able to spin down the drive or reduce the cpu clock or something.I've taken to turning one of them off at night by pulling the plug (via power strip switch).
Takes a while to warm up in the morning, but I don't care.
But this 50 watts an hour is costing me $15/month per DVR at California's top rate of $0.46 per KWh.
It's enough for me to seriously consider cutting my DirecTV subscription entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29791865</id>
	<title>Re:Ban tumble dryers instead?</title>
	<author>simplexion</author>
	<datestamp>1255953000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh no! Underwear on display. Think of the children.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no !
Underwear on display .
Think of the children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no!
Underwear on display.
Think of the children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777365</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>JacobSteelsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1255792560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are households, that do not own a big screen television, that already have trouble paying utilities. Tax credits and discount programs don't usually get the job done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are households , that do not own a big screen television , that already have trouble paying utilities .
Tax credits and discount programs do n't usually get the job done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are households, that do not own a big screen television, that already have trouble paying utilities.
Tax credits and discount programs don't usually get the job done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777341</id>
	<title>Re:Idiots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255792380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not they make cars and practically anything with a gas engine special for Ca.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not they make cars and practically anything with a gas engine special for Ca .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not they make cars and practically anything with a gas engine special for Ca.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779113</id>
	<title>Re:Ban tumble dryers instead?</title>
	<author>keytoe</author>
	<datestamp>1255809300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're ignoring the fact that lugging your laundry to the back yard, hanging it all up, waiting for it to dry then pulling it all down again is a lot more work than simply moving it from the washer to the dryer sitting right next to it.</p><p>I'm not saying that hanging your laundry out to dry naturally isn't a good idea, but lets not pretend there aren't valid reasons for using a dryer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're ignoring the fact that lugging your laundry to the back yard , hanging it all up , waiting for it to dry then pulling it all down again is a lot more work than simply moving it from the washer to the dryer sitting right next to it.I 'm not saying that hanging your laundry out to dry naturally is n't a good idea , but lets not pretend there are n't valid reasons for using a dryer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're ignoring the fact that lugging your laundry to the back yard, hanging it all up, waiting for it to dry then pulling it all down again is a lot more work than simply moving it from the washer to the dryer sitting right next to it.I'm not saying that hanging your laundry out to dry naturally isn't a good idea, but lets not pretend there aren't valid reasons for using a dryer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778695</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255805340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes.</p></div><p>
Doesn't work. There's a difference between a low-income family wanting to use most of their electricity for heat and light in the winter vs. a high-income family wanting to use most of it on low-efficiency electronics solely for entertainment.

</p><p>Increasing the price of electricity for everybody doesn't work here. The logical and simpler solution here is to mandate high-efficiency entertainment electronics. Unless your solution is to figure out exactly where each electron of each household's electricity goes, and charge them accordingly. Which would be a super-low-efficiency solution anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline , to reflect the real cost of the commodity , through taxes .
Does n't work .
There 's a difference between a low-income family wanting to use most of their electricity for heat and light in the winter vs. a high-income family wanting to use most of it on low-efficiency electronics solely for entertainment .
Increasing the price of electricity for everybody does n't work here .
The logical and simpler solution here is to mandate high-efficiency entertainment electronics .
Unless your solution is to figure out exactly where each electron of each household 's electricity goes , and charge them accordingly .
Which would be a super-low-efficiency solution anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes.
Doesn't work.
There's a difference between a low-income family wanting to use most of their electricity for heat and light in the winter vs. a high-income family wanting to use most of it on low-efficiency electronics solely for entertainment.
Increasing the price of electricity for everybody doesn't work here.
The logical and simpler solution here is to mandate high-efficiency entertainment electronics.
Unless your solution is to figure out exactly where each electron of each household's electricity goes, and charge them accordingly.
Which would be a super-low-efficiency solution anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779419</id>
	<title>Re:Misses The Point</title>
	<author>juancnuno</author>
	<datestamp>1255812180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They dig their heads on the sand and pretend that with a growing population we can just conserve our way out of this crisis - which is of course way out of reality.</p></div></blockquote><p>Why doesn't anyone ever consider, you know, slowing that growth?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They dig their heads on the sand and pretend that with a growing population we can just conserve our way out of this crisis - which is of course way out of reality.Why does n't anyone ever consider , you know , slowing that growth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They dig their heads on the sand and pretend that with a growing population we can just conserve our way out of this crisis - which is of course way out of reality.Why doesn't anyone ever consider, you know, slowing that growth?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778831</id>
	<title>Fuck this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255806480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... build me a nuclear power plant you technologically defunct hippies!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... build me a nuclear power plant you technologically defunct hippies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... build me a nuclear power plant you technologically defunct hippies!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777663</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1255795320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>hey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume</p></div> </blockquote><p>Consumer Reports?  It's always worked for me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>hey Einstein , how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume Consumer Reports ?
It 's always worked for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume Consumer Reports?
It's always worked for me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779103</id>
	<title>no politician has the balls for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255809240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anyone suggested raising prices/taxes they would be bashed for "hurting families." Remember when gas prices were high and the spineless buffoons were talking about cutting the federal gas tax just to appease the incessant whining? Yeah.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone suggested raising prices/taxes they would be bashed for " hurting families .
" Remember when gas prices were high and the spineless buffoons were talking about cutting the federal gas tax just to appease the incessant whining ?
Yeah .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone suggested raising prices/taxes they would be bashed for "hurting families.
" Remember when gas prices were high and the spineless buffoons were talking about cutting the federal gas tax just to appease the incessant whining?
Yeah.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778345</id>
	<title>Re:Misses The Point</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1255802100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, regulations are about creating an even playing field.  No company can afford to be the first to not employ children, to not use cheap paints with lead in toys, to put bitter additives into antifreeze, to build an efficient electronic device. Doing any of these things puts the firm at a competitive disadvantage.  Therefore, if we want to have conservative policies, policies that do not encourage poor morals and waste, we must legislate them.  Liberals may complain that cannot have cars that pollute unnecessarily, but conservatives know that one does not piss on the neighbors lawn.
<p>
Second,just because one can do something does not mean it is a good idea. I could acquire land, as was done in the 80's, by encouraging banks to make large loans to farmers, call the loans in for default as soon as possible, and then sell the land to multinationals, thus destroying the family farm.  We could, as the Incas reportedly did, cut down all trees tress, even the reserve trees, and end up with no other choice by to move out of the city. Experience tells us that such policies are inferior to conservation. Therefore, though at a simplistic level certain choices may seem obvious, a more rigorous analysis may lead to unintended consequences.One may argue that regulated the TV may lead to unintended consequences, like slowdown in sales of TV and loss of jobs, but we are find with those consequences.  After all, we banned the sale of pot and put all those people out of work.
</p><p>
Third, it is easy to talk about subsidies when one lives in a state such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Mississippi, Alabama, or Alaska.  Those states live and die on federal subsides. Those states would be cesspools if not for a big federal government transferring wealth from other sates.  However, if one lives a state like California, which pays one of the highest net taxes to the federal Government, subsidies are not such a good idea.
</p><p>
Yes nuclear is a good idea if they can figure out how to make the entire life cycle work in the United States.  Solar and Wind are also good ideas, but have to be coupled with more efficient devices since it will initially cost more to produce the electricity.  The fact is that we can solve these problems without trashing out house, and pretty much keep a decent standard of living. But just rushing in with the take, borrow and spend polices of the past 10 years is not going to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , regulations are about creating an even playing field .
No company can afford to be the first to not employ children , to not use cheap paints with lead in toys , to put bitter additives into antifreeze , to build an efficient electronic device .
Doing any of these things puts the firm at a competitive disadvantage .
Therefore , if we want to have conservative policies , policies that do not encourage poor morals and waste , we must legislate them .
Liberals may complain that can not have cars that pollute unnecessarily , but conservatives know that one does not piss on the neighbors lawn .
Second,just because one can do something does not mean it is a good idea .
I could acquire land , as was done in the 80 's , by encouraging banks to make large loans to farmers , call the loans in for default as soon as possible , and then sell the land to multinationals , thus destroying the family farm .
We could , as the Incas reportedly did , cut down all trees tress , even the reserve trees , and end up with no other choice by to move out of the city .
Experience tells us that such policies are inferior to conservation .
Therefore , though at a simplistic level certain choices may seem obvious , a more rigorous analysis may lead to unintended consequences.One may argue that regulated the TV may lead to unintended consequences , like slowdown in sales of TV and loss of jobs , but we are find with those consequences .
After all , we banned the sale of pot and put all those people out of work .
Third , it is easy to talk about subsidies when one lives in a state such as North Dakota , South Dakota , Iowa , Mississippi , Alabama , or Alaska .
Those states live and die on federal subsides .
Those states would be cesspools if not for a big federal government transferring wealth from other sates .
However , if one lives a state like California , which pays one of the highest net taxes to the federal Government , subsidies are not such a good idea .
Yes nuclear is a good idea if they can figure out how to make the entire life cycle work in the United States .
Solar and Wind are also good ideas , but have to be coupled with more efficient devices since it will initially cost more to produce the electricity .
The fact is that we can solve these problems without trashing out house , and pretty much keep a decent standard of living .
But just rushing in with the take , borrow and spend polices of the past 10 years is not going to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, regulations are about creating an even playing field.
No company can afford to be the first to not employ children, to not use cheap paints with lead in toys, to put bitter additives into antifreeze, to build an efficient electronic device.
Doing any of these things puts the firm at a competitive disadvantage.
Therefore, if we want to have conservative policies, policies that do not encourage poor morals and waste, we must legislate them.
Liberals may complain that cannot have cars that pollute unnecessarily, but conservatives know that one does not piss on the neighbors lawn.
Second,just because one can do something does not mean it is a good idea.
I could acquire land, as was done in the 80's, by encouraging banks to make large loans to farmers, call the loans in for default as soon as possible, and then sell the land to multinationals, thus destroying the family farm.
We could, as the Incas reportedly did, cut down all trees tress, even the reserve trees, and end up with no other choice by to move out of the city.
Experience tells us that such policies are inferior to conservation.
Therefore, though at a simplistic level certain choices may seem obvious, a more rigorous analysis may lead to unintended consequences.One may argue that regulated the TV may lead to unintended consequences, like slowdown in sales of TV and loss of jobs, but we are find with those consequences.
After all, we banned the sale of pot and put all those people out of work.
Third, it is easy to talk about subsidies when one lives in a state such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Mississippi, Alabama, or Alaska.
Those states live and die on federal subsides.
Those states would be cesspools if not for a big federal government transferring wealth from other sates.
However, if one lives a state like California, which pays one of the highest net taxes to the federal Government, subsidies are not such a good idea.
Yes nuclear is a good idea if they can figure out how to make the entire life cycle work in the United States.
Solar and Wind are also good ideas, but have to be coupled with more efficient devices since it will initially cost more to produce the electricity.
The fact is that we can solve these problems without trashing out house, and pretty much keep a decent standard of living.
But just rushing in with the take, borrow and spend polices of the past 10 years is not going to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777753</id>
	<title>Re:Ban tumble dryers instead?</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1255796160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be true only in certain property associations. It's not a California thing, it's a neighborhood thing.</p><p>My business partner lives up in the pines, and her house is in a property association that bans fences, because the area has wildlife (deer, mostly) and they want to encourage them to come around. My business partner HATES the deer, because they eat any kind of decorative flowers and plants she might want to grow.</p><p>In case you aren't familiar, a property association is a contractual obligation that comes with owning a piece of property. It can be done after the houses are built, but are usually put into place when a developer builds a group of houses. They typically raise the value of property by providing assurances to the prospective buyers that the neighborhood will be quiet and pretty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be true only in certain property associations .
It 's not a California thing , it 's a neighborhood thing.My business partner lives up in the pines , and her house is in a property association that bans fences , because the area has wildlife ( deer , mostly ) and they want to encourage them to come around .
My business partner HATES the deer , because they eat any kind of decorative flowers and plants she might want to grow.In case you are n't familiar , a property association is a contractual obligation that comes with owning a piece of property .
It can be done after the houses are built , but are usually put into place when a developer builds a group of houses .
They typically raise the value of property by providing assurances to the prospective buyers that the neighborhood will be quiet and pretty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be true only in certain property associations.
It's not a California thing, it's a neighborhood thing.My business partner lives up in the pines, and her house is in a property association that bans fences, because the area has wildlife (deer, mostly) and they want to encourage them to come around.
My business partner HATES the deer, because they eat any kind of decorative flowers and plants she might want to grow.In case you aren't familiar, a property association is a contractual obligation that comes with owning a piece of property.
It can be done after the houses are built, but are usually put into place when a developer builds a group of houses.
They typically raise the value of property by providing assurances to the prospective buyers that the neighborhood will be quiet and pretty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777911</id>
	<title>Re:A Government that can...</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1255797960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>..tell you how much electricity your TV set can use or how much water your toilet can use per flush, has the power to do anything.</i> </p><p>The government - meaning <b>you</b> - can go on denying the fact that L.A. is a desert and simply continue to outgun and outspend outland farms and wilderness areas trying to protect their water rights.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..tell you how much electricity your TV set can use or how much water your toilet can use per flush , has the power to do anything .
The government - meaning you - can go on denying the fact that L.A. is a desert and simply continue to outgun and outspend outland farms and wilderness areas trying to protect their water rights .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>..tell you how much electricity your TV set can use or how much water your toilet can use per flush, has the power to do anything.
The government - meaning you - can go on denying the fact that L.A. is a desert and simply continue to outgun and outspend outland farms and wilderness areas trying to protect their water rights.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776909</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255788480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what happens to those who can't afford a shiny new low-consumption refrigerator, or can no longer afford to pay their heating bill. You can't just target certain appliances by jacking up power costs, some things (like heat) are necessary and by their very nature consume a lot of power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what happens to those who ca n't afford a shiny new low-consumption refrigerator , or can no longer afford to pay their heating bill .
You ca n't just target certain appliances by jacking up power costs , some things ( like heat ) are necessary and by their very nature consume a lot of power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what happens to those who can't afford a shiny new low-consumption refrigerator, or can no longer afford to pay their heating bill.
You can't just target certain appliances by jacking up power costs, some things (like heat) are necessary and by their very nature consume a lot of power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776789</id>
	<title>New Nevada Stores</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255786260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In an unrelated story, Best Buy and other several home electronics retailers announced plans to relocate stores to Reno and to the I-15 State Line.</p><p>How about taking the tvs out of the prisons?  That should save quite a bit of electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In an unrelated story , Best Buy and other several home electronics retailers announced plans to relocate stores to Reno and to the I-15 State Line.How about taking the tvs out of the prisons ?
That should save quite a bit of electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an unrelated story, Best Buy and other several home electronics retailers announced plans to relocate stores to Reno and to the I-15 State Line.How about taking the tvs out of the prisons?
That should save quite a bit of electricity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29781585</id>
	<title>Re:Create More Hobs ???</title>
	<author>misnohmer</author>
	<datestamp>1255794480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, but you lose the jobs building new power plants, raises for executives of power companies which translate into spending which translates into yacht builder jobs, all the scientists which would have gotten paid studying the new power plant proposals, all the homeland security jobs securing those new power plants (especially if  nuclear), all the lineman jobs putting up new electricity transport lines, all the police overtime controlling the anti-nuclear-plant demonstrations, etc, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , but you lose the jobs building new power plants , raises for executives of power companies which translate into spending which translates into yacht builder jobs , all the scientists which would have gotten paid studying the new power plant proposals , all the homeland security jobs securing those new power plants ( especially if nuclear ) , all the lineman jobs putting up new electricity transport lines , all the police overtime controlling the anti-nuclear-plant demonstrations , etc , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, but you lose the jobs building new power plants, raises for executives of power companies which translate into spending which translates into yacht builder jobs, all the scientists which would have gotten paid studying the new power plant proposals, all the homeland security jobs securing those new power plants (especially if  nuclear), all the lineman jobs putting up new electricity transport lines, all the police overtime controlling the anti-nuclear-plant demonstrations, etc, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779893</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the wrong approach.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1255773900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well...</p><p>1) He could look in the fridge's manual, which features this tidbit of information. (I'm sure the salesman will be happy to let you look at it before you buy.)</p><p>3) He could buy a cheap ($30) power meter, and plug the fridge into it for a couple days.</p><p>Surely you're not so retarded that you didn't think of those possibilities. I can only conclude that you're trying to make some political point, and disguising it as a logical point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well...1 ) He could look in the fridge 's manual , which features this tidbit of information .
( I 'm sure the salesman will be happy to let you look at it before you buy .
) 3 ) He could buy a cheap ( $ 30 ) power meter , and plug the fridge into it for a couple days.Surely you 're not so retarded that you did n't think of those possibilities .
I can only conclude that you 're trying to make some political point , and disguising it as a logical point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well...1) He could look in the fridge's manual, which features this tidbit of information.
(I'm sure the salesman will be happy to let you look at it before you buy.
)3) He could buy a cheap ($30) power meter, and plug the fridge into it for a couple days.Surely you're not so retarded that you didn't think of those possibilities.
I can only conclude that you're trying to make some political point, and disguising it as a logical point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29780853</id>
	<title>Re:how about doing something about cable / sat box</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1255783320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of them do that, but some that do (the Motorolas) exhibit severe HDCP handshaking bugs when waking up, with the recommended "fix" being to leave the box on 24/7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of them do that , but some that do ( the Motorolas ) exhibit severe HDCP handshaking bugs when waking up , with the recommended " fix " being to leave the box on 24/7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of them do that, but some that do (the Motorolas) exhibit severe HDCP handshaking bugs when waking up, with the recommended "fix" being to leave the box on 24/7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776765</id>
	<title>I Did Not!</title>
	<author>Hugh Pickens</author>
	<datestamp>1255785720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hugh Pickens writes</p> </div><p>I most certainly did not!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes I most certainly did not !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes I most certainly did not!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777029</id>
	<title>Re:Misses The Point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255789920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What we don't need is silly government micro management of our lives.</p></div><p>Yea, we don't need those silly micro-managing environmental regulations. Everyone should have some heavy metal in their water.<br>Or what about those silly financial regulations. Pah, micro-management restricting my freedom!<br>Even worse are those assholes who want to micro-manage how I drive! Seatbelts? In <i>my</i> car?</p><p>What you call "silly" someone else calls "necessary".<br>You want less regulation, go look at what the early 1900s were like.<br>Business was free to form monopolies, food safety was non-existent, toxic chemicals were dumped in every waterway.<br>Boy, those were the good ol' days when the free market reigned supreme!</p><p>Oh wait. Maybe that micromanagement isn't such a bad thing.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Jungle#Public\_and\_federal\_response" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">I personally prefer my meat without tuberculosis.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What we do n't need is silly government micro management of our lives.Yea , we do n't need those silly micro-managing environmental regulations .
Everyone should have some heavy metal in their water.Or what about those silly financial regulations .
Pah , micro-management restricting my freedom ! Even worse are those assholes who want to micro-manage how I drive !
Seatbelts ? In my car ? What you call " silly " someone else calls " necessary " .You want less regulation , go look at what the early 1900s were like.Business was free to form monopolies , food safety was non-existent , toxic chemicals were dumped in every waterway.Boy , those were the good ol ' days when the free market reigned supreme ! Oh wait .
Maybe that micromanagement is n't such a bad thing.I personally prefer my meat without tuberculosis .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we don't need is silly government micro management of our lives.Yea, we don't need those silly micro-managing environmental regulations.
Everyone should have some heavy metal in their water.Or what about those silly financial regulations.
Pah, micro-management restricting my freedom!Even worse are those assholes who want to micro-manage how I drive!
Seatbelts? In my car?What you call "silly" someone else calls "necessary".You want less regulation, go look at what the early 1900s were like.Business was free to form monopolies, food safety was non-existent, toxic chemicals were dumped in every waterway.Boy, those were the good ol' days when the free market reigned supreme!Oh wait.
Maybe that micromanagement isn't such a bad thing.I personally prefer my meat without tuberculosis.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777373</id>
	<title>Re:Create More Hobs ???</title>
	<author>andymadigan</author>
	<datestamp>1255792620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are plenty of HDTVs produced in the U.S., particularly in CA. Vizio is probably the most recognized one, but there are others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of HDTVs produced in the U.S. , particularly in CA .
Vizio is probably the most recognized one , but there are others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of HDTVs produced in the U.S., particularly in CA.
Vizio is probably the most recognized one, but there are others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777073</id>
	<title>Re:A Government that can...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255790280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can also tell me that I'm not allowed to walk up behind you, put a gun against the back of your head and pull the trigger.<br> <br>

The travesty, the injustice, we demand freedom for the people!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can also tell me that I 'm not allowed to walk up behind you , put a gun against the back of your head and pull the trigger .
The travesty , the injustice , we demand freedom for the people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can also tell me that I'm not allowed to walk up behind you, put a gun against the back of your head and pull the trigger.
The travesty, the injustice, we demand freedom for the people!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29781751</id>
	<title>What about outside lighting?</title>
	<author>yeremein</author>
	<datestamp>1255797360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Driving home tonight, I noticed dozens of buildings (mostly office buildings and hotels) that are uplit with thousands of watts of light.  Car lots--even \_empty\_ car lots--are ridiculously bright, even after closing time.  Billboards are nearly universally lit from below by lights that are pointed \_straight up\_, wasting the majority of the light they generate.  My home city recently installed huge acorn-style streetlights every 30 feet along both sides of major thoroughfares.  Why do governments focus on light bulbs and TV sets when our night skies are lit so brightly we can't even see stars anymore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Driving home tonight , I noticed dozens of buildings ( mostly office buildings and hotels ) that are uplit with thousands of watts of light .
Car lots--even \ _empty \ _ car lots--are ridiculously bright , even after closing time .
Billboards are nearly universally lit from below by lights that are pointed \ _straight up \ _ , wasting the majority of the light they generate .
My home city recently installed huge acorn-style streetlights every 30 feet along both sides of major thoroughfares .
Why do governments focus on light bulbs and TV sets when our night skies are lit so brightly we ca n't even see stars anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Driving home tonight, I noticed dozens of buildings (mostly office buildings and hotels) that are uplit with thousands of watts of light.
Car lots--even \_empty\_ car lots--are ridiculously bright, even after closing time.
Billboards are nearly universally lit from below by lights that are pointed \_straight up\_, wasting the majority of the light they generate.
My home city recently installed huge acorn-style streetlights every 30 feet along both sides of major thoroughfares.
Why do governments focus on light bulbs and TV sets when our night skies are lit so brightly we can't even see stars anymore?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776791</id>
	<title>Idiots</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1255786260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glad i don't live there. ( and hope their stupidity doesn't spread ).</p><p>Oh, and i don't even own a big screen tv...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad i do n't live there .
( and hope their stupidity does n't spread ) .Oh , and i do n't even own a big screen tv.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad i don't live there.
( and hope their stupidity doesn't spread ).Oh, and i don't even own a big screen tv...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29780853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29780541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29782595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29781585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29781427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29782205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29780863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29780185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29783317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29781923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29791865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779209
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29798509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29790221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29782589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_17_0422231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29780853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29782205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29781427
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29780541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29783317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29780185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776949
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29780863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29782595
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29781585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29781923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29782589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29791865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29790221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29779181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29778603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29777863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29798509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_17_0422231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_17_0422231.29776789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
