<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_09_0431232</id>
	<title>UK's Channel 4 To Broadcast In 3D</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257759720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>fatnickc writes <i>"The UK's Channel 4, from the 16th of September, will be broadcasting a few programmes in 3D, the <a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/themes/3d-week">full list of which can be found here</a>. While the likes of a 3D Miley Cyrus concert aren't exactly groundbreaking, this will give 3D viewing at home much more publicity, paving the way for even more interesting projects in the future. In partnership with retailer Sainsbury's, <a href="http://www2.sainsburys.co.uk/instoreoffers/free\_3d\_glasses.htm">Channel 4 are producing free 3D glasses</a> so that as many people as possible can watch them, although it's unclear which of the various types they'll be. "</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>fatnickc writes " The UK 's Channel 4 , from the 16th of September , will be broadcasting a few programmes in 3D , the full list of which can be found here .
While the likes of a 3D Miley Cyrus concert are n't exactly groundbreaking , this will give 3D viewing at home much more publicity , paving the way for even more interesting projects in the future .
In partnership with retailer Sainsbury 's , Channel 4 are producing free 3D glasses so that as many people as possible can watch them , although it 's unclear which of the various types they 'll be .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fatnickc writes "The UK's Channel 4, from the 16th of September, will be broadcasting a few programmes in 3D, the full list of which can be found here.
While the likes of a 3D Miley Cyrus concert aren't exactly groundbreaking, this will give 3D viewing at home much more publicity, paving the way for even more interesting projects in the future.
In partnership with retailer Sainsbury's, Channel 4 are producing free 3D glasses so that as many people as possible can watch them, although it's unclear which of the various types they'll be.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030522</id>
	<title>poke the one eye</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257764460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm blind in one eye.   What will this get me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm blind in one eye .
What will this get me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm blind in one eye.
What will this get me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30039982</id>
	<title>Try the polarized 3D movies before judging.</title>
	<author>Seor Jojoba</author>
	<datestamp>1257769560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The polarized 3D movies are nothing like the anaglyphic stuff that the BBC is planning to use here.  Polarized stereooptics (RealD, IMAX3D, and others) works by getting light to arrive at the viewers eyes from two different angles, and filtering so one set of angled light exclusively hits the left eye, and the other hits the right.  Unlike anaglyphic, the colors themselves are not used to filter.  As a result, it looks vastly better than the anaglyphic filtering you get with the cheapie red/cyan glasses.  To set this up polarized stereooptics in the home is currently pretty expensive, like $xx,xxx, so the home viewing experience of 3D TV is going to be cheap and gimmicky until that changes.</p><p>Also, the glasses they hand out are big enough to go over your normal glasses.  I'm doubling up on the specs myself, and it doesn't bother me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The polarized 3D movies are nothing like the anaglyphic stuff that the BBC is planning to use here .
Polarized stereooptics ( RealD , IMAX3D , and others ) works by getting light to arrive at the viewers eyes from two different angles , and filtering so one set of angled light exclusively hits the left eye , and the other hits the right .
Unlike anaglyphic , the colors themselves are not used to filter .
As a result , it looks vastly better than the anaglyphic filtering you get with the cheapie red/cyan glasses .
To set this up polarized stereooptics in the home is currently pretty expensive , like $ xx,xxx , so the home viewing experience of 3D TV is going to be cheap and gimmicky until that changes.Also , the glasses they hand out are big enough to go over your normal glasses .
I 'm doubling up on the specs myself , and it does n't bother me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The polarized 3D movies are nothing like the anaglyphic stuff that the BBC is planning to use here.
Polarized stereooptics (RealD, IMAX3D, and others) works by getting light to arrive at the viewers eyes from two different angles, and filtering so one set of angled light exclusively hits the left eye, and the other hits the right.
Unlike anaglyphic, the colors themselves are not used to filter.
As a result, it looks vastly better than the anaglyphic filtering you get with the cheapie red/cyan glasses.
To set this up polarized stereooptics in the home is currently pretty expensive, like $xx,xxx, so the home viewing experience of 3D TV is going to be cheap and gimmicky until that changes.Also, the glasses they hand out are big enough to go over your normal glasses.
I'm doubling up on the specs myself, and it doesn't bother me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30033590</id>
	<title>Forget 3D cinema, look to games</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1257785340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a $2500 3D setup at home. 2 720p projectors, each going through polarized lenses, onto a silver screen that maintains polarization of reflected light. I took my gaming computer (cost not included), installed the iz3d drivers, and now every game I play is in full 3D. Yeah, I have to wear glasses, but so what? I wear glasses when it's bright outside, too. Other 3D gamers use 2 monitors, polarized sheets, and a teleprompter's mirror. If you have something with a high refresh-rate, you can also use shutter glasses. And there are some monitors that allow 3D without glasses as long as you keep your head in the right position.</p><p>Anyways, the gaming experience is unreal. This setup has an unrivaled level of immersion. Horror games are truly terrifying. Racing is a serious adrenaline rush. And even MMORPG's are a little more fun when you're experiencing depth. I just played through Mirrors Edge last month and I'm still grinning about how fun it was.</p><p>So, now there is a small but growing group of homes that have 3D gaming rigs; those are the true 3D cinema customers. Right now, they got nothing aside from a few documentaries and dirty movies. While I sympathize a little with the apparent need of consumers for everything to be extremely simple, plug-and-play, and universally compatible, I wish someone would step up and fill the market for those of us who aren't afraid to do something a little more complicated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a $ 2500 3D setup at home .
2 720p projectors , each going through polarized lenses , onto a silver screen that maintains polarization of reflected light .
I took my gaming computer ( cost not included ) , installed the iz3d drivers , and now every game I play is in full 3D .
Yeah , I have to wear glasses , but so what ?
I wear glasses when it 's bright outside , too .
Other 3D gamers use 2 monitors , polarized sheets , and a teleprompter 's mirror .
If you have something with a high refresh-rate , you can also use shutter glasses .
And there are some monitors that allow 3D without glasses as long as you keep your head in the right position.Anyways , the gaming experience is unreal .
This setup has an unrivaled level of immersion .
Horror games are truly terrifying .
Racing is a serious adrenaline rush .
And even MMORPG 's are a little more fun when you 're experiencing depth .
I just played through Mirrors Edge last month and I 'm still grinning about how fun it was.So , now there is a small but growing group of homes that have 3D gaming rigs ; those are the true 3D cinema customers .
Right now , they got nothing aside from a few documentaries and dirty movies .
While I sympathize a little with the apparent need of consumers for everything to be extremely simple , plug-and-play , and universally compatible , I wish someone would step up and fill the market for those of us who are n't afraid to do something a little more complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a $2500 3D setup at home.
2 720p projectors, each going through polarized lenses, onto a silver screen that maintains polarization of reflected light.
I took my gaming computer (cost not included), installed the iz3d drivers, and now every game I play is in full 3D.
Yeah, I have to wear glasses, but so what?
I wear glasses when it's bright outside, too.
Other 3D gamers use 2 monitors, polarized sheets, and a teleprompter's mirror.
If you have something with a high refresh-rate, you can also use shutter glasses.
And there are some monitors that allow 3D without glasses as long as you keep your head in the right position.Anyways, the gaming experience is unreal.
This setup has an unrivaled level of immersion.
Horror games are truly terrifying.
Racing is a serious adrenaline rush.
And even MMORPG's are a little more fun when you're experiencing depth.
I just played through Mirrors Edge last month and I'm still grinning about how fun it was.So, now there is a small but growing group of homes that have 3D gaming rigs; those are the true 3D cinema customers.
Right now, they got nothing aside from a few documentaries and dirty movies.
While I sympathize a little with the apparent need of consumers for everything to be extremely simple, plug-and-play, and universally compatible, I wish someone would step up and fill the market for those of us who aren't afraid to do something a little more complicated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030644</id>
	<title>This is scary</title>
	<author>ctrl-alt-canc</author>
	<datestamp>1257765780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>if they transmit a 3D boxe match, remember to stay very far from the TV screen, or you will be seriously injured.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if they transmit a 3D boxe match , remember to stay very far from the TV screen , or you will be seriously injured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they transmit a 3D boxe match, remember to stay very far from the TV screen, or you will be seriously injured.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030424</id>
	<title>Can't be true</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1257763440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe it! Miley Cyrus is wooden one dimensional, never mind 2 or 3. This has to be a hoax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe it !
Miley Cyrus is wooden one dimensional , never mind 2 or 3 .
This has to be a hoax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe it!
Miley Cyrus is wooden one dimensional, never mind 2 or 3.
This has to be a hoax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30039070</id>
	<title>So, those that watched the show, could see it?</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1257764820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The scientific implications of this are staggering. 4\% of people called into a show they couldn't see when asked to call in on said show. HOW! We NEED TO KNOW! Why is the government trying to cover this up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The scientific implications of this are staggering .
4 \ % of people called into a show they could n't see when asked to call in on said show .
HOW ! We NEED TO KNOW !
Why is the government trying to cover this up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scientific implications of this are staggering.
4\% of people called into a show they couldn't see when asked to call in on said show.
HOW! We NEED TO KNOW!
Why is the government trying to cover this up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30037318</id>
	<title>Re:Why, oh why?</title>
	<author>LordSnooty</author>
	<datestamp>1257757620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Why is it that because the new technique in use at cinemas is impressive and works they think this shitty old version that never really worked well will take off?</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

I think C4 know full well that it's ineffective, but they are attempting to jump on the 3D bandwagon mainly to attract advertisers (snoop around their press office and you can find an appeal to advertisers, asking if they'd like to be the first to broadcast a 3D commercial)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that because the new technique in use at cinemas is impressive and works they think this shitty old version that never really worked well will take off ?
I think C4 know full well that it 's ineffective , but they are attempting to jump on the 3D bandwagon mainly to attract advertisers ( snoop around their press office and you can find an appeal to advertisers , asking if they 'd like to be the first to broadcast a 3D commercial )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why is it that because the new technique in use at cinemas is impressive and works they think this shitty old version that never really worked well will take off?
I think C4 know full well that it's ineffective, but they are attempting to jump on the 3D bandwagon mainly to attract advertisers (snoop around their press office and you can find an appeal to advertisers, asking if they'd like to be the first to broadcast a 3D commercial)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30039850</id>
	<title>Yes and by hypnotism I will now demand you!</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1257769020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*A hypnotic voice talks in the back of your head*</p><p>When you hear the trigger-word "cleaner", you will send all your money to me; (the bank account details will follow soon by e-mail).<br>Thank you very much for doing business with you, we love customers like you.</p><p>Toodooloo, and remember, customer is always right!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* A hypnotic voice talks in the back of your head * When you hear the trigger-word " cleaner " , you will send all your money to me ; ( the bank account details will follow soon by e-mail ) .Thank you very much for doing business with you , we love customers like you.Toodooloo , and remember , customer is always right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*A hypnotic voice talks in the back of your head*When you hear the trigger-word "cleaner", you will send all your money to me; (the bank account details will follow soon by e-mail).Thank you very much for doing business with you, we love customers like you.Toodooloo, and remember, customer is always right!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030472</id>
	<title>Blue and Yellow glasses.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257763920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blue and Yellow glasses. No color 3D. Nothing to see here, move along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blue and Yellow glasses .
No color 3D .
Nothing to see here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blue and Yellow glasses.
No color 3D.
Nothing to see here, move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030764</id>
	<title>Live 3D Broadcast</title>
	<author>KamuZ</author>
	<datestamp>1257767400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A week ago or so here in Japan they were broadcasting live 3D in a concert, you had to have 3D glasses of course, first time i have seen something like this live. After this they asked the audience to call and vote if they could see it, 96\% (or 94\%?) said yes.</p><p>You can see the video in YouTube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvqRBP9r8Y" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvqRBP9r8Y</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>The right corner is the countdown timer for the 3D broadcast to start (so you can safely skip 45 seconds).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A week ago or so here in Japan they were broadcasting live 3D in a concert , you had to have 3D glasses of course , first time i have seen something like this live .
After this they asked the audience to call and vote if they could see it , 96 \ % ( or 94 \ % ?
) said yes.You can see the video in YouTube http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = PTvqRBP9r8Y [ youtube.com ] The right corner is the countdown timer for the 3D broadcast to start ( so you can safely skip 45 seconds ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A week ago or so here in Japan they were broadcasting live 3D in a concert, you had to have 3D glasses of course, first time i have seen something like this live.
After this they asked the audience to call and vote if they could see it, 96\% (or 94\%?
) said yes.You can see the video in YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvqRBP9r8Y [youtube.com]The right corner is the countdown timer for the 3D broadcast to start (so you can safely skip 45 seconds).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30033314</id>
	<title>Stereoscopic</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1257784260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not 3D.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/pedant</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not 3D .
/pedant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not 3D.
/pedant</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30035220</id>
	<title>Wow, I remember this gimmick</title>
	<author>Cloud K</author>
	<datestamp>1257791880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome back to 1990.  Same dodgy 3D glasses that probably every household in England had, same rubbish colours and fairly iffy 3D once the novelty wears off.  Only with blue/yellow instead of red/green.  Progress!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome back to 1990 .
Same dodgy 3D glasses that probably every household in England had , same rubbish colours and fairly iffy 3D once the novelty wears off .
Only with blue/yellow instead of red/green .
Progress !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome back to 1990.
Same dodgy 3D glasses that probably every household in England had, same rubbish colours and fairly iffy 3D once the novelty wears off.
Only with blue/yellow instead of red/green.
Progress!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032230</id>
	<title>Re:Can't be true</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1257779880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I don't believe it! Miley Cyrus is wooden one dimensional, never mind 2 or 3. This has to be a hoax.</p><p>I guess you are unaware of the power of modern CGI tools to fix this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I do n't believe it !
Miley Cyrus is wooden one dimensional , never mind 2 or 3 .
This has to be a hoax.I guess you are unaware of the power of modern CGI tools to fix this : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I don't believe it!
Miley Cyrus is wooden one dimensional, never mind 2 or 3.
This has to be a hoax.I guess you are unaware of the power of modern CGI tools to fix this :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031310</id>
	<title>Re:downside...</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1257774480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are thinking that it is a great way to advertise.... and since this is on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. it worked<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>It's a gimmick and nothing else....  all these 3D system's are low resolution, eye strain inducing, and will put people off who don't have the glasses, or cannot use them</p><p>In a 3D cinema you expect to wear glasses and expect to sit through a movie length presentation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... at home you channel surf and get on with other things while watching<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....try that with glasses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>When 3D at home is without glasses and can be viewed easily by most people then it will be more than a gimmick<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are thinking that it is a great way to advertise.... and since this is on / .
it worked ....It 's a gimmick and nothing else.... all these 3D system 's are low resolution , eye strain inducing , and will put people off who do n't have the glasses , or can not use themIn a 3D cinema you expect to wear glasses and expect to sit through a movie length presentation ... at home you channel surf and get on with other things while watching ....try that with glasses ...When 3D at home is without glasses and can be viewed easily by most people then it will be more than a gimmick .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are thinking that it is a great way to advertise.... and since this is on /.
it worked ....It's a gimmick and nothing else....  all these 3D system's are low resolution, eye strain inducing, and will put people off who don't have the glasses, or cannot use themIn a 3D cinema you expect to wear glasses and expect to sit through a movie length presentation ... at home you channel surf and get on with other things while watching ....try that with glasses ...When 3D at home is without glasses and can be viewed easily by most people then it will be more than a gimmick ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031156</id>
	<title>Re:will it really pave the way for anything?</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1257773220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not surprised it caught on. The screen has to be in constant motion in one direction for the effect to occur which makes it an interesting novelty but little else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not surprised it caught on .
The screen has to be in constant motion in one direction for the effect to occur which makes it an interesting novelty but little else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not surprised it caught on.
The screen has to be in constant motion in one direction for the effect to occur which makes it an interesting novelty but little else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030468</id>
	<title>Red Green 3D</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1257763920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's got to be Red/Green for the glasses, only tech which will be universal for all TVs.
<br> <br>
Besides which, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with the "greatest ever 3D moments". Any 'greatest' list that includes Jaws 3(D) and the American produced Dr Who special really doesn't deserve to exist.
<br> <br>
Still, I love Udo Kier so I'll probably watch Flesh for Frankenstein (and once against try to place his accent)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's got to be Red/Green for the glasses , only tech which will be universal for all TVs .
Besides which , they 're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with the " greatest ever 3D moments " .
Any 'greatest ' list that includes Jaws 3 ( D ) and the American produced Dr Who special really does n't deserve to exist .
Still , I love Udo Kier so I 'll probably watch Flesh for Frankenstein ( and once against try to place his accent )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's got to be Red/Green for the glasses, only tech which will be universal for all TVs.
Besides which, they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel with the "greatest ever 3D moments".
Any 'greatest' list that includes Jaws 3(D) and the American produced Dr Who special really doesn't deserve to exist.
Still, I love Udo Kier so I'll probably watch Flesh for Frankenstein (and once against try to place his accent)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030978</id>
	<title>Re:Blue and Yellow glasses.</title>
	<author>craigbeat</author>
	<datestamp>1257770580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I picked up the glasses at the weekend and tried them out on the official colorcode 3-d website. The effect works, but the colour is bizarre, as the right eye only sees blue. I tried boosting the contrast and saturation, which does help a bit, but still not brilliant. I don't think it will catch on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I picked up the glasses at the weekend and tried them out on the official colorcode 3-d website .
The effect works , but the colour is bizarre , as the right eye only sees blue .
I tried boosting the contrast and saturation , which does help a bit , but still not brilliant .
I do n't think it will catch on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I picked up the glasses at the weekend and tried them out on the official colorcode 3-d website.
The effect works, but the colour is bizarre, as the right eye only sees blue.
I tried boosting the contrast and saturation, which does help a bit, but still not brilliant.
I don't think it will catch on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030706</id>
	<title>Re:poke the one eye</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1257766560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very angry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very angry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very angry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032088</id>
	<title>Re:poke the one eye</title>
	<author>jimshatt</author>
	<datestamp>1257779220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't see depth anyway unless you move your head sideways and back a lot. <br>
You could manually do this with the handed out glasses. Create some stable holder (aka your mother) for the glasses and move your eye to switch between red and orange.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't see depth anyway unless you move your head sideways and back a lot .
You could manually do this with the handed out glasses .
Create some stable holder ( aka your mother ) for the glasses and move your eye to switch between red and orange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't see depth anyway unless you move your head sideways and back a lot.
You could manually do this with the handed out glasses.
Create some stable holder (aka your mother) for the glasses and move your eye to switch between red and orange.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30034836</id>
	<title>Re:Blue / Orange 3D glasses</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1257790380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember trying the blue/red glasses in the 80s with special TV shows. They never seemed to do anything for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember trying the blue/red glasses in the 80s with special TV shows .
They never seemed to do anything for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember trying the blue/red glasses in the 80s with special TV shows.
They never seemed to do anything for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031700</id>
	<title>2 birds 1 stone</title>
	<author>severn2j</author>
	<datestamp>1257777000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe OT, but Sainsbury's are also selling Modern Warfare 2 for &amp;pound;26 (less than half RRP), so now there's two reasons to shop there...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe OT , but Sainsbury 's are also selling Modern Warfare 2 for   26 ( less than half RRP ) , so now there 's two reasons to shop there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe OT, but Sainsbury's are also selling Modern Warfare 2 for £26 (less than half RRP), so now there's two reasons to shop there...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031106</id>
	<title>Re:Can't be true</title>
	<author>valriedeleon</author>
	<datestamp>1257772560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A bit of logic is a refreshing change from the weak logical fallacy-ridden arguments fundies usually spew here.
<a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Premium-White-Pro-Review---Does-Free-Trial-Really-Work?&amp;id=3205919" title="ezinearticles.com" rel="nofollow">Premium White Pro</a> [ezinearticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>A bit of logic is a refreshing change from the weak logical fallacy-ridden arguments fundies usually spew here .
Premium White Pro [ ezinearticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bit of logic is a refreshing change from the weak logical fallacy-ridden arguments fundies usually spew here.
Premium White Pro [ezinearticles.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032252</id>
	<title>this tis 6oatsex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257780000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>more grandiose a sad world. At to happen. My tired arguments opinion in other outreach are Bulk of the FreeBSD disaapearing Up its the next round of get how people can</htmltext>
<tokenext>more grandiose a sad world .
At to happen .
My tired arguments opinion in other outreach are Bulk of the FreeBSD disaapearing Up its the next round of get how people can</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more grandiose a sad world.
At to happen.
My tired arguments opinion in other outreach are Bulk of the FreeBSD disaapearing Up its the next round of get how people can</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910</id>
	<title>downside...</title>
	<author>macshit</author>
	<datestamp>1257769620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sooo, presumably the <em>downside</em> is greatly reduced quality and increased annoyance.  Almost certainly there will be a large number of viewers without the glasses, or who strongly dislike wearing them (for instance, glasses wearers whose glasses are incompatible with the distributed 3d glasses); for these people, the effect is a fuzzy almost unwatchable program.
</p><p>Given that in the <em>vast</em> majority of cases, 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit, <b>what on earth are they thinking</b>?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooo , presumably the downside is greatly reduced quality and increased annoyance .
Almost certainly there will be a large number of viewers without the glasses , or who strongly dislike wearing them ( for instance , glasses wearers whose glasses are incompatible with the distributed 3d glasses ) ; for these people , the effect is a fuzzy almost unwatchable program .
Given that in the vast majority of cases , 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit , what on earth are they thinking ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooo, presumably the downside is greatly reduced quality and increased annoyance.
Almost certainly there will be a large number of viewers without the glasses, or who strongly dislike wearing them (for instance, glasses wearers whose glasses are incompatible with the distributed 3d glasses); for these people, the effect is a fuzzy almost unwatchable program.
Given that in the vast majority of cases, 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit, what on earth are they thinking?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30034372</id>
	<title>Re:BBC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257788520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps it was tagged because non UK readers might not be aware there are commercial TV stations in the UK.</p><p>I've been watching Channel 4 since it started broadcasting back in the eighties. Sadly the channel which formerly televised bleeding edge TV has sunk back into a mire of reality TV dross, though that could be said to a greater or lesser degree about all the UK stations. C4 still have a pretty good nightly news with heavyweight journalists. So unlike the breathy tabloid hysteria of ITV, a bit like the BBC before it went all PC and started using small words so as not to confuse some of the less gifted results of the UK's education policies.</p><p>Broadcasting in 3D is probably a last ditch attempt to look innovative. I hope it works for them, but I think it's too little, too late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it was tagged because non UK readers might not be aware there are commercial TV stations in the UK.I 've been watching Channel 4 since it started broadcasting back in the eighties .
Sadly the channel which formerly televised bleeding edge TV has sunk back into a mire of reality TV dross , though that could be said to a greater or lesser degree about all the UK stations .
C4 still have a pretty good nightly news with heavyweight journalists .
So unlike the breathy tabloid hysteria of ITV , a bit like the BBC before it went all PC and started using small words so as not to confuse some of the less gifted results of the UK 's education policies.Broadcasting in 3D is probably a last ditch attempt to look innovative .
I hope it works for them , but I think it 's too little , too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it was tagged because non UK readers might not be aware there are commercial TV stations in the UK.I've been watching Channel 4 since it started broadcasting back in the eighties.
Sadly the channel which formerly televised bleeding edge TV has sunk back into a mire of reality TV dross, though that could be said to a greater or lesser degree about all the UK stations.
C4 still have a pretty good nightly news with heavyweight journalists.
So unlike the breathy tabloid hysteria of ITV, a bit like the BBC before it went all PC and started using small words so as not to confuse some of the less gifted results of the UK's education policies.Broadcasting in 3D is probably a last ditch attempt to look innovative.
I hope it works for them, but I think it's too little, too late.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30033364</id>
	<title>Re:Red Green 3D</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257784440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;American produced Dr Who special really doesn't deserve to exist</p><p>Okay I'm sick of hearing this again-and-again-and-again over the last two decades.</p><p>Yes it aired on FOX, an american network, but it was written by a BBC writer, starred a BBC actor, was funded almost-entirely by BBC money, and first aired on BBC TV.  If you don't like that mid-90s series pilot, fine, but don't blame americans since it was largely the BBC in charge of it.</p><p>ALSO: remember it was the British that  produced the abomination that was the spoon-playing bumbling idiotic fool known as the seventh doctor - that is the second-lowest point in Who universe (the lowest point being the year that never happened-1985).  Anyway blaming Americans for the BBC-written, produced, acted 90s-tv-pilot is as colossally stupid as if you tried to blame us for the ~100 pound TV tax.  It makes no logical sense to blame us for BBC actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; American produced Dr Who special really does n't deserve to existOkay I 'm sick of hearing this again-and-again-and-again over the last two decades.Yes it aired on FOX , an american network , but it was written by a BBC writer , starred a BBC actor , was funded almost-entirely by BBC money , and first aired on BBC TV .
If you do n't like that mid-90s series pilot , fine , but do n't blame americans since it was largely the BBC in charge of it.ALSO : remember it was the British that produced the abomination that was the spoon-playing bumbling idiotic fool known as the seventh doctor - that is the second-lowest point in Who universe ( the lowest point being the year that never happened-1985 ) .
Anyway blaming Americans for the BBC-written , produced , acted 90s-tv-pilot is as colossally stupid as if you tried to blame us for the ~ 100 pound TV tax .
It makes no logical sense to blame us for BBC actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;American produced Dr Who special really doesn't deserve to existOkay I'm sick of hearing this again-and-again-and-again over the last two decades.Yes it aired on FOX, an american network, but it was written by a BBC writer, starred a BBC actor, was funded almost-entirely by BBC money, and first aired on BBC TV.
If you don't like that mid-90s series pilot, fine, but don't blame americans since it was largely the BBC in charge of it.ALSO: remember it was the British that  produced the abomination that was the spoon-playing bumbling idiotic fool known as the seventh doctor - that is the second-lowest point in Who universe (the lowest point being the year that never happened-1985).
Anyway blaming Americans for the BBC-written, produced, acted 90s-tv-pilot is as colossally stupid as if you tried to blame us for the ~100 pound TV tax.
It makes no logical sense to blame us for BBC actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032280</id>
	<title>Dr. Tongue's 3D House of ... Miley Cyrus?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257780180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count\_Floyd" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Oooooh, scary!</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oooooh , scary !
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oooooh, scary!
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30035238</id>
	<title>Re:downside...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257791940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Given that in the vast majority of cases, 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit, what on earth are they thinking?!</p></div><p>Arrrghh ARGHHH, technology bad. New things: BAD. ARHHH. Want old thing. Old thing good. Old thing familiar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that in the vast majority of cases , 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit , what on earth are they thinking ?
! Arrrghh ARGHHH , technology bad .
New things : BAD .
ARHHH. Want old thing .
Old thing good .
Old thing familiar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that in the vast majority of cases, 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit, what on earth are they thinking?
!Arrrghh ARGHHH, technology bad.
New things: BAD.
ARHHH. Want old thing.
Old thing good.
Old thing familiar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030630</id>
	<title>Re:BBC</title>
	<author>IndieKid</author>
	<datestamp>1257765660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed, although the BBC has dabbled with 3D in the past (I seem to remember a 3D episode of Eastenders for either the Children in Need or Comic Relief charity event) this is a completely separate broadcaster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , although the BBC has dabbled with 3D in the past ( I seem to remember a 3D episode of Eastenders for either the Children in Need or Comic Relief charity event ) this is a completely separate broadcaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, although the BBC has dabbled with 3D in the past (I seem to remember a 3D episode of Eastenders for either the Children in Need or Comic Relief charity event) this is a completely separate broadcaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031956</id>
	<title>The technology is only part of the problem</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1257778500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This sort of thing has been done before, and in the past hasn't exactly set off a golden age of 3d television.</p></div><p>This happens every 10-15 years (just like it does in the cinema). I remember Channel 4 (I think) doing more or less exactly the same thing they are doing now some back in the 80s using red/cyan (which, unlike red/green gave some, limited, colour).

</p><p>Its easy to pooh-pooh ideas as "never gonna catch on" - but this one has failed to catch on so many times that its about time they got the message. Even if the systems improve, that the fundamental question of how you reconcile a moving, 3D scene with a 20" window without giving the viewer a migraine every time an object gets clipped.

</p><p>You'd pretty much have to rewind to the early "point a couple of cameras at a stage-play" era of movie making and start re-inventing the "language of film" from scratch.

</p><p>The only thing that <i>might</i> have changed this time round is that more people have large/wide screen TVs which <i>might</i> make it marginally more impressive.

</p><p>I guess the reason that 3D has flared up in the cinema again now is the popularity of computer-animated movies, which must be relatively easy make in 3D. Probably quite cool, too, if you're in Pixar HQ, sitting 2' away from a high def monitor wearing your LCD shutter specs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of thing has been done before , and in the past has n't exactly set off a golden age of 3d television.This happens every 10-15 years ( just like it does in the cinema ) .
I remember Channel 4 ( I think ) doing more or less exactly the same thing they are doing now some back in the 80s using red/cyan ( which , unlike red/green gave some , limited , colour ) .
Its easy to pooh-pooh ideas as " never gon na catch on " - but this one has failed to catch on so many times that its about time they got the message .
Even if the systems improve , that the fundamental question of how you reconcile a moving , 3D scene with a 20 " window without giving the viewer a migraine every time an object gets clipped .
You 'd pretty much have to rewind to the early " point a couple of cameras at a stage-play " era of movie making and start re-inventing the " language of film " from scratch .
The only thing that might have changed this time round is that more people have large/wide screen TVs which might make it marginally more impressive .
I guess the reason that 3D has flared up in the cinema again now is the popularity of computer-animated movies , which must be relatively easy make in 3D .
Probably quite cool , too , if you 're in Pixar HQ , sitting 2 ' away from a high def monitor wearing your LCD shutter specs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of thing has been done before, and in the past hasn't exactly set off a golden age of 3d television.This happens every 10-15 years (just like it does in the cinema).
I remember Channel 4 (I think) doing more or less exactly the same thing they are doing now some back in the 80s using red/cyan (which, unlike red/green gave some, limited, colour).
Its easy to pooh-pooh ideas as "never gonna catch on" - but this one has failed to catch on so many times that its about time they got the message.
Even if the systems improve, that the fundamental question of how you reconcile a moving, 3D scene with a 20" window without giving the viewer a migraine every time an object gets clipped.
You'd pretty much have to rewind to the early "point a couple of cameras at a stage-play" era of movie making and start re-inventing the "language of film" from scratch.
The only thing that might have changed this time round is that more people have large/wide screen TVs which might make it marginally more impressive.
I guess the reason that 3D has flared up in the cinema again now is the popularity of computer-animated movies, which must be relatively easy make in 3D.
Probably quite cool, too, if you're in Pixar HQ, sitting 2' away from a high def monitor wearing your LCD shutter specs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031746</id>
	<title>red/blue 3d sucks</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1257777240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Real 3D, as seen on a theater screen or an IMAX screen, is mind-blowing.  Broadcast tv red/cyan stereo is terrible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real 3D , as seen on a theater screen or an IMAX screen , is mind-blowing .
Broadcast tv red/cyan stereo is terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real 3D, as seen on a theater screen or an IMAX screen, is mind-blowing.
Broadcast tv red/cyan stereo is terrible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031172</id>
	<title>Re:downside...</title>
	<author>quarkoid</author>
	<datestamp>1257773400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what on earth are they thinking?!</p></div><p>That's an easy one.</p><p>From the Channel 4 remit as laid out in the <a href="http://www.channel4.com/about4/pdf/2009-SoPP-OFCOM-FINAL.pdf" title="channel4.com">statement of programme policy</a> [channel4.com], attached to the Channel 4 licence:</p><p><i>&ldquo;[channel 4 shall] foster the new and experimental in television.  It will encourage pluralism, provide a favoured place for the untried and encourage innovation in style content perspective and talent on and off screen&rdquo;.</i></p><p>Nick.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what on earth are they thinking ?
! That 's an easy one.From the Channel 4 remit as laid out in the statement of programme policy [ channel4.com ] , attached to the Channel 4 licence :    [ channel 4 shall ] foster the new and experimental in television .
It will encourage pluralism , provide a favoured place for the untried and encourage innovation in style content perspective and talent on and off screen    .Nick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what on earth are they thinking?
!That's an easy one.From the Channel 4 remit as laid out in the statement of programme policy [channel4.com], attached to the Channel 4 licence:“[channel 4 shall] foster the new and experimental in television.
It will encourage pluralism, provide a favoured place for the untried and encourage innovation in style content perspective and talent on and off screen”.Nick.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031486</id>
	<title>Re:BBC</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1257775620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And all cops are in a CIA, and INTERPOL is a FBI, and there's an NSA in North Korea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And all cops are in a CIA , and INTERPOL is a FBI , and there 's an NSA in North Korea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all cops are in a CIA, and INTERPOL is a FBI, and there's an NSA in North Korea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30072126</id>
	<title>Re:3D is gimmicky at best, painful at usual</title>
	<author>fgouget</author>
	<datestamp>1258039140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Generally the 3D technology is only used for "gag" effects in children's and horror movies anyway.</p></div><p>I thought so too, but I had to watch <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1049413/" title="imdb.com">Up</a> [imdb.com] in 3D (didn't notice the theater only showed it in 3D until it was too late) and came away pretty impressed. No "gag" effect that I can remember. Instead I had the impression of looking through a window, rather than looking at a poster on a wall.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally the 3D technology is only used for " gag " effects in children 's and horror movies anyway.I thought so too , but I had to watch Up [ imdb.com ] in 3D ( did n't notice the theater only showed it in 3D until it was too late ) and came away pretty impressed .
No " gag " effect that I can remember .
Instead I had the impression of looking through a window , rather than looking at a poster on a wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally the 3D technology is only used for "gag" effects in children's and horror movies anyway.I thought so too, but I had to watch Up [imdb.com] in 3D (didn't notice the theater only showed it in 3D until it was too late) and came away pretty impressed.
No "gag" effect that I can remember.
Instead I had the impression of looking through a window, rather than looking at a poster on a wall.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30037206</id>
	<title>Re:BBC</title>
	<author>LordSnooty</author>
	<datestamp>1257800340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That really wasn't 3D, it exploited the fact that one dark lens over one eye can make a fast-moving picture appear 3D. For that reason, the entire Dr Who episode was filmed on a Steadicam revolving around the cast. Utterly dreadful, even by DrWho standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That really was n't 3D , it exploited the fact that one dark lens over one eye can make a fast-moving picture appear 3D .
For that reason , the entire Dr Who episode was filmed on a Steadicam revolving around the cast .
Utterly dreadful , even by DrWho standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That really wasn't 3D, it exploited the fact that one dark lens over one eye can make a fast-moving picture appear 3D.
For that reason, the entire Dr Who episode was filmed on a Steadicam revolving around the cast.
Utterly dreadful, even by DrWho standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031252</id>
	<title>Re:BBC</title>
	<author>PhillC</author>
	<datestamp>1257774060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The BBC is also up for an award for their dabbling in 3D:

<a href="http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/technology/bbc-stereo-3d-rugby-project-up-for-rts-award/5007769.article" title="broadcastnow.co.uk">http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/technology/bbc-stereo-3d-rugby-project-up-for-rts-award/5007769.article</a> [broadcastnow.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is also up for an award for their dabbling in 3D : http : //www.broadcastnow.co.uk/technology/bbc-stereo-3d-rugby-project-up-for-rts-award/5007769.article [ broadcastnow.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is also up for an award for their dabbling in 3D:

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/technology/bbc-stereo-3d-rugby-project-up-for-rts-award/5007769.article [broadcastnow.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30037934</id>
	<title>Except that it isn't 3D.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257760080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's stereo.</p><p>Similar to stereo audio not being binaural audio.</p><p>Because there is only one fixed viewing angle and focus plane. Which is also the reason for the additional eye strain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's stereo.Similar to stereo audio not being binaural audio.Because there is only one fixed viewing angle and focus plane .
Which is also the reason for the additional eye strain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's stereo.Similar to stereo audio not being binaural audio.Because there is only one fixed viewing angle and focus plane.
Which is also the reason for the additional eye strain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031130</id>
	<title>Flat is flat ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257772920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Miley Cyrus, 3D<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... How will we be able to tell. It will still look pretty flat to me. If you are doing 3D atleast put something on screen that will stand out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Miley Cyrus , 3D ... How will we be able to tell .
It will still look pretty flat to me .
If you are doing 3D atleast put something on screen that will stand out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Miley Cyrus, 3D ... How will we be able to tell.
It will still look pretty flat to me.
If you are doing 3D atleast put something on screen that will stand out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031298</id>
	<title>Re:BBC</title>
	<author>PinkyDead</author>
	<datestamp>1257774360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Channel 4 is a British broadcasting corporation, is it not?</p><p>It's not the British Broadcasting Corporation granted - but the definite article was not included in the tag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Channel 4 is a British broadcasting corporation , is it not ? It 's not the British Broadcasting Corporation granted - but the definite article was not included in the tag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Channel 4 is a British broadcasting corporation, is it not?It's not the British Broadcasting Corporation granted - but the definite article was not included in the tag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031050</id>
	<title>Even Hannah Montana hates her.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257771720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone catch that interview where Hannah was talking shit about Miley?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone catch that interview where Hannah was talking shit about Miley ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone catch that interview where Hannah was talking shit about Miley?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030488</id>
	<title>Producing free 3D glasses</title>
	<author>Jarlsberg</author>
	<datestamp>1257764040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, I'd like to see that.<p>Why don't just everybody produce thing for free?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , I 'd like to see that.Why do n't just everybody produce thing for free ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, I'd like to see that.Why don't just everybody produce thing for free?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030464</id>
	<title>BBC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257763800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is this tagged BBC? Channel 4 is independent of the BBC and runs adverts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this tagged BBC ?
Channel 4 is independent of the BBC and runs adverts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this tagged BBC?
Channel 4 is independent of the BBC and runs adverts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031152</id>
	<title>Why, oh why?</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1257773160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, 3D in cinemas is impressive, quite stunning in fact, a far bigger, better improvement to film than HD and probably the most important change to film since colour in fact- I'd argue it beats surround sound for sure.</p><p>But from what I understand they use special lense caps on the projectors and this technique can't be imitated on TV panels. Instead they're still using this crappy old technique that never really worked and that has flopped numerous times.</p><p>Why is it that because the new technique in use at cinemas is impressive and works they think this shitty old version that never really worked well will take off?</p><p>In fact, I'm not even convinced living room TV wants 3D terribly often, I think having to find your glasses to watch certain programs would become an annoyance after a while even if you don't mind it for the odd film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , 3D in cinemas is impressive , quite stunning in fact , a far bigger , better improvement to film than HD and probably the most important change to film since colour in fact- I 'd argue it beats surround sound for sure.But from what I understand they use special lense caps on the projectors and this technique ca n't be imitated on TV panels .
Instead they 're still using this crappy old technique that never really worked and that has flopped numerous times.Why is it that because the new technique in use at cinemas is impressive and works they think this shitty old version that never really worked well will take off ? In fact , I 'm not even convinced living room TV wants 3D terribly often , I think having to find your glasses to watch certain programs would become an annoyance after a while even if you do n't mind it for the odd film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, 3D in cinemas is impressive, quite stunning in fact, a far bigger, better improvement to film than HD and probably the most important change to film since colour in fact- I'd argue it beats surround sound for sure.But from what I understand they use special lense caps on the projectors and this technique can't be imitated on TV panels.
Instead they're still using this crappy old technique that never really worked and that has flopped numerous times.Why is it that because the new technique in use at cinemas is impressive and works they think this shitty old version that never really worked well will take off?In fact, I'm not even convinced living room TV wants 3D terribly often, I think having to find your glasses to watch certain programs would become an annoyance after a while even if you don't mind it for the odd film.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030698</id>
	<title>will it really pave the way for anything?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257766560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sort of thing has been done before, and in the past hasn't exactly set off a golden age of 3d television. The BBC broadcast several 3d shows in 1993, among them a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensions\_in\_Time" title="wikipedia.org">Dr. Who special</a> [wikipedia.org], but the experiment didn't catch on then. Discovery Channel did a 3d Shark Week a few years ago, also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sort of thing has been done before , and in the past has n't exactly set off a golden age of 3d television .
The BBC broadcast several 3d shows in 1993 , among them a Dr. Who special [ wikipedia.org ] , but the experiment did n't catch on then .
Discovery Channel did a 3d Shark Week a few years ago , also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sort of thing has been done before, and in the past hasn't exactly set off a golden age of 3d television.
The BBC broadcast several 3d shows in 1993, among them a Dr. Who special [wikipedia.org], but the experiment didn't catch on then.
Discovery Channel did a 3d Shark Week a few years ago, also.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032830</id>
	<title>Fashion from here,nike jordan shoes,coach,gucci,</title>
	<author>huangzhixian1204</author>
	<datestamp>1257782340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday, this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift, that is, gift, our web site is <a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] Nike Air Jordan(1-25)/Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk shoes, coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags, Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&amp;F<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday , this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift , that is , gift , our web site is http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] [ coolforsale.com ] [ coolforsale.com ] Nike Air Jordan ( 1-25 ) /Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk shoes , coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags , Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&amp;F ,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to meet the Thanksgiving holiday, this site hereby release Thanksgiving gift, that is, gift, our web site is http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] [coolforsale.com] Nike Air Jordan(1-25)/Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk shoes, coach,gucci,lv,dg,ed hardy handbags, Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&amp;F ,T-shirt welcome new and old customers come to order.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030974</id>
	<title>This gets interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257770580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) Give to slashdotters a 3D TV
2) Transmit a 3D TV show featuring Natalie Portman
3) ???
4) Profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Give to slashdotters a 3D TV 2 ) Transmit a 3D TV show featuring Natalie Portman 3 ) ? ? ?
4 ) Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Give to slashdotters a 3D TV
2) Transmit a 3D TV show featuring Natalie Portman
3) ???
4) Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30043546</id>
	<title>3D will make the TV shows not better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While TV shows and productions are becoming more and more like those proposed in Idiocracy, I believe that 3D will not make them better (in cultural terms). However, I guess "Ow, not my balls" will be really good in 3D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While TV shows and productions are becoming more and more like those proposed in Idiocracy , I believe that 3D will not make them better ( in cultural terms ) .
However , I guess " Ow , not my balls " will be really good in 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While TV shows and productions are becoming more and more like those proposed in Idiocracy, I believe that 3D will not make them better (in cultural terms).
However, I guess "Ow, not my balls" will be really good in 3D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030792</id>
	<title>Out with the old, in with the new</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1257767700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay! Goodbye brainless 2D crap, hello brainless 3D crap and migraines!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay !
Goodbye brainless 2D crap , hello brainless 3D crap and migraines !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay!
Goodbye brainless 2D crap, hello brainless 3D crap and migraines!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031068</id>
	<title>Re:will it really pave the way for anything?</title>
	<author>uuddlrlrab</author>
	<datestamp>1257771900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, TV's have already hit the 1080p pinnacle, Blu-Ray won the format wars, and the whole HD-media-over-wireless... Yeah, well, I've yet to hear about it panning out in a cost-effective form while retaining decent quality along with the tech being over a year or two old now, so I guess the media covering home theater needs something to tout as the Next Big Thing (TM). Until viable high-quality, consumer holographic displays show up along with a viable need/demand in the mainstream market, <a href="http://www.johnnylee.net/projects/wii/" title="johnnylee.net" rel="nofollow">this</a> [johnnylee.net] is the most interesting thing I've seen in regards to 3d type stuff. And even that is <a href="http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/At\_least\_100\_years\_ago" title="encycloped...matica.com" rel="nofollow">old by internet standards.</a> [encycloped...matica.com]
<br> <br>
To be honest, I've not watched any "new" 3d movies. I've heard that it looks really nice, but then you also need to wear the glasses--srsly, I already wear specs. Hate them, don't want another pair. As far as in home theaters, do you need a special tv that can display it? Or does the movie have to be specially formatted for 3d? Either way, it sounds like paying at least a small (per movie) to large (for a special tv) amount extra over the non-3d version. Until I watch such a film and find myself in need of a fresh pair of pants and my ambulatory extremity undergarments expelled from my personage via sheer amazement, I remain skeptical.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , TV 's have already hit the 1080p pinnacle , Blu-Ray won the format wars , and the whole HD-media-over-wireless... Yeah , well , I 've yet to hear about it panning out in a cost-effective form while retaining decent quality along with the tech being over a year or two old now , so I guess the media covering home theater needs something to tout as the Next Big Thing ( TM ) .
Until viable high-quality , consumer holographic displays show up along with a viable need/demand in the mainstream market , this [ johnnylee.net ] is the most interesting thing I 've seen in regards to 3d type stuff .
And even that is old by internet standards .
[ encycloped...matica.com ] To be honest , I 've not watched any " new " 3d movies .
I 've heard that it looks really nice , but then you also need to wear the glasses--srsly , I already wear specs .
Hate them , do n't want another pair .
As far as in home theaters , do you need a special tv that can display it ?
Or does the movie have to be specially formatted for 3d ?
Either way , it sounds like paying at least a small ( per movie ) to large ( for a special tv ) amount extra over the non-3d version .
Until I watch such a film and find myself in need of a fresh pair of pants and my ambulatory extremity undergarments expelled from my personage via sheer amazement , I remain skeptical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, TV's have already hit the 1080p pinnacle, Blu-Ray won the format wars, and the whole HD-media-over-wireless... Yeah, well, I've yet to hear about it panning out in a cost-effective form while retaining decent quality along with the tech being over a year or two old now, so I guess the media covering home theater needs something to tout as the Next Big Thing (TM).
Until viable high-quality, consumer holographic displays show up along with a viable need/demand in the mainstream market, this [johnnylee.net] is the most interesting thing I've seen in regards to 3d type stuff.
And even that is old by internet standards.
[encycloped...matica.com]
 
To be honest, I've not watched any "new" 3d movies.
I've heard that it looks really nice, but then you also need to wear the glasses--srsly, I already wear specs.
Hate them, don't want another pair.
As far as in home theaters, do you need a special tv that can display it?
Or does the movie have to be specially formatted for 3d?
Either way, it sounds like paying at least a small (per movie) to large (for a special tv) amount extra over the non-3d version.
Until I watch such a film and find myself in need of a fresh pair of pants and my ambulatory extremity undergarments expelled from my personage via sheer amazement, I remain skeptical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031336</id>
	<title>Re:Can't be true</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1257774660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't 1-dimensionality make her a macroscopic manifestation of string theory? I say, put her in the LHC and see what happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't 1-dimensionality make her a macroscopic manifestation of string theory ?
I say , put her in the LHC and see what happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't 1-dimensionality make her a macroscopic manifestation of string theory?
I say, put her in the LHC and see what happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030428</id>
	<title>16 Sept 2010?</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1257763500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, 16th November</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , 16th November</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, 16th November</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30038112</id>
	<title>Re:3D is gimmicky at best, painful at usual</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257760800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what they said about photography, computer games, theme parks, and pretty much any other form of entertainment out there.<br>"It's just a fad. It will never become serious. No matter how much progress humanity makes, and how many new use cases spring up. Never ever ever something new will become a normal part of life! Gaaahhh!!"</p><p>Wait for porn to save it again!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what they said about photography , computer games , theme parks , and pretty much any other form of entertainment out there .
" It 's just a fad .
It will never become serious .
No matter how much progress humanity makes , and how many new use cases spring up .
Never ever ever something new will become a normal part of life !
Gaaahhh ! ! " Wait for porn to save it again !
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what they said about photography, computer games, theme parks, and pretty much any other form of entertainment out there.
"It's just a fad.
It will never become serious.
No matter how much progress humanity makes, and how many new use cases spring up.
Never ever ever something new will become a normal part of life!
Gaaahhh!!"Wait for porn to save it again!
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032676</id>
	<title>Re:downside...</title>
	<author>clickety6</author>
	<datestamp>1257781740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit</em></p><p>A phrase which describes a lot of the output from Channel 4, so no change there.</p><p>(Deal or No Deal, The 50 Greatest..., The 100 Greatest..., Wife Swap, Come Dine With me, How to Look Good Naked, Real Housewives of New Jersey, Gok's Fashion Fix, Gordon Ramsay (anything he's in really)...and the liost goes on!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefitA phrase which describes a lot of the output from Channel 4 , so no change there .
( Deal or No Deal , The 50 Greatest... , The 100 Greatest... , Wife Swap , Come Dine With me , How to Look Good Naked , Real Housewives of New Jersey , Gok 's Fashion Fix , Gordon Ramsay ( anything he 's in really ) ...and the liost goes on !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefitA phrase which describes a lot of the output from Channel 4, so no change there.
(Deal or No Deal, The 50 Greatest..., The 100 Greatest..., Wife Swap, Come Dine With me, How to Look Good Naked, Real Housewives of New Jersey, Gok's Fashion Fix, Gordon Ramsay (anything he's in really)...and the liost goes on!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030638</id>
	<title>Re:BBC</title>
	<author>Goffee71</author>
	<datestamp>1257765720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And won't be a patch on Channel 4's Red Triangle-badged 'mature themes' films season from the late 80s.

That was progress</htmltext>
<tokenext>And wo n't be a patch on Channel 4 's Red Triangle-badged 'mature themes ' films season from the late 80s .
That was progress</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And won't be a patch on Channel 4's Red Triangle-badged 'mature themes' films season from the late 80s.
That was progress</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30126808</id>
	<title>Nope, it isn't.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1258448820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bad movie is a bad movie, no matter how many gimmicks you throw at it.</p><p>The heart of a good movie is a good screenplay, that is a good, consistent, plot.</p><p>Most people that have watched 3D films so far agree that 3D adds precious little to what makes a film good or bad, 3D is mostly a gimmick aimed at children first (or child like minded people) and at piracy second, which is why you will see several efforts in the next couple of years to translate the 3D experience to TV screens: they will want to replicate the experience when you buy a DVD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bad movie is a bad movie , no matter how many gimmicks you throw at it.The heart of a good movie is a good screenplay , that is a good , consistent , plot.Most people that have watched 3D films so far agree that 3D adds precious little to what makes a film good or bad , 3D is mostly a gimmick aimed at children first ( or child like minded people ) and at piracy second , which is why you will see several efforts in the next couple of years to translate the 3D experience to TV screens : they will want to replicate the experience when you buy a DVD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bad movie is a bad movie, no matter how many gimmicks you throw at it.The heart of a good movie is a good screenplay, that is a good, consistent, plot.Most people that have watched 3D films so far agree that 3D adds precious little to what makes a film good or bad, 3D is mostly a gimmick aimed at children first (or child like minded people) and at piracy second, which is why you will see several efforts in the next couple of years to translate the 3D experience to TV screens: they will want to replicate the experience when you buy a DVD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030618</id>
	<title>Neen there, done that...</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1257765540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulfrich\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulfrich\_effect</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>unfortunatly, for that: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutti\_Frutti\_(1990\_TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutti\_Frutti\_(1990\_TV\_series)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulfrich \ _effect [ wikipedia.org ] unfortunatly , for that : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutti \ _Frutti \ _ ( 1990 \ _TV \ _series ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulfrich\_effect [wikipedia.org]unfortunatly, for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutti\_Frutti\_(1990\_TV\_series) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031066</id>
	<title>Re:Blue / Orange 3D glasses</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1257771900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only effective glasses for viewing "Chuck" are ones that make you blind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only effective glasses for viewing " Chuck " are ones that make you blind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only effective glasses for viewing "Chuck" are ones that make you blind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031878</id>
	<title>Polarized TVs will be next</title>
	<author>Interoperable</author>
	<datestamp>1257778020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know if they're being developed but I suspect that we'll see TVs/monitors that are capable of producing differently polarized light for each eye. It's much better system since you don't get the awful color distortion of the blue/orange system. It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to do since LCD screens already operate by manipulating the polarization of light to tune the intensity of each pixel. One more liquid crystal layer and a quarter-waveplate would do it so the technology is clearly there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if they 're being developed but I suspect that we 'll see TVs/monitors that are capable of producing differently polarized light for each eye .
It 's much better system since you do n't get the awful color distortion of the blue/orange system .
It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to do since LCD screens already operate by manipulating the polarization of light to tune the intensity of each pixel .
One more liquid crystal layer and a quarter-waveplate would do it so the technology is clearly there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if they're being developed but I suspect that we'll see TVs/monitors that are capable of producing differently polarized light for each eye.
It's much better system since you don't get the awful color distortion of the blue/orange system.
It seems to me that it would be fairly easy to do since LCD screens already operate by manipulating the polarization of light to tune the intensity of each pixel.
One more liquid crystal layer and a quarter-waveplate would do it so the technology is clearly there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032712</id>
	<title>Re:3D is gimmicky at best, painful at usual</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1257781860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Generally the 3D technology is only used for "gag" effects in children's and horror movies anyway.</p></div><p>Be at least honest. Thats not the fault of ANY 3D technology. This WILL have to end, if 3d wants to really stay alive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally the 3D technology is only used for " gag " effects in children 's and horror movies anyway.Be at least honest .
Thats not the fault of ANY 3D technology .
This WILL have to end , if 3d wants to really stay alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally the 3D technology is only used for "gag" effects in children's and horror movies anyway.Be at least honest.
Thats not the fault of ANY 3D technology.
This WILL have to end, if 3d wants to really stay alive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031192</id>
	<title>Re:Blue / Orange 3D glasses</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1257773580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The C4 3D thing will use the same "ColorCode" kind of glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The C4 3D thing will use the same " ColorCode " kind of glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The C4 3D thing will use the same "ColorCode" kind of glasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030500</id>
	<title>Blue / Orange 3D glasses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257764220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're not the first in the UK to screen a show using this system ; Virgin 1 screened an episode of "Chuck" in this system. I tried to watch it using my red / cyan glasses without knowing this first. They included the glasses with one of our TV guide publication and Virgin 1 has much lower ratings than Channel 4 so I doubt many people saw it in 3D.</p><p>Channel 4 are having a major supermarket chain hand out the glasses free and are much more watched so it could gain some traction.</p><p>From what I can tell blue / orange is supposed to reduce the colour problems that red / cyan has by reducing the luminance in one eye a lot and using it effectively just for depth cues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're not the first in the UK to screen a show using this system ; Virgin 1 screened an episode of " Chuck " in this system .
I tried to watch it using my red / cyan glasses without knowing this first .
They included the glasses with one of our TV guide publication and Virgin 1 has much lower ratings than Channel 4 so I doubt many people saw it in 3D.Channel 4 are having a major supermarket chain hand out the glasses free and are much more watched so it could gain some traction.From what I can tell blue / orange is supposed to reduce the colour problems that red / cyan has by reducing the luminance in one eye a lot and using it effectively just for depth cues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're not the first in the UK to screen a show using this system ; Virgin 1 screened an episode of "Chuck" in this system.
I tried to watch it using my red / cyan glasses without knowing this first.
They included the glasses with one of our TV guide publication and Virgin 1 has much lower ratings than Channel 4 so I doubt many people saw it in 3D.Channel 4 are having a major supermarket chain hand out the glasses free and are much more watched so it could gain some traction.From what I can tell blue / orange is supposed to reduce the colour problems that red / cyan has by reducing the luminance in one eye a lot and using it effectively just for depth cues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031300</id>
	<title>Re:downside...</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1257774420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're testing the waters to see how difficult 3D programming will be to produce, in advance of an anticipated uptake of proper 3D TVs within the next few years. Sky announced that it was developing a software update to add stereo video to its existing HD receivers last year, and 3D was added to the HDMI spec a couple of months ago, so there's a definite push to get people watching 3D content. It seems hilariously premature to me, but it's certainly a worthwhile experiment for a content creator and broadcaster in that scenario.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're testing the waters to see how difficult 3D programming will be to produce , in advance of an anticipated uptake of proper 3D TVs within the next few years .
Sky announced that it was developing a software update to add stereo video to its existing HD receivers last year , and 3D was added to the HDMI spec a couple of months ago , so there 's a definite push to get people watching 3D content .
It seems hilariously premature to me , but it 's certainly a worthwhile experiment for a content creator and broadcaster in that scenario .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're testing the waters to see how difficult 3D programming will be to produce, in advance of an anticipated uptake of proper 3D TVs within the next few years.
Sky announced that it was developing a software update to add stereo video to its existing HD receivers last year, and 3D was added to the HDMI spec a couple of months ago, so there's a definite push to get people watching 3D content.
It seems hilariously premature to me, but it's certainly a worthwhile experiment for a content creator and broadcaster in that scenario.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031262</id>
	<title>3D is gimmicky at best, painful at usual</title>
	<author>bziman</author>
	<datestamp>1257774120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I avoid 3D movies, and I'll avoid 3D video.  Generally the 3D technology is only used for "gag" effects in children's and horror movies anyway.  And regardless of how good the effect is, I am not wearing any moldy 3D glasses out of the 1980s for any reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I avoid 3D movies , and I 'll avoid 3D video .
Generally the 3D technology is only used for " gag " effects in children 's and horror movies anyway .
And regardless of how good the effect is , I am not wearing any moldy 3D glasses out of the 1980s for any reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I avoid 3D movies, and I'll avoid 3D video.
Generally the 3D technology is only used for "gag" effects in children's and horror movies anyway.
And regardless of how good the effect is, I am not wearing any moldy 3D glasses out of the 1980s for any reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030970</id>
	<title>Re:BBC</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1257770520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC is still dabbling in it.  I saw the BBC Research labs demonstrating two different 3D display technologies at IBC in Amersterdam back in September.  With the advent of 3-D for Blu-ray, and TV manufacturers pushing 3-D, I imagine we will see more from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is still dabbling in it .
I saw the BBC Research labs demonstrating two different 3D display technologies at IBC in Amersterdam back in September .
With the advent of 3-D for Blu-ray , and TV manufacturers pushing 3-D , I imagine we will see more from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is still dabbling in it.
I saw the BBC Research labs demonstrating two different 3D display technologies at IBC in Amersterdam back in September.
With the advent of 3-D for Blu-ray, and TV manufacturers pushing 3-D, I imagine we will see more from them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30033684</id>
	<title>Re:downside...</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1257785760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Given that in the <em>vast</em> majority of cases, 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit, <b>what on earth are they thinking</b>?!</p></div><p>Where's your sense of fun? We get a couple of hours of entertainingly tacky gimmickry, and then once we've had our fun, things go back to normal.</p><p>I'm thinking back fondly to the time the cinema I worked at did had a midnight showing of <i>Creature From The Black Lagoon</i> in 3D.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that in the vast majority of cases , 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit , what on earth are they thinking ?
! Where 's your sense of fun ?
We get a couple of hours of entertainingly tacky gimmickry , and then once we 've had our fun , things go back to normal.I 'm thinking back fondly to the time the cinema I worked at did had a midnight showing of Creature From The Black Lagoon in 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that in the vast majority of cases, 3d is essentially a tacky gimmick with little real benefit, what on earth are they thinking?
!Where's your sense of fun?
We get a couple of hours of entertainingly tacky gimmickry, and then once we've had our fun, things go back to normal.I'm thinking back fondly to the time the cinema I worked at did had a midnight showing of Creature From The Black Lagoon in 3D.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30035424</id>
	<title>Don't forget Action/Sci-Fi!</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1257792660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T2\_3-D:\_Battle\_Across\_Time" title="wikipedia.org">THE TERMINATOR ONE MILLION IS GOING TO STAB YOUR EYES OUT RAWWWR!!!!!</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
(some gratuitous lowercase letters with a sprinkling of spaces for good measure)</htmltext>
<tokenext>THE TERMINATOR ONE MILLION IS GOING TO STAB YOUR EYES OUT RAWWWR ! ! ! ! !
[ wikipedia.org ] ( some gratuitous lowercase letters with a sprinkling of spaces for good measure )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THE TERMINATOR ONE MILLION IS GOING TO STAB YOUR EYES OUT RAWWWR!!!!!
[wikipedia.org]
 
(some gratuitous lowercase letters with a sprinkling of spaces for good measure)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030888</id>
	<title>Re:poke the one eye</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1257769260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A poke in the other one !</p><p>My lawn is *not* accessible to the disabled</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A poke in the other one ! My lawn is * not * accessible to the disabled</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A poke in the other one !My lawn is *not* accessible to the disabled</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032758</id>
	<title>Re:Blue / Orange 3D glasses</title>
	<author>koro666</author>
	<datestamp>1257782040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would explain what I thought was poor image quality (yellow/blue jaggies around stuff) in that particular episode.</p><p>Back then I just thought it was a bad quality rip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would explain what I thought was poor image quality ( yellow/blue jaggies around stuff ) in that particular episode.Back then I just thought it was a bad quality rip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would explain what I thought was poor image quality (yellow/blue jaggies around stuff) in that particular episode.Back then I just thought it was a bad quality rip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030742</id>
	<title>Lack of clarity, or lack of will to find out?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257766980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"it's unclear which of the various types they'll be"<br>

It has in fact been clear what type they'll be for several months, since this was announced mid-August in fact: ColorCode blue and amber anaglyph filters.  Even clearer since you could pick them up from Sainsbury's yesterday (and possibly before).
<a href="http://www.t3.com/feature/channel-4-to-begin-3d-broadcasts-this-autumn" title="t3.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.t3.com/feature/channel-4-to-begin-3d-broadcasts-this-autumn</a> [t3.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>" it 's unclear which of the various types they 'll be " It has in fact been clear what type they 'll be for several months , since this was announced mid-August in fact : ColorCode blue and amber anaglyph filters .
Even clearer since you could pick them up from Sainsbury 's yesterday ( and possibly before ) .
http : //www.t3.com/feature/channel-4-to-begin-3d-broadcasts-this-autumn [ t3.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"it's unclear which of the various types they'll be"

It has in fact been clear what type they'll be for several months, since this was announced mid-August in fact: ColorCode blue and amber anaglyph filters.
Even clearer since you could pick them up from Sainsbury's yesterday (and possibly before).
http://www.t3.com/feature/channel-4-to-begin-3d-broadcasts-this-autumn [t3.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30037206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30039070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30035424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30039982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30034372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30033364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30037318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30039850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30072126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30034836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30038112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30126808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30035238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_0431232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30033684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30033590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30037318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30126808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30033684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30035238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30034372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30037206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30038112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30072126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30035424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30039850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30039070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30033364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30039982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30034836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30032758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30031192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_0431232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_0431232.30030792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
