<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_13_1524249</id>
	<title>Two Sunken Japanese Submarines Found Off Hawaii</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258135560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://poncacityweloveyou.com/" rel="nofollow">Ponca City, We love you</a> writes <i>"The NY Times reports that two World War II Japanese submarines, including one meant to carry aircraft for attacks on American cities, have been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/science/13wreck.html">found in deep water off Hawaii</a> where they were sunk in 1946. Specifically designed for a stealth attack on the US East Coast &mdash; perhaps targeting Washington, DC and New York City &mdash; the 'samurai subs' were fast, far-ranging, and some carried folding-wing aircraft. Five Japanese submarines were <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/photogalleries/samurai-subs-submarines-pictures/">captured by American forces at the end of the war</a> and taken to Pearl Harbor for study, then towed to sea and torpedoed, probably to avoid having to share any of their technology with the Russian military. One of the Japanese craft, the I-201, was covered with a rubberized coating on the hull, an innovation intended to make it less apparent to sonar or radar; it was capable of speeds of about 20 knots while submerged, making it among the fastest diesel submarines ever made. The other, the I-14, much larger and slower, was designed to carry two small planes, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aichi\_M6A">Aichi M6A Seirans</a> that could be brought onto the deck and launched by a catapult. The submarines were meant to threaten the United States directly, but none of the attacks occurred because the subs were developed too late in the war, and American intelligence was too good. 'It's very moving to see objects like this underwater,' says Hans Van Tilburg of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 'because it's a very peaceful environment, but these subs were designed for aggression.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ponca City , We love you writes " The NY Times reports that two World War II Japanese submarines , including one meant to carry aircraft for attacks on American cities , have been found in deep water off Hawaii where they were sunk in 1946 .
Specifically designed for a stealth attack on the US East Coast    perhaps targeting Washington , DC and New York City    the 'samurai subs ' were fast , far-ranging , and some carried folding-wing aircraft .
Five Japanese submarines were captured by American forces at the end of the war and taken to Pearl Harbor for study , then towed to sea and torpedoed , probably to avoid having to share any of their technology with the Russian military .
One of the Japanese craft , the I-201 , was covered with a rubberized coating on the hull , an innovation intended to make it less apparent to sonar or radar ; it was capable of speeds of about 20 knots while submerged , making it among the fastest diesel submarines ever made .
The other , the I-14 , much larger and slower , was designed to carry two small planes , Aichi M6A Seirans that could be brought onto the deck and launched by a catapult .
The submarines were meant to threaten the United States directly , but none of the attacks occurred because the subs were developed too late in the war , and American intelligence was too good .
'It 's very moving to see objects like this underwater, ' says Hans Van Tilburg of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , 'because it 's a very peaceful environment , but these subs were designed for aggression .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ponca City, We love you writes "The NY Times reports that two World War II Japanese submarines, including one meant to carry aircraft for attacks on American cities, have been found in deep water off Hawaii where they were sunk in 1946.
Specifically designed for a stealth attack on the US East Coast — perhaps targeting Washington, DC and New York City — the 'samurai subs' were fast, far-ranging, and some carried folding-wing aircraft.
Five Japanese submarines were captured by American forces at the end of the war and taken to Pearl Harbor for study, then towed to sea and torpedoed, probably to avoid having to share any of their technology with the Russian military.
One of the Japanese craft, the I-201, was covered with a rubberized coating on the hull, an innovation intended to make it less apparent to sonar or radar; it was capable of speeds of about 20 knots while submerged, making it among the fastest diesel submarines ever made.
The other, the I-14, much larger and slower, was designed to carry two small planes, Aichi M6A Seirans that could be brought onto the deck and launched by a catapult.
The submarines were meant to threaten the United States directly, but none of the attacks occurred because the subs were developed too late in the war, and American intelligence was too good.
'It's very moving to see objects like this underwater,' says Hans Van Tilburg of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 'because it's a very peaceful environment, but these subs were designed for aggression.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089490</id>
	<title>Re:Launched by catapult?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258140000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>think of it more like a slingshot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>think of it more like a slingshot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>think of it more like a slingshot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092608</id>
	<title>Re:price of failure</title>
	<author>Reapman</author>
	<datestamp>1258111260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically your saying that you wish people were killed to prevent the killing of other people.  I suppose the irony is lost on you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically your saying that you wish people were killed to prevent the killing of other people .
I suppose the irony is lost on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically your saying that you wish people were killed to prevent the killing of other people.
I suppose the irony is lost on you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089788</id>
	<title>Re:So, who's fault is it?</title>
	<author>FallinWithStyle</author>
	<datestamp>1258141080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on! It's not <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1311/?" title="southparkstudios.com" rel="nofollow">thaaat</a> [southparkstudios.com] offtopic</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on !
It 's not thaaat [ southparkstudios.com ] offtopic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on!
It's not thaaat [southparkstudios.com] offtopic</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092254</id>
	<title>Re:Thank God</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258109160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck you whaaaaales!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you whaaaaales !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you whaaaaales!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30100638</id>
	<title>Re:Submarines, underwater?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258192080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't mock 'em or the Martians will get you!</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Three\_Stooges\_in\_Orbit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't mock 'em or the Martians will get you ! http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Three \ _Stooges \ _in \ _Orbit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't mock 'em or the Martians will get you!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Three\_Stooges\_in\_Orbit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30095980</id>
	<title>Re:East coast USA?</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1258193520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I have doubts about this - with the Panama canal under Allied control, getting to the east coast USA from Japan would have been VERY far-ranging.</i></p><p>Apparently they had a maximum range of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type\_AM\_Japanese\_submarine" title="wikipedia.org">39,000km</a> [wikipedia.org] (about twice as far as equivalent US models), which does put such a trip well within possibility.  It would have been a one way trip, of course, although there may have been enough range for them to reach German-occupied France after launching an attack on east-coast USA (my quick google-map calculation suggests that 35,000km would have been enough for such a mission).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have doubts about this - with the Panama canal under Allied control , getting to the east coast USA from Japan would have been VERY far-ranging.Apparently they had a maximum range of 39,000km [ wikipedia.org ] ( about twice as far as equivalent US models ) , which does put such a trip well within possibility .
It would have been a one way trip , of course , although there may have been enough range for them to reach German-occupied France after launching an attack on east-coast USA ( my quick google-map calculation suggests that 35,000km would have been enough for such a mission ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have doubts about this - with the Panama canal under Allied control, getting to the east coast USA from Japan would have been VERY far-ranging.Apparently they had a maximum range of 39,000km [wikipedia.org] (about twice as far as equivalent US models), which does put such a trip well within possibility.
It would have been a one way trip, of course, although there may have been enough range for them to reach German-occupied France after launching an attack on east-coast USA (my quick google-map calculation suggests that 35,000km would have been enough for such a mission).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090340</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>gnick</author>
	<datestamp>1258143180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...don't forget that the <i>misuse</i> of secret technology was a specialty of all parties involved in the war; Japan was making better suicide planes...</p></div><p>Actually, for the purposes for which they were designed, "suicide planes" were a pretty practical weapon.  They knew that many planes weren't coming back.  A piloted plane diving onto a boat is both dangerous and terrifying.  It inspires local forces as much as it intimidates the enemy.  AFAIC, it's a great example of hive think.  And, simultaneously, a travesty of humanity and an example of focusing on strategy and practicality to the point of completely neglecting any other goals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...do n't forget that the misuse of secret technology was a specialty of all parties involved in the war ; Japan was making better suicide planes...Actually , for the purposes for which they were designed , " suicide planes " were a pretty practical weapon .
They knew that many planes were n't coming back .
A piloted plane diving onto a boat is both dangerous and terrifying .
It inspires local forces as much as it intimidates the enemy .
AFAIC , it 's a great example of hive think .
And , simultaneously , a travesty of humanity and an example of focusing on strategy and practicality to the point of completely neglecting any other goals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...don't forget that the misuse of secret technology was a specialty of all parties involved in the war; Japan was making better suicide planes...Actually, for the purposes for which they were designed, "suicide planes" were a pretty practical weapon.
They knew that many planes weren't coming back.
A piloted plane diving onto a boat is both dangerous and terrifying.
It inspires local forces as much as it intimidates the enemy.
AFAIC, it's a great example of hive think.
And, simultaneously, a travesty of humanity and an example of focusing on strategy and practicality to the point of completely neglecting any other goals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090252</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258143000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't think history and geekiness can mix, I recommend you read Cryptonomicon which will change your mind. ISBN is 978-1-4395-0179-5, it's also online (for example <a href="http://lib.misto.kiev.ua/INOFANT/STEFENSON/cryptonomicon\_engl.txt" title="misto.kiev.ua" rel="nofollow">here</a> [misto.kiev.ua])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't think history and geekiness can mix , I recommend you read Cryptonomicon which will change your mind .
ISBN is 978-1-4395-0179-5 , it 's also online ( for example here [ misto.kiev.ua ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't think history and geekiness can mix, I recommend you read Cryptonomicon which will change your mind.
ISBN is 978-1-4395-0179-5, it's also online (for example here [misto.kiev.ua])</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362</id>
	<title>Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258139580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And this is news for nerds because?</p><p>The article fails to discuss any technology involved in finding the subs. In fact, at 2600 feet deep, these subs aren't even as deep as the Titanic (12600ft).</p><p>This whole story provoked a "oh, that's nice, good for them" feeling. Certainly not earth-shattering news about cutting edge IT/physics/nano/quantum technology... Or I wonder how much the NY Times is paying slashdot. Didn't we already agree that Rupert Murdoch is evil enough?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is news for nerds because ? The article fails to discuss any technology involved in finding the subs .
In fact , at 2600 feet deep , these subs are n't even as deep as the Titanic ( 12600ft ) .This whole story provoked a " oh , that 's nice , good for them " feeling .
Certainly not earth-shattering news about cutting edge IT/physics/nano/quantum technology... Or I wonder how much the NY Times is paying slashdot .
Did n't we already agree that Rupert Murdoch is evil enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is news for nerds because?The article fails to discuss any technology involved in finding the subs.
In fact, at 2600 feet deep, these subs aren't even as deep as the Titanic (12600ft).This whole story provoked a "oh, that's nice, good for them" feeling.
Certainly not earth-shattering news about cutting edge IT/physics/nano/quantum technology... Or I wonder how much the NY Times is paying slashdot.
Didn't we already agree that Rupert Murdoch is evil enough?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091072</id>
	<title>Re:Submarines, underwater?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258103220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>It's very moving to see objects like this underwater</p></div><p>Compared to those damn flying submarines...</p></div><p>Of course, you mean those damn <a href="http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1294" title="questionablecontent.net" rel="nofollow">submacopters</a> [questionablecontent.net]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very moving to see objects like this underwaterCompared to those damn flying submarines...Of course , you mean those damn submacopters [ questionablecontent.net ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very moving to see objects like this underwaterCompared to those damn flying submarines...Of course, you mean those damn submacopters [questionablecontent.net]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089836</id>
	<title>Re:Tour a sub.</title>
	<author>asicsolutions</author>
	<datestamp>1258141320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Portsmouth, NH - USS Albacore</p><p>San Francisco, CA (Fishermans Warf) - USS Pampanito</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Portsmouth , NH - USS AlbacoreSan Francisco , CA ( Fishermans Warf ) - USS Pampanito</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Portsmouth, NH - USS AlbacoreSan Francisco, CA (Fishermans Warf) - USS Pampanito</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092024</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1258107840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially. A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century.</p></div></blockquote><p>Arthur C. Clarke.  "Superiority".  First published in F&amp;SF, 1951, and reprinted several times since then.
</p><p>If you haven't read it yet, do so.  It explains this lesson better than anything short of losing a world war can.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially .
A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century.Arthur C. Clarke. " Superiority " .
First published in F&amp;SF , 1951 , and reprinted several times since then .
If you have n't read it yet , do so .
It explains this lesson better than anything short of losing a world war can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially.
A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century.Arthur C. Clarke.  "Superiority".
First published in F&amp;SF, 1951, and reprinted several times since then.
If you haven't read it yet, do so.
It explains this lesson better than anything short of losing a world war can.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093070</id>
	<title>Re:price of failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258114440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the dropping of atomic bombs on two civilian cities in one of the most cowardly attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in world history</i></p><p>More Japanese civilians died in the March 10th &amp; 11th bombings of Tokyo than the August 6th and 9th bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.</p><p>Nuclear weapons are not phantom-spooky-magical kill-everyone devices.  Carpet bombing incendiaries and starting a firestorm strong enough to asphyxiate anyone hiding in a basement is a far more effective tool against urban civilians than making a big boom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the dropping of atomic bombs on two civilian cities in one of the most cowardly attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in world historyMore Japanese civilians died in the March 10th &amp; 11th bombings of Tokyo than the August 6th and 9th bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Nuclear weapons are not phantom-spooky-magical kill-everyone devices .
Carpet bombing incendiaries and starting a firestorm strong enough to asphyxiate anyone hiding in a basement is a far more effective tool against urban civilians than making a big boom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the dropping of atomic bombs on two civilian cities in one of the most cowardly attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in world historyMore Japanese civilians died in the March 10th &amp; 11th bombings of Tokyo than the August 6th and 9th bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Nuclear weapons are not phantom-spooky-magical kill-everyone devices.
Carpet bombing incendiaries and starting a firestorm strong enough to asphyxiate anyone hiding in a basement is a far more effective tool against urban civilians than making a big boom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093354</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>v1</author>
	<datestamp>1258116480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Turn radius was a big factor also, I have no numbers to post but a zero trying to follow a wildcat in a high speed turn had a very good chance of ripping off its wings.  LOW speed turns on the other hand the zero could out-turn and get inside the wildcat.  That low speed maneuverability was one of the very important discoveries made when a zero was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akutan\_Zero" title="wikipedia.org">captured</a> [wikipedia.org], leading to training airmen to avoid situations advantageous to the zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Turn radius was a big factor also , I have no numbers to post but a zero trying to follow a wildcat in a high speed turn had a very good chance of ripping off its wings .
LOW speed turns on the other hand the zero could out-turn and get inside the wildcat .
That low speed maneuverability was one of the very important discoveries made when a zero was captured [ wikipedia.org ] , leading to training airmen to avoid situations advantageous to the zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Turn radius was a big factor also, I have no numbers to post but a zero trying to follow a wildcat in a high speed turn had a very good chance of ripping off its wings.
LOW speed turns on the other hand the zero could out-turn and get inside the wildcat.
That low speed maneuverability was one of the very important discoveries made when a zero was captured [wikipedia.org], leading to training airmen to avoid situations advantageous to the zero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30099140</id>
	<title>Re:East coast USA?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1258225260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; I have doubts about this - with the Panama canal under<br>&gt; Allied control, getting to the east coast USA from<br>&gt; Japan would have been VERY far-ranging.<br><br>Indeed.<br><br>You can't sneak a sub surreptitiously through a canal lock, even with Jedi mind tricks.  It takes *hours* to traverse the canal at Panama, and the entire time you'd be a sitting duck for land-based assault from the US-controlled canal zone.<br><br>That leaves going under the arctic ice, which to my knowledge was beyond the available submarine technology of that day even for Germany...<br><br>Or you could try to go clear around Cape Horn.  What fun *that* would be in a ship of that era.  Granted, a west-to-east passage around the horn is easier than going the other way, but we're still talking about thousands of miles, most of it through waters controlled by Allied forces, not least the British navy, and of course you'd be in the US Navy's front yard (where we had the better part of our navy, since we viewed Germany as the greater threat) for the last leg.  On the entire trip there would have been *no* place where a Japanese ship could really be safe putting in to port, and furthermore you couldn't count on any Axis surface ships to assist with resupplying.  (Germany could've tried to get a surface ship into the mid Atlantic to rendezvous, but it would be significantly trickier to pull off than just sending German subs to raid the US east coast.)<br><br>For a WWII-era submarine, the whole idea is just plain loony.  Could they even carry enough fuel to make a trip like that?  Fresh water?  Certainly they'd have to surface dozens of times for air along the way, and risk being sighted by an allied plane every single time.<br><br>A late-cold-war nuclear sub could do it, sure.  But that's different.  Nuclear subs are much faster and can go days without surfacing.  Heck, a nuclear sub could make the trip under the arctic ice.  But I don't think a WWII-era sub could do that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I have doubts about this - with the Panama canal under &gt; Allied control , getting to the east coast USA from &gt; Japan would have been VERY far-ranging.Indeed.You ca n't sneak a sub surreptitiously through a canal lock , even with Jedi mind tricks .
It takes * hours * to traverse the canal at Panama , and the entire time you 'd be a sitting duck for land-based assault from the US-controlled canal zone.That leaves going under the arctic ice , which to my knowledge was beyond the available submarine technology of that day even for Germany...Or you could try to go clear around Cape Horn .
What fun * that * would be in a ship of that era .
Granted , a west-to-east passage around the horn is easier than going the other way , but we 're still talking about thousands of miles , most of it through waters controlled by Allied forces , not least the British navy , and of course you 'd be in the US Navy 's front yard ( where we had the better part of our navy , since we viewed Germany as the greater threat ) for the last leg .
On the entire trip there would have been * no * place where a Japanese ship could really be safe putting in to port , and furthermore you could n't count on any Axis surface ships to assist with resupplying .
( Germany could 've tried to get a surface ship into the mid Atlantic to rendezvous , but it would be significantly trickier to pull off than just sending German subs to raid the US east coast .
) For a WWII-era submarine , the whole idea is just plain loony .
Could they even carry enough fuel to make a trip like that ?
Fresh water ?
Certainly they 'd have to surface dozens of times for air along the way , and risk being sighted by an allied plane every single time.A late-cold-war nuclear sub could do it , sure .
But that 's different .
Nuclear subs are much faster and can go days without surfacing .
Heck , a nuclear sub could make the trip under the arctic ice .
But I do n't think a WWII-era sub could do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I have doubts about this - with the Panama canal under&gt; Allied control, getting to the east coast USA from&gt; Japan would have been VERY far-ranging.Indeed.You can't sneak a sub surreptitiously through a canal lock, even with Jedi mind tricks.
It takes *hours* to traverse the canal at Panama, and the entire time you'd be a sitting duck for land-based assault from the US-controlled canal zone.That leaves going under the arctic ice, which to my knowledge was beyond the available submarine technology of that day even for Germany...Or you could try to go clear around Cape Horn.
What fun *that* would be in a ship of that era.
Granted, a west-to-east passage around the horn is easier than going the other way, but we're still talking about thousands of miles, most of it through waters controlled by Allied forces, not least the British navy, and of course you'd be in the US Navy's front yard (where we had the better part of our navy, since we viewed Germany as the greater threat) for the last leg.
On the entire trip there would have been *no* place where a Japanese ship could really be safe putting in to port, and furthermore you couldn't count on any Axis surface ships to assist with resupplying.
(Germany could've tried to get a surface ship into the mid Atlantic to rendezvous, but it would be significantly trickier to pull off than just sending German subs to raid the US east coast.
)For a WWII-era submarine, the whole idea is just plain loony.
Could they even carry enough fuel to make a trip like that?
Fresh water?
Certainly they'd have to surface dozens of times for air along the way, and risk being sighted by an allied plane every single time.A late-cold-war nuclear sub could do it, sure.
But that's different.
Nuclear subs are much faster and can go days without surfacing.
Heck, a nuclear sub could make the trip under the arctic ice.
But I don't think a WWII-era sub could do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089984</id>
	<title>price of failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258141920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only these submarines would have been able to carry out their missions! It's possible that they could have killed military or political ringleaders whose decisions led the the dropping of atomic bombs on two civilian cities in one of the most cowardly attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in world history. All that serves to be learned from WWII is that the rules are written by the victors to punish the defeated and "war crimes" are only committed by the losers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only these submarines would have been able to carry out their missions !
It 's possible that they could have killed military or political ringleaders whose decisions led the the dropping of atomic bombs on two civilian cities in one of the most cowardly attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in world history .
All that serves to be learned from WWII is that the rules are written by the victors to punish the defeated and " war crimes " are only committed by the losers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only these submarines would have been able to carry out their missions!
It's possible that they could have killed military or political ringleaders whose decisions led the the dropping of atomic bombs on two civilian cities in one of the most cowardly attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in world history.
All that serves to be learned from WWII is that the rules are written by the victors to punish the defeated and "war crimes" are only committed by the losers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092936</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>ELitwin</author>
	<datestamp>1258113360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And don't forget the A-Bomb</htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n't forget the A-Bomb</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And don't forget the A-Bomb</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091640</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>piltdownman84</author>
	<datestamp>1258105980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, it's a teaser.  It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things, and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were.</p></div><p>
And still it was the primitive Russian Army that won the war. Technology is great, but in no way a recipe for success.  Same still holds true today.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's a teaser .
It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things , and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were .
And still it was the primitive Russian Army that won the war .
Technology is great , but in no way a recipe for success .
Same still holds true today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's a teaser.
It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things, and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were.
And still it was the primitive Russian Army that won the war.
Technology is great, but in no way a recipe for success.
Same still holds true today.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091422</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1258104720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair, the Zero's actual performance was pretty staggering compared to its contemporaries.  Given the way war intelligence tends to exaggerate the abilities of the enemy it shouldn't be a surprise that allied planners took the Zero's numbers with a grain of salt.  If you are curious, here are a couple of numbers on it and a contemporary allied design for comparison:<br>
<br>
Zero: Maximum Speed: 533kph, Range: <b>3,105km</b>, Rate of Climb: 15.7m/s<br>
F4F-4 Wildcat: Maximum Speed: 515kph, Range: 1,240km, Rate of Climb: 9.9m/s (although to be fair, the F4F was much faster in a dive than a Zero)<br>
<br>
The crazy thing is, Mitsubishi got that performance out of a plane with an engine that was only about 80\% as powerful as the one in the F4F.  Unfortunately, it required them to barely put any armor at all on the plane, leading to a very fragile fighter that tended to go down quickly if someone got a bead on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , the Zero 's actual performance was pretty staggering compared to its contemporaries .
Given the way war intelligence tends to exaggerate the abilities of the enemy it should n't be a surprise that allied planners took the Zero 's numbers with a grain of salt .
If you are curious , here are a couple of numbers on it and a contemporary allied design for comparison : Zero : Maximum Speed : 533kph , Range : 3,105km , Rate of Climb : 15.7m/s F4F-4 Wildcat : Maximum Speed : 515kph , Range : 1,240km , Rate of Climb : 9.9m/s ( although to be fair , the F4F was much faster in a dive than a Zero ) The crazy thing is , Mitsubishi got that performance out of a plane with an engine that was only about 80 \ % as powerful as the one in the F4F .
Unfortunately , it required them to barely put any armor at all on the plane , leading to a very fragile fighter that tended to go down quickly if someone got a bead on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, the Zero's actual performance was pretty staggering compared to its contemporaries.
Given the way war intelligence tends to exaggerate the abilities of the enemy it shouldn't be a surprise that allied planners took the Zero's numbers with a grain of salt.
If you are curious, here are a couple of numbers on it and a contemporary allied design for comparison:

Zero: Maximum Speed: 533kph, Range: 3,105km, Rate of Climb: 15.7m/s
F4F-4 Wildcat: Maximum Speed: 515kph, Range: 1,240km, Rate of Climb: 9.9m/s (although to be fair, the F4F was much faster in a dive than a Zero)

The crazy thing is, Mitsubishi got that performance out of a plane with an engine that was only about 80\% as powerful as the one in the F4F.
Unfortunately, it required them to barely put any armor at all on the plane, leading to a very fragile fighter that tended to go down quickly if someone got a bead on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30094584</id>
	<title>Toro-toro?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258127760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you mean tora-tora-tora, unless you're talking about tuna.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you mean tora-tora-tora , unless you 're talking about tuna .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you mean tora-tora-tora, unless you're talking about tuna.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089304</id>
	<title>in other news</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1258139400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>two shrunken heads were also found</p><p>a bit wrinkled though</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>two shrunken heads were also founda bit wrinkled though</tokentext>
<sentencetext>two shrunken heads were also founda bit wrinkled though</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089418</id>
	<title>There was a third sub.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258139760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was also a third sub. This one had 8 tentacle arms, and loved to rape pixelated pussies with them. Instead of sending it off to war like the others, the Japanese found it to be cute, and kept it as a pet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was also a third sub .
This one had 8 tentacle arms , and loved to rape pixelated pussies with them .
Instead of sending it off to war like the others , the Japanese found it to be cute , and kept it as a pet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was also a third sub.
This one had 8 tentacle arms, and loved to rape pixelated pussies with them.
Instead of sending it off to war like the others, the Japanese found it to be cute, and kept it as a pet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090708</id>
	<title>Read "On the Bottom", by Edward Ellsberg</title>
	<author>kalpol</author>
	<datestamp>1258144740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great book about salvaging the S-51, in 1926.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great book about salvaging the S-51 , in 1926 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great book about salvaging the S-51, in 1926.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258141020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, it's a teaser.  It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things, and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were.  (Of course the same could be said for all participants, but as victors, the Americans wrote the history after the war.)</p><p>American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero.  British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.</p><p>Now I learn that the Japanese were playing with submarine stealth technology.</p><p>Lots of good stuff for geeks; just gotta do your homework and not wait to be spoonfed.</p></div><p>Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially. A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's a teaser .
It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things , and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were .
( Of course the same could be said for all participants , but as victors , the Americans wrote the history after the war .
) American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero .
British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.Now I learn that the Japanese were playing with submarine stealth technology.Lots of good stuff for geeks ; just got ta do your homework and not wait to be spoonfed.Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially .
A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's a teaser.
It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things, and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were.
(Of course the same could be said for all participants, but as victors, the Americans wrote the history after the war.
)American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero.
British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.Now I learn that the Japanese were playing with submarine stealth technology.Lots of good stuff for geeks; just gotta do your homework and not wait to be spoonfed.Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially.
A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30101170</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1258196340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware<br>&gt; still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially<br><br>Have you ever played freeciv?<br><br>Production is indeed a very big deal.  Technology only matters if you're *WAY* imbalanced (like, howitzers attacking pikemen) or if your production capacities are very comparable.  Given one side with superior technology and the other side with superior production, the superior production will win every time.  (Unless it's controlled by the AI.  The AI can't win against an intelligent human player, of course.)<br><br>&gt; A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century.<br><br>Because there's another country with an economy ten or twenty times larger than ours, like our economy was ten or twenty times larger than Japan's in WWII?  Which country would that be?<br><br>Obviously, the international balance of power always changes over time, so at some point in the future another nation will be much more powerful than the US.  Duh.  But going into the 21st century, this event appears to lie beyond the foreseeable future.  I would not care to hazard a guess as to which nation it will be, or when.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware &gt; still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materiallyHave you ever played freeciv ? Production is indeed a very big deal .
Technology only matters if you 're * WAY * imbalanced ( like , howitzers attacking pikemen ) or if your production capacities are very comparable .
Given one side with superior technology and the other side with superior production , the superior production will win every time .
( Unless it 's controlled by the AI .
The AI ca n't win against an intelligent human player , of course .
) &gt; A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century.Because there 's another country with an economy ten or twenty times larger than ours , like our economy was ten or twenty times larger than Japan 's in WWII ?
Which country would that be ? Obviously , the international balance of power always changes over time , so at some point in the future another nation will be much more powerful than the US .
Duh. But going into the 21st century , this event appears to lie beyond the foreseeable future .
I would not care to hazard a guess as to which nation it will be , or when .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware&gt; still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materiallyHave you ever played freeciv?Production is indeed a very big deal.
Technology only matters if you're *WAY* imbalanced (like, howitzers attacking pikemen) or if your production capacities are very comparable.
Given one side with superior technology and the other side with superior production, the superior production will win every time.
(Unless it's controlled by the AI.
The AI can't win against an intelligent human player, of course.
)&gt; A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century.Because there's another country with an economy ten or twenty times larger than ours, like our economy was ten or twenty times larger than Japan's in WWII?
Which country would that be?Obviously, the international balance of power always changes over time, so at some point in the future another nation will be much more powerful than the US.
Duh.  But going into the 21st century, this event appears to lie beyond the foreseeable future.
I would not care to hazard a guess as to which nation it will be, or when.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089940</id>
	<title>Someone has got to say it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258141740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Freudian implications of a large, phallically-shaped object coated in rubber cannot be ignored.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Freudian implications of a large , phallically-shaped object coated in rubber can not be ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Freudian implications of a large, phallically-shaped object coated in rubber cannot be ignored.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090790</id>
	<title>Re:The 25 Museum Submarines Located Across The USA</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1258145220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[Sigh]  Though that page repeats the (completely false) urban legend that <i>Blueback</i> was used in <i>The Hunt for Red October</i>...<br>
&nbsp; <br>There's also the <a href="http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/museum.html" title="navy.mil">Submarine Museums</a> [navy.mil] page from the USN, which links not only to submarines on display, but to other museums with submarine exhibits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ Sigh ] Though that page repeats the ( completely false ) urban legend that Blueback was used in The Hunt for Red October.. .   There 's also the Submarine Museums [ navy.mil ] page from the USN , which links not only to submarines on display , but to other museums with submarine exhibits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[Sigh]  Though that page repeats the (completely false) urban legend that Blueback was used in The Hunt for Red October...
  There's also the Submarine Museums [navy.mil] page from the USN, which links not only to submarines on display, but to other museums with submarine exhibits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30096656</id>
	<title>Re:Submarines, underwater?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258205820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Compared to those damn flying submarines...</p></div><p>Tanks that fly and go underwater are amazing! Though they're not quite as advanced as flying dreadnoughts!<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Great\_Dictator" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">...</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compared to those damn flying submarines...Tanks that fly and go underwater are amazing !
Though they 're not quite as advanced as flying dreadnoughts ! .. .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compared to those damn flying submarines...Tanks that fly and go underwater are amazing!
Though they're not quite as advanced as flying dreadnoughts!...
[wikipedia.org] 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091980</id>
	<title>Re:Someone has got to say it</title>
	<author>francium de neobie</author>
	<datestamp>1258107540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's long and hard and full of sea men.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's long and hard and full of sea men .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's long and hard and full of sea men.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090534</id>
	<title>Scorpion Soviet Sub at Queen Mary</title>
	<author>sponga</author>
	<datestamp>1258143960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.queenmary.com/index.php?page=scorpioninformation" title="queenmary.com">http://www.queenmary.com/index.php?page=scorpioninformation</a> [queenmary.com]</p><p>You can go through the entire sub from front to end.<br>I have done this a couple times and take relatives down to it when they come in town, than you can go right next to the Queen Mary all here in Long Beach, CA.</p><p>Lots of ducking your head and pipes everywhere, a plumber would get a hard on walking through it all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.queenmary.com/index.php ? page = scorpioninformation [ queenmary.com ] You can go through the entire sub from front to end.I have done this a couple times and take relatives down to it when they come in town , than you can go right next to the Queen Mary all here in Long Beach , CA.Lots of ducking your head and pipes everywhere , a plumber would get a hard on walking through it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.queenmary.com/index.php?page=scorpioninformation [queenmary.com]You can go through the entire sub from front to end.I have done this a couple times and take relatives down to it when they come in town, than you can go right next to the Queen Mary all here in Long Beach, CA.Lots of ducking your head and pipes everywhere, a plumber would get a hard on walking through it all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089556</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258140240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're talking about the (re)discovery of a submersible aircraft carrier here, a presently defunct offshoot of military technology.  I'd say it qualifies (and I'm sure everybody who's ever played Supreme Commander would agree with me).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're talking about the ( re ) discovery of a submersible aircraft carrier here , a presently defunct offshoot of military technology .
I 'd say it qualifies ( and I 'm sure everybody who 's ever played Supreme Commander would agree with me ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're talking about the (re)discovery of a submersible aircraft carrier here, a presently defunct offshoot of military technology.
I'd say it qualifies (and I'm sure everybody who's ever played Supreme Commander would agree with me).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090600</id>
	<title>Re:Someone has got to say it</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1258144200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only real insight was Freud's obsession with the phallus, and his lack of consideration for basic physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only real insight was Freud 's obsession with the phallus , and his lack of consideration for basic physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only real insight was Freud's obsession with the phallus, and his lack of consideration for basic physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091350</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1258104420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero. </i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Surprising, considering it was stolen from Hughes Aircraft. The zero is a copy of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes\_H-1\_Racer" title="wikipedia.org">H-1</a> [wikipedia.org], which the Japanese deny of course. But then again the Japanese copied a great many western things, like motorcycles and cars, for example. They were good at it, just like the Chinese are today.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I got modded troll, but I don't care. I guess we just have different definitions of "Geek". I wanted specifics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero .
      Surprising , considering it was stolen from Hughes Aircraft .
The zero is a copy of the H-1 [ wikipedia.org ] , which the Japanese deny of course .
But then again the Japanese copied a great many western things , like motorcycles and cars , for example .
They were good at it , just like the Chinese are today .
      I got modded troll , but I do n't care .
I guess we just have different definitions of " Geek " .
I wanted specifics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero.
      Surprising, considering it was stolen from Hughes Aircraft.
The zero is a copy of the H-1 [wikipedia.org], which the Japanese deny of course.
But then again the Japanese copied a great many western things, like motorcycles and cars, for example.
They were good at it, just like the Chinese are today.
      I got modded troll, but I don't care.
I guess we just have different definitions of "Geek".
I wanted specifics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092162</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1258108620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero.</p></div></blockquote><p>A) Believing every rumor is NOT the opposite of arrogance.</p><p>B) In fact, they had good reason to disbelieve the reports.  Their only problem was that they made certain assumptions about how much of a death-trap the Japanese military were willing to make their planes...  Get rid of all armor, and a plane can climb much faster.  Of course it dives MUCH SLOWER, so upon figuring this out this fact, future dogfights became immensely one-sided.</p><blockquote><div><p>British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.</p></div></blockquote><p>High tech for high tech's sake is usually a bad move.  German jets were just slightly faster than the fastest prop aircraft, and really diverted resources away from better uses of that money.</p><blockquote><div><p>Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not really true.  Things like radar were also highly advanced military technologies, which the US/Brits had, and the Germans/Japanese did not.</p><p>In short, the Axis were only slightly more advanced than the Allies.  Where the level of military technology is more disparate, it certainly can and does become an overwhelming advantage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero.A ) Believing every rumor is NOT the opposite of arrogance.B ) In fact , they had good reason to disbelieve the reports .
Their only problem was that they made certain assumptions about how much of a death-trap the Japanese military were willing to make their planes... Get rid of all armor , and a plane can climb much faster .
Of course it dives MUCH SLOWER , so upon figuring this out this fact , future dogfights became immensely one-sided.British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.High tech for high tech 's sake is usually a bad move .
German jets were just slightly faster than the fastest prop aircraft , and really diverted resources away from better uses of that money.Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially.Not really true .
Things like radar were also highly advanced military technologies , which the US/Brits had , and the Germans/Japanese did not.In short , the Axis were only slightly more advanced than the Allies .
Where the level of military technology is more disparate , it certainly can and does become an overwhelming advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero.A) Believing every rumor is NOT the opposite of arrogance.B) In fact, they had good reason to disbelieve the reports.
Their only problem was that they made certain assumptions about how much of a death-trap the Japanese military were willing to make their planes...  Get rid of all armor, and a plane can climb much faster.
Of course it dives MUCH SLOWER, so upon figuring this out this fact, future dogfights became immensely one-sided.British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.High tech for high tech's sake is usually a bad move.
German jets were just slightly faster than the fastest prop aircraft, and really diverted resources away from better uses of that money.Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially.Not really true.
Things like radar were also highly advanced military technologies, which the US/Brits had, and the Germans/Japanese did not.In short, the Axis were only slightly more advanced than the Allies.
Where the level of military technology is more disparate, it certainly can and does become an overwhelming advantage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091954</id>
	<title>Re:Submarines, underwater?</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1258107420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Compared to those damn flying submarines...</p></div></blockquote><p>The useless things can't even intercept alien USOs in the air.  And don't get me started on how enemy scouts can avoid your Barracudas just by being too deep...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compared to those damn flying submarines...The useless things ca n't even intercept alien USOs in the air .
And do n't get me started on how enemy scouts can avoid your Barracudas just by being too deep.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compared to those damn flying submarines...The useless things can't even intercept alien USOs in the air.
And don't get me started on how enemy scouts can avoid your Barracudas just by being too deep...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089604</id>
	<title>Re:Launched by catapult?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258140480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got to read The Fine Article, but I wonder if aircraft recovery was even a possibility.  Could it be another type of Kamikaze mission?</p><p>Also... I wonder if two aircraft would be all that affective with conventional weapons.  It reminds me of M.A.S.H.'s 5 o'clock Charlie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got to read The Fine Article , but I wonder if aircraft recovery was even a possibility .
Could it be another type of Kamikaze mission ? Also... I wonder if two aircraft would be all that affective with conventional weapons .
It reminds me of M.A.S.H .
's 5 o'clock Charlie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got to read The Fine Article, but I wonder if aircraft recovery was even a possibility.
Could it be another type of Kamikaze mission?Also... I wonder if two aircraft would be all that affective with conventional weapons.
It reminds me of M.A.S.H.
's 5 o'clock Charlie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30101340</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1258197540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Things like radar were also highly advanced military technologies,<br>&gt; which the US/Brits had, and the Germans/Japanese did not.<br><br>Not to mention signals intelligence and machine-assisted cryptanalysis.<br><br>&gt; In short, the Axis were only slightly more advanced than the Allies.<br><br>I would say they were only *arguably* more advanced overall, though they were definitely more advanced in certain areas.<br><br>&gt; Where the level of military technology is more disparate, it<br>&gt; certainly can and does become an overwhelming advantage.<br><br>You mean like the US invasion of Iraq?  (But, there was also a huge production and infrastructure imbalance there, which was probably an even bigger factor.)<br><br>Another thing that can make a huge difference is the level of training and readiness of the units that you do have.  Any questions about that, look up the Six Day War.  (Hint:  it's called that for a reason.  There was relatively little technology gap, but it was totally one-sided and over very fast; the basic outcome had become clear to all rational observers within twenty-four hours.  Why?  The guys on the one side knew what they were doing, and the guys on the other side very much didn't.)<br><br>And a really good general can make a pretty big difference too.  The US civil war, all else being equal, should have been over in about three months; home-field advantage ("we're fighting for our homes" and all that) could have been expected to drag it out to maybe twice that long.  But the south had most of the good generals, particularly Lee and Jackson, and darned if they didn't almost win, despite running out of ammunition, out of guns, out of gunpowder, out of food, out of cannons, out of important raw materials (e.g., iron), low on horses, and just about running out of fighting-age men.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Things like radar were also highly advanced military technologies , &gt; which the US/Brits had , and the Germans/Japanese did not.Not to mention signals intelligence and machine-assisted cryptanalysis. &gt; In short , the Axis were only slightly more advanced than the Allies.I would say they were only * arguably * more advanced overall , though they were definitely more advanced in certain areas. &gt; Where the level of military technology is more disparate , it &gt; certainly can and does become an overwhelming advantage.You mean like the US invasion of Iraq ?
( But , there was also a huge production and infrastructure imbalance there , which was probably an even bigger factor .
) Another thing that can make a huge difference is the level of training and readiness of the units that you do have .
Any questions about that , look up the Six Day War .
( Hint : it 's called that for a reason .
There was relatively little technology gap , but it was totally one-sided and over very fast ; the basic outcome had become clear to all rational observers within twenty-four hours .
Why ? The guys on the one side knew what they were doing , and the guys on the other side very much did n't .
) And a really good general can make a pretty big difference too .
The US civil war , all else being equal , should have been over in about three months ; home-field advantage ( " we 're fighting for our homes " and all that ) could have been expected to drag it out to maybe twice that long .
But the south had most of the good generals , particularly Lee and Jackson , and darned if they did n't almost win , despite running out of ammunition , out of guns , out of gunpowder , out of food , out of cannons , out of important raw materials ( e.g. , iron ) , low on horses , and just about running out of fighting-age men .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Things like radar were also highly advanced military technologies,&gt; which the US/Brits had, and the Germans/Japanese did not.Not to mention signals intelligence and machine-assisted cryptanalysis.&gt; In short, the Axis were only slightly more advanced than the Allies.I would say they were only *arguably* more advanced overall, though they were definitely more advanced in certain areas.&gt; Where the level of military technology is more disparate, it&gt; certainly can and does become an overwhelming advantage.You mean like the US invasion of Iraq?
(But, there was also a huge production and infrastructure imbalance there, which was probably an even bigger factor.
)Another thing that can make a huge difference is the level of training and readiness of the units that you do have.
Any questions about that, look up the Six Day War.
(Hint:  it's called that for a reason.
There was relatively little technology gap, but it was totally one-sided and over very fast; the basic outcome had become clear to all rational observers within twenty-four hours.
Why?  The guys on the one side knew what they were doing, and the guys on the other side very much didn't.
)And a really good general can make a pretty big difference too.
The US civil war, all else being equal, should have been over in about three months; home-field advantage ("we're fighting for our homes" and all that) could have been expected to drag it out to maybe twice that long.
But the south had most of the good generals, particularly Lee and Jackson, and darned if they didn't almost win, despite running out of ammunition, out of guns, out of gunpowder, out of food, out of cannons, out of important raw materials (e.g., iron), low on horses, and just about running out of fighting-age men.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258140360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's a teaser.  It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things, and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were.  (Of course the same could be said for all participants, but as victors, the Americans wrote the history after the war.)</p><p>American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero.  British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.</p><p>Now I learn that the Japanese were playing with submarine stealth technology.</p><p>Lots of good stuff for geeks; just gotta do your homework and not wait to be spoonfed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's a teaser .
It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things , and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were .
( Of course the same could be said for all participants , but as victors , the Americans wrote the history after the war .
) American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero .
British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.Now I learn that the Japanese were playing with submarine stealth technology.Lots of good stuff for geeks ; just got ta do your homework and not wait to be spoonfed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's a teaser.
It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things, and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were.
(Of course the same could be said for all participants, but as victors, the Americans wrote the history after the war.
)American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero.
British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.Now I learn that the Japanese were playing with submarine stealth technology.Lots of good stuff for geeks; just gotta do your homework and not wait to be spoonfed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089902</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258141560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that you dont also seem amazed at the arrogance of the Japanese general staff, the German high command, etc. or any officers of those countries seems to indicate that you haven't had an in-depth study of the war. Or any war, for that fact. <i>War</i> is arrogance.<br> <br>
The axis forces of WWII made many arrogant mistakes, like not believing in convoys (Japanese), not believing allies had broken their codes (Japanese and German), not believing that their own governments could come up with anything like a "death camp," etc. Arrogance ran up and down the command structure on both sides of that particular war.<br> <br>And even though it's more exciting to talk about secret Japanese and German technology, don't forget that the <i>misuse</i> of secret technology was a specialty of all parties involved in the war; Japan was making better suicide planes, Germany was mastering the infrastructure of genocide, and so on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that you dont also seem amazed at the arrogance of the Japanese general staff , the German high command , etc .
or any officers of those countries seems to indicate that you have n't had an in-depth study of the war .
Or any war , for that fact .
War is arrogance .
The axis forces of WWII made many arrogant mistakes , like not believing in convoys ( Japanese ) , not believing allies had broken their codes ( Japanese and German ) , not believing that their own governments could come up with anything like a " death camp , " etc .
Arrogance ran up and down the command structure on both sides of that particular war .
And even though it 's more exciting to talk about secret Japanese and German technology , do n't forget that the misuse of secret technology was a specialty of all parties involved in the war ; Japan was making better suicide planes , Germany was mastering the infrastructure of genocide , and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that you dont also seem amazed at the arrogance of the Japanese general staff, the German high command, etc.
or any officers of those countries seems to indicate that you haven't had an in-depth study of the war.
Or any war, for that fact.
War is arrogance.
The axis forces of WWII made many arrogant mistakes, like not believing in convoys (Japanese), not believing allies had broken their codes (Japanese and German), not believing that their own governments could come up with anything like a "death camp," etc.
Arrogance ran up and down the command structure on both sides of that particular war.
And even though it's more exciting to talk about secret Japanese and German technology, don't forget that the misuse of secret technology was a specialty of all parties involved in the war; Japan was making better suicide planes, Germany was mastering the infrastructure of genocide, and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090402</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>mrisaacs</author>
	<datestamp>1258143360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Japanese were convinced that Dolittle's raid was conducted by submarine launched bombers to such an extent they spent an enormous amount of effort developing them.</p><p>Like many such items during the war - these subs attempted too many innovations in one jump and were not reliable. The Germans and the Japanese had a penchant for attempting to produce super weapons as opposed to incremental improvements in  existing stuff. Some of what they produced was incredible, but none of it was really ready for prime time, or available in sufficient quantity to significantly have any effect on the war.</p><p>One of the most draconian decisions of the war was on the part of the US - it was recognized that the Sherman was no match for the heavier German tanks. There were some improvements, but the US counted on the fact that we were producing and delivering tanks at a rate that outstripped the Germans ability to destroy them or replace their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Japanese were convinced that Dolittle 's raid was conducted by submarine launched bombers to such an extent they spent an enormous amount of effort developing them.Like many such items during the war - these subs attempted too many innovations in one jump and were not reliable .
The Germans and the Japanese had a penchant for attempting to produce super weapons as opposed to incremental improvements in existing stuff .
Some of what they produced was incredible , but none of it was really ready for prime time , or available in sufficient quantity to significantly have any effect on the war.One of the most draconian decisions of the war was on the part of the US - it was recognized that the Sherman was no match for the heavier German tanks .
There were some improvements , but the US counted on the fact that we were producing and delivering tanks at a rate that outstripped the Germans ability to destroy them or replace their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Japanese were convinced that Dolittle's raid was conducted by submarine launched bombers to such an extent they spent an enormous amount of effort developing them.Like many such items during the war - these subs attempted too many innovations in one jump and were not reliable.
The Germans and the Japanese had a penchant for attempting to produce super weapons as opposed to incremental improvements in  existing stuff.
Some of what they produced was incredible, but none of it was really ready for prime time, or available in sufficient quantity to significantly have any effect on the war.One of the most draconian decisions of the war was on the part of the US - it was recognized that the Sherman was no match for the heavier German tanks.
There were some improvements, but the US counted on the fact that we were producing and delivering tanks at a rate that outstripped the Germans ability to destroy them or replace their own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089798</id>
	<title>Re:Tour a sub.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258141140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At Bavarian film studios [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria\_Film\_Studios] you can get in the scale model used to film Das Boot.<br>Awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At Bavarian film studios [ http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria \ _Film \ _Studios ] you can get in the scale model used to film Das Boot.Awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At Bavarian film studios [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria\_Film\_Studios] you can get in the scale model used to film Das Boot.Awesome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089550</id>
	<title>Re:Launched by catapult?</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1258140240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our (USA) current nuclear powered air craft carriers use catapults to launch fighters... You are correct, they are not medieval technology based.</p><p>

I can't remember but they are either hydraulic or steam catapults.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our ( USA ) current nuclear powered air craft carriers use catapults to launch fighters... You are correct , they are not medieval technology based .
I ca n't remember but they are either hydraulic or steam catapults .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our (USA) current nuclear powered air craft carriers use catapults to launch fighters... You are correct, they are not medieval technology based.
I can't remember but they are either hydraulic or steam catapults.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090196</id>
	<title>Re:Launched by catapult?</title>
	<author>FallinWithStyle</author>
	<datestamp>1258142640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminded me of some of the more <a href="http://greyfalcon.us/Fiesler\%20Fi.htm" title="greyfalcon.us" rel="nofollow">bizarre German aircraft's</a> [greyfalcon.us] of the period (see the vertically launched Bachem Ba 349 Natter). Some of the proposed methods of aircraft/pilot recovery were pretty interesting (from using the plane as a suicide bomber, to breaking off the wings and opening a rear-mounted parachute when fuel runs out). It's also interesting to point out that many of the Japanese submarines were intended for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese\_Special\_Attack\_Units" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">suicide missions themselves</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminded me of some of the more bizarre German aircraft 's [ greyfalcon.us ] of the period ( see the vertically launched Bachem Ba 349 Natter ) .
Some of the proposed methods of aircraft/pilot recovery were pretty interesting ( from using the plane as a suicide bomber , to breaking off the wings and opening a rear-mounted parachute when fuel runs out ) .
It 's also interesting to point out that many of the Japanese submarines were intended for suicide missions themselves [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminded me of some of the more bizarre German aircraft's [greyfalcon.us] of the period (see the vertically launched Bachem Ba 349 Natter).
Some of the proposed methods of aircraft/pilot recovery were pretty interesting (from using the plane as a suicide bomber, to breaking off the wings and opening a rear-mounted parachute when fuel runs out).
It's also interesting to point out that many of the Japanese submarines were intended for suicide missions themselves [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091822</id>
	<title>Re:Submarines, underwater?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258106820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are apparently too young to have watched "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea". The seaview had a flying sub on board that usually Captain Crane would pilot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are apparently too young to have watched " Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea " .
The seaview had a flying sub on board that usually Captain Crane would pilot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are apparently too young to have watched "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea".
The seaview had a flying sub on board that usually Captain Crane would pilot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30094000</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1258121400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is an article about subs that launch airplanes. Fucking airplanes! We're talking about something that's on the same level as a gun that shoots swords instead of bullets. This sort of thing can cause nerdgasms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an article about subs that launch airplanes .
Fucking airplanes !
We 're talking about something that 's on the same level as a gun that shoots swords instead of bullets .
This sort of thing can cause nerdgasms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an article about subs that launch airplanes.
Fucking airplanes!
We're talking about something that's on the same level as a gun that shoots swords instead of bullets.
This sort of thing can cause nerdgasms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089320</id>
	<title>So, who's fault is it?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1258139460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whales and dolphins, or the chickens and cows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whales and dolphins , or the chickens and cows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whales and dolphins, or the chickens and cows?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093414</id>
	<title>Airplane Carriers...</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1258117140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The submarine type mentioned, the one designed to carry folding aircraft and a catapult for launching, was actually used in the only aerial attack on the contiguous United States by the Japanese during WWII (both Alaska and Hawaii were attacked by aircraft) if one does not count the numerous attack balloons sent aloft by the Japanese.</p><p>One of these submarines surfaced off the coast of Oregon and launched one of it's folding aircraft. The plane then flew over forested tracts of land and dropped (by hand!) small incendiary bombs in an effort to start large-scale forest fires. One of these bombs landed on property NW of Langlois, Oregon, property that my Aunt and Uncle owned at the time. Fortunately, the Japanese had not taken into account just how damp the woods along that coast are during the summer months and they simply blew up a few trees. It is not unheard of for it to be raining there in June/July. The desired fires never happened.</p><p>It is unknown what became of the plane, but it is assumed it landed near the submarine (I believe they were float-equipped, but incapable of a water launch and thus needed the catapult), was folded up and stowed below deck again.</p><p>Though I do not recall the title, there is a book on the subject.</p><p>There was also an unverified report of a submarine off the coast of San Diego. An alarm was sounded but the sighting was later questioned.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The submarine type mentioned , the one designed to carry folding aircraft and a catapult for launching , was actually used in the only aerial attack on the contiguous United States by the Japanese during WWII ( both Alaska and Hawaii were attacked by aircraft ) if one does not count the numerous attack balloons sent aloft by the Japanese.One of these submarines surfaced off the coast of Oregon and launched one of it 's folding aircraft .
The plane then flew over forested tracts of land and dropped ( by hand !
) small incendiary bombs in an effort to start large-scale forest fires .
One of these bombs landed on property NW of Langlois , Oregon , property that my Aunt and Uncle owned at the time .
Fortunately , the Japanese had not taken into account just how damp the woods along that coast are during the summer months and they simply blew up a few trees .
It is not unheard of for it to be raining there in June/July .
The desired fires never happened.It is unknown what became of the plane , but it is assumed it landed near the submarine ( I believe they were float-equipped , but incapable of a water launch and thus needed the catapult ) , was folded up and stowed below deck again.Though I do not recall the title , there is a book on the subject.There was also an unverified report of a submarine off the coast of San Diego .
An alarm was sounded but the sighting was later questioned .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The submarine type mentioned, the one designed to carry folding aircraft and a catapult for launching, was actually used in the only aerial attack on the contiguous United States by the Japanese during WWII (both Alaska and Hawaii were attacked by aircraft) if one does not count the numerous attack balloons sent aloft by the Japanese.One of these submarines surfaced off the coast of Oregon and launched one of it's folding aircraft.
The plane then flew over forested tracts of land and dropped (by hand!
) small incendiary bombs in an effort to start large-scale forest fires.
One of these bombs landed on property NW of Langlois, Oregon, property that my Aunt and Uncle owned at the time.
Fortunately, the Japanese had not taken into account just how damp the woods along that coast are during the summer months and they simply blew up a few trees.
It is not unheard of for it to be raining there in June/July.
The desired fires never happened.It is unknown what became of the plane, but it is assumed it landed near the submarine (I believe they were float-equipped, but incapable of a water launch and thus needed the catapult), was folded up and stowed below deck again.Though I do not recall the title, there is a book on the subject.There was also an unverified report of a submarine off the coast of San Diego.
An alarm was sounded but the sighting was later questioned.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089770</id>
	<title>Clive Cussler wrote about it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258141080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clive Cussler has written quite a number of excellent thrillers; one of them is about a sunken Japanese sub containing a biochemical warfare agent. So maybe we're only getting half the story...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Well worth reading, IMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clive Cussler has written quite a number of excellent thrillers ; one of them is about a sunken Japanese sub containing a biochemical warfare agent .
So maybe we 're only getting half the story... : - ) Well worth reading , IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clive Cussler has written quite a number of excellent thrillers; one of them is about a sunken Japanese sub containing a biochemical warfare agent.
So maybe we're only getting half the story... :-)Well worth reading, IMO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090410</id>
	<title>Re:Submarines, underwater?</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1258143420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a fan of Gerry Anderson's UFO? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyDiver" title="wikipedia.org">SkyDiver!</a> [wikipedia.org] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a fan of Gerry Anderson 's UFO ?
SkyDiver ! [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a fan of Gerry Anderson's UFO?
SkyDiver! [wikipedia.org] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089760</id>
	<title>The 25 Museum Submarines Located Across The USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258141020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.submarinemuseums.org/" title="submarinemuseums.org" rel="nofollow">The 25 Museum Submarines Located Across The USA - Listed In Order Of Launch Date</a> [submarinemuseums.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 25 Museum Submarines Located Across The USA - Listed In Order Of Launch Date [ submarinemuseums.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 25 Museum Submarines Located Across The USA - Listed In Order Of Launch Date [submarinemuseums.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090018</id>
	<title>Re:Tour a sub.</title>
	<author>svtdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1258142040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somehow, I don't think these particular subs would be very good for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , I do n't think these particular subs would be very good for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, I don't think these particular subs would be very good for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090774</id>
	<title>Re:Someone has got to say it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258145100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Freudian implications of a large, phallically-shaped object coated in rubber cannot be ignored.</p></div><p>Especially when it contains lots of seamen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Freudian implications of a large , phallically-shaped object coated in rubber can not be ignored.Especially when it contains lots of seamen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Freudian implications of a large, phallically-shaped object coated in rubber cannot be ignored.Especially when it contains lots of seamen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091680</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1258106160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things, and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were</i> <p>
You might want to read Arthur Clarke's old story "Superiority."</p><p>
The wonder weapon often has significant hidden flaws or doesn't make it to the battlefield in time be decisive.</p><p>
A downed Zero was recovered from the Aleutians in July 42, rebuilt and flown for testing:</p><p> "The Zero had superior maneuverability only at the lower speeds used in dogfighting, with short turning radius and excellent aileron control at very low speeds. However, immediately apparent was the fact that the ailerons froze up at speeds above two hundred knots, so that rolling maneuvers at those speeds were slow and required much force on the control stick. It rolled to the left much easier than to the right. Also, its engine cut out under negative acceleration [as when nosing into a dive] due to its float-type carburetor.</p><p>

"We now had an answer for our pilots who were unable to escape a pursuing Zero. We told them to go into a vertical power dive, using negative acceleration, if possible, to open the range quickly and gain advantageous speed while the Zero's engine was stopped. At about two hundred knots, we instructed them to roll hard right before the Zero pilot could get his sights lined up."</p><p>Advanced U.S. fighters produced toward the war's end still couldn't turn with the Zero, but they were faster and could outclimb and outdive it.</p><p>

Without self-sealing fuel tanks, the Zero was easily flamed when hit in any of its three wing and fuselage tanks or its droppable belly tank. And without protective armor, its pilot was vulnerable. </p><p> <a href="http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1997/2/1997\_2\_56.shtml" title="americanheritage.com">Koga's Zero</a> [americanheritage.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things , and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were You might want to read Arthur Clarke 's old story " Superiority .
" The wonder weapon often has significant hidden flaws or does n't make it to the battlefield in time be decisive .
A downed Zero was recovered from the Aleutians in July 42 , rebuilt and flown for testing : " The Zero had superior maneuverability only at the lower speeds used in dogfighting , with short turning radius and excellent aileron control at very low speeds .
However , immediately apparent was the fact that the ailerons froze up at speeds above two hundred knots , so that rolling maneuvers at those speeds were slow and required much force on the control stick .
It rolled to the left much easier than to the right .
Also , its engine cut out under negative acceleration [ as when nosing into a dive ] due to its float-type carburetor .
" We now had an answer for our pilots who were unable to escape a pursuing Zero .
We told them to go into a vertical power dive , using negative acceleration , if possible , to open the range quickly and gain advantageous speed while the Zero 's engine was stopped .
At about two hundred knots , we instructed them to roll hard right before the Zero pilot could get his sights lined up .
" Advanced U.S. fighters produced toward the war 's end still could n't turn with the Zero , but they were faster and could outclimb and outdive it .
Without self-sealing fuel tanks , the Zero was easily flamed when hit in any of its three wing and fuselage tanks or its droppable belly tank .
And without protective armor , its pilot was vulnerable .
Koga 's Zero [ americanheritage.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It always amazes me at how advanced the Germans and Japanese were in some things, and just how arrogant and stupid the Americans were 
You might want to read Arthur Clarke's old story "Superiority.
"
The wonder weapon often has significant hidden flaws or doesn't make it to the battlefield in time be decisive.
A downed Zero was recovered from the Aleutians in July 42, rebuilt and flown for testing: "The Zero had superior maneuverability only at the lower speeds used in dogfighting, with short turning radius and excellent aileron control at very low speeds.
However, immediately apparent was the fact that the ailerons froze up at speeds above two hundred knots, so that rolling maneuvers at those speeds were slow and required much force on the control stick.
It rolled to the left much easier than to the right.
Also, its engine cut out under negative acceleration [as when nosing into a dive] due to its float-type carburetor.
"We now had an answer for our pilots who were unable to escape a pursuing Zero.
We told them to go into a vertical power dive, using negative acceleration, if possible, to open the range quickly and gain advantageous speed while the Zero's engine was stopped.
At about two hundred knots, we instructed them to roll hard right before the Zero pilot could get his sights lined up.
"Advanced U.S. fighters produced toward the war's end still couldn't turn with the Zero, but they were faster and could outclimb and outdive it.
Without self-sealing fuel tanks, the Zero was easily flamed when hit in any of its three wing and fuselage tanks or its droppable belly tank.
And without protective armor, its pilot was vulnerable.
Koga's Zero [americanheritage.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092962</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258113660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially.</p></div><p>It wasn't that simple.</p><p>If you look at Germany vs USSR, for example, it's a common myth that USSR won by "swarming hordes", human wave attacks, etc. The myth is also wrong. There are very few documented cases of human wave attacks by the USSR - it was well known by then that this simply doesn't work against machine guns (so what you've seen in e.g. "Enemy at the Gates" is pure bullshit).</p><p>Tech difference was also nowhere hear as great as some people make it out to be. To have a look at some points...</p><p>German tanks were generally better armored and had longer range guns, yes - but their mechanical complexity was such that they were much more likely to break down than Soviet counterparts; and, of course, sloped armor in T-34 was a major design and engineering breakthrough all of its own, and contributed towards making the cheap yet versatile killing machine that it become. IS-2 was a very successful design, too - capable of taking on German Tigers and Panthers on its own, and yet smaller than Tiger, and cheaper and more reliable than either Tiger or Panther.</p><p>In terms of infantry weapons, it was also not at all clear. German Mauser infantry rifles were slightly better than Mosin Nagant (knife bayo, non-rimmed ammunition, and often better construction), but not enough to make a difference. Soviets had semi-automatic rifles earlier than Germans (SVT), and they were of better quality, too (enough so to make <a href="http://www.madbird.com/uploaded\_images/ljalkova1-780365.jpg" title="madbird.com">sniper versions</a> [madbird.com] of them), compared to German G43 (G41 was pretty much unusable from the get go). Soviet SMGs were somewhat better (PPSh in particular, but also the later PPS). German MGs were clearly superior overall, though Soviet DP was lighter and closer to a modern LMG than any of the German ones. Soviet hand grenades were significantly better designed than the German "potato masher" (even accounting for design differences in offensive vs defensive grenades). German AT infantry weapons were much better than Russian small-caliber and mostly useless AT rifles.</p><p>In terms of combat planes, it was also a draw. Early Soviet designs were generally worse, later designs were on par, and better in some conditions.</p><p>To conclude: WW2 Eastern Front was not an instance of a "horde of barbarians" overrunning a high-tech but resource-limited army. Resource limits did play a part in it, but high tech was used by both sides of the conflict, and it is very unlikely that USSR would've won if it went for quantity alone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially.It was n't that simple.If you look at Germany vs USSR , for example , it 's a common myth that USSR won by " swarming hordes " , human wave attacks , etc .
The myth is also wrong .
There are very few documented cases of human wave attacks by the USSR - it was well known by then that this simply does n't work against machine guns ( so what you 've seen in e.g .
" Enemy at the Gates " is pure bullshit ) .Tech difference was also nowhere hear as great as some people make it out to be .
To have a look at some points...German tanks were generally better armored and had longer range guns , yes - but their mechanical complexity was such that they were much more likely to break down than Soviet counterparts ; and , of course , sloped armor in T-34 was a major design and engineering breakthrough all of its own , and contributed towards making the cheap yet versatile killing machine that it become .
IS-2 was a very successful design , too - capable of taking on German Tigers and Panthers on its own , and yet smaller than Tiger , and cheaper and more reliable than either Tiger or Panther.In terms of infantry weapons , it was also not at all clear .
German Mauser infantry rifles were slightly better than Mosin Nagant ( knife bayo , non-rimmed ammunition , and often better construction ) , but not enough to make a difference .
Soviets had semi-automatic rifles earlier than Germans ( SVT ) , and they were of better quality , too ( enough so to make sniper versions [ madbird.com ] of them ) , compared to German G43 ( G41 was pretty much unusable from the get go ) .
Soviet SMGs were somewhat better ( PPSh in particular , but also the later PPS ) .
German MGs were clearly superior overall , though Soviet DP was lighter and closer to a modern LMG than any of the German ones .
Soviet hand grenades were significantly better designed than the German " potato masher " ( even accounting for design differences in offensive vs defensive grenades ) .
German AT infantry weapons were much better than Russian small-caliber and mostly useless AT rifles.In terms of combat planes , it was also a draw .
Early Soviet designs were generally worse , later designs were on par , and better in some conditions.To conclude : WW2 Eastern Front was not an instance of a " horde of barbarians " overrunning a high-tech but resource-limited army .
Resource limits did play a part in it , but high tech was used by both sides of the conflict , and it is very unlikely that USSR would 've won if it went for quantity alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially.It wasn't that simple.If you look at Germany vs USSR, for example, it's a common myth that USSR won by "swarming hordes", human wave attacks, etc.
The myth is also wrong.
There are very few documented cases of human wave attacks by the USSR - it was well known by then that this simply doesn't work against machine guns (so what you've seen in e.g.
"Enemy at the Gates" is pure bullshit).Tech difference was also nowhere hear as great as some people make it out to be.
To have a look at some points...German tanks were generally better armored and had longer range guns, yes - but their mechanical complexity was such that they were much more likely to break down than Soviet counterparts; and, of course, sloped armor in T-34 was a major design and engineering breakthrough all of its own, and contributed towards making the cheap yet versatile killing machine that it become.
IS-2 was a very successful design, too - capable of taking on German Tigers and Panthers on its own, and yet smaller than Tiger, and cheaper and more reliable than either Tiger or Panther.In terms of infantry weapons, it was also not at all clear.
German Mauser infantry rifles were slightly better than Mosin Nagant (knife bayo, non-rimmed ammunition, and often better construction), but not enough to make a difference.
Soviets had semi-automatic rifles earlier than Germans (SVT), and they were of better quality, too (enough so to make sniper versions [madbird.com] of them), compared to German G43 (G41 was pretty much unusable from the get go).
Soviet SMGs were somewhat better (PPSh in particular, but also the later PPS).
German MGs were clearly superior overall, though Soviet DP was lighter and closer to a modern LMG than any of the German ones.
Soviet hand grenades were significantly better designed than the German "potato masher" (even accounting for design differences in offensive vs defensive grenades).
German AT infantry weapons were much better than Russian small-caliber and mostly useless AT rifles.In terms of combat planes, it was also a draw.
Early Soviet designs were generally worse, later designs were on par, and better in some conditions.To conclude: WW2 Eastern Front was not an instance of a "horde of barbarians" overrunning a high-tech but resource-limited army.
Resource limits did play a part in it, but high tech was used by both sides of the conflict, and it is very unlikely that USSR would've won if it went for quantity alone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089772</id>
	<title>Re:Launched by catapult?</title>
	<author>laejoh</author>
	<datestamp>1258141080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine Bart Simpson, a re-bigulator and a catapult. That, and the airplace is all you need.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine Bart Simpson , a re-bigulator and a catapult .
That , and the airplace is all you need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine Bart Simpson, a re-bigulator and a catapult.
That, and the airplace is all you need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344</id>
	<title>Launched by catapult?</title>
	<author>ClosedEyesSeeing</author>
	<datestamp>1258139520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds kind of interesting, but I haven't heard of it. How does that work? I assume it's not like the typical medieval catapult.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds kind of interesting , but I have n't heard of it .
How does that work ?
I assume it 's not like the typical medieval catapult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds kind of interesting, but I haven't heard of it.
How does that work?
I assume it's not like the typical medieval catapult.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380</id>
	<title>Submarines, underwater?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258139640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's very moving to see objects like this underwater</p></div><p>Compared to those damn flying submarines...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very moving to see objects like this underwaterCompared to those damn flying submarines.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very moving to see objects like this underwaterCompared to those damn flying submarines...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092806</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1258112640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero. British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.</p></div></blockquote><p>
For much of the working world, Dilbert is documentary rather than comic strip. I wouldn't be surprised that in the absence of war, the upper echelons of the military will also become filled with PHBs - those whose primary skills are getting what they want politically (a straight ascent to the top of the hierarchy), rather than what is best for the organization. Those who have the skills and the desire to make the organization more effective will inherently rub the leadership up the wrong way (different goals). As a result, they often get marginalized, and only during times of intense need (e.g. a war) do their ideas get implemented.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero .
British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs .
For much of the working world , Dilbert is documentary rather than comic strip .
I would n't be surprised that in the absence of war , the upper echelons of the military will also become filled with PHBs - those whose primary skills are getting what they want politically ( a straight ascent to the top of the hierarchy ) , rather than what is best for the organization .
Those who have the skills and the desire to make the organization more effective will inherently rub the leadership up the wrong way ( different goals ) .
As a result , they often get marginalized , and only during times of intense need ( e.g .
a war ) do their ideas get implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American Generals refused to believe the early reports of the speed and agility of the Zero.
British Generals refused to fund the development of the jet engine until the Germans fielded theirs.
For much of the working world, Dilbert is documentary rather than comic strip.
I wouldn't be surprised that in the absence of war, the upper echelons of the military will also become filled with PHBs - those whose primary skills are getting what they want politically (a straight ascent to the top of the hierarchy), rather than what is best for the organization.
Those who have the skills and the desire to make the organization more effective will inherently rub the leadership up the wrong way (different goals).
As a result, they often get marginalized, and only during times of intense need (e.g.
a war) do their ideas get implemented.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089868</id>
	<title>Thank God</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1258141440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank God those whales and dolphins bombed Hiroshima or we might have had to face more of these things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank God those whales and dolphins bombed Hiroshima or we might have had to face more of these things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank God those whales and dolphins bombed Hiroshima or we might have had to face more of these things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089634</id>
	<title>Re:Launched by catapult?</title>
	<author>smitty777</author>
	<datestamp>1258140600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in tha day, they had to use a big boom arm for ships without a deck.  For recovery, the aircraft would land next to the ship/sub and a big crane would just hoist them out of the water. <a href="http://ussslcca25.com/kingfisher.htm" title="ussslcca25.com" rel="nofollow">this page</a> [ussslcca25.com] shows a pretty similar process for an old OS2U-3 Kingfisher.  Some pretty cool pix at the bottom of the page. I wouldn't want to be the pilot during recovery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in tha day , they had to use a big boom arm for ships without a deck .
For recovery , the aircraft would land next to the ship/sub and a big crane would just hoist them out of the water .
this page [ ussslcca25.com ] shows a pretty similar process for an old OS2U-3 Kingfisher .
Some pretty cool pix at the bottom of the page .
I would n't want to be the pilot during recovery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in tha day, they had to use a big boom arm for ships without a deck.
For recovery, the aircraft would land next to the ship/sub and a big crane would just hoist them out of the water.
this page [ussslcca25.com] shows a pretty similar process for an old OS2U-3 Kingfisher.
Some pretty cool pix at the bottom of the page.
I wouldn't want to be the pilot during recovery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090928</id>
	<title>Re:Disappointed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258145880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This link explains it all:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black\_Wind\_(Dirk\_Pitt\_novel)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This link explains it all : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black \ _Wind \ _ ( Dirk \ _Pitt \ _novel )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This link explains it all:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black\_Wind\_(Dirk\_Pitt\_novel)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092346</id>
	<title>Re:Tour a sub.</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1258109580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've toured two of them.  When I was in the 4th grade we visited the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS\_George\_C.\_Marshall\_(SSBN-654)" title="wikipedia.org">USS George C Marshall</a> [wikipedia.org].  It was actually decommissioned the following year (probably why they let two classfulls of fourth graders aboard<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)).</p><p>I also live pretty close to the Patriot's Point Naval and Maritime Museum and have visited the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS\_Clamagore\_(SS-343)" title="wikipedia.org"> USS Clamagore</a> [wikipedia.org] several times.</p><p>As someone who goes to Patriot's Point mostly to see the aircraft on the deck of the Yorktown, my only lasting impression from the subs was a feeling of claustrophobia<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've toured two of them .
When I was in the 4th grade we visited the USS George C Marshall [ wikipedia.org ] .
It was actually decommissioned the following year ( probably why they let two classfulls of fourth graders aboard : ) ) .I also live pretty close to the Patriot 's Point Naval and Maritime Museum and have visited the USS Clamagore [ wikipedia.org ] several times.As someone who goes to Patriot 's Point mostly to see the aircraft on the deck of the Yorktown , my only lasting impression from the subs was a feeling of claustrophobia : ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've toured two of them.
When I was in the 4th grade we visited the USS George C Marshall [wikipedia.org].
It was actually decommissioned the following year (probably why they let two classfulls of fourth graders aboard :)).I also live pretty close to the Patriot's Point Naval and Maritime Museum and have visited the  USS Clamagore [wikipedia.org] several times.As someone who goes to Patriot's Point mostly to see the aircraft on the deck of the Yorktown, my only lasting impression from the subs was a feeling of claustrophobia :).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090310</id>
	<title>Re:Tour a sub.</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1258143120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...anyone who can get the opportunity to tour a submarine should do so without delay. It's awesome to see photos, but it's even better when you seen the insides at work.</p></div><p>That is a difficult task after the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehime\_Maru\_and\_USS\_Greeneville\_collision" title="wikipedia.org">USS Greeneville Incident.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...anyone who can get the opportunity to tour a submarine should do so without delay .
It 's awesome to see photos , but it 's even better when you seen the insides at work.That is a difficult task after the USS Greeneville Incident .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...anyone who can get the opportunity to tour a submarine should do so without delay.
It's awesome to see photos, but it's even better when you seen the insides at work.That is a difficult task after the USS Greeneville Incident.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091184</id>
	<title>Re:Tour a sub.</title>
	<author>EsJay</author>
	<datestamp>1258103700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.wisconsinmaritime.org/uss-cobia.html" title="wisconsinmaritime.org" rel="nofollow">USS Cobia, Manitowoc WI</a> [wisconsinmaritime.org] <br>
They built 28 WWII subs up there and floated them down the Mississippi.</htmltext>
<tokenext>USS Cobia , Manitowoc WI [ wisconsinmaritime.org ] They built 28 WWII subs up there and floated them down the Mississippi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USS Cobia, Manitowoc WI [wisconsinmaritime.org] 
They built 28 WWII subs up there and floated them down the Mississippi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30095198</id>
	<title>I thought this part was interesting</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1258135980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The submarines were meant to threaten the United States directly, but none of the attacks occurred because the subs were developed too late in the war, and American intelligence was too good."</p><p>Being an engineer, it strikes me that "being too late in the war" and "the enemy intelligence was too good" are not likely to be unrelated facts.  It sounds like a classic case of coming up with a brilliant piece of engineering to fix a hopeless situation you should never have been in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The submarines were meant to threaten the United States directly , but none of the attacks occurred because the subs were developed too late in the war , and American intelligence was too good .
" Being an engineer , it strikes me that " being too late in the war " and " the enemy intelligence was too good " are not likely to be unrelated facts .
It sounds like a classic case of coming up with a brilliant piece of engineering to fix a hopeless situation you should never have been in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The submarines were meant to threaten the United States directly, but none of the attacks occurred because the subs were developed too late in the war, and American intelligence was too good.
"Being an engineer, it strikes me that "being too late in the war" and "the enemy intelligence was too good" are not likely to be unrelated facts.
It sounds like a classic case of coming up with a brilliant piece of engineering to fix a hopeless situation you should never have been in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093578</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1258118100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially. A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century."</p><p>The "swarming hordes" had the tremendous asset of an industrial base and engineering outlook which could and did produce quality IN QUANTITY. Sure, the Germans and to a lesser extent the Japanese produced some impressive equipment, but so did the Allies and over a much broader range. An Allied advantage was that their systems were integrated effectively and they chose to produce much more wheeled transport than the Axis. Allied tanks were war winners because they were of a size and specification that made them excellent infantry support vehicles. Tigers were impressive, but good luck getting one over a Bailey bridge.</p><p>As for submarine warfare, the US did it better than anyone else and strangled Japanese maritime trade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially .
A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century .
" The " swarming hordes " had the tremendous asset of an industrial base and engineering outlook which could and did produce quality IN QUANTITY .
Sure , the Germans and to a lesser extent the Japanese produced some impressive equipment , but so did the Allies and over a much broader range .
An Allied advantage was that their systems were integrated effectively and they chose to produce much more wheeled transport than the Axis .
Allied tanks were war winners because they were of a size and specification that made them excellent infantry support vehicles .
Tigers were impressive , but good luck getting one over a Bailey bridge.As for submarine warfare , the US did it better than anyone else and strangled Japanese maritime trade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yet the countries with the advanced high-tech military hardware still fell to the swarming hordes that out-produced them materially.
A lesson the US probably should keep in mind going into the 21st century.
"The "swarming hordes" had the tremendous asset of an industrial base and engineering outlook which could and did produce quality IN QUANTITY.
Sure, the Germans and to a lesser extent the Japanese produced some impressive equipment, but so did the Allies and over a much broader range.
An Allied advantage was that their systems were integrated effectively and they chose to produce much more wheeled transport than the Axis.
Allied tanks were war winners because they were of a size and specification that made them excellent infantry support vehicles.
Tigers were impressive, but good luck getting one over a Bailey bridge.As for submarine warfare, the US did it better than anyone else and strangled Japanese maritime trade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091276</id>
	<title>East coast USA?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258104120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA:</p><blockquote><div><p>"Specifically designed for a stealth attack on the U.S. East Coast--perhaps targeting Washington, D.C., and New York City--the "samurai subs" were fast, far-ranging,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p></div></blockquote><p>I have doubts about this - with the Panama canal under Allied control, getting to the east coast USA from Japan would have been VERY far-ranging.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " Specifically designed for a stealth attack on the U.S. East Coast--perhaps targeting Washington , D.C. , and New York City--the " samurai subs " were fast , far-ranging , ... " I have doubts about this - with the Panama canal under Allied control , getting to the east coast USA from Japan would have been VERY far-ranging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:"Specifically designed for a stealth attack on the U.S. East Coast--perhaps targeting Washington, D.C., and New York City--the "samurai subs" were fast, far-ranging, ..."I have doubts about this - with the Panama canal under Allied control, getting to the east coast USA from Japan would have been VERY far-ranging.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280</id>
	<title>Tour a sub.</title>
	<author>palegray.net</author>
	<datestamp>1258139340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking as a guy who's spent time on modern boats, anyone who can get the opportunity to tour a submarine should do so without delay. It's awesome to see photos, but it's even better when you seen the insides at work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as a guy who 's spent time on modern boats , anyone who can get the opportunity to tour a submarine should do so without delay .
It 's awesome to see photos , but it 's even better when you seen the insides at work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as a guy who's spent time on modern boats, anyone who can get the opportunity to tour a submarine should do so without delay.
It's awesome to see photos, but it's even better when you seen the insides at work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089524</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258140120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since when does Rupert Murdoch own the NYT?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when does Rupert Murdoch own the NYT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when does Rupert Murdoch own the NYT?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30101868</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1258201500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps the most significant German advance in firearms during WWII was the "machine pistol", i.e., the assault rifle.  (The name "machine pistol" make sit sound more like a submachine gun, along the lines of the Thompson.  It wasn't.)<br><br>&gt; Resource limits did play a part in it, but high tech was used by both sides of the<br>&gt; conflict, and it is very unlikely that USSR would've won if it went for quantity alone.<br><br>Another important factor is that Germany was fighting a multi-front war.<br><br>On top of that, Hitler diverted significant resources from the German war effort toward the fulfillment of his twisted political agenda.<br><br>So yeah, there are a lot of reasons why Germany lost.<br><br>Whereas, with Japan, there was really two reason.  First, they were outmatched, plain and simple.  Japan did not have adequate economic and industrial infrastructure to sustain a long-term conflict against the United States.  Second, their allies lost, which left them going it alone, which is usually not too helpful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the most significant German advance in firearms during WWII was the " machine pistol " , i.e. , the assault rifle .
( The name " machine pistol " make sit sound more like a submachine gun , along the lines of the Thompson .
It was n't .
) &gt; Resource limits did play a part in it , but high tech was used by both sides of the &gt; conflict , and it is very unlikely that USSR would 've won if it went for quantity alone.Another important factor is that Germany was fighting a multi-front war.On top of that , Hitler diverted significant resources from the German war effort toward the fulfillment of his twisted political agenda.So yeah , there are a lot of reasons why Germany lost.Whereas , with Japan , there was really two reason .
First , they were outmatched , plain and simple .
Japan did not have adequate economic and industrial infrastructure to sustain a long-term conflict against the United States .
Second , their allies lost , which left them going it alone , which is usually not too helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the most significant German advance in firearms during WWII was the "machine pistol", i.e., the assault rifle.
(The name "machine pistol" make sit sound more like a submachine gun, along the lines of the Thompson.
It wasn't.
)&gt; Resource limits did play a part in it, but high tech was used by both sides of the&gt; conflict, and it is very unlikely that USSR would've won if it went for quantity alone.Another important factor is that Germany was fighting a multi-front war.On top of that, Hitler diverted significant resources from the German war effort toward the fulfillment of his twisted political agenda.So yeah, there are a lot of reasons why Germany lost.Whereas, with Japan, there was really two reason.
First, they were outmatched, plain and simple.
Japan did not have adequate economic and industrial infrastructure to sustain a long-term conflict against the United States.
Second, their allies lost, which left them going it alone, which is usually not too helpful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089514</id>
	<title>Re:Launched by catapult?</title>
	<author>Haxzaw</author>
	<datestamp>1258140060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, like the catapults on aircraft carriers.  Similar concept, hence the term catapult.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , like the catapults on aircraft carriers .
Similar concept , hence the term catapult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, like the catapults on aircraft carriers.
Similar concept, hence the term catapult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093220</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Mutatis Mutandis</author>
	<datestamp>1258115460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technologically, the Japanese were not very advanced in the 1930s and 1940s. They were not as far behind as the Western powers had assumed, but they were behind nevertheless. However, they had that wonderful Japanese skill of achieving great results with very little. So if they lacked powerful aircraft engines, they compensated by making their aircraft lighter. There were downsides to that too, but given the available means, the results were very impressive.</p><p>That is why US commanders were surprised by the performance and agility of the A6M 'Zero'. The reports they received did not seem to make sense. They did not expect, and could not understand, that anyone would choose to go to war in a glorified sports aircraft, lightly built and lacking any armour. "An ideal sports aircraft for millionaires" was the verdict of US test pilots, when they got their hands onto one. And actually, they were right --- the vulnerability of the A6M cost the Japanese a lot of pilots they could not replace.</p><p>There is another lesson there. The Japanese knew their opponents could field superior technology, in almost any field, and would do it in superior numbers. They went to war nevertheless, in the belief that they could outsmart the US Navy and that sheer willpower and courage would bring victory. It didn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technologically , the Japanese were not very advanced in the 1930s and 1940s .
They were not as far behind as the Western powers had assumed , but they were behind nevertheless .
However , they had that wonderful Japanese skill of achieving great results with very little .
So if they lacked powerful aircraft engines , they compensated by making their aircraft lighter .
There were downsides to that too , but given the available means , the results were very impressive.That is why US commanders were surprised by the performance and agility of the A6M 'Zero' .
The reports they received did not seem to make sense .
They did not expect , and could not understand , that anyone would choose to go to war in a glorified sports aircraft , lightly built and lacking any armour .
" An ideal sports aircraft for millionaires " was the verdict of US test pilots , when they got their hands onto one .
And actually , they were right --- the vulnerability of the A6M cost the Japanese a lot of pilots they could not replace.There is another lesson there .
The Japanese knew their opponents could field superior technology , in almost any field , and would do it in superior numbers .
They went to war nevertheless , in the belief that they could outsmart the US Navy and that sheer willpower and courage would bring victory .
It did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technologically, the Japanese were not very advanced in the 1930s and 1940s.
They were not as far behind as the Western powers had assumed, but they were behind nevertheless.
However, they had that wonderful Japanese skill of achieving great results with very little.
So if they lacked powerful aircraft engines, they compensated by making their aircraft lighter.
There were downsides to that too, but given the available means, the results were very impressive.That is why US commanders were surprised by the performance and agility of the A6M 'Zero'.
The reports they received did not seem to make sense.
They did not expect, and could not understand, that anyone would choose to go to war in a glorified sports aircraft, lightly built and lacking any armour.
"An ideal sports aircraft for millionaires" was the verdict of US test pilots, when they got their hands onto one.
And actually, they were right --- the vulnerability of the A6M cost the Japanese a lot of pilots they could not replace.There is another lesson there.
The Japanese knew their opponents could field superior technology, in almost any field, and would do it in superior numbers.
They went to war nevertheless, in the belief that they could outsmart the US Navy and that sheer willpower and courage would bring victory.
It didn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30103520</id>
	<title>Re:early stealth subs were german inventions</title>
	<author>virtual\_mps</author>
	<datestamp>1258217940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quiet is important, active sonar resistance is less so. The submarine post WWII was important as a strategic deterrence asset (survivable ICBM platform) whose primary threat was other submarines. Neither the missile subs nor the attack subs were going to be pinging away, as that would be suicidal. One of the problems with the rubber coatings were that they'd come lose and bang on the hull as the flapped around  -- and [i]that[/i] is something to give a modern submariner nightmares. I doubt that the USA and USSR completely ignored the technology, but they definitely had to solve that adhesive problem first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quiet is important , active sonar resistance is less so .
The submarine post WWII was important as a strategic deterrence asset ( survivable ICBM platform ) whose primary threat was other submarines .
Neither the missile subs nor the attack subs were going to be pinging away , as that would be suicidal .
One of the problems with the rubber coatings were that they 'd come lose and bang on the hull as the flapped around -- and [ i ] that [ /i ] is something to give a modern submariner nightmares .
I doubt that the USA and USSR completely ignored the technology , but they definitely had to solve that adhesive problem first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quiet is important, active sonar resistance is less so.
The submarine post WWII was important as a strategic deterrence asset (survivable ICBM platform) whose primary threat was other submarines.
Neither the missile subs nor the attack subs were going to be pinging away, as that would be suicidal.
One of the problems with the rubber coatings were that they'd come lose and bang on the hull as the flapped around  -- and [i]that[/i] is something to give a modern submariner nightmares.
I doubt that the USA and USSR completely ignored the technology, but they definitely had to solve that adhesive problem first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091328</id>
	<title>early stealth subs were german inventions</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1258104360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd never heard before about a Japanese one.  The german u-boat U480 <a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/stealth-submarine-3948/Overview" title="nationalgeographic.com">that was apparently recently re-located</a> [nationalgeographic.com] used <a href="http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3885" title="worldnavalships.com">a rubberized coating intended to absorb sonar</a> [worldnavalships.com] to make it less easy to detect.  Other sources I've read claim it was covered in some sort of polyurethane that, as it cured, developed engineered-size air pockets that were tuned to absorb sonar pulses.  I'm assuming they transferred the technology to Japan, because I've read some about the subject and there's a lot of literature on the German program but I'd never heard about the Japanese one before.  One of the things I found interesting about it was that the USA and USSR sub designers apparently didn't try to develop this sort of technology for another 30 years after WWII, preferring to concentrate on making the subs quieter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd never heard before about a Japanese one .
The german u-boat U480 that was apparently recently re-located [ nationalgeographic.com ] used a rubberized coating intended to absorb sonar [ worldnavalships.com ] to make it less easy to detect .
Other sources I 've read claim it was covered in some sort of polyurethane that , as it cured , developed engineered-size air pockets that were tuned to absorb sonar pulses .
I 'm assuming they transferred the technology to Japan , because I 've read some about the subject and there 's a lot of literature on the German program but I 'd never heard about the Japanese one before .
One of the things I found interesting about it was that the USA and USSR sub designers apparently did n't try to develop this sort of technology for another 30 years after WWII , preferring to concentrate on making the subs quieter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd never heard before about a Japanese one.
The german u-boat U480 that was apparently recently re-located [nationalgeographic.com] used a rubberized coating intended to absorb sonar [worldnavalships.com] to make it less easy to detect.
Other sources I've read claim it was covered in some sort of polyurethane that, as it cured, developed engineered-size air pockets that were tuned to absorb sonar pulses.
I'm assuming they transferred the technology to Japan, because I've read some about the subject and there's a lot of literature on the German program but I'd never heard about the Japanese one before.
One of the things I found interesting about it was that the USA and USSR sub designers apparently didn't try to develop this sort of technology for another 30 years after WWII, preferring to concentrate on making the subs quieter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090658</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258144500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Allies also had plenty of leading edge technology. It is hard to have a consistent edge across the entire spectrum. The Allies had more advanced technology in certain areas such as the cavity magnetron for radar, strategic bombers such as the B-17, Avro Lancaster and B-29, fighter aircraft such as the Spitfire, tanks such as the T-34 and IS-2, Bazooka, Katyusha MLRS, code breaking such as ULTRA and MAGIC intercepts. Victory at the Battle of Midway was possible because the USA knew of the attack beforehand from code breaking for example.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Allies also had plenty of leading edge technology .
It is hard to have a consistent edge across the entire spectrum .
The Allies had more advanced technology in certain areas such as the cavity magnetron for radar , strategic bombers such as the B-17 , Avro Lancaster and B-29 , fighter aircraft such as the Spitfire , tanks such as the T-34 and IS-2 , Bazooka , Katyusha MLRS , code breaking such as ULTRA and MAGIC intercepts .
Victory at the Battle of Midway was possible because the USA knew of the attack beforehand from code breaking for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Allies also had plenty of leading edge technology.
It is hard to have a consistent edge across the entire spectrum.
The Allies had more advanced technology in certain areas such as the cavity magnetron for radar, strategic bombers such as the B-17, Avro Lancaster and B-29, fighter aircraft such as the Spitfire, tanks such as the T-34 and IS-2, Bazooka, Katyusha MLRS, code breaking such as ULTRA and MAGIC intercepts.
Victory at the Battle of Midway was possible because the USA knew of the attack beforehand from code breaking for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091284</id>
	<title>Re:Wha?</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1258104180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As Stalin once said, quantity has a quality of its own. It's great it you can produce one tank that will kill five of the enemy's; until of course your enemy starts producing six tanks for every one of yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Stalin once said , quantity has a quality of its own .
It 's great it you can produce one tank that will kill five of the enemy 's ; until of course your enemy starts producing six tanks for every one of yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Stalin once said, quantity has a quality of its own.
It's great it you can produce one tank that will kill five of the enemy's; until of course your enemy starts producing six tanks for every one of yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090438</id>
	<title>Hiroshima and Nagasaki</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1258143540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And we're supposed to feel bad about nuking the Japanese to end the war?</p><p>Fuck them.  If they didn't want to die, the didn't have to attack us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And we 're supposed to feel bad about nuking the Japanese to end the war ? Fuck them .
If they did n't want to die , the did n't have to attack us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we're supposed to feel bad about nuking the Japanese to end the war?Fuck them.
If they didn't want to die, the didn't have to attack us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090968</id>
	<title>it comes from japan</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1258102800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the world capital of porn production and general weirdness of all varieties</p><p>so its not surprising</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the world capital of porn production and general weirdness of all varietiesso its not surprising</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the world capital of porn production and general weirdness of all varietiesso its not surprising</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089500</id>
	<title>Disappointed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258140000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I first read this headline, I thought they had located the missing midget submarine used to attack Pearl Harbor. (See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko-hyoteki\_class\_submarine#Pearl\_Harbor\_attack" title="wikipedia.org">this</a> [wikipedia.org]) This is not the case. That ship still remains lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first read this headline , I thought they had located the missing midget submarine used to attack Pearl Harbor .
( See this [ wikipedia.org ] ) This is not the case .
That ship still remains lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first read this headline, I thought they had located the missing midget submarine used to attack Pearl Harbor.
(See this [wikipedia.org]) This is not the case.
That ship still remains lost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089696</id>
	<title>Re:Launched by catapult?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258140840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A deck catapult is more of a linear accelerator. Not very much used now-- see CATOBAR</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A deck catapult is more of a linear accelerator .
Not very much used now-- see CATOBAR</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A deck catapult is more of a linear accelerator.
Not very much used now-- see CATOBAR</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090500</id>
	<title>Re:Tour a sub.</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1258143780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget to check out the Blackwater Holding Compartments.</p><p>Just uh.. be aware that it may not mean what you think it means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget to check out the Blackwater Holding Compartments.Just uh.. be aware that it may not mean what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget to check out the Blackwater Holding Compartments.Just uh.. be aware that it may not mean what you think it means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091228</id>
	<title>I have claustrophobia</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1258103940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You insensitive clod. Just thinking about being under the Arctic ice in a metal tube makes me think that perhaps there is a case for encouraging global warming after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You insensitive clod .
Just thinking about being under the Arctic ice in a metal tube makes me think that perhaps there is a case for encouraging global warming after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You insensitive clod.
Just thinking about being under the Arctic ice in a metal tube makes me think that perhaps there is a case for encouraging global warming after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30096656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30101170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30100638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30095980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30101340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30101868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30103520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30099140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30094000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1524249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1524249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1524249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1524249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089902
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090658
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092024
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30101170
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092962
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30101868
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092162
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30101340
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30093578
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30094000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1524249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1524249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30092254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1524249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1524249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30095980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30099140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1524249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30103520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1524249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1524249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30100638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30096656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30090410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30091072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1524249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30089788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1524249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1524249.30095198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
