<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_13_1545245</id>
	<title>The Math of a Fly's Eye May Prove Useful</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258128480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>cunniff writes <i>"Wired Magazine points us to recent research that demonstrates an <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/fly-eyes/">algorithm derived from the actual biological implementation of fly vision</a> (<a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info\%3Adoi\%2F10.1371\%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000555">PLoS paper</a> here). Quoting the paper: 'Here we present a model with multiple levels of non-linear dynamic adaptive components based directly on the known or suspected responses of neurons within the visual motion pathway of the fly brain. By testing the model under realistic high-dynamic range conditions we show that the addition of these elements makes the motion detection model robust across a large variety of images, velocities and accelerations.' The researchers claim that 'The implementation of this new algorithm could provide a very useful and robust velocity estimator for artificial navigation systems.' Additionally, the paper describes the algorithm as extremely simple, capable of being implemented on very small and power-efficient processors. Best of all, the entire paper is public and hosted via a service that allows authenticated users to give feedback."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>cunniff writes " Wired Magazine points us to recent research that demonstrates an algorithm derived from the actual biological implementation of fly vision ( PLoS paper here ) .
Quoting the paper : 'Here we present a model with multiple levels of non-linear dynamic adaptive components based directly on the known or suspected responses of neurons within the visual motion pathway of the fly brain .
By testing the model under realistic high-dynamic range conditions we show that the addition of these elements makes the motion detection model robust across a large variety of images , velocities and accelerations .
' The researchers claim that 'The implementation of this new algorithm could provide a very useful and robust velocity estimator for artificial navigation systems .
' Additionally , the paper describes the algorithm as extremely simple , capable of being implemented on very small and power-efficient processors .
Best of all , the entire paper is public and hosted via a service that allows authenticated users to give feedback .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cunniff writes "Wired Magazine points us to recent research that demonstrates an algorithm derived from the actual biological implementation of fly vision (PLoS paper here).
Quoting the paper: 'Here we present a model with multiple levels of non-linear dynamic adaptive components based directly on the known or suspected responses of neurons within the visual motion pathway of the fly brain.
By testing the model under realistic high-dynamic range conditions we show that the addition of these elements makes the motion detection model robust across a large variety of images, velocities and accelerations.
' The researchers claim that 'The implementation of this new algorithm could provide a very useful and robust velocity estimator for artificial navigation systems.
' Additionally, the paper describes the algorithm as extremely simple, capable of being implemented on very small and power-efficient processors.
Best of all, the entire paper is public and hosted via a service that allows authenticated users to give feedback.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30095790</id>
	<title>New Kind of Computer Science</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1258189560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this must be the first of a new kind of computer science.
Reverse engineer something from even an insect brain to
create a computer program, is completely new to me. As
you can see from the diagram, this is very different to the
neural networks some AI researchers (but no biologists)
claim mimic the human brain. It does look like an evolved
algorithm, in the sense that works very well and efficiently
but there no obvious design or understanding of how it
works.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/AI/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">AI</a> [feeddistiller.com] feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this must be the first of a new kind of computer science .
Reverse engineer something from even an insect brain to create a computer program , is completely new to me .
As you can see from the diagram , this is very different to the neural networks some AI researchers ( but no biologists ) claim mimic the human brain .
It does look like an evolved algorithm , in the sense that works very well and efficiently but there no obvious design or understanding of how it works .
--- AI [ feeddistiller.com ] feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this must be the first of a new kind of computer science.
Reverse engineer something from even an insect brain to
create a computer program, is completely new to me.
As
you can see from the diagram, this is very different to the
neural networks some AI researchers (but no biologists)
claim mimic the human brain.
It does look like an evolved
algorithm, in the sense that works very well and efficiently
but there no obvious design or understanding of how it
works.
---

AI [feeddistiller.com] feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088724</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1258137120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stupid? They're multiple non-linear equations interacting with each other. The people who came up with the algorithms themselves state that they don't understand the full effects of the algorithms. They know that they work, they know if they remove parts of the algorithm they stop working nearly as well, but they can't predict the output from the input.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid ?
They 're multiple non-linear equations interacting with each other .
The people who came up with the algorithms themselves state that they do n't understand the full effects of the algorithms .
They know that they work , they know if they remove parts of the algorithm they stop working nearly as well , but they ca n't predict the output from the input .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid?
They're multiple non-linear equations interacting with each other.
The people who came up with the algorithms themselves state that they don't understand the full effects of the algorithms.
They know that they work, they know if they remove parts of the algorithm they stop working nearly as well, but they can't predict the output from the input.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089544</id>
	<title>Re:A good read...</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1258140180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It got stuck after they wrote their fly paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It got stuck after they wrote their fly paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It got stuck after they wrote their fly paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30091692</id>
	<title>Don't understand how it works</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1258106220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We've implemented this algorithm in several autonomous flying surveillance vehicles. While it appears to work adequately, we're still trying to determine why the only thing they manage to locate is cow shit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've implemented this algorithm in several autonomous flying surveillance vehicles .
While it appears to work adequately , we 're still trying to determine why the only thing they manage to locate is cow shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've implemented this algorithm in several autonomous flying surveillance vehicles.
While it appears to work adequately, we're still trying to determine why the only thing they manage to locate is cow shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30090142</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1258142460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be also interested in determining which stimulus can trick even fly system...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be also interested in determining which stimulus can trick even fly system.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be also interested in determining which stimulus can trick even fly system...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30090540</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1258143960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find it unimaginable that people would attempt to implement a technology that is not fully understood.</p></div><p>This is precisely why this kind of algorithm has remained undiscovered over such a long period of time that people have begun to speculate that the human brain employs a quantum magician behind the curtain.  Not so.  We're just slow on the uptake.  (I find this amazing: against the backdrop of our intellectual failings, we manufacture glory for our miraculous cognition.)</p><p>Compositions of non-linear components tend to defy traditional explanation.  We've done a pretty good job of mining the ore where our preferred mode of understanding serves us well.  This campaign is presently stuck in the mud halfway between chess and Go: computers rule the chess trench, neurons rule the Go trench; there's a large no man's land in between, with the computers gaining a few hundred yards a year, though we don't yet know how far apart these trenches lie.  Reminds me of the quote: "Never mistake a clear view for a short distance." -- Paul Saffo.</p><p>There seems to be a wide range of applications remaining where mother nature--unhindered by our need to shoehorn systems into our preferred mode of explanation--gets better results at less expenditure.  The most interesting feature of this discovery is that it computes well within our existing computational regime.  A computational factor of 10,000 means that this algorithm running on a 486 circa 1990 would not have been out of the question (see also: slow uptake; we had the hardware, no one knew how to best use it).</p><p>There's a lot we don't yet understand about non-linear systems.  I'm not in the camp where I throw up my hands and go "this is so difficult, the best we can do is discover these systems through content-free genetic algorithms".  There's an entire intellectual discipline yet to be established half-way between our traditional mode of analysis (understanding things before we build them) and content-free genetic algorithms.</p><p>The deep work lies at the bionic boundary: how to interface the analytic system (in chess, this is tree search) with non-linear systems (inspired by neurological models or other forms of stochastic algorithm) to get a result greater than the sum of its parts.  It's extremely difficult to synthesize the opaque, so this should present some gnarly challenges.</p><p>BTW: Kurweil has been projecting great progress in reverse engineering human neurology for quite a while.  He usually hauls out as his example some work by Lloyd Watts (and others, I'm sure).  This paper covers a lot of ground in acoustics and vision.</p><p><a href="http://www.members.nae.edu/nae/naefoe.nsf/d9b815afdd95a32485256ed30004506a/862570b60074eda88625721a0050fdad/$FILE/watts.pdf" title="nae.edu">Commercializing Auditory Neuroscience</a> [nae.edu]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it unimaginable that people would attempt to implement a technology that is not fully understood.This is precisely why this kind of algorithm has remained undiscovered over such a long period of time that people have begun to speculate that the human brain employs a quantum magician behind the curtain .
Not so .
We 're just slow on the uptake .
( I find this amazing : against the backdrop of our intellectual failings , we manufacture glory for our miraculous cognition .
) Compositions of non-linear components tend to defy traditional explanation .
We 've done a pretty good job of mining the ore where our preferred mode of understanding serves us well .
This campaign is presently stuck in the mud halfway between chess and Go : computers rule the chess trench , neurons rule the Go trench ; there 's a large no man 's land in between , with the computers gaining a few hundred yards a year , though we do n't yet know how far apart these trenches lie .
Reminds me of the quote : " Never mistake a clear view for a short distance .
" -- Paul Saffo.There seems to be a wide range of applications remaining where mother nature--unhindered by our need to shoehorn systems into our preferred mode of explanation--gets better results at less expenditure .
The most interesting feature of this discovery is that it computes well within our existing computational regime .
A computational factor of 10,000 means that this algorithm running on a 486 circa 1990 would not have been out of the question ( see also : slow uptake ; we had the hardware , no one knew how to best use it ) .There 's a lot we do n't yet understand about non-linear systems .
I 'm not in the camp where I throw up my hands and go " this is so difficult , the best we can do is discover these systems through content-free genetic algorithms " .
There 's an entire intellectual discipline yet to be established half-way between our traditional mode of analysis ( understanding things before we build them ) and content-free genetic algorithms.The deep work lies at the bionic boundary : how to interface the analytic system ( in chess , this is tree search ) with non-linear systems ( inspired by neurological models or other forms of stochastic algorithm ) to get a result greater than the sum of its parts .
It 's extremely difficult to synthesize the opaque , so this should present some gnarly challenges.BTW : Kurweil has been projecting great progress in reverse engineering human neurology for quite a while .
He usually hauls out as his example some work by Lloyd Watts ( and others , I 'm sure ) .
This paper covers a lot of ground in acoustics and vision.Commercializing Auditory Neuroscience [ nae.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it unimaginable that people would attempt to implement a technology that is not fully understood.This is precisely why this kind of algorithm has remained undiscovered over such a long period of time that people have begun to speculate that the human brain employs a quantum magician behind the curtain.
Not so.
We're just slow on the uptake.
(I find this amazing: against the backdrop of our intellectual failings, we manufacture glory for our miraculous cognition.
)Compositions of non-linear components tend to defy traditional explanation.
We've done a pretty good job of mining the ore where our preferred mode of understanding serves us well.
This campaign is presently stuck in the mud halfway between chess and Go: computers rule the chess trench, neurons rule the Go trench; there's a large no man's land in between, with the computers gaining a few hundred yards a year, though we don't yet know how far apart these trenches lie.
Reminds me of the quote: "Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
" -- Paul Saffo.There seems to be a wide range of applications remaining where mother nature--unhindered by our need to shoehorn systems into our preferred mode of explanation--gets better results at less expenditure.
The most interesting feature of this discovery is that it computes well within our existing computational regime.
A computational factor of 10,000 means that this algorithm running on a 486 circa 1990 would not have been out of the question (see also: slow uptake; we had the hardware, no one knew how to best use it).There's a lot we don't yet understand about non-linear systems.
I'm not in the camp where I throw up my hands and go "this is so difficult, the best we can do is discover these systems through content-free genetic algorithms".
There's an entire intellectual discipline yet to be established half-way between our traditional mode of analysis (understanding things before we build them) and content-free genetic algorithms.The deep work lies at the bionic boundary: how to interface the analytic system (in chess, this is tree search) with non-linear systems (inspired by neurological models or other forms of stochastic algorithm) to get a result greater than the sum of its parts.
It's extremely difficult to synthesize the opaque, so this should present some gnarly challenges.BTW: Kurweil has been projecting great progress in reverse engineering human neurology for quite a while.
He usually hauls out as his example some work by Lloyd Watts (and others, I'm sure).
This paper covers a lot of ground in acoustics and vision.Commercializing Auditory Neuroscience [nae.edu]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087846</id>
	<title>isn't the design of the fly's eye a marvel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The engineering behind this design is positively marvelous!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The engineering behind this design is positively marvelous !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The engineering behind this design is positively marvelous!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087954</id>
	<title>So easy a fly can do it?</title>
	<author>quercus.aeternam</author>
	<datestamp>1258133520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't even know how it works!  Cue ominous music...</p><p>So, how about that for borrowing work?  Rely on biological optimizations that have undergone hundreds of millions of generations with billions of test configurations!</p><p>In general, I don't see that this can generally be applied to CS, due to the implicitly parallel nature of biology, but I guess this case must not be too bad.</p><p>At any rate, TFA is fairly interesting - even the wired report is fairly informative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't even know how it works !
Cue ominous music...So , how about that for borrowing work ?
Rely on biological optimizations that have undergone hundreds of millions of generations with billions of test configurations ! In general , I do n't see that this can generally be applied to CS , due to the implicitly parallel nature of biology , but I guess this case must not be too bad.At any rate , TFA is fairly interesting - even the wired report is fairly informative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't even know how it works!
Cue ominous music...So, how about that for borrowing work?
Rely on biological optimizations that have undergone hundreds of millions of generations with billions of test configurations!In general, I don't see that this can generally be applied to CS, due to the implicitly parallel nature of biology, but I guess this case must not be too bad.At any rate, TFA is fairly interesting - even the wired report is fairly informative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087990</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1258133700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's not flying airplanes full of people. They've copied a system that seems to work well, and they are testing it for ultra-small UAVs. They'll get a better idea of how it works then.
</p><p>There are many things people have used throughout history without understanding how they work. Salt preservation is ancient, but we didn't discover the bacteria it kills until the last 200 years.
</p><p>Sometimes, "works" is good enough. And works often leads to understands.
</p><p>I think this is really cool. We've been trying to do this kind of thing for years. The fly does it with a tiny-micro-fraction of the resources we were using, and does a much MUCH better job. By testing this system, perhaps we'll find out WHY our systems are tricked by certain stimulus and this one isn't.
</p><p>It's not like they put a bunch of stuff together and said "this works, as far as we can tell", they took a proven system and copied it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's not flying airplanes full of people .
They 've copied a system that seems to work well , and they are testing it for ultra-small UAVs .
They 'll get a better idea of how it works then .
There are many things people have used throughout history without understanding how they work .
Salt preservation is ancient , but we did n't discover the bacteria it kills until the last 200 years .
Sometimes , " works " is good enough .
And works often leads to understands .
I think this is really cool .
We 've been trying to do this kind of thing for years .
The fly does it with a tiny-micro-fraction of the resources we were using , and does a much MUCH better job .
By testing this system , perhaps we 'll find out WHY our systems are tricked by certain stimulus and this one is n't .
It 's not like they put a bunch of stuff together and said " this works , as far as we can tell " , they took a proven system and copied it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's not flying airplanes full of people.
They've copied a system that seems to work well, and they are testing it for ultra-small UAVs.
They'll get a better idea of how it works then.
There are many things people have used throughout history without understanding how they work.
Salt preservation is ancient, but we didn't discover the bacteria it kills until the last 200 years.
Sometimes, "works" is good enough.
And works often leads to understands.
I think this is really cool.
We've been trying to do this kind of thing for years.
The fly does it with a tiny-micro-fraction of the resources we were using, and does a much MUCH better job.
By testing this system, perhaps we'll find out WHY our systems are tricked by certain stimulus and this one isn't.
It's not like they put a bunch of stuff together and said "this works, as far as we can tell", they took a proven system and copied it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30092170</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1258108740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking of airplanes, I don't fully understand how the pilot converts sensory input to control surface instructions, and I'm certain that there are many cases where the pilot's reaction will be absolutely the worst thing possible.  Still, the risk is worth it when you consider the alternative of not having high-speed continental or global travel.</p><p>The bar of plugging something in instead of a pilot is not at "do we understand what it will do in all circumstances" but the much more attainable, "will it perform at least as well as all pilots have."  If the fly-brain neural-net software can be prevented from consuming the software equivalent of alcohol, that's a very low bar to reach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of airplanes , I do n't fully understand how the pilot converts sensory input to control surface instructions , and I 'm certain that there are many cases where the pilot 's reaction will be absolutely the worst thing possible .
Still , the risk is worth it when you consider the alternative of not having high-speed continental or global travel.The bar of plugging something in instead of a pilot is not at " do we understand what it will do in all circumstances " but the much more attainable , " will it perform at least as well as all pilots have .
" If the fly-brain neural-net software can be prevented from consuming the software equivalent of alcohol , that 's a very low bar to reach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of airplanes, I don't fully understand how the pilot converts sensory input to control surface instructions, and I'm certain that there are many cases where the pilot's reaction will be absolutely the worst thing possible.
Still, the risk is worth it when you consider the alternative of not having high-speed continental or global travel.The bar of plugging something in instead of a pilot is not at "do we understand what it will do in all circumstances" but the much more attainable, "will it perform at least as well as all pilots have.
"  If the fly-brain neural-net software can be prevented from consuming the software equivalent of alcohol, that's a very low bar to reach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30095306</id>
	<title>"capable of being implemented on very small ...</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1258137600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and power-efficienct processors."</p><p>Given the inspiration for the algorithm, why would this be so surprising?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and power-efficienct processors .
" Given the inspiration for the algorithm , why would this be so surprising ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and power-efficienct processors.
"Given the inspiration for the algorithm, why would this be so surprising?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088408</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258135920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At a deep level, how does invisible tape (a.k.a. Scotch tape) work?  Why does the goo on the tape stick to the surface it is applied to?</p><p>People found that they could apply goo to a surface and it stuck there.  They had no idea why...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At a deep level , how does invisible tape ( a.k.a .
Scotch tape ) work ?
Why does the goo on the tape stick to the surface it is applied to ? People found that they could apply goo to a surface and it stuck there .
They had no idea why.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At a deep level, how does invisible tape (a.k.a.
Scotch tape) work?
Why does the goo on the tape stick to the surface it is applied to?People found that they could apply goo to a surface and it stuck there.
They had no idea why...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088930</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>puthan</author>
	<datestamp>1258138020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  Since the makes refers to the model and not to the elements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Since the makes refers to the model and not to the elements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Since the makes refers to the model and not to the elements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087834</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1258132920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, this will allow hyper-realistic modeling of fly motion with less processor overhead for the next Modern Warfare game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this will allow hyper-realistic modeling of fly motion with less processor overhead for the next Modern Warfare game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this will allow hyper-realistic modeling of fly motion with less processor overhead for the next Modern Warfare game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088916</id>
	<title>Re:Thousand scientists in a room with a typewriter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258137960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't need to know how the chemistry of combustion works to be able to use it to make a fire to cook food, generate light and heat for my shelter, and so on.  Fire was not well understood as a chemical process until relatively recently; certainly not until after the discovery of oxygen in the 1770s.</p><p>It frustrates nerds to no end, but "why" is often a pretty useless question to ask in the grand scheme of things:<br>"The hard drive seems to have failed."<br>"Why?"<br>"I could answer that with a level 4 clean room and a team of investigators, or I could just replace it for $80."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need to know how the chemistry of combustion works to be able to use it to make a fire to cook food , generate light and heat for my shelter , and so on .
Fire was not well understood as a chemical process until relatively recently ; certainly not until after the discovery of oxygen in the 1770s.It frustrates nerds to no end , but " why " is often a pretty useless question to ask in the grand scheme of things : " The hard drive seems to have failed. " " Why ?
" " I could answer that with a level 4 clean room and a team of investigators , or I could just replace it for $ 80 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need to know how the chemistry of combustion works to be able to use it to make a fire to cook food, generate light and heat for my shelter, and so on.
Fire was not well understood as a chemical process until relatively recently; certainly not until after the discovery of oxygen in the 1770s.It frustrates nerds to no end, but "why" is often a pretty useless question to ask in the grand scheme of things:"The hard drive seems to have failed.""Why?
""I could answer that with a level 4 clean room and a team of investigators, or I could just replace it for $80.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30090292</id>
	<title>Or dragonflies...</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1258143120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should have all this stuff implemented also relatively easily, I guess, and they appear quite "ultimate" when it comes to perception in bugs.</p><p>I seem to remember they follow some impressive flight pattern when pursuing their prey - first remaining stationary in relation to background image perceived by prey, and then, in final moments, stationary in relation to vision of prey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should have all this stuff implemented also relatively easily , I guess , and they appear quite " ultimate " when it comes to perception in bugs.I seem to remember they follow some impressive flight pattern when pursuing their prey - first remaining stationary in relation to background image perceived by prey , and then , in final moments , stationary in relation to vision of prey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should have all this stuff implemented also relatively easily, I guess, and they appear quite "ultimate" when it comes to perception in bugs.I seem to remember they follow some impressive flight pattern when pursuing their prey - first remaining stationary in relation to background image perceived by prey, and then, in final moments, stationary in relation to vision of prey.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089232</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1258139220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lemonj'ello, this is the most realistic game I have ever seen.  Its like bin Laden and al Zwahiri in person.</p><p>Watch it, NanoCommando, that's military; its not a game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lemonj'ello , this is the most realistic game I have ever seen .
Its like bin Laden and al Zwahiri in person.Watch it , NanoCommando , that 's military ; its not a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lemonj'ello, this is the most realistic game I have ever seen.
Its like bin Laden and al Zwahiri in person.Watch it, NanoCommando, that's military; its not a game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087918</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1258133400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why isn't it modded off-topic? So we don't know everything for sure about how a fly's brain works, but it doesn't matter, because we're looking at them for inspiration for the algorithms actually implemented, which we actually understand. No one's stupid enough to not understand their own algorithms, at least not at that level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't it modded off-topic ?
So we do n't know everything for sure about how a fly 's brain works , but it does n't matter , because we 're looking at them for inspiration for the algorithms actually implemented , which we actually understand .
No one 's stupid enough to not understand their own algorithms , at least not at that level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't it modded off-topic?
So we don't know everything for sure about how a fly's brain works, but it doesn't matter, because we're looking at them for inspiration for the algorithms actually implemented, which we actually understand.
No one's stupid enough to not understand their own algorithms, at least not at that level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30091514</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>middlemen</author>
	<datestamp>1258105260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find it unimaginable that people would attempt to implement a technology that is not fully understood.  Doing so will eventually yield unexpected results or at the very least, results that cannot be explained.</p></div><p>

Yes, as we can see very well in the financial industry today. "Algorithms" and complex "trading strategies" implemented without understanding the fundamentals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it unimaginable that people would attempt to implement a technology that is not fully understood .
Doing so will eventually yield unexpected results or at the very least , results that can not be explained .
Yes , as we can see very well in the financial industry today .
" Algorithms " and complex " trading strategies " implemented without understanding the fundamentals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it unimaginable that people would attempt to implement a technology that is not fully understood.
Doing so will eventually yield unexpected results or at the very least, results that cannot be explained.
Yes, as we can see very well in the financial industry today.
"Algorithms" and complex "trading strategies" implemented without understanding the fundamentals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088064</id>
	<title>A good read...</title>
	<author>CockMonster</author>
	<datestamp>1258133940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But where's the source code???</htmltext>
<tokenext>But where 's the source code ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But where's the source code??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088986</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258138260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the contrary, no single person on earth fully understands even the most mundane, common-place things around us.  See, for example, the essay <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/I,\_Pencil" title="wikisource.org" rel="nofollow">"I, Pencil"</a> [wikisource.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the contrary , no single person on earth fully understands even the most mundane , common-place things around us .
See , for example , the essay " I , Pencil " [ wikisource.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the contrary, no single person on earth fully understands even the most mundane, common-place things around us.
See, for example, the essay "I, Pencil" [wikisource.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088040</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>Nobo</author>
	<datestamp>1258133820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A <i>scientist</i> says, "This works, but I don't know why, How do I complete the theory?"<br>An <i>engineer</i> says, "This works, but I don't know why.  How do I use it to build something that does what I want?"<br>A <i>good engineer</i> says, "This works, but I don't know why.  How do I use it to build something that does what I want..  And, in what domain does my model break down and how do I make sure I don't get my system into that domain?"</p><p>Sizable chunks of control theory, frequency analysis, and some other core theoretical components of what we now consider to be solid engineering work were being <i>applied</i> long before the theoretical basis behind them was solidly <i>proven</i> to be correct from a pure mathematical standpoint.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A scientist says , " This works , but I do n't know why , How do I complete the theory ?
" An engineer says , " This works , but I do n't know why .
How do I use it to build something that does what I want ?
" A good engineer says , " This works , but I do n't know why .
How do I use it to build something that does what I want.. And , in what domain does my model break down and how do I make sure I do n't get my system into that domain ?
" Sizable chunks of control theory , frequency analysis , and some other core theoretical components of what we now consider to be solid engineering work were being applied long before the theoretical basis behind them was solidly proven to be correct from a pure mathematical standpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A scientist says, "This works, but I don't know why, How do I complete the theory?
"An engineer says, "This works, but I don't know why.
How do I use it to build something that does what I want?
"A good engineer says, "This works, but I don't know why.
How do I use it to build something that does what I want..  And, in what domain does my model break down and how do I make sure I don't get my system into that domain?
"Sizable chunks of control theory, frequency analysis, and some other core theoretical components of what we now consider to be solid engineering work were being applied long before the theoretical basis behind them was solidly proven to be correct from a pure mathematical standpoint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30092202</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know about bees?</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1258108980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any explanation for why moths fly into anything and everything?  It's especially irritating when living in a warm climate with moths the size of small cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any explanation for why moths fly into anything and everything ?
It 's especially irritating when living in a warm climate with moths the size of small cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any explanation for why moths fly into anything and everything?
It's especially irritating when living in a warm climate with moths the size of small cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088602</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it...</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1258136760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>so will we finally be able to predict where the fly will be so that way we can swat them? or is this just a good excuse for doing some mathing?</p></div><p>If landed, swat from behind aiming above the fly (from its perspective). The instinctive reaction to a moving threat from behind is to take off upwards and forwards, which is directly into the path of the swat if you judge it right. This beats the fly's reactions (which are far faster than yours) by aiming where it is likely to be at the time, not where it is as you start your attack swing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so will we finally be able to predict where the fly will be so that way we can swat them ?
or is this just a good excuse for doing some mathing ? If landed , swat from behind aiming above the fly ( from its perspective ) .
The instinctive reaction to a moving threat from behind is to take off upwards and forwards , which is directly into the path of the swat if you judge it right .
This beats the fly 's reactions ( which are far faster than yours ) by aiming where it is likely to be at the time , not where it is as you start your attack swing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so will we finally be able to predict where the fly will be so that way we can swat them?
or is this just a good excuse for doing some mathing?If landed, swat from behind aiming above the fly (from its perspective).
The instinctive reaction to a moving threat from behind is to take off upwards and forwards, which is directly into the path of the swat if you judge it right.
This beats the fly's reactions (which are far faster than yours) by aiming where it is likely to be at the time, not where it is as you start your attack swing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088388</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258135680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here we present a model with multiple levels of non-linear dynamic adaptive components based directly on the known or suspected responses of neurons within the visual motion pathway of the fly brain. By testing the model under realistic high-dynamic range conditions we show that the addition of these elements makes the motion detection model robust across a large variety of images, velocities and accelerations</p></div><p>Did anyone else's head hurt after reading that?</p><p>Shouldn't "these elements makes" drop the last 's'?  If so, what a dumbass.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we present a model with multiple levels of non-linear dynamic adaptive components based directly on the known or suspected responses of neurons within the visual motion pathway of the fly brain .
By testing the model under realistic high-dynamic range conditions we show that the addition of these elements makes the motion detection model robust across a large variety of images , velocities and accelerationsDid anyone else 's head hurt after reading that ? Should n't " these elements makes " drop the last 's ' ?
If so , what a dumbass .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we present a model with multiple levels of non-linear dynamic adaptive components based directly on the known or suspected responses of neurons within the visual motion pathway of the fly brain.
By testing the model under realistic high-dynamic range conditions we show that the addition of these elements makes the motion detection model robust across a large variety of images, velocities and accelerationsDid anyone else's head hurt after reading that?Shouldn't "these elements makes" drop the last 's'?
If so, what a dumbass.
;)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087742</id>
	<title>I don't get it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>so will we finally be able to predict where the fly will be so that way we can swat them? or is this just a good excuse for doing some mathing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>so will we finally be able to predict where the fly will be so that way we can swat them ?
or is this just a good excuse for doing some mathing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so will we finally be able to predict where the fly will be so that way we can swat them?
or is this just a good excuse for doing some mathing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30144694</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you think we got from caves to skyscrapers?</p><p>Do you think the Chinese had the slightest clue as to how or why gunpowder worked?  No.</p><p>Did they know how or why rockets worked?  No.</p><p>Did the first boaters have a detailed understanding of buoyancy?  No.</p><p>Ad infinitum...</p><p>I am sure others can come up with much better examples and our advancement is chock full of such things.  The guy on the scene observes and notes that if A and B are merged C happens...which is cool as hell (or sometimes, to be avoided!)  He can reproduce the result on demand; he can profit from it; he can kill with it...yet, he has zero understanding of the underlying processes.</p><p>It drives some people nuts to not know how it works...others could care less as long as it kills, profits, or entertains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you think we got from caves to skyscrapers ? Do you think the Chinese had the slightest clue as to how or why gunpowder worked ?
No.Did they know how or why rockets worked ?
No.Did the first boaters have a detailed understanding of buoyancy ?
No.Ad infinitum...I am sure others can come up with much better examples and our advancement is chock full of such things .
The guy on the scene observes and notes that if A and B are merged C happens...which is cool as hell ( or sometimes , to be avoided !
) He can reproduce the result on demand ; he can profit from it ; he can kill with it...yet , he has zero understanding of the underlying processes.It drives some people nuts to not know how it works...others could care less as long as it kills , profits , or entertains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you think we got from caves to skyscrapers?Do you think the Chinese had the slightest clue as to how or why gunpowder worked?
No.Did they know how or why rockets worked?
No.Did the first boaters have a detailed understanding of buoyancy?
No.Ad infinitum...I am sure others can come up with much better examples and our advancement is chock full of such things.
The guy on the scene observes and notes that if A and B are merged C happens...which is cool as hell (or sometimes, to be avoided!
)  He can reproduce the result on demand; he can profit from it; he can kill with it...yet, he has zero understanding of the underlying processes.It drives some people nuts to not know how it works...others could care less as long as it kills, profits, or entertains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089510</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258140060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they took a proven system and copied it.</p></div><p>Too bad the IBOAA (Insect Bio-Optic Association of America) is sending them a DMCA take-down as we speak.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they took a proven system and copied it.Too bad the IBOAA ( Insect Bio-Optic Association of America ) is sending them a DMCA take-down as we speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they took a proven system and copied it.Too bad the IBOAA (Insect Bio-Optic Association of America) is sending them a DMCA take-down as we speak.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30154020</id>
	<title>Re:Anyone know about bees?</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1258624500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any explanation for why moths fly into anything and everything?  It's especially irritating when living in a warm climate with moths the size of small cars.</p></div><p>Pretty simple, actually. They navigate using the moon as a reference point, since it's essentially a directional light. In order to fly straight, they keep the moon at a particular point in their field of vision. Sadly, when the brightest object in their field of view is a light bulb, keeping it in the same position in their field of view results in them spiralling madly around and towards it.

<br> <br>So moths don't really like bright lights, candle flames etc. Lights just screw with their navigation system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any explanation for why moths fly into anything and everything ?
It 's especially irritating when living in a warm climate with moths the size of small cars.Pretty simple , actually .
They navigate using the moon as a reference point , since it 's essentially a directional light .
In order to fly straight , they keep the moon at a particular point in their field of vision .
Sadly , when the brightest object in their field of view is a light bulb , keeping it in the same position in their field of view results in them spiralling madly around and towards it .
So moths do n't really like bright lights , candle flames etc .
Lights just screw with their navigation system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any explanation for why moths fly into anything and everything?
It's especially irritating when living in a warm climate with moths the size of small cars.Pretty simple, actually.
They navigate using the moon as a reference point, since it's essentially a directional light.
In order to fly straight, they keep the moon at a particular point in their field of vision.
Sadly, when the brightest object in their field of view is a light bulb, keeping it in the same position in their field of view results in them spiralling madly around and towards it.
So moths don't really like bright lights, candle flames etc.
Lights just screw with their navigation system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30092202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089382</id>
	<title>RMS Error</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258139640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Region or feature based matching. Such techniques normally involve maximizing a cross-correlation or minimizing a difference measure such as the RMS error".</p><p>I wonder if they mean the eating-crap-out-of-your-toes error.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Region or feature based matching .
Such techniques normally involve maximizing a cross-correlation or minimizing a difference measure such as the RMS error " .I wonder if they mean the eating-crap-out-of-your-toes error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Region or feature based matching.
Such techniques normally involve maximizing a cross-correlation or minimizing a difference measure such as the RMS error".I wonder if they mean the eating-crap-out-of-your-toes error.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089226</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258139160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doing Quality Assurance at a medical device company, I know where you're coming from. However, we need to bare in mind that this is research. This isn't some company poking around for a new product, this is trying to figure out how to create better optical systems. Sure, they didn't understand the technique before making the implementation but at the same time they're implementation is helping them understand the technique. I'd rather they attempt to make an implementation and learn off of that than to bash their heads in getting nowhere trying to fully understand the technique before they even attempt to create such a system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing Quality Assurance at a medical device company , I know where you 're coming from .
However , we need to bare in mind that this is research .
This is n't some company poking around for a new product , this is trying to figure out how to create better optical systems .
Sure , they did n't understand the technique before making the implementation but at the same time they 're implementation is helping them understand the technique .
I 'd rather they attempt to make an implementation and learn off of that than to bash their heads in getting nowhere trying to fully understand the technique before they even attempt to create such a system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing Quality Assurance at a medical device company, I know where you're coming from.
However, we need to bare in mind that this is research.
This isn't some company poking around for a new product, this is trying to figure out how to create better optical systems.
Sure, they didn't understand the technique before making the implementation but at the same time they're implementation is helping them understand the technique.
I'd rather they attempt to make an implementation and learn off of that than to bash their heads in getting nowhere trying to fully understand the technique before they even attempt to create such a system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087728</id>
	<title>Presentation</title>
	<author>pete-classic</author>
	<datestamp>1258132560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After presenting his paper, researcher David O'Carroll strode off the stage and into a sliding glass door.</p><p>-Peter</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After presenting his paper , researcher David O'Carroll strode off the stage and into a sliding glass door.-Peter</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After presenting his paper, researcher David O'Carroll strode off the stage and into a sliding glass door.-Peter</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088730</id>
	<title>Re:Presentation</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1258137180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Durn it.  Tried to mod you "underrated", but hit "off topic" instead.  Commenting to delete my mod.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Durn it .
Tried to mod you " underrated " , but hit " off topic " instead .
Commenting to delete my mod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Durn it.
Tried to mod you "underrated", but hit "off topic" instead.
Commenting to delete my mod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087862</id>
	<title>Thousand scientists in a room with a typewriter...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258133040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, so the article is titled "Secret Math", and...<p><div class="quote"><p>Though they built the system, the researchers don&rsquo;t quite understand how it works.</p></div><p>and...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Intriguingly, the algorithm doesn&rsquo;t work nearly as well if any one operation is omitted. The sum is greater than the whole, and O&rsquo;Carroll and Brinkworth don&rsquo;t know why.</p></div><p>Wow, some interesting "science" that's going on here.<br>Great result, but, really, way to go guys! You can't understand a non-linear system's behavior; join the club. I still can't understand why z\_n+1 = z\_n^2 + c looks so pretty either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so the article is titled " Secret Math " , and...Though they built the system , the researchers don    t quite understand how it works.and...Intriguingly , the algorithm doesn    t work nearly as well if any one operation is omitted .
The sum is greater than the whole , and O    Carroll and Brinkworth don    t know why.Wow , some interesting " science " that 's going on here.Great result , but , really , way to go guys !
You ca n't understand a non-linear system 's behavior ; join the club .
I still ca n't understand why z \ _n + 1 = z \ _n ^ 2 + c looks so pretty either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so the article is titled "Secret Math", and...Though they built the system, the researchers don’t quite understand how it works.and...Intriguingly, the algorithm doesn’t work nearly as well if any one operation is omitted.
The sum is greater than the whole, and O’Carroll and Brinkworth don’t know why.Wow, some interesting "science" that's going on here.Great result, but, really, way to go guys!
You can't understand a non-linear system's behavior; join the club.
I still can't understand why z\_n+1 = z\_n^2 + c looks so pretty either.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087970</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1258133580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I find it unimaginable that people would attempt to implement a technology that is not fully understood.  Doing so will eventually yield unexpected results or at the very least, results that cannot be explained.</p></div><p>Except that occasionally building a working model is a useful step to understanding it. I'm happy that Edward Jenner in 1796 started infecting people with cow pox as a way to prevent small pox even though he didn't fully understand why it worked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it unimaginable that people would attempt to implement a technology that is not fully understood .
Doing so will eventually yield unexpected results or at the very least , results that can not be explained.Except that occasionally building a working model is a useful step to understanding it .
I 'm happy that Edward Jenner in 1796 started infecting people with cow pox as a way to prevent small pox even though he did n't fully understand why it worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it unimaginable that people would attempt to implement a technology that is not fully understood.
Doing so will eventually yield unexpected results or at the very least, results that cannot be explained.Except that occasionally building a working model is a useful step to understanding it.
I'm happy that Edward Jenner in 1796 started infecting people with cow pox as a way to prevent small pox even though he didn't fully understand why it worked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30091588</id>
	<title>Fly's Eyes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258105620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm looking at the world through fly's eyes<br>Looking at the world through fly's eyes<br>Looking at the world through fly's eyes<br>And you can just buzz off</p><p>Well I think I'll buzz in the front door<br>Think I'll buzz around the back door screen<br>Think I'll buzz around your face<br>And then I'll land on the ceiling</p><p>Well I get up in the morning when the dew is on the doo<br>And I date a little maggot named Mary Lou<br>Some day we'll get married and we won't think twice<br>When our kids all look like dancing rice</p><p>I think I'll land on some horse manure<br>Think I'll land on the poop du jour<br>Think I'll land on a squashed possum --<br>And then I'll land on your potato salad<br>(Just washing up!)</p><p>Buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz...</p><p>I'm looking at the world through fly's eyes<br>Looking at the world through fly's eyes<br>Looking at the world through fly's eyes<br>And you can just buzz off</p><p>Get that fly, get that fly!<br>(Accordian solo)</p><p>I'm looking at the world through fly's eyes<br>Looking at the world through fly's eyes<br>Looking at the world through fly's eyes<br>And you can just buzz, you can just buzz, you can just buzz off!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking at the world through fly 's eyesLooking at the world through fly 's eyesLooking at the world through fly 's eyesAnd you can just buzz offWell I think I 'll buzz in the front doorThink I 'll buzz around the back door screenThink I 'll buzz around your faceAnd then I 'll land on the ceilingWell I get up in the morning when the dew is on the dooAnd I date a little maggot named Mary LouSome day we 'll get married and we wo n't think twiceWhen our kids all look like dancing riceI think I 'll land on some horse manureThink I 'll land on the poop du jourThink I 'll land on a squashed possum --And then I 'll land on your potato salad ( Just washing up !
) Buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz...I 'm looking at the world through fly 's eyesLooking at the world through fly 's eyesLooking at the world through fly 's eyesAnd you can just buzz offGet that fly , get that fly !
( Accordian solo ) I 'm looking at the world through fly 's eyesLooking at the world through fly 's eyesLooking at the world through fly 's eyesAnd you can just buzz , you can just buzz , you can just buzz off !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking at the world through fly's eyesLooking at the world through fly's eyesLooking at the world through fly's eyesAnd you can just buzz offWell I think I'll buzz in the front doorThink I'll buzz around the back door screenThink I'll buzz around your faceAnd then I'll land on the ceilingWell I get up in the morning when the dew is on the dooAnd I date a little maggot named Mary LouSome day we'll get married and we won't think twiceWhen our kids all look like dancing riceI think I'll land on some horse manureThink I'll land on the poop du jourThink I'll land on a squashed possum --And then I'll land on your potato salad(Just washing up!
)Buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz...I'm looking at the world through fly's eyesLooking at the world through fly's eyesLooking at the world through fly's eyesAnd you can just buzz offGet that fly, get that fly!
(Accordian solo)I'm looking at the world through fly's eyesLooking at the world through fly's eyesLooking at the world through fly's eyesAnd you can just buzz, you can just buzz, you can just buzz off!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088402</id>
	<title>I know how this will go...</title>
	<author>I'm not god any more</author>
	<datestamp>1258135800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>a whole slew of vehicles crashing into plate glass windows.. over and over..</htmltext>
<tokenext>a whole slew of vehicles crashing into plate glass windows.. over and over. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a whole slew of vehicles crashing into plate glass windows.. over and over..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30091246</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258104000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up! We know how gravity works, but we don't know where it comes from.</p><p>This is why I never leave my basement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up !
We know how gravity works , but we do n't know where it comes from.This is why I never leave my basement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up!
We know how gravity works, but we don't know where it comes from.This is why I never leave my basement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087788</id>
	<title>Anyone know about bees?</title>
	<author>hatemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1258132740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The researchers drew their algorithm from neural circuits attuned to side-to-side yaw, but O&rsquo;Carroll said the same types of equations are probably used in computing other optical flows, such as those produced by moving forward and backwards through three-dimensional space.</p></div><p>I vaguely remember seeing a study that examined how bees travel without hitting anything but using very few neurons. Something about the relative size change of objects between eyes. They tested this by putting bees in a clear tunne with patterns on belts on the right and left walls. By changing the speed of the belts, the bees would ram into the walls, but as long as the belts were moving at the same speed, the bees were fine. Is this ringing a bell for anyone else?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers drew their algorithm from neural circuits attuned to side-to-side yaw , but O    Carroll said the same types of equations are probably used in computing other optical flows , such as those produced by moving forward and backwards through three-dimensional space.I vaguely remember seeing a study that examined how bees travel without hitting anything but using very few neurons .
Something about the relative size change of objects between eyes .
They tested this by putting bees in a clear tunne with patterns on belts on the right and left walls .
By changing the speed of the belts , the bees would ram into the walls , but as long as the belts were moving at the same speed , the bees were fine .
Is this ringing a bell for anyone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers drew their algorithm from neural circuits attuned to side-to-side yaw, but O’Carroll said the same types of equations are probably used in computing other optical flows, such as those produced by moving forward and backwards through three-dimensional space.I vaguely remember seeing a study that examined how bees travel without hitting anything but using very few neurons.
Something about the relative size change of objects between eyes.
They tested this by putting bees in a clear tunne with patterns on belts on the right and left walls.
By changing the speed of the belts, the bees would ram into the walls, but as long as the belts were moving at the same speed, the bees were fine.
Is this ringing a bell for anyone else?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30092934</id>
	<title>Refreshing Story</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1258113360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This might be offtopic but seeing a legitimate R&amp;D story on slashdot with a link to the actual (open) technical write up of the research made my day. I haven't read the whole paper yet (I will when I get home) but going through it and reading the first few sections I can see that the researchers included their (simulink?) processing models as well as some good data in the results section. This story finally gave me something worth breaking out my old signal processing and DAC notes from college out over and studying the raw math and theory behind the algorithm.
<br> <br>
I have to say, I really wish we would see more papers like this posted and published openly. It's very inspiring when other folk in similar fields can access a paper's full contents and start playing with similar models themselves...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might be offtopic but seeing a legitimate R&amp;D story on slashdot with a link to the actual ( open ) technical write up of the research made my day .
I have n't read the whole paper yet ( I will when I get home ) but going through it and reading the first few sections I can see that the researchers included their ( simulink ?
) processing models as well as some good data in the results section .
This story finally gave me something worth breaking out my old signal processing and DAC notes from college out over and studying the raw math and theory behind the algorithm .
I have to say , I really wish we would see more papers like this posted and published openly .
It 's very inspiring when other folk in similar fields can access a paper 's full contents and start playing with similar models themselves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might be offtopic but seeing a legitimate R&amp;D story on slashdot with a link to the actual (open) technical write up of the research made my day.
I haven't read the whole paper yet (I will when I get home) but going through it and reading the first few sections I can see that the researchers included their (simulink?
) processing models as well as some good data in the results section.
This story finally gave me something worth breaking out my old signal processing and DAC notes from college out over and studying the raw math and theory behind the algorithm.
I have to say, I really wish we would see more papers like this posted and published openly.
It's very inspiring when other folk in similar fields can access a paper's full contents and start playing with similar models themselves...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</id>
	<title>We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does this sound like every PC user and quite a few programmers I have had to deal with?</p><p>I find it unimaginable that people would attempt to implement a technology that is not fully understood.  Doing so will eventually yield unexpected results or at the very least, results that cannot be explained.</p><p>I am not saying that everything we presently or regularly do is something that everyone presently understands as I am sure there are ample examples of this happening everywhere.  Usually, however, "someone" somewhere actually knows and understands because they created it.  In this case, it seems, things are being created and implemented without a full working understanding of how it all works.  At the very least, such inventions should be unworthy of patenting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does this sound like every PC user and quite a few programmers I have had to deal with ? I find it unimaginable that people would attempt to implement a technology that is not fully understood .
Doing so will eventually yield unexpected results or at the very least , results that can not be explained.I am not saying that everything we presently or regularly do is something that everyone presently understands as I am sure there are ample examples of this happening everywhere .
Usually , however , " someone " somewhere actually knows and understands because they created it .
In this case , it seems , things are being created and implemented without a full working understanding of how it all works .
At the very least , such inventions should be unworthy of patenting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does this sound like every PC user and quite a few programmers I have had to deal with?I find it unimaginable that people would attempt to implement a technology that is not fully understood.
Doing so will eventually yield unexpected results or at the very least, results that cannot be explained.I am not saying that everything we presently or regularly do is something that everyone presently understands as I am sure there are ample examples of this happening everywhere.
Usually, however, "someone" somewhere actually knows and understands because they created it.
In this case, it seems, things are being created and implemented without a full working understanding of how it all works.
At the very least, such inventions should be unworthy of patenting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30094294</id>
	<title>Re:Extinction</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1258124520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I certainly hope to be recovering from an environmental catastrophe in a few hundred years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly hope to be recovering from an environmental catastrophe in a few hundred years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly hope to be recovering from an environmental catastrophe in a few hundred years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087900</id>
	<title>Extinction</title>
	<author>citylivin</author>
	<datestamp>1258133280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know I can forsee a time, a few hundred years down the line, where we are recovering from the environmental catastrophe caused by man. In this time I think the great profiteers of the day will look down shamefully on the profiteers of today, who destroyed so many of natures feats of engineering in order to harvest lumber or food. I think that they will look back at all the diversity that could have been exploited for their designs and curse us. Mankind will probably be roaming the stars in search of biodiversity by then. If for no other reason then to get the hundreds of thousands of years benefit of tried and tested solutions to engineering problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know I can forsee a time , a few hundred years down the line , where we are recovering from the environmental catastrophe caused by man .
In this time I think the great profiteers of the day will look down shamefully on the profiteers of today , who destroyed so many of natures feats of engineering in order to harvest lumber or food .
I think that they will look back at all the diversity that could have been exploited for their designs and curse us .
Mankind will probably be roaming the stars in search of biodiversity by then .
If for no other reason then to get the hundreds of thousands of years benefit of tried and tested solutions to engineering problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know I can forsee a time, a few hundred years down the line, where we are recovering from the environmental catastrophe caused by man.
In this time I think the great profiteers of the day will look down shamefully on the profiteers of today, who destroyed so many of natures feats of engineering in order to harvest lumber or food.
I think that they will look back at all the diversity that could have been exploited for their designs and curse us.
Mankind will probably be roaming the stars in search of biodiversity by then.
If for no other reason then to get the hundreds of thousands of years benefit of tried and tested solutions to engineering problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087982</id>
	<title>Re:We don't understand it but we can do it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258133640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you need to stop dealing with Indian outsourcing firms and their "programmers"?</p><p>When all you program for is Windows and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET like they do, and most of that is closed-source to most developers, of course you won't have a fucking clue what's going on.</p><p>Almost all of us open source developers know what's going on from the the hardware up. We can see ever layer of the Linux, FreeBSD or OpenSolaris kernels, for instance. Those of us who did chip design in the past also know how the hardware works (and we usually know the quantum mechanics underlying modern transistor design, as well).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you need to stop dealing with Indian outsourcing firms and their " programmers " ? When all you program for is Windows and .NET like they do , and most of that is closed-source to most developers , of course you wo n't have a fucking clue what 's going on.Almost all of us open source developers know what 's going on from the the hardware up .
We can see ever layer of the Linux , FreeBSD or OpenSolaris kernels , for instance .
Those of us who did chip design in the past also know how the hardware works ( and we usually know the quantum mechanics underlying modern transistor design , as well ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you need to stop dealing with Indian outsourcing firms and their "programmers"?When all you program for is Windows and .NET like they do, and most of that is closed-source to most developers, of course you won't have a fucking clue what's going on.Almost all of us open source developers know what's going on from the the hardware up.
We can see ever layer of the Linux, FreeBSD or OpenSolaris kernels, for instance.
Those of us who did chip design in the past also know how the hardware works (and we usually know the quantum mechanics underlying modern transistor design, as well).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30091514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30091246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30090540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30094294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30144694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30154020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30092202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30090142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30092170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1545245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30090292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1545245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1545245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1545245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1545245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30091514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30144694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30090540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30091246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30090142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30092170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1545245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1545245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30095790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1545245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30088064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30089544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1545245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30094294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1545245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30087788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30090292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30092202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1545245.30154020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
