<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_15_1412233</id>
	<title>NIF Aims For the Ultimate Green Energy Source</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258298160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"Edward Moses and his team of 500 scientists and engineers at Lawrence Livermore's <a href="https://lasers.llnl.gov/">National Ignition Facility</a> are <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/222792">betting $3.5B in taxpayer money on a tiny pellet they hope could produce an endless supply of safe, clean energy</a>. By the fall of 2010, the team aims to start blasting capsules containing deuterium-tritium fuel with 1.4 megajoules of laser power, a first step towards the holy grail of controlled nuclear fusion. Not all are convinced that Moses will lead us to the promised land.  'They're snake-oil salesmen,' says Thomas Cochran, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Moses, for his part, seems unfazed by the skepticism, saying he's confident that his team will succeed."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " Edward Moses and his team of 500 scientists and engineers at Lawrence Livermore 's National Ignition Facility are betting $ 3.5B in taxpayer money on a tiny pellet they hope could produce an endless supply of safe , clean energy .
By the fall of 2010 , the team aims to start blasting capsules containing deuterium-tritium fuel with 1.4 megajoules of laser power , a first step towards the holy grail of controlled nuclear fusion .
Not all are convinced that Moses will lead us to the promised land .
'They 're snake-oil salesmen, ' says Thomas Cochran , a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council .
Moses , for his part , seems unfazed by the skepticism , saying he 's confident that his team will succeed .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "Edward Moses and his team of 500 scientists and engineers at Lawrence Livermore's National Ignition Facility are betting $3.5B in taxpayer money on a tiny pellet they hope could produce an endless supply of safe, clean energy.
By the fall of 2010, the team aims to start blasting capsules containing deuterium-tritium fuel with 1.4 megajoules of laser power, a first step towards the holy grail of controlled nuclear fusion.
Not all are convinced that Moses will lead us to the promised land.
'They're snake-oil salesmen,' says Thomas Cochran, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Moses, for his part, seems unfazed by the skepticism, saying he's confident that his team will succeed.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30110734</id>
	<title>Re:"Step" towards controlled fusion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258293780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article even skirts ENTIRELY around mentioning ITER by name (only a vague reference to 'european / japanese research'), and ignores entirely the vast history of Tokamak-based fusion testing. START, MAST, JET, and soon, all produced fusion reactions, but below the break-even point. NOVA (NIF's predecessor) failed to even achieve fusion ignition NIF is nowhere NEAR the break-even point that ITER is approaching, let alone able to produce energy on a constant basis (NIF's intended pulse rate is once every 5 HOURS). Then there's all the fusors, polywells, stellerators, tandem-mirrors, and so on that have demonstrated at least momentary fusion and are working their way up towards break-even and net power.


NIF is a quite wonderful science experiment in inertial confinement and optical and plasma physics. It's just a stunningly bad idea as a potential power plant design, and I fail to see why it's continually hyped as such over the much more real benefits it has.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article even skirts ENTIRELY around mentioning ITER by name ( only a vague reference to 'european / japanese research ' ) , and ignores entirely the vast history of Tokamak-based fusion testing .
START , MAST , JET , and soon , all produced fusion reactions , but below the break-even point .
NOVA ( NIF 's predecessor ) failed to even achieve fusion ignition NIF is nowhere NEAR the break-even point that ITER is approaching , let alone able to produce energy on a constant basis ( NIF 's intended pulse rate is once every 5 HOURS ) .
Then there 's all the fusors , polywells , stellerators , tandem-mirrors , and so on that have demonstrated at least momentary fusion and are working their way up towards break-even and net power .
NIF is a quite wonderful science experiment in inertial confinement and optical and plasma physics .
It 's just a stunningly bad idea as a potential power plant design , and I fail to see why it 's continually hyped as such over the much more real benefits it has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article even skirts ENTIRELY around mentioning ITER by name (only a vague reference to 'european / japanese research'), and ignores entirely the vast history of Tokamak-based fusion testing.
START, MAST, JET, and soon, all produced fusion reactions, but below the break-even point.
NOVA (NIF's predecessor) failed to even achieve fusion ignition NIF is nowhere NEAR the break-even point that ITER is approaching, let alone able to produce energy on a constant basis (NIF's intended pulse rate is once every 5 HOURS).
Then there's all the fusors, polywells, stellerators, tandem-mirrors, and so on that have demonstrated at least momentary fusion and are working their way up towards break-even and net power.
NIF is a quite wonderful science experiment in inertial confinement and optical and plasma physics.
It's just a stunningly bad idea as a potential power plant design, and I fail to see why it's continually hyped as such over the much more real benefits it has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894</id>
	<title>Three points</title>
	<author>cmowire</author>
	<datestamp>1258303560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Point one: Not spending money on fusion research is incredibly dumb.  It's not likely to pan out in the near-term future, but there's plenty of ancillary science to be done on the subject.  For example, the VASMIR space drive built on fusion research, it's just not hot enough to provoke fusion</p><p>Point two: Relying on fusion power to make for a short-term fix is also dumb.  Especially if you think it's going to be safe and clean.  The problem with fusion is how many neutrons it emits.  Even when you use one of the fusion chains designed not to produce neutrons, you produce a good amount.  The reactor core is going to be even more radioactive than a fission reactor core.  And even if you get to a "Breakeven" point, that doesn't mean that you'll be price-competitive with other forms of power.</p><p>Fusion is easy.  Just take a GIANT ball of gas, let it collapse into a star, and put solar panels around the star.</p><p>Point three: Calling it the Ultimate Green Energy Source is a cover story.  A 2007 report by the National Research Council's Plasma Science Committee concluded that "NIF is crucial to the NNSA Stockpile Stewardship Program because it will be able to create the extreme conditions of temperature and pressure that exist on Earth only in exploding nuclear weapons and that are therefore relevant to understanding the operation of our modern nuclear weapons."</p><p>In other words, the NIF will be used, at least some of the time, to re-create the conditions inside of an exploding nuclear warhead so we can design new nukes without testing them and therefore violating the test ban treaties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Point one : Not spending money on fusion research is incredibly dumb .
It 's not likely to pan out in the near-term future , but there 's plenty of ancillary science to be done on the subject .
For example , the VASMIR space drive built on fusion research , it 's just not hot enough to provoke fusionPoint two : Relying on fusion power to make for a short-term fix is also dumb .
Especially if you think it 's going to be safe and clean .
The problem with fusion is how many neutrons it emits .
Even when you use one of the fusion chains designed not to produce neutrons , you produce a good amount .
The reactor core is going to be even more radioactive than a fission reactor core .
And even if you get to a " Breakeven " point , that does n't mean that you 'll be price-competitive with other forms of power.Fusion is easy .
Just take a GIANT ball of gas , let it collapse into a star , and put solar panels around the star.Point three : Calling it the Ultimate Green Energy Source is a cover story .
A 2007 report by the National Research Council 's Plasma Science Committee concluded that " NIF is crucial to the NNSA Stockpile Stewardship Program because it will be able to create the extreme conditions of temperature and pressure that exist on Earth only in exploding nuclear weapons and that are therefore relevant to understanding the operation of our modern nuclear weapons .
" In other words , the NIF will be used , at least some of the time , to re-create the conditions inside of an exploding nuclear warhead so we can design new nukes without testing them and therefore violating the test ban treaties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point one: Not spending money on fusion research is incredibly dumb.
It's not likely to pan out in the near-term future, but there's plenty of ancillary science to be done on the subject.
For example, the VASMIR space drive built on fusion research, it's just not hot enough to provoke fusionPoint two: Relying on fusion power to make for a short-term fix is also dumb.
Especially if you think it's going to be safe and clean.
The problem with fusion is how many neutrons it emits.
Even when you use one of the fusion chains designed not to produce neutrons, you produce a good amount.
The reactor core is going to be even more radioactive than a fission reactor core.
And even if you get to a "Breakeven" point, that doesn't mean that you'll be price-competitive with other forms of power.Fusion is easy.
Just take a GIANT ball of gas, let it collapse into a star, and put solar panels around the star.Point three: Calling it the Ultimate Green Energy Source is a cover story.
A 2007 report by the National Research Council's Plasma Science Committee concluded that "NIF is crucial to the NNSA Stockpile Stewardship Program because it will be able to create the extreme conditions of temperature and pressure that exist on Earth only in exploding nuclear weapons and that are therefore relevant to understanding the operation of our modern nuclear weapons.
"In other words, the NIF will be used, at least some of the time, to re-create the conditions inside of an exploding nuclear warhead so we can design new nukes without testing them and therefore violating the test ban treaties.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106406</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of money ...</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1258307400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And unfortunately projects like this pull billions of taxpayer money from research projects that may actually benefit society.</p></div></blockquote><p>It would be better, if these billions of dollars were pulled from bank executives who were responsible for the economic collapse.</p><p>Maybe we can drop by their houses with pitchforks and torches and ask them to kindly donate their bonuses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And unfortunately projects like this pull billions of taxpayer money from research projects that may actually benefit society.It would be better , if these billions of dollars were pulled from bank executives who were responsible for the economic collapse.Maybe we can drop by their houses with pitchforks and torches and ask them to kindly donate their bonuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And unfortunately projects like this pull billions of taxpayer money from research projects that may actually benefit society.It would be better, if these billions of dollars were pulled from bank executives who were responsible for the economic collapse.Maybe we can drop by their houses with pitchforks and torches and ask them to kindly donate their bonuses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106378</id>
	<title>Re:Deuterium is hardly "endless"</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1258307220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>deuterium refinement is still only done with stunningly high energy costs</p></div><p>A buck per liter of pure D is not all that "stunning".  In insulated liquid tanker car loads, you could probably buy it somewhat cheaper.  True, there is an inherent lower limit regardless of bulk purchase or whatever, I'm guessing probably around 50 cents per liter wholesale.  The manufacturers are not operating as a charity, they probably use 100\% electrically operated machinery, and probably most of their costs are labor and capital, so I feel confident that a liter of D takes only a couple KWh at most.  Perhaps you know so little about the topic that you're confusing stunningly high U-235 fission fuel refining costs with D refining costs?  I'm thinking the fuel cost is not going to be an issue, like a rounding error in the budget.</p><p><a href="http://www.isotope.com/cil/products/displayproduct.cfm?prod\_id=8827&amp;cat\_id=35&amp;market=research" title="isotope.com">http://www.isotope.com/cil/products/displayproduct.cfm?prod\_id=8827&amp;cat\_id=35&amp;market=research</a> [isotope.com]</p><p>Another way to put it, by volume, retail gasoline is about as expensive as D, but the same volume of D when fused generates exactly one zillion times more energy than burning gasoline.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>deuterium refinement is still only done with stunningly high energy costsA buck per liter of pure D is not all that " stunning " .
In insulated liquid tanker car loads , you could probably buy it somewhat cheaper .
True , there is an inherent lower limit regardless of bulk purchase or whatever , I 'm guessing probably around 50 cents per liter wholesale .
The manufacturers are not operating as a charity , they probably use 100 \ % electrically operated machinery , and probably most of their costs are labor and capital , so I feel confident that a liter of D takes only a couple KWh at most .
Perhaps you know so little about the topic that you 're confusing stunningly high U-235 fission fuel refining costs with D refining costs ?
I 'm thinking the fuel cost is not going to be an issue , like a rounding error in the budget.http : //www.isotope.com/cil/products/displayproduct.cfm ? prod \ _id = 8827&amp;cat \ _id = 35&amp;market = research [ isotope.com ] Another way to put it , by volume , retail gasoline is about as expensive as D , but the same volume of D when fused generates exactly one zillion times more energy than burning gasoline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>deuterium refinement is still only done with stunningly high energy costsA buck per liter of pure D is not all that "stunning".
In insulated liquid tanker car loads, you could probably buy it somewhat cheaper.
True, there is an inherent lower limit regardless of bulk purchase or whatever, I'm guessing probably around 50 cents per liter wholesale.
The manufacturers are not operating as a charity, they probably use 100\% electrically operated machinery, and probably most of their costs are labor and capital, so I feel confident that a liter of D takes only a couple KWh at most.
Perhaps you know so little about the topic that you're confusing stunningly high U-235 fission fuel refining costs with D refining costs?
I'm thinking the fuel cost is not going to be an issue, like a rounding error in the budget.http://www.isotope.com/cil/products/displayproduct.cfm?prod\_id=8827&amp;cat\_id=35&amp;market=research [isotope.com]Another way to put it, by volume, retail gasoline is about as expensive as D, but the same volume of D when fused generates exactly one zillion times more energy than burning gasoline.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30117590</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1258396320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Had they been more accommodating, they probably wouldn't be in bankruptcy.</p></div><p>Er, no.  Had the company been able to design, market, and sell automobiles that people actually wanted to buy, the companies wouldn't be in bankruptcy.</p><p>The union's not at fault here.  And the abuses that you're talking about -- well, they get talked about a lot.  But where's the evidence?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Had they been more accommodating , they probably would n't be in bankruptcy.Er , no .
Had the company been able to design , market , and sell automobiles that people actually wanted to buy , the companies would n't be in bankruptcy.The union 's not at fault here .
And the abuses that you 're talking about -- well , they get talked about a lot .
But where 's the evidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had they been more accommodating, they probably wouldn't be in bankruptcy.Er, no.
Had the company been able to design, market, and sell automobiles that people actually wanted to buy, the companies wouldn't be in bankruptcy.The union's not at fault here.
And the abuses that you're talking about -- well, they get talked about a lot.
But where's the evidence?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106044</id>
	<title>Re:Deuterium is hardly "endless"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258304640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't tell if you're joking, but everything you said about deuterium is 100\% false. There is more D in the earth's oceans (1/6500th of all the water) than we could ever imagine using for fusion. It's also extracted cheaply and easily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't tell if you 're joking , but everything you said about deuterium is 100 \ % false .
There is more D in the earth 's oceans ( 1/6500th of all the water ) than we could ever imagine using for fusion .
It 's also extracted cheaply and easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't tell if you're joking, but everything you said about deuterium is 100\% false.
There is more D in the earth's oceans (1/6500th of all the water) than we could ever imagine using for fusion.
It's also extracted cheaply and easily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786</id>
	<title>NRDC?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258302360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So a member of an anti-nuke group doesn't approve of someone's attempts to build a workable fusion reactor?  Is anyone really surprised by that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So a member of an anti-nuke group does n't approve of someone 's attempts to build a workable fusion reactor ?
Is anyone really surprised by that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a member of an anti-nuke group doesn't approve of someone's attempts to build a workable fusion reactor?
Is anyone really surprised by that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106368</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258307160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Three and a half billion would probably just cover the bills for a month in Iraq. One of these days Uncle Sam's gonna reach in his pocket for more money and find out he spent it all!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Three and a half billion would probably just cover the bills for a month in Iraq .
One of these days Uncle Sam 's gon na reach in his pocket for more money and find out he spent it all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three and a half billion would probably just cover the bills for a month in Iraq.
One of these days Uncle Sam's gonna reach in his pocket for more money and find out he spent it all!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105836</id>
	<title>40 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258302960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Moses leading a team?  Will he stop and ask for directions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Moses leading a team ?
Will he stop and ask for directions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moses leading a team?
Will he stop and ask for directions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107622</id>
	<title>Re:NRDC?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258315740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The NRDC takes the position that new nuclear power plants are not a solution for America's energy needs, or for addressing global warming.</p></div><p>Nuff said. There is the obvious loophole, though. The nuclear power plants might not be a (notice the lack of 'the') solution for Americas energy needs but it sure is for the rest of the world.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NRDC takes the position that new nuclear power plants are not a solution for America 's energy needs , or for addressing global warming.Nuff said .
There is the obvious loophole , though .
The nuclear power plants might not be a ( notice the lack of 'the ' ) solution for Americas energy needs but it sure is for the rest of the world .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NRDC takes the position that new nuclear power plants are not a solution for America's energy needs, or for addressing global warming.Nuff said.
There is the obvious loophole, though.
The nuclear power plants might not be a (notice the lack of 'the') solution for Americas energy needs but it sure is for the rest of the world.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109602</id>
	<title>Moses?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258284840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who the F*ck is Moses. Does he has a full name? Why on earth do you copy the nonsense from the article? This is supposed to be a small summary of the news topic not repetition of Journalistic rubbish...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the F * ck is Moses .
Does he has a full name ?
Why on earth do you copy the nonsense from the article ?
This is supposed to be a small summary of the news topic not repetition of Journalistic rubbish.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the F*ck is Moses.
Does he has a full name?
Why on earth do you copy the nonsense from the article?
This is supposed to be a small summary of the news topic not repetition of Journalistic rubbish...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258306980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really, the UAW is probably the only reason why we have an auto industry in the US at this point. It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of ignorance and union bashing that goes on. Perhaps you'd like to give up your 40 hours work weeks, week ends, OSHA regulations, retirement and disability insurance.<br> <br>

You're not going to get far with energy sources if you're not replacing the older gas guzzlers with newer fewer efficient cars. Despite all the ignorance, the UAW workers don't actually make that much more than their non-union counterparts in the South, but you get the same blind rage from people because ZOMG UNIONS~!!1!!11ONEONEELEVEN</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really , the UAW is probably the only reason why we have an auto industry in the US at this point .
It never ceases to amaze me , the amount of ignorance and union bashing that goes on .
Perhaps you 'd like to give up your 40 hours work weeks , week ends , OSHA regulations , retirement and disability insurance .
You 're not going to get far with energy sources if you 're not replacing the older gas guzzlers with newer fewer efficient cars .
Despite all the ignorance , the UAW workers do n't actually make that much more than their non-union counterparts in the South , but you get the same blind rage from people because ZOMG UNIONS ~ ! ! 1 !
! 11ONEONEELEVEN</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really, the UAW is probably the only reason why we have an auto industry in the US at this point.
It never ceases to amaze me, the amount of ignorance and union bashing that goes on.
Perhaps you'd like to give up your 40 hours work weeks, week ends, OSHA regulations, retirement and disability insurance.
You're not going to get far with energy sources if you're not replacing the older gas guzzlers with newer fewer efficient cars.
Despite all the ignorance, the UAW workers don't actually make that much more than their non-union counterparts in the South, but you get the same blind rage from people because ZOMG UNIONS~!!1!
!11ONEONEELEVEN</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30122922</id>
	<title>PIZZA NIF</title>
	<author>ikirudennis</author>
	<datestamp>1258371360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqkbPkeahOQ" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqkbPkeahOQ</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = LqkbPkeahOQ [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqkbPkeahOQ [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107248</id>
	<title>Re:Mirror of the mirror</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258313580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could to much better than fusion:</p><p>We can get our energy straight from the vacuum:</p><p>http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/</p><p>See the trailers:<br>http://www.youtube.com/user/AJCraddock</p><p>We need to continue the work of people like Tesla.. working with Maxwell's original equations and NOT the MODIFIED and simplified Maxwell-Heaviside equations that are now thought all over the world as if  they are Maxwell's original equations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could to much better than fusion : We can get our energy straight from the vacuum : http : //www.energyfromthevacuum.com/See the trailers : http : //www.youtube.com/user/AJCraddockWe need to continue the work of people like Tesla.. working with Maxwell 's original equations and NOT the MODIFIED and simplified Maxwell-Heaviside equations that are now thought all over the world as if they are Maxwell 's original equations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could to much better than fusion:We can get our energy straight from the vacuum:http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/See the trailers:http://www.youtube.com/user/AJCraddockWe need to continue the work of people like Tesla.. working with Maxwell's original equations and NOT the MODIFIED and simplified Maxwell-Heaviside equations that are now thought all over the world as if  they are Maxwell's original equations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105902</id>
	<title>Could the NIF be scaled to a fusion process?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258303620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've seen the NIF could never be a fusion reactor. All those lasers focus on a single pellet in a closed chamber.</p><p>Even if they get fusion, how would they turn this into a reactor where you could feed in a constant source of fuel and get continuous energy output?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've seen the NIF could never be a fusion reactor .
All those lasers focus on a single pellet in a closed chamber.Even if they get fusion , how would they turn this into a reactor where you could feed in a constant source of fuel and get continuous energy output ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've seen the NIF could never be a fusion reactor.
All those lasers focus on a single pellet in a closed chamber.Even if they get fusion, how would they turn this into a reactor where you could feed in a constant source of fuel and get continuous energy output?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105776</id>
	<title>Mirror of the mirror</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1258302300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What bothers me is that, back in the 70s, LIvermore built the Mirror Fusion Test Facility, at a cost of somewhat over a billion dollars, to test a fusion concept.  The project was cancelled by the Reagan administration the day the facility was finished.
<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror\_Fusion\_Test\_Facility
</p><p>Do we have more stick-to-it spirit these days?  Or is this another few billion dollars spent with no other purpose than to improve the economy of Livermore, California?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What bothers me is that , back in the 70s , LIvermore built the Mirror Fusion Test Facility , at a cost of somewhat over a billion dollars , to test a fusion concept .
The project was cancelled by the Reagan administration the day the facility was finished .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror \ _Fusion \ _Test \ _Facility Do we have more stick-to-it spirit these days ?
Or is this another few billion dollars spent with no other purpose than to improve the economy of Livermore , California ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What bothers me is that, back in the 70s, LIvermore built the Mirror Fusion Test Facility, at a cost of somewhat over a billion dollars, to test a fusion concept.
The project was cancelled by the Reagan administration the day the facility was finished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror\_Fusion\_Test\_Facility
Do we have more stick-to-it spirit these days?
Or is this another few billion dollars spent with no other purpose than to improve the economy of Livermore, California?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106810</id>
	<title>Re:Proof of Concept</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1258310460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like building software. The first version is never the best version, but it's a good place to start from.</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like building software .
The first version is never the best version , but it 's a good place to start from. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like building software.
The first version is never the best version, but it's a good place to start from.~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106110</id>
	<title>Easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258305240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It should come right from the vacuum:</p><p>http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/</p><p>See the trailer:<br>http://www.youtube.com/user/AJCraddock</p><p>Tesla's Radiant Energy is REAL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should come right from the vacuum : http : //www.energyfromthevacuum.com/See the trailer : http : //www.youtube.com/user/AJCraddockTesla 's Radiant Energy is REAL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should come right from the vacuum:http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/See the trailer:http://www.youtube.com/user/AJCraddockTesla's Radiant Energy is REAL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30111604</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they'll get lucky, but I'm not hopeful</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1258302000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this project works, we're talking extracting energy from deuterium (which is plentiful in seawater!) in an amount that would make energy generated by the entire world's known supply of crude oil, natural gas, coal, undersea methane hydrates, and even uranium ore seem like an insignificant event in comparison. We're talking <i>billions</i> of years of energy output at modern levels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this project works , we 're talking extracting energy from deuterium ( which is plentiful in seawater !
) in an amount that would make energy generated by the entire world 's known supply of crude oil , natural gas , coal , undersea methane hydrates , and even uranium ore seem like an insignificant event in comparison .
We 're talking billions of years of energy output at modern levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this project works, we're talking extracting energy from deuterium (which is plentiful in seawater!
) in an amount that would make energy generated by the entire world's known supply of crude oil, natural gas, coal, undersea methane hydrates, and even uranium ore seem like an insignificant event in comparison.
We're talking billions of years of energy output at modern levels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107314</id>
	<title>Re:Proof of Concept</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1258313880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Cochran says the NIF laser is still not powerful enough. Even if it were, he says, "these machines are just going to be too big, and too costly, and they'll never be competitive."</p></div><p>Proof of concept devices area always oversized and more costly than the production versions.  Once you know it works and how it works, you can start shrinking it down and since the development is done, the cost per unit goes down further.</p></div><p>Sustaining the parent: what could we ever do with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Replica-of-first-transistor.jpg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">tranzistor</a> [wikipedia.org]? It's too big and expensive for any practical use. Diodes are pretty big, too! And why would anybody want to see the image on TV in color when black&amp;white is just fine? Yeah, that's what I thought.</p><p>Idiots like Cochran get big jobs, they cost us too much technological advancement and they're anti-competitive by killing technology even before its birth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cochran says the NIF laser is still not powerful enough .
Even if it were , he says , " these machines are just going to be too big , and too costly , and they 'll never be competitive .
" Proof of concept devices area always oversized and more costly than the production versions .
Once you know it works and how it works , you can start shrinking it down and since the development is done , the cost per unit goes down further.Sustaining the parent : what could we ever do with a tranzistor [ wikipedia.org ] ?
It 's too big and expensive for any practical use .
Diodes are pretty big , too !
And why would anybody want to see the image on TV in color when black&amp;white is just fine ?
Yeah , that 's what I thought.Idiots like Cochran get big jobs , they cost us too much technological advancement and they 're anti-competitive by killing technology even before its birth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cochran says the NIF laser is still not powerful enough.
Even if it were, he says, "these machines are just going to be too big, and too costly, and they'll never be competitive.
"Proof of concept devices area always oversized and more costly than the production versions.
Once you know it works and how it works, you can start shrinking it down and since the development is done, the cost per unit goes down further.Sustaining the parent: what could we ever do with a tranzistor [wikipedia.org]?
It's too big and expensive for any practical use.
Diodes are pretty big, too!
And why would anybody want to see the image on TV in color when black&amp;white is just fine?
Yeah, that's what I thought.Idiots like Cochran get big jobs, they cost us too much technological advancement and they're anti-competitive by killing technology even before its birth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108626</id>
	<title>Re:Could the NIF be scaled to a fusion process?</title>
	<author>qzulla</author>
	<datestamp>1258278000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NIF is the first generation. Sort of a proof of concept for the next one. I was fortunate enough to tour it on family day last May. Very impressive to see. <a href="https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy\_for\_the\_future/life/" title="llnl.gov">https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy\_for\_the\_future/life/</a> [llnl.gov]
<p>
qz</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NIF is the first generation .
Sort of a proof of concept for the next one .
I was fortunate enough to tour it on family day last May .
Very impressive to see .
https : //lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy \ _for \ _the \ _future/life/ [ llnl.gov ] qz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NIF is the first generation.
Sort of a proof of concept for the next one.
I was fortunate enough to tour it on family day last May.
Very impressive to see.
https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy\_for\_the\_future/life/ [llnl.gov]

qz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109068</id>
	<title>Re:synchronizing nearly 200 lasers</title>
	<author>gardyloo</author>
	<datestamp>1258280880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, microseconds are easy. Cheapo function generators synchronize to within nanoseconds, and femtoseconds are common timings for laser systems now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , microseconds are easy .
Cheapo function generators synchronize to within nanoseconds , and femtoseconds are common timings for laser systems now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, microseconds are easy.
Cheapo function generators synchronize to within nanoseconds, and femtoseconds are common timings for laser systems now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108208</id>
	<title>Re:NRDC?</title>
	<author>clong83</author>
	<datestamp>1258318740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not a workable nuclear fusion reactor though.  If you believe it has anything to do with civilian fusion power, then it's more of a proof of concept experiment than anything else.  Maybe someday 40 years from now we could use what we learn from the NIF experiment to build an actual fusion reactor.<br> <br>
The main criticism from these groups is that they claim NIF is a thinly veiled attempted to circumvent the Test Ban Treaty.  The different capsule designs that are to be lasered and blown up in NIF are viewed by some as experiments on different types of nuclear weapon configurations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a workable nuclear fusion reactor though .
If you believe it has anything to do with civilian fusion power , then it 's more of a proof of concept experiment than anything else .
Maybe someday 40 years from now we could use what we learn from the NIF experiment to build an actual fusion reactor .
The main criticism from these groups is that they claim NIF is a thinly veiled attempted to circumvent the Test Ban Treaty .
The different capsule designs that are to be lasered and blown up in NIF are viewed by some as experiments on different types of nuclear weapon configurations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a workable nuclear fusion reactor though.
If you believe it has anything to do with civilian fusion power, then it's more of a proof of concept experiment than anything else.
Maybe someday 40 years from now we could use what we learn from the NIF experiment to build an actual fusion reactor.
The main criticism from these groups is that they claim NIF is a thinly veiled attempted to circumvent the Test Ban Treaty.
The different capsule designs that are to be lasered and blown up in NIF are viewed by some as experiments on different types of nuclear weapon configurations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109248</id>
	<title>Re:Three points</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1258282320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with fusion is how many neutrons it emits.  Even when you use one of the fusion chains designed not to produce neutrons, you produce a good amount.  The reactor core is going to be even more radioactive than a fission reactor core.</p></div><p>That's not actually necessarily a problem, you know. It all depends really on two factors.</p><ol><li>How much do the neutrons disrupt the atomic-level structure of the reactor. Different materials respond to this sort of insult in different ways; some become brittle or degrade, yes, but others do not. Guess which ones are used in reactors? In fact, fusion reactors actually rely on the neutron flux to create tritium from deuterium, so it's actually useful.</li><li>How "hot" are the reactor parts afterwards. In fact, "hot" (i.e., highly radioactive) is <i>good</i> because it means that the radioactivity is decaying more rapidly. We can easily store materials safely for a few decades while they become safe to handle. Even a century isn't much of a problem; there most certainly are industrial sites that have been left alone for that long and maintaining continuity of protection of the public for that long isn't too big an issue. The problem is when you've got long-lived isotopes that decay into short-lived isotopes. Alas, I'm no radiophysicist, so I don't know how likely this is with radioisotopes from the lighter parts of the periodic table, but it might well be so. (The other point is that if something really is "hot", it's self-protecting. "You mess with this, you die" signs do discourage all but the most strongly inclined toward collecting a Darwin Award.)</li></ol><p>In any case, the neutrons aren't a big problem. We know they're there. We can engineer to deal with the consequences. I believe we do not anticipate having to deal with problematic long-lived radioisotopes. What's the issue?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with fusion is how many neutrons it emits .
Even when you use one of the fusion chains designed not to produce neutrons , you produce a good amount .
The reactor core is going to be even more radioactive than a fission reactor core.That 's not actually necessarily a problem , you know .
It all depends really on two factors.How much do the neutrons disrupt the atomic-level structure of the reactor .
Different materials respond to this sort of insult in different ways ; some become brittle or degrade , yes , but others do not .
Guess which ones are used in reactors ?
In fact , fusion reactors actually rely on the neutron flux to create tritium from deuterium , so it 's actually useful.How " hot " are the reactor parts afterwards .
In fact , " hot " ( i.e. , highly radioactive ) is good because it means that the radioactivity is decaying more rapidly .
We can easily store materials safely for a few decades while they become safe to handle .
Even a century is n't much of a problem ; there most certainly are industrial sites that have been left alone for that long and maintaining continuity of protection of the public for that long is n't too big an issue .
The problem is when you 've got long-lived isotopes that decay into short-lived isotopes .
Alas , I 'm no radiophysicist , so I do n't know how likely this is with radioisotopes from the lighter parts of the periodic table , but it might well be so .
( The other point is that if something really is " hot " , it 's self-protecting .
" You mess with this , you die " signs do discourage all but the most strongly inclined toward collecting a Darwin Award .
) In any case , the neutrons are n't a big problem .
We know they 're there .
We can engineer to deal with the consequences .
I believe we do not anticipate having to deal with problematic long-lived radioisotopes .
What 's the issue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with fusion is how many neutrons it emits.
Even when you use one of the fusion chains designed not to produce neutrons, you produce a good amount.
The reactor core is going to be even more radioactive than a fission reactor core.That's not actually necessarily a problem, you know.
It all depends really on two factors.How much do the neutrons disrupt the atomic-level structure of the reactor.
Different materials respond to this sort of insult in different ways; some become brittle or degrade, yes, but others do not.
Guess which ones are used in reactors?
In fact, fusion reactors actually rely on the neutron flux to create tritium from deuterium, so it's actually useful.How "hot" are the reactor parts afterwards.
In fact, "hot" (i.e., highly radioactive) is good because it means that the radioactivity is decaying more rapidly.
We can easily store materials safely for a few decades while they become safe to handle.
Even a century isn't much of a problem; there most certainly are industrial sites that have been left alone for that long and maintaining continuity of protection of the public for that long isn't too big an issue.
The problem is when you've got long-lived isotopes that decay into short-lived isotopes.
Alas, I'm no radiophysicist, so I don't know how likely this is with radioisotopes from the lighter parts of the periodic table, but it might well be so.
(The other point is that if something really is "hot", it's self-protecting.
"You mess with this, you die" signs do discourage all but the most strongly inclined toward collecting a Darwin Award.
)In any case, the neutrons aren't a big problem.
We know they're there.
We can engineer to deal with the consequences.
I believe we do not anticipate having to deal with problematic long-lived radioisotopes.
What's the issue?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107840</id>
	<title>Re:Mirror of the mirror</title>
	<author>IonOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1258316940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The project was cancelled by the Reagan administration the day the facility was finished. </i></p><p>Reagan had a total hard-on for the destruction of ANYTHING that looked even <i>remotely</i> green.  Barely a week after he was in office, he wiped out the entire solar initiative-including the panels on the roof-turned up the thermostat and eliminated ALL price controls on domestic oil, which set us up for the biggest oil glut the world had ever seen.  <a href="http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/12881a.htm" title="utexas.edu">Executive order 12881</a> [utexas.edu]</p><p>The popular phrase for such folks, is "They couldn't be more X if they tried!"  Well, Reagan was anti-green, and he was bloody well proud of it, making it a specific point to expend as much effort as possible to BE anti-green.  The phrase "Nuke the whales" wasn't just a song by the Fleshapoids in his world-view.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The project was cancelled by the Reagan administration the day the facility was finished .
Reagan had a total hard-on for the destruction of ANYTHING that looked even remotely green .
Barely a week after he was in office , he wiped out the entire solar initiative-including the panels on the roof-turned up the thermostat and eliminated ALL price controls on domestic oil , which set us up for the biggest oil glut the world had ever seen .
Executive order 12881 [ utexas.edu ] The popular phrase for such folks , is " They could n't be more X if they tried !
" Well , Reagan was anti-green , and he was bloody well proud of it , making it a specific point to expend as much effort as possible to BE anti-green .
The phrase " Nuke the whales " was n't just a song by the Fleshapoids in his world-view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The project was cancelled by the Reagan administration the day the facility was finished.
Reagan had a total hard-on for the destruction of ANYTHING that looked even remotely green.
Barely a week after he was in office, he wiped out the entire solar initiative-including the panels on the roof-turned up the thermostat and eliminated ALL price controls on domestic oil, which set us up for the biggest oil glut the world had ever seen.
Executive order 12881 [utexas.edu]The popular phrase for such folks, is "They couldn't be more X if they tried!
"  Well, Reagan was anti-green, and he was bloody well proud of it, making it a specific point to expend as much effort as possible to BE anti-green.
The phrase "Nuke the whales" wasn't just a song by the Fleshapoids in his world-view.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109820</id>
	<title>Re:NRDC?</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1258286520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it is interesting how much anti-nuclear groups have spread out their goals. For environmental reasons being anti-fission makes a lot of sense. And without weaponized fission you can't get weaponized fusion so it makes sense if you don't like nuclear weapons. However, the level of anti-fusion attitudes is really surprising. Fusion power in general is reasonably safe, can't produce much radioactivity and can't have meltdowns or catastrophic events. Now, in this particular case we are talking about laser induced fusion which is somewhat helpful to bomb design so the attitude makes slightly more sense. But we saw similar opposition to ITER, the international fusion project which is a tokamak fusion reactor (that is, uses toroidal magnetic containment). There's no coherent reason to oppose ITER that is anything other than "NUKES BAAAAD!" The modern anti-nuclear groups really aren't thinking things through as much as they should be. This should worry all of us for three reasons 1) It promotes a general anti-science attitude 2) It means these groups are spending less resources paying attention carefully to genuine concerns 3) It means that when they discover something that is a serious concern people aren't going to be very likely to listen since they are used to seeing them as chicken-little/the-boy-who-cried-wolf.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it is interesting how much anti-nuclear groups have spread out their goals .
For environmental reasons being anti-fission makes a lot of sense .
And without weaponized fission you ca n't get weaponized fusion so it makes sense if you do n't like nuclear weapons .
However , the level of anti-fusion attitudes is really surprising .
Fusion power in general is reasonably safe , ca n't produce much radioactivity and ca n't have meltdowns or catastrophic events .
Now , in this particular case we are talking about laser induced fusion which is somewhat helpful to bomb design so the attitude makes slightly more sense .
But we saw similar opposition to ITER , the international fusion project which is a tokamak fusion reactor ( that is , uses toroidal magnetic containment ) .
There 's no coherent reason to oppose ITER that is anything other than " NUKES BAAAAD !
" The modern anti-nuclear groups really are n't thinking things through as much as they should be .
This should worry all of us for three reasons 1 ) It promotes a general anti-science attitude 2 ) It means these groups are spending less resources paying attention carefully to genuine concerns 3 ) It means that when they discover something that is a serious concern people are n't going to be very likely to listen since they are used to seeing them as chicken-little/the-boy-who-cried-wolf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it is interesting how much anti-nuclear groups have spread out their goals.
For environmental reasons being anti-fission makes a lot of sense.
And without weaponized fission you can't get weaponized fusion so it makes sense if you don't like nuclear weapons.
However, the level of anti-fusion attitudes is really surprising.
Fusion power in general is reasonably safe, can't produce much radioactivity and can't have meltdowns or catastrophic events.
Now, in this particular case we are talking about laser induced fusion which is somewhat helpful to bomb design so the attitude makes slightly more sense.
But we saw similar opposition to ITER, the international fusion project which is a tokamak fusion reactor (that is, uses toroidal magnetic containment).
There's no coherent reason to oppose ITER that is anything other than "NUKES BAAAAD!
" The modern anti-nuclear groups really aren't thinking things through as much as they should be.
This should worry all of us for three reasons 1) It promotes a general anti-science attitude 2) It means these groups are spending less resources paying attention carefully to genuine concerns 3) It means that when they discover something that is a serious concern people aren't going to be very likely to listen since they are used to seeing them as chicken-little/the-boy-who-cried-wolf.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30113672</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>n8r0n</author>
	<datestamp>1258373100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The unions are not responsible for all the workplace protections and benefits in place at non-unionized workplaces.  In fact, in my time at a large DJIA company, that had union machinists, and non-union workers of other disciplines, it was most definitely the case that the lazy union bastards were taking compensation from the rest of us.  They typically went on strike every time their contracts were up, got cushy packages, and then the rest of us got shafted because the company had nothing left after the union bent them over.
</p><p>
Ralph Nader single-handedly has won the American worker as much as all the major unions combined.
</p><p>
UAW workers make more than their southern counterparts, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wait for it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... get more in benefits, too.  All told, that's a significant bump in total comp, despite the fact that an auto worker is an auto worker.   UAW guys aren't any better at what they do than Toyota's guys.  What makes your comment even more ridiculous is that it ignores the fact that those non-union counterparts in the South work for companies WHO ARE KICKING GM, FORD, AND CHRYSLER'S ASSES.   Why should employees at underperforming companies make even a single dime more (plus more expensive benefits) than their competitors who are beating them soundly in the marketplace?
</p><p>
Finally, please don't ignore the fact that unions make companies less competitive, which indirectly brings down compensation for everyone at those companies.   Don't agree with that statement?  Please name for me one company who's leading their field, with a significantly unionized workforce, that competes against competitors who aren't unionized?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The unions are not responsible for all the workplace protections and benefits in place at non-unionized workplaces .
In fact , in my time at a large DJIA company , that had union machinists , and non-union workers of other disciplines , it was most definitely the case that the lazy union bastards were taking compensation from the rest of us .
They typically went on strike every time their contracts were up , got cushy packages , and then the rest of us got shafted because the company had nothing left after the union bent them over .
Ralph Nader single-handedly has won the American worker as much as all the major unions combined .
UAW workers make more than their southern counterparts , and ... wait for it ... get more in benefits , too .
All told , that 's a significant bump in total comp , despite the fact that an auto worker is an auto worker .
UAW guys are n't any better at what they do than Toyota 's guys .
What makes your comment even more ridiculous is that it ignores the fact that those non-union counterparts in the South work for companies WHO ARE KICKING GM , FORD , AND CHRYSLER 'S ASSES .
Why should employees at underperforming companies make even a single dime more ( plus more expensive benefits ) than their competitors who are beating them soundly in the marketplace ?
Finally , please do n't ignore the fact that unions make companies less competitive , which indirectly brings down compensation for everyone at those companies .
Do n't agree with that statement ?
Please name for me one company who 's leading their field , with a significantly unionized workforce , that competes against competitors who are n't unionized ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The unions are not responsible for all the workplace protections and benefits in place at non-unionized workplaces.
In fact, in my time at a large DJIA company, that had union machinists, and non-union workers of other disciplines, it was most definitely the case that the lazy union bastards were taking compensation from the rest of us.
They typically went on strike every time their contracts were up, got cushy packages, and then the rest of us got shafted because the company had nothing left after the union bent them over.
Ralph Nader single-handedly has won the American worker as much as all the major unions combined.
UAW workers make more than their southern counterparts, and ... wait for it ... get more in benefits, too.
All told, that's a significant bump in total comp, despite the fact that an auto worker is an auto worker.
UAW guys aren't any better at what they do than Toyota's guys.
What makes your comment even more ridiculous is that it ignores the fact that those non-union counterparts in the South work for companies WHO ARE KICKING GM, FORD, AND CHRYSLER'S ASSES.
Why should employees at underperforming companies make even a single dime more (plus more expensive benefits) than their competitors who are beating them soundly in the marketplace?
Finally, please don't ignore the fact that unions make companies less competitive, which indirectly brings down compensation for everyone at those companies.
Don't agree with that statement?
Please name for me one company who's leading their field, with a significantly unionized workforce, that competes against competitors who aren't unionized?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108718</id>
	<title>Re:NRDC?</title>
	<author>drizek</author>
	<datestamp>1258278480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, the guy who stands to gain $3.5bn worth of funding is "confident" that it can work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , the guy who stands to gain $ 3.5bn worth of funding is " confident " that it can work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, the guy who stands to gain $3.5bn worth of funding is "confident" that it can work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106056</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>Comatose51</author>
	<datestamp>1258304760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah you know what's funny?  When you look at the price tags for the bail out for banks, GM, etc., and the cost of the wars and then compared to the price tags for these possibly world changing scientific research, you start to wonder why we're not pouring even more money into research.  The Large Hadron Collider is puny compared to the Supercollider we were building and then shut down because of cost.  Seems pretty silly now because we ended up giving even more money so some execs can keep their yachts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah you know what 's funny ?
When you look at the price tags for the bail out for banks , GM , etc. , and the cost of the wars and then compared to the price tags for these possibly world changing scientific research , you start to wonder why we 're not pouring even more money into research .
The Large Hadron Collider is puny compared to the Supercollider we were building and then shut down because of cost .
Seems pretty silly now because we ended up giving even more money so some execs can keep their yachts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah you know what's funny?
When you look at the price tags for the bail out for banks, GM, etc., and the cost of the wars and then compared to the price tags for these possibly world changing scientific research, you start to wonder why we're not pouring even more money into research.
The Large Hadron Collider is puny compared to the Supercollider we were building and then shut down because of cost.
Seems pretty silly now because we ended up giving even more money so some execs can keep their yachts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30110474</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1258291260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Perhaps you'd like to give up your 40 hours work weeks, week ends, OSHA regulations, retirement and disability insurance."</p><p>OSHA regulations aren't needed for unions and in most industries 40 hour work weeks are a thing of the past. Obviously employees want these things and to make $45/hr but that doesn't make it a feasible way to go about competitive car making. The fact is that an assembly line worker building a car isn't doing anything that should entitle them to more money than the guy operating a press in a printing company for $8-$15/hr.</p><p>That said, at least the automotive industry is a place where we are still producing something. We need to be using U.S. materials and U.S. cars to strengthen our industry. The problem with outsourcing everything some other country can do cheaper is that we don't make ANYTHING anymore and therefore the answer is to outsource everything. We are handing our economy to third world nations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Perhaps you 'd like to give up your 40 hours work weeks , week ends , OSHA regulations , retirement and disability insurance .
" OSHA regulations are n't needed for unions and in most industries 40 hour work weeks are a thing of the past .
Obviously employees want these things and to make $ 45/hr but that does n't make it a feasible way to go about competitive car making .
The fact is that an assembly line worker building a car is n't doing anything that should entitle them to more money than the guy operating a press in a printing company for $ 8- $ 15/hr.That said , at least the automotive industry is a place where we are still producing something .
We need to be using U.S. materials and U.S. cars to strengthen our industry .
The problem with outsourcing everything some other country can do cheaper is that we do n't make ANYTHING anymore and therefore the answer is to outsource everything .
We are handing our economy to third world nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Perhaps you'd like to give up your 40 hours work weeks, week ends, OSHA regulations, retirement and disability insurance.
"OSHA regulations aren't needed for unions and in most industries 40 hour work weeks are a thing of the past.
Obviously employees want these things and to make $45/hr but that doesn't make it a feasible way to go about competitive car making.
The fact is that an assembly line worker building a car isn't doing anything that should entitle them to more money than the guy operating a press in a printing company for $8-$15/hr.That said, at least the automotive industry is a place where we are still producing something.
We need to be using U.S. materials and U.S. cars to strengthen our industry.
The problem with outsourcing everything some other country can do cheaper is that we don't make ANYTHING anymore and therefore the answer is to outsource everything.
We are handing our economy to third world nations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30111368</id>
	<title>Re:Deuterium is hardly "endless"</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1258300080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, my. I do seem to have made a fundamental error on this: I'm afraid I may have to chalk it up partly to age, and partly to thinking of tritium. Note that that their pellets call for both, and \_tritium\_ is normally produced in plutonium power plants from deuterium.</p><p>So it's still limited, but nowhere near so limited as I thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , my .
I do seem to have made a fundamental error on this : I 'm afraid I may have to chalk it up partly to age , and partly to thinking of tritium .
Note that that their pellets call for both , and \ _tritium \ _ is normally produced in plutonium power plants from deuterium.So it 's still limited , but nowhere near so limited as I thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, my.
I do seem to have made a fundamental error on this: I'm afraid I may have to chalk it up partly to age, and partly to thinking of tritium.
Note that that their pellets call for both, and \_tritium\_ is normally produced in plutonium power plants from deuterium.So it's still limited, but nowhere near so limited as I thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105946</id>
	<title>Waste of money ...</title>
	<author>tgd</author>
	<datestamp>1258303980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is big physics that is a good place to sink money, and big physics that is not.</p><p>Only the physicists and engineers who are payed by grants in this area seem to think its a good use of money.</p><p>And unfortunately projects like this pull billions of taxpayer money from research projects that may actually benefit society.</p><p>The NIF is the ISS of the physics world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is big physics that is a good place to sink money , and big physics that is not.Only the physicists and engineers who are payed by grants in this area seem to think its a good use of money.And unfortunately projects like this pull billions of taxpayer money from research projects that may actually benefit society.The NIF is the ISS of the physics world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is big physics that is a good place to sink money, and big physics that is not.Only the physicists and engineers who are payed by grants in this area seem to think its a good use of money.And unfortunately projects like this pull billions of taxpayer money from research projects that may actually benefit society.The NIF is the ISS of the physics world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105810</id>
	<title>On Free Energy</title>
	<author>CranberryKing</author>
	<datestamp>1258302660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Oh.. Well unless you really, really like the food at the New Yorker Hotel, you probably don't want to go there"   -- Nick Tesla</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oh.. Well unless you really , really like the food at the New Yorker Hotel , you probably do n't want to go there " -- Nick Tesla</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oh.. Well unless you really, really like the food at the New Yorker Hotel, you probably don't want to go there"   -- Nick Tesla</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106712</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>yndrd1984</author>
	<datestamp>1258309680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>the UAW is probably the only reason why we have an auto industry in the US at this point<br>
the UAW workers don't actually make that much more than their non-union counterparts in the South</i> </p><p>

How is that not self-contradictory?  And why should we keep using tax money that everyone pays to prop up the companies the use the UAW?  If non-union companies compensate their employees just as much, and employ US workers, what's the point?  I don't think most people have a problem with unions per se, it's the constant need for favoritism that bothers them.</p><p>

<i>Perhaps you'd like to give up your 40 hours work weeks, week ends, OSHA regulations, retirement and disability insurance.</i> </p><p>

It seems a bit overblown to give all of the credit for those to unions, and to assume that they're all unambiguously beneficial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the UAW is probably the only reason why we have an auto industry in the US at this point the UAW workers do n't actually make that much more than their non-union counterparts in the South How is that not self-contradictory ?
And why should we keep using tax money that everyone pays to prop up the companies the use the UAW ?
If non-union companies compensate their employees just as much , and employ US workers , what 's the point ?
I do n't think most people have a problem with unions per se , it 's the constant need for favoritism that bothers them .
Perhaps you 'd like to give up your 40 hours work weeks , week ends , OSHA regulations , retirement and disability insurance .
It seems a bit overblown to give all of the credit for those to unions , and to assume that they 're all unambiguously beneficial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the UAW is probably the only reason why we have an auto industry in the US at this point
the UAW workers don't actually make that much more than their non-union counterparts in the South 

How is that not self-contradictory?
And why should we keep using tax money that everyone pays to prop up the companies the use the UAW?
If non-union companies compensate their employees just as much, and employ US workers, what's the point?
I don't think most people have a problem with unions per se, it's the constant need for favoritism that bothers them.
Perhaps you'd like to give up your 40 hours work weeks, week ends, OSHA regulations, retirement and disability insurance.
It seems a bit overblown to give all of the credit for those to unions, and to assume that they're all unambiguously beneficial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774</id>
	<title>A better alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258302180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$3.5 billion? This is a better alternative than giving the money to the UAW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 3.5 billion ?
This is a better alternative than giving the money to the UAW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$3.5 billion?
This is a better alternative than giving the money to the UAW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109280</id>
	<title>re syncing...</title>
	<author>gordona</author>
	<datestamp>1258282680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a reminder, femtoseconds may be common/easy today, but what we did was done 12 years ago as a prototype an proof of concept.  I'm not talking about femtosecond lasers either.  This project was to synchronize multiple devices over varying distances from each other and from a source, not to generate ultra short pulses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a reminder , femtoseconds may be common/easy today , but what we did was done 12 years ago as a prototype an proof of concept .
I 'm not talking about femtosecond lasers either .
This project was to synchronize multiple devices over varying distances from each other and from a source , not to generate ultra short pulses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a reminder, femtoseconds may be common/easy today, but what we did was done 12 years ago as a prototype an proof of concept.
I'm not talking about femtosecond lasers either.
This project was to synchronize multiple devices over varying distances from each other and from a source, not to generate ultra short pulses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108708</id>
	<title>Re:Deuterium is hardly "endless"</title>
	<author>Captain Segfault</author>
	<datestamp>1258278480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Deuterium is limited by the amount of deuterium in ocean water, which is the largest source on Earth but remains quite limited.</p></div><p>If you put all the deuterium in the oceans through D-D fusion, you'd get several years worth of solar output out of it. When I say "year of solar output" I mean the heat radiated by the <i>entire star</i> in a year. The energy we could get from deuterium would be limited by the earth's ability to radiate heat long before it would be limited by the supply of deuterium.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Deuterium is limited by the amount of deuterium in ocean water , which is the largest source on Earth but remains quite limited.If you put all the deuterium in the oceans through D-D fusion , you 'd get several years worth of solar output out of it .
When I say " year of solar output " I mean the heat radiated by the entire star in a year .
The energy we could get from deuterium would be limited by the earth 's ability to radiate heat long before it would be limited by the supply of deuterium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deuterium is limited by the amount of deuterium in ocean water, which is the largest source on Earth but remains quite limited.If you put all the deuterium in the oceans through D-D fusion, you'd get several years worth of solar output out of it.
When I say "year of solar output" I mean the heat radiated by the entire star in a year.
The energy we could get from deuterium would be limited by the earth's ability to radiate heat long before it would be limited by the supply of deuterium.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30115538</id>
	<title>nuclear fusion is 50 years away</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1258387920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like it was 50 years ago.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like it was 50 years ago .
: - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like it was 50 years ago.
:-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112066</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1258307520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If youre seriously proposing that without unions, we would have ridiculous work weeks and no choice about it, no ability to retire, and no regulations, you are sadly misinformed.  Unions performed a useful function, but I am currently in a non-unionized shop (it consulting) and have benefits, a decent salary, and a 40-hour work week-- less if i bill a substantial amount.<br> <br>

Reality tends to disagree with every one of your points.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If youre seriously proposing that without unions , we would have ridiculous work weeks and no choice about it , no ability to retire , and no regulations , you are sadly misinformed .
Unions performed a useful function , but I am currently in a non-unionized shop ( it consulting ) and have benefits , a decent salary , and a 40-hour work week-- less if i bill a substantial amount .
Reality tends to disagree with every one of your points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If youre seriously proposing that without unions, we would have ridiculous work weeks and no choice about it, no ability to retire, and no regulations, you are sadly misinformed.
Unions performed a useful function, but I am currently in a non-unionized shop (it consulting) and have benefits, a decent salary, and a 40-hour work week-- less if i bill a substantial amount.
Reality tends to disagree with every one of your points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109388</id>
	<title>Well, now we know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258283340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...science runs in <a href="http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Zefram\_Cochrane" title="memory-alpha.org" rel="nofollow">Zefram's family!</a> [memory-alpha.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...science runs in Zefram 's family !
[ memory-alpha.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...science runs in Zefram's family!
[memory-alpha.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30113008</id>
	<title>Marketing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258363500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They could call the fuel dilithium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could call the fuel dilithium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could call the fuel dilithium.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107662</id>
	<title>Point Three: I'm all for it!</title>
	<author>Hartree</author>
	<datestamp>1258315980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In other words, the NIF will be used, at least some of the time, to re-create the conditions inside of an exploding nuclear warhead so we can design new nukes without testing them and therefore violating the test ban treaties.</i></p><p>So, this keeps us from having to explode nuclear weapons, and thus violate treaties?</p><p>Plus, it has side research benefits like experimental data for inertial confinement fusion?</p><p>And it only costs 3.5 Bn initially? That's not much more than an accounting error in a budget the size of Dept. of Defense or Health and Human Services.</p><p>Wow. Sounds like a real deal to me. Can we have a few more programs like this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , the NIF will be used , at least some of the time , to re-create the conditions inside of an exploding nuclear warhead so we can design new nukes without testing them and therefore violating the test ban treaties.So , this keeps us from having to explode nuclear weapons , and thus violate treaties ? Plus , it has side research benefits like experimental data for inertial confinement fusion ? And it only costs 3.5 Bn initially ?
That 's not much more than an accounting error in a budget the size of Dept .
of Defense or Health and Human Services.Wow .
Sounds like a real deal to me .
Can we have a few more programs like this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, the NIF will be used, at least some of the time, to re-create the conditions inside of an exploding nuclear warhead so we can design new nukes without testing them and therefore violating the test ban treaties.So, this keeps us from having to explode nuclear weapons, and thus violate treaties?Plus, it has side research benefits like experimental data for inertial confinement fusion?And it only costs 3.5 Bn initially?
That's not much more than an accounting error in a budget the size of Dept.
of Defense or Health and Human Services.Wow.
Sounds like a real deal to me.
Can we have a few more programs like this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866</id>
	<title>Deuterium is hardly "endless"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258303260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deuterium is limited by the amount of deuterium in ocean water, which is the largest source on Earth but remains quite limited.</p><p>And sadly, unless these wishful dreamers can find an energy efficient way to harvest deuterium in bulk, there is very little point to this research. None of the available fusion processes work well with plain hydrogen, and barring a miracle occurring, deuterium refinement is still only done with stunningly high energy costs, nowhere near even theoretical break-even costs for bulk refinement and use in fusion.</p><p>No, this is an excuse to spend money on fusion weapons research under the guise of "energy research". It's flat-out pork-barrel money for military facilities who will otherwise "lose American jobs!". Spend it instead on solar mirror research, which has a much better return-on-investment and merely requires large-scale engineering, not hoped-for scientific breakthroughs that remain unlikely to occur in our lifetimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deuterium is limited by the amount of deuterium in ocean water , which is the largest source on Earth but remains quite limited.And sadly , unless these wishful dreamers can find an energy efficient way to harvest deuterium in bulk , there is very little point to this research .
None of the available fusion processes work well with plain hydrogen , and barring a miracle occurring , deuterium refinement is still only done with stunningly high energy costs , nowhere near even theoretical break-even costs for bulk refinement and use in fusion.No , this is an excuse to spend money on fusion weapons research under the guise of " energy research " .
It 's flat-out pork-barrel money for military facilities who will otherwise " lose American jobs ! " .
Spend it instead on solar mirror research , which has a much better return-on-investment and merely requires large-scale engineering , not hoped-for scientific breakthroughs that remain unlikely to occur in our lifetimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deuterium is limited by the amount of deuterium in ocean water, which is the largest source on Earth but remains quite limited.And sadly, unless these wishful dreamers can find an energy efficient way to harvest deuterium in bulk, there is very little point to this research.
None of the available fusion processes work well with plain hydrogen, and barring a miracle occurring, deuterium refinement is still only done with stunningly high energy costs, nowhere near even theoretical break-even costs for bulk refinement and use in fusion.No, this is an excuse to spend money on fusion weapons research under the guise of "energy research".
It's flat-out pork-barrel money for military facilities who will otherwise "lose American jobs!".
Spend it instead on solar mirror research, which has a much better return-on-investment and merely requires large-scale engineering, not hoped-for scientific breakthroughs that remain unlikely to occur in our lifetimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30110946</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of money ...</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1258295940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Only the physicists and engineers who are payed by grants in this area seem to think its a good use of money."</p><p>Right. The rest feel that grant money would be better spent in their own area. Preferably their very own project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Only the physicists and engineers who are payed by grants in this area seem to think its a good use of money. " Right .
The rest feel that grant money would be better spent in their own area .
Preferably their very own project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Only the physicists and engineers who are payed by grants in this area seem to think its a good use of money."Right.
The rest feel that grant money would be better spent in their own area.
Preferably their very own project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112548</id>
	<title>Re:Clean cheap energy will save the planet</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1258313820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheap clean energy is a lie. Even supposedly clean technology like solar panels has hidden ecological impacts. It's like people think these things spring from the earth ready-made instead of having to mine the <a href="http://www.supereco.com/news/2009/01/22/solar-power-solar-panels-solar-poison/" title="supereco.com">toxic materials</a> [supereco.com] that go into this stuff and then process them. Of course *that* cost is paid by the third world so who cares, right ? What would save us is frugality and efficiency: do less and do more with what we do use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheap clean energy is a lie .
Even supposedly clean technology like solar panels has hidden ecological impacts .
It 's like people think these things spring from the earth ready-made instead of having to mine the toxic materials [ supereco.com ] that go into this stuff and then process them .
Of course * that * cost is paid by the third world so who cares , right ?
What would save us is frugality and efficiency : do less and do more with what we do use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheap clean energy is a lie.
Even supposedly clean technology like solar panels has hidden ecological impacts.
It's like people think these things spring from the earth ready-made instead of having to mine the toxic materials [supereco.com] that go into this stuff and then process them.
Of course *that* cost is paid by the third world so who cares, right ?
What would save us is frugality and efficiency: do less and do more with what we do use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105842</id>
	<title>synchronizing nearly 200 lasers</title>
	<author>gordona</author>
	<datestamp>1258303020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone wondered how to synchronize these lasers to less than a microsecond?  Sure one could measure the path lengths and calculate the delays at approx 9 ns per foot.  However, about 12 years ago I wrote the software for a system that sync'd a remote quartz clock to a local cesium clock to within a nanosecond over 10 -100 km of fiber.  Changes in path length we automatically compensated.  It was fun to write this code and put the system together.  A prototype was delivered to the Lawrence Livermore Lab for just this purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone wondered how to synchronize these lasers to less than a microsecond ?
Sure one could measure the path lengths and calculate the delays at approx 9 ns per foot .
However , about 12 years ago I wrote the software for a system that sync 'd a remote quartz clock to a local cesium clock to within a nanosecond over 10 -100 km of fiber .
Changes in path length we automatically compensated .
It was fun to write this code and put the system together .
A prototype was delivered to the Lawrence Livermore Lab for just this purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone wondered how to synchronize these lasers to less than a microsecond?
Sure one could measure the path lengths and calculate the delays at approx 9 ns per foot.
However, about 12 years ago I wrote the software for a system that sync'd a remote quartz clock to a local cesium clock to within a nanosecond over 10 -100 km of fiber.
Changes in path length we automatically compensated.
It was fun to write this code and put the system together.
A prototype was delivered to the Lawrence Livermore Lab for just this purpose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112884</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1258404960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps you'd like to give up [...] OSHA regulations</p></div><p>This is one of the things that always struck me as interesting.</p><p>Way back when, employers created dangerous working conditions because it was cheaper than providing safe working conditions.  Employees banded together to create unions to force employers to provide safe working conditions.  And we all thought this was a good thing.</p><p>Then the government came along and created OSHA--The Occupation Safety and Health Administration.  So we now have a government organization that protects workers from dangers in the workplace.  So what are the unions doing to keep employees safe that OSHA isn't doing?  Do we really need two organizations looking out for employee safety?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you 'd like to give up [ ... ] OSHA regulationsThis is one of the things that always struck me as interesting.Way back when , employers created dangerous working conditions because it was cheaper than providing safe working conditions .
Employees banded together to create unions to force employers to provide safe working conditions .
And we all thought this was a good thing.Then the government came along and created OSHA--The Occupation Safety and Health Administration .
So we now have a government organization that protects workers from dangers in the workplace .
So what are the unions doing to keep employees safe that OSHA is n't doing ?
Do we really need two organizations looking out for employee safety ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you'd like to give up [...] OSHA regulationsThis is one of the things that always struck me as interesting.Way back when, employers created dangerous working conditions because it was cheaper than providing safe working conditions.
Employees banded together to create unions to force employers to provide safe working conditions.
And we all thought this was a good thing.Then the government came along and created OSHA--The Occupation Safety and Health Administration.
So we now have a government organization that protects workers from dangers in the workplace.
So what are the unions doing to keep employees safe that OSHA isn't doing?
Do we really need two organizations looking out for employee safety?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30121312</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap clean energy will utterly destroy the pla</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1258365360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, please keep modding reductio ad absurdum arguments as INTERESTING.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , please keep modding reductio ad absurdum arguments as INTERESTING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, please keep modding reductio ad absurdum arguments as INTERESTING.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30117980</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1258397460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I heard, the only thing that crippled the cost of US unions is the cost of health care insurance.</p><p>It was the old retired union people that GM and the rest had to pay crazy health care insurance that made them uncompetitive (ignoring the crappy cars) with 70$ vs 40$ an hour total cost difference.</p><p>So if the US figured out their health care mess 10 years ago or so they would likely have been fine. Couple this with the consumer and corporate greed of the housing bubble and unregulated wall street troubles (making borrowing impossible), well its no wonder they are screwed.</p><p>Ford was the only one that escaped someone unscathed, and that is either through accident, or though prescient forecasting, they pretty much leveraged every asset they had several years PRIOR to the meltdown so were sitting on a pile of cash and didn't need any loans to stay afloat.</p><p>Speaking of which, you always here about some jerk CEO that was at the helm when their company lost 5 billion, and he gets a 40 million bonus or something stupid. I sure hope whoever was responsible for Ford's decision back in the day got a big fat bonus, probably the one and only time someone would actually deserve a huge bonus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I heard , the only thing that crippled the cost of US unions is the cost of health care insurance.It was the old retired union people that GM and the rest had to pay crazy health care insurance that made them uncompetitive ( ignoring the crappy cars ) with 70 $ vs 40 $ an hour total cost difference.So if the US figured out their health care mess 10 years ago or so they would likely have been fine .
Couple this with the consumer and corporate greed of the housing bubble and unregulated wall street troubles ( making borrowing impossible ) , well its no wonder they are screwed.Ford was the only one that escaped someone unscathed , and that is either through accident , or though prescient forecasting , they pretty much leveraged every asset they had several years PRIOR to the meltdown so were sitting on a pile of cash and did n't need any loans to stay afloat.Speaking of which , you always here about some jerk CEO that was at the helm when their company lost 5 billion , and he gets a 40 million bonus or something stupid .
I sure hope whoever was responsible for Ford 's decision back in the day got a big fat bonus , probably the one and only time someone would actually deserve a huge bonus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I heard, the only thing that crippled the cost of US unions is the cost of health care insurance.It was the old retired union people that GM and the rest had to pay crazy health care insurance that made them uncompetitive (ignoring the crappy cars) with 70$ vs 40$ an hour total cost difference.So if the US figured out their health care mess 10 years ago or so they would likely have been fine.
Couple this with the consumer and corporate greed of the housing bubble and unregulated wall street troubles (making borrowing impossible), well its no wonder they are screwed.Ford was the only one that escaped someone unscathed, and that is either through accident, or though prescient forecasting, they pretty much leveraged every asset they had several years PRIOR to the meltdown so were sitting on a pile of cash and didn't need any loans to stay afloat.Speaking of which, you always here about some jerk CEO that was at the helm when their company lost 5 billion, and he gets a 40 million bonus or something stupid.
I sure hope whoever was responsible for Ford's decision back in the day got a big fat bonus, probably the one and only time someone would actually deserve a huge bonus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106948</id>
	<title>Re:NRDC?</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1258311720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a pissing contest.</p><p>ALL the possibilities need to be explored. So Mr. Thomas Cochran needs to STFU and deal with his proposed solutions and quite bitching about efforts of others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a pissing contest.ALL the possibilities need to be explored .
So Mr. Thomas Cochran needs to STFU and deal with his proposed solutions and quite bitching about efforts of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a pissing contest.ALL the possibilities need to be explored.
So Mr. Thomas Cochran needs to STFU and deal with his proposed solutions and quite bitching about efforts of others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106494</id>
	<title>The net effect...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258308120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So,</p><p>In one experiment the LHC could in theory create a small black hole that sucks stuff in.<br>In the second experiment, fusion could in theory create a small sun that ejects stuf out.</p><p>In theory, the two experiments cancel each other out and nothing happens<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>As usual, in theory, government spending goes for naught!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So,In one experiment the LHC could in theory create a small black hole that sucks stuff in.In the second experiment , fusion could in theory create a small sun that ejects stuf out.In theory , the two experiments cancel each other out and nothing happens : ) As usual , in theory , government spending goes for naught !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So,In one experiment the LHC could in theory create a small black hole that sucks stuff in.In the second experiment, fusion could in theory create a small sun that ejects stuf out.In theory, the two experiments cancel each other out and nothing happens :)As usual, in theory, government spending goes for naught!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108032</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1258317780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When you look at the price tags for the bail out for banks... seems pretty silly now because we ended up giving even more money so some execs can keep their yachts.</p></div></blockquote><p>

There would be much less money and fewer jobs to go around for <i>everybody</i> if the banking system had been allowed to fail.  It's sort of like saying, "wow, WWII really sucked, look how many GIs got killed and how much money it cost, imagine how much better off we'd be if we'd just stayed out of it!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you look at the price tags for the bail out for banks... seems pretty silly now because we ended up giving even more money so some execs can keep their yachts .
There would be much less money and fewer jobs to go around for everybody if the banking system had been allowed to fail .
It 's sort of like saying , " wow , WWII really sucked , look how many GIs got killed and how much money it cost , imagine how much better off we 'd be if we 'd just stayed out of it !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you look at the price tags for the bail out for banks... seems pretty silly now because we ended up giving even more money so some execs can keep their yachts.
There would be much less money and fewer jobs to go around for everybody if the banking system had been allowed to fail.
It's sort of like saying, "wow, WWII really sucked, look how many GIs got killed and how much money it cost, imagine how much better off we'd be if we'd just stayed out of it!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30124986</id>
	<title>Re:Natural Resources Defense Council objects...</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258384440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Natural Resources Defense Council spokesman calls fusion "snake oil". Couldn't have seen that one coming...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</i></p><p>Where and when did the NRDC say that?  While the NRDC is mentioned in the summary, without a link, it is not mentioned in TFA.  I searched for such a link and the only one I found was from the 1990s, '96 I think, about how the research could be used for research into nuclear weapons.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Natural Resources Defense Council spokesman calls fusion " snake oil " .
Could n't have seen that one coming... ; - ) Where and when did the NRDC say that ?
While the NRDC is mentioned in the summary , without a link , it is not mentioned in TFA .
I searched for such a link and the only one I found was from the 1990s , '96 I think , about how the research could be used for research into nuclear weapons .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Natural Resources Defense Council spokesman calls fusion "snake oil".
Couldn't have seen that one coming... ;-)Where and when did the NRDC say that?
While the NRDC is mentioned in the summary, without a link, it is not mentioned in TFA.
I searched for such a link and the only one I found was from the 1990s, '96 I think, about how the research could be used for research into nuclear weapons.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30111170</id>
	<title>Re:Clean cheap energy will save the planet</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1258298520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People will fight fewer wars over geographically concentrated energy resources.</p></div><p>To play devils advocate. "Great only religious and ideological wars left then."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People will fight fewer wars over geographically concentrated energy resources.To play devils advocate .
" Great only religious and ideological wars left then .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People will fight fewer wars over geographically concentrated energy resources.To play devils advocate.
"Great only religious and ideological wars left then.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30113534</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1258371060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really should do some homework in economics.  WWII pulled us out of the great depression(which by the way seems to have been caused largely by over confidence in Free Market Deregulation.)  The "New Deal" managed kept us from collapsing into abject anarchy.  WWII build up is what saved the economy.  At the close of WWII Eisenhower set the tax rates very high to pay down the war deficit.   By the late 50's the economy was stalled.  Kennedy takes over from Eisenhower and struggles with a 2 phase plan to jump start the economy, but Congress isn't buying into it...  Heck even Kennedy wasn't really sold on it.   Eisenhower had instilled "Fiscal Responsibility" into the peeps, which along with the high taxes was creating too much of a load on the economy.</p><p>Heller had this idea that if you give big business tax incentive for capital investment, then a short time later give consumers a big fat tax cut   It stimulates production, quickly followed by consumer spending, when the consumer tax break kicks in about a year or two down the road.   The core notion was that the Guberment had to expand the economy by investing in it.   There are really only two ways to do that....  cut taxes, or to borrow money and spend it.   Congress wasn't going to give Kennedy a blank check, so he went for the tax breaks.  There were naysayers who wanted Kennedy to cut social programs too, but then some would not get any benefit, maybe too many to allow the defibrillation to take hold.    Some even said that it was socially unjust to reduce taxes on the top 2\% only 7\% while dropping taxes up to 37\% on the middle and lower income brackets.    But lets face it...  the working class stiffs in the lower 80\% generate a lot more spending than the top 20\% ever could.     Worked like a charm once Kennedy figured out how to sell it to Congress.   Sad thing is that if he hadn't been assassinated The Revenue Act of 1964 might not have been passed.</p><p>What we face today is a throw back to 1929.   Same shit.</p><p>As for Mr. Fusion?  How about some cleaner cheaper fission first.  I'd rather see molten salt fission reactors get developed.   It's much more likely to result in viable power reactors and generates very little waste, in fact most of the waste from molten salt breeder reactors is the kind of stuff that is useful, once it goes through a short cool down phase.  Very little long term waste.    Also  molten salt reactors use Thorium as a feed stock (which is a wonderfully abundant feed stock).  Uranium is only used to start the reactor  the first time....   after that the breeder makes slightly more than enough uranium to sustain the reaction, and the little extra can be saved up to start the next reactor.    MSRs do not make enough extra for weapon development. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten\_salt\_reactor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten\_salt\_reactor</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Maybe by then fusion could be done using z-pinch, which results in a continuous plasma field rather than pulses or insanely complex Tokamak structures.  <a href="http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sharpe/486/pasko\_f.pdf" title="washington.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sharpe/486/pasko\_f.pdf</a> [washington.edu]</p><p>Probably the best short term (5 year) fix for the economy:</p><p>If you are too big to fail; then you are too big.  Period.<br>Prosecute execs for malfeasance and fine some big offender corps down to a manageable size.<br>Pry regulatory agencies out corporate orbits.<br>Fund education based on teacher performance and education reform at K-12, University reform...</p><p>Too much has been left to commercial interests.  The real pirates in the developed world wear power ties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really should do some homework in economics .
WWII pulled us out of the great depression ( which by the way seems to have been caused largely by over confidence in Free Market Deregulation .
) The " New Deal " managed kept us from collapsing into abject anarchy .
WWII build up is what saved the economy .
At the close of WWII Eisenhower set the tax rates very high to pay down the war deficit .
By the late 50 's the economy was stalled .
Kennedy takes over from Eisenhower and struggles with a 2 phase plan to jump start the economy , but Congress is n't buying into it... Heck even Kennedy was n't really sold on it .
Eisenhower had instilled " Fiscal Responsibility " into the peeps , which along with the high taxes was creating too much of a load on the economy.Heller had this idea that if you give big business tax incentive for capital investment , then a short time later give consumers a big fat tax cut It stimulates production , quickly followed by consumer spending , when the consumer tax break kicks in about a year or two down the road .
The core notion was that the Guberment had to expand the economy by investing in it .
There are really only two ways to do that.... cut taxes , or to borrow money and spend it .
Congress was n't going to give Kennedy a blank check , so he went for the tax breaks .
There were naysayers who wanted Kennedy to cut social programs too , but then some would not get any benefit , maybe too many to allow the defibrillation to take hold .
Some even said that it was socially unjust to reduce taxes on the top 2 \ % only 7 \ % while dropping taxes up to 37 \ % on the middle and lower income brackets .
But lets face it... the working class stiffs in the lower 80 \ % generate a lot more spending than the top 20 \ % ever could .
Worked like a charm once Kennedy figured out how to sell it to Congress .
Sad thing is that if he had n't been assassinated The Revenue Act of 1964 might not have been passed.What we face today is a throw back to 1929 .
Same shit.As for Mr. Fusion ? How about some cleaner cheaper fission first .
I 'd rather see molten salt fission reactors get developed .
It 's much more likely to result in viable power reactors and generates very little waste , in fact most of the waste from molten salt breeder reactors is the kind of stuff that is useful , once it goes through a short cool down phase .
Very little long term waste .
Also molten salt reactors use Thorium as a feed stock ( which is a wonderfully abundant feed stock ) .
Uranium is only used to start the reactor the first time.... after that the breeder makes slightly more than enough uranium to sustain the reaction , and the little extra can be saved up to start the next reactor .
MSRs do not make enough extra for weapon development .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten \ _salt \ _reactor [ wikipedia.org ] Maybe by then fusion could be done using z-pinch , which results in a continuous plasma field rather than pulses or insanely complex Tokamak structures .
http : //www.phys.washington.edu/users/sharpe/486/pasko \ _f.pdf [ washington.edu ] Probably the best short term ( 5 year ) fix for the economy : If you are too big to fail ; then you are too big .
Period.Prosecute execs for malfeasance and fine some big offender corps down to a manageable size.Pry regulatory agencies out corporate orbits.Fund education based on teacher performance and education reform at K-12 , University reform...Too much has been left to commercial interests .
The real pirates in the developed world wear power ties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really should do some homework in economics.
WWII pulled us out of the great depression(which by the way seems to have been caused largely by over confidence in Free Market Deregulation.
)  The "New Deal" managed kept us from collapsing into abject anarchy.
WWII build up is what saved the economy.
At the close of WWII Eisenhower set the tax rates very high to pay down the war deficit.
By the late 50's the economy was stalled.
Kennedy takes over from Eisenhower and struggles with a 2 phase plan to jump start the economy, but Congress isn't buying into it...  Heck even Kennedy wasn't really sold on it.
Eisenhower had instilled "Fiscal Responsibility" into the peeps, which along with the high taxes was creating too much of a load on the economy.Heller had this idea that if you give big business tax incentive for capital investment, then a short time later give consumers a big fat tax cut   It stimulates production, quickly followed by consumer spending, when the consumer tax break kicks in about a year or two down the road.
The core notion was that the Guberment had to expand the economy by investing in it.
There are really only two ways to do that....  cut taxes, or to borrow money and spend it.
Congress wasn't going to give Kennedy a blank check, so he went for the tax breaks.
There were naysayers who wanted Kennedy to cut social programs too, but then some would not get any benefit, maybe too many to allow the defibrillation to take hold.
Some even said that it was socially unjust to reduce taxes on the top 2\% only 7\% while dropping taxes up to 37\% on the middle and lower income brackets.
But lets face it...  the working class stiffs in the lower 80\% generate a lot more spending than the top 20\% ever could.
Worked like a charm once Kennedy figured out how to sell it to Congress.
Sad thing is that if he hadn't been assassinated The Revenue Act of 1964 might not have been passed.What we face today is a throw back to 1929.
Same shit.As for Mr. Fusion?  How about some cleaner cheaper fission first.
I'd rather see molten salt fission reactors get developed.
It's much more likely to result in viable power reactors and generates very little waste, in fact most of the waste from molten salt breeder reactors is the kind of stuff that is useful, once it goes through a short cool down phase.
Very little long term waste.
Also  molten salt reactors use Thorium as a feed stock (which is a wonderfully abundant feed stock).
Uranium is only used to start the reactor  the first time....   after that the breeder makes slightly more than enough uranium to sustain the reaction, and the little extra can be saved up to start the next reactor.
MSRs do not make enough extra for weapon development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten\_salt\_reactor [wikipedia.org]Maybe by then fusion could be done using z-pinch, which results in a continuous plasma field rather than pulses or insanely complex Tokamak structures.
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/sharpe/486/pasko\_f.pdf [washington.edu]Probably the best short term (5 year) fix for the economy:If you are too big to fail; then you are too big.
Period.Prosecute execs for malfeasance and fine some big offender corps down to a manageable size.Pry regulatory agencies out corporate orbits.Fund education based on teacher performance and education reform at K-12, University reform...Too much has been left to commercial interests.
The real pirates in the developed world wear power ties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106414</id>
	<title>Snake oil</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258307460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This may not work but it isn't snake oil. I mean snake oil salesmen sell something that doesn't work from the get go. They sell a lie. Its not like all the physicists will be like huzzah, enjoy your free energy if it doesn't work. I mean that doesn't even make sense. They'll go "Fuck, it doesn't work, sorry". Totally different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This may not work but it is n't snake oil .
I mean snake oil salesmen sell something that does n't work from the get go .
They sell a lie .
Its not like all the physicists will be like huzzah , enjoy your free energy if it does n't work .
I mean that does n't even make sense .
They 'll go " Fuck , it does n't work , sorry " .
Totally different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may not work but it isn't snake oil.
I mean snake oil salesmen sell something that doesn't work from the get go.
They sell a lie.
Its not like all the physicists will be like huzzah, enjoy your free energy if it doesn't work.
I mean that doesn't even make sense.
They'll go "Fuck, it doesn't work, sorry".
Totally different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106666</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258309320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think anyone doubts that unions did great things for the American workforce. What they tend to bash is tipping the balance too far to the side of the union workers. When their demands become too unreasonable that they threaten the very company they serve, then there is a problem.</p><p>Had they been more accommodating, they probably wouldn't be in bankruptcy. The cost of the insurance packages, retirement packages, 3 people to do one job, union rules that prevent simple jobs from being done, even when they could be done safely, etc.</p><p>Not all that is union is golden...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anyone doubts that unions did great things for the American workforce .
What they tend to bash is tipping the balance too far to the side of the union workers .
When their demands become too unreasonable that they threaten the very company they serve , then there is a problem.Had they been more accommodating , they probably would n't be in bankruptcy .
The cost of the insurance packages , retirement packages , 3 people to do one job , union rules that prevent simple jobs from being done , even when they could be done safely , etc.Not all that is union is golden.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anyone doubts that unions did great things for the American workforce.
What they tend to bash is tipping the balance too far to the side of the union workers.
When their demands become too unreasonable that they threaten the very company they serve, then there is a problem.Had they been more accommodating, they probably wouldn't be in bankruptcy.
The cost of the insurance packages, retirement packages, 3 people to do one job, union rules that prevent simple jobs from being done, even when they could be done safely, etc.Not all that is union is golden...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107208</id>
	<title>Dense Plasma Focus is more promising.</title>
	<author>John Sokol</author>
	<datestamp>1258313400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dense Plasma Focus technology is the next best thing to what cold fusion had promised.  Best of all it's real and doesn't use any questionable physics.</p><p>Safe, small, low cost, low maintenance and efficient.  It looks like it will be small enough that it could be ran from inside a rail car or truck.</p><p>It's far<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,more likely to work then blasting deuterium-tritium with lasers, but they can't get funding!</p><p>Slashdot's reported this several times.<br><a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/10/18/1652201/A-Step-Closer-To-Cheap-Nuclear-Fusion" title="slashdot.org">A-Step-Closer-To-Cheap-Nuclear-Fusion</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>And I have posting my research in to this too.<br><a href="http://thegreentank.blogspot.com/2009/10/dense-plasma-focus-clean-small-scale.html" title="blogspot.com">green ideas thinktank</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dense Plasma Focus technology is the next best thing to what cold fusion had promised .
Best of all it 's real and does n't use any questionable physics.Safe , small , low cost , low maintenance and efficient .
It looks like it will be small enough that it could be ran from inside a rail car or truck.It 's far ,more likely to work then blasting deuterium-tritium with lasers , but they ca n't get funding ! Slashdot 's reported this several times.A-Step-Closer-To-Cheap-Nuclear-Fusion [ slashdot.org ] And I have posting my research in to this too.green ideas thinktank [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dense Plasma Focus technology is the next best thing to what cold fusion had promised.
Best of all it's real and doesn't use any questionable physics.Safe, small, low cost, low maintenance and efficient.
It looks like it will be small enough that it could be ran from inside a rail car or truck.It's far ,more likely to work then blasting deuterium-tritium with lasers, but they can't get funding!Slashdot's reported this several times.A-Step-Closer-To-Cheap-Nuclear-Fusion [slashdot.org]And I have posting my research in to this too.green ideas thinktank [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30119620</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258402440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There would be much less money and fewer jobs to go around for everybody if the banking system had been allowed to fail.</i></p><p>I keep hearing or reading that but I have yet to see any proof that that is true.  Not all but some economists do not believe that at all, that instead those banks who had practiced due diligence when loaning money would have been left standing to continue loaning money to those who could pay it back.  All the government bailout did was reward bad practices and punish good practices.  Government rescued businesses too big to fail and allowed them to get bigger.  Next tyme government won't be able to rescue them.</p><p><i>It's sort of like saying, "wow, WWII really sucked, look how many GIs got killed and how much money it cost, imagine how much better off we'd be if we'd just stayed out of it!"</i></p><p>Straw man.  They are not even related to each other.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There would be much less money and fewer jobs to go around for everybody if the banking system had been allowed to fail.I keep hearing or reading that but I have yet to see any proof that that is true .
Not all but some economists do not believe that at all , that instead those banks who had practiced due diligence when loaning money would have been left standing to continue loaning money to those who could pay it back .
All the government bailout did was reward bad practices and punish good practices .
Government rescued businesses too big to fail and allowed them to get bigger .
Next tyme government wo n't be able to rescue them.It 's sort of like saying , " wow , WWII really sucked , look how many GIs got killed and how much money it cost , imagine how much better off we 'd be if we 'd just stayed out of it !
" Straw man .
They are not even related to each other .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There would be much less money and fewer jobs to go around for everybody if the banking system had been allowed to fail.I keep hearing or reading that but I have yet to see any proof that that is true.
Not all but some economists do not believe that at all, that instead those banks who had practiced due diligence when loaning money would have been left standing to continue loaning money to those who could pay it back.
All the government bailout did was reward bad practices and punish good practices.
Government rescued businesses too big to fail and allowed them to get bigger.
Next tyme government won't be able to rescue them.It's sort of like saying, "wow, WWII really sucked, look how many GIs got killed and how much money it cost, imagine how much better off we'd be if we'd just stayed out of it!
"Straw man.
They are not even related to each other.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109492</id>
	<title>Re:Deuterium is hardly "endless"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258284120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't tell if you're joking, but everything you said about deuterium is 100\% false. There is more D in the earth's oceans (1/6500th of all the water) than we could ever imagine using for fusion. It's also extracted cheaply and easily.</p></div><p>1/6500th of the ocean should be enough for anyone!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't tell if you 're joking , but everything you said about deuterium is 100 \ % false .
There is more D in the earth 's oceans ( 1/6500th of all the water ) than we could ever imagine using for fusion .
It 's also extracted cheaply and easily.1/6500th of the ocean should be enough for anyone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't tell if you're joking, but everything you said about deuterium is 100\% false.
There is more D in the earth's oceans (1/6500th of all the water) than we could ever imagine using for fusion.
It's also extracted cheaply and easily.1/6500th of the ocean should be enough for anyone!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106966</id>
	<title>Re:Mirror of the mirror</title>
	<author>stewartm0205</author>
	<datestamp>1258311840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Mirror Fusion facility was closed at the bequest of the Oil and Uranium industries. Many people don't seem to understand that these companies will do whatever it takes to protect their profits even if it means that the rest of the world suffers. Just look at the climate debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Mirror Fusion facility was closed at the bequest of the Oil and Uranium industries .
Many people do n't seem to understand that these companies will do whatever it takes to protect their profits even if it means that the rest of the world suffers .
Just look at the climate debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Mirror Fusion facility was closed at the bequest of the Oil and Uranium industries.
Many people don't seem to understand that these companies will do whatever it takes to protect their profits even if it means that the rest of the world suffers.
Just look at the climate debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105840</id>
	<title>Maybe they'll get lucky, but I'm not hopeful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258303020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm hesitant to say that nothing would do more to solve the world's problems than the availability of cheap, clean energy, but it would be on my top five.  However, every few years I hear about a new fusion project, and then I never hear anything else about it.  Here's to hoping that it works and that it works in a way that can be commercialized before we destroy the planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hesitant to say that nothing would do more to solve the world 's problems than the availability of cheap , clean energy , but it would be on my top five .
However , every few years I hear about a new fusion project , and then I never hear anything else about it .
Here 's to hoping that it works and that it works in a way that can be commercialized before we destroy the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hesitant to say that nothing would do more to solve the world's problems than the availability of cheap, clean energy, but it would be on my top five.
However, every few years I hear about a new fusion project, and then I never hear anything else about it.
Here's to hoping that it works and that it works in a way that can be commercialized before we destroy the planet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30122918</id>
	<title>Re:NRDC?</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258371300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So a member of an anti-nuke group doesn't approve of someone's attempts to build a workable fusion reactor? Is anyone really surprised by that?</i></p><p>Where is the NRDC mentioned in TFA?  Or is this an attempt to slam the NRDC?</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So a member of an anti-nuke group does n't approve of someone 's attempts to build a workable fusion reactor ?
Is anyone really surprised by that ? Where is the NRDC mentioned in TFA ?
Or is this an attempt to slam the NRDC ?
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a member of an anti-nuke group doesn't approve of someone's attempts to build a workable fusion reactor?
Is anyone really surprised by that?Where is the NRDC mentioned in TFA?
Or is this an attempt to slam the NRDC?
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106642</id>
	<title>Cheap clean energy will utterly destroy the planet</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1258309200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or rather.</p><p>What will happen is it will allow the economy, unlimited growth. With that goes consumption. Humans will literally build, eat and fuck the planet into a desolate wasteland.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or rather.What will happen is it will allow the economy , unlimited growth .
With that goes consumption .
Humans will literally build , eat and fuck the planet into a desolate wasteland .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or rather.What will happen is it will allow the economy, unlimited growth.
With that goes consumption.
Humans will literally build, eat and fuck the planet into a desolate wasteland.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106806</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>CastrTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1258310460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The UAW is the reason that most of the car manufacturing industry has moved to other countries.  People who are doing jobs that require not more education or skill than a Walmart worker are being paid 3 times as much.  Worked nice for a while, but it isn't sustainable.  It's not like auto workers have any special skills.  In fact, with the advent of robots, I would have to say that their skills became less and less important.  So, while I think it's important for people to have good working conditions, I  really dont' understand why the average factory worker would get paid so much more than somebody who works in a retail store, or fast food joint.  They really providing anything extra to any company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UAW is the reason that most of the car manufacturing industry has moved to other countries .
People who are doing jobs that require not more education or skill than a Walmart worker are being paid 3 times as much .
Worked nice for a while , but it is n't sustainable .
It 's not like auto workers have any special skills .
In fact , with the advent of robots , I would have to say that their skills became less and less important .
So , while I think it 's important for people to have good working conditions , I really dont ' understand why the average factory worker would get paid so much more than somebody who works in a retail store , or fast food joint .
They really providing anything extra to any company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UAW is the reason that most of the car manufacturing industry has moved to other countries.
People who are doing jobs that require not more education or skill than a Walmart worker are being paid 3 times as much.
Worked nice for a while, but it isn't sustainable.
It's not like auto workers have any special skills.
In fact, with the advent of robots, I would have to say that their skills became less and less important.
So, while I think it's important for people to have good working conditions, I  really dont' understand why the average factory worker would get paid so much more than somebody who works in a retail store, or fast food joint.
They really providing anything extra to any company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30110312</id>
	<title>Re:NIF not the only or even best technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258290060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see the problem in trying all three.  Maybe they all possess some fatal flaw that will prevent them from working.  We don't know until it is tried.  This is cutting edge science.  Talk to anyone doing real science, and without a doubt, there will be more failures than successes.  That does not mean it is pointless if something can be learned along the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the problem in trying all three .
Maybe they all possess some fatal flaw that will prevent them from working .
We do n't know until it is tried .
This is cutting edge science .
Talk to anyone doing real science , and without a doubt , there will be more failures than successes .
That does not mean it is pointless if something can be learned along the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the problem in trying all three.
Maybe they all possess some fatal flaw that will prevent them from working.
We don't know until it is tried.
This is cutting edge science.
Talk to anyone doing real science, and without a doubt, there will be more failures than successes.
That does not mean it is pointless if something can be learned along the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30126654</id>
	<title>Re:NRDC?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1258489740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unsurprising, but also irrelevant. Respond to the argument, not the arguer. If you only listen to people you know you agree with, then you're an ignorant fool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unsurprising , but also irrelevant .
Respond to the argument , not the arguer .
If you only listen to people you know you agree with , then you 're an ignorant fool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unsurprising, but also irrelevant.
Respond to the argument, not the arguer.
If you only listen to people you know you agree with, then you're an ignorant fool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109154</id>
	<title>Re:Three points</title>
	<author>Nebulious</author>
	<datestamp>1258281600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other words, the NIF will be used, at least some of the time, to re-create the conditions inside of an exploding nuclear warhead so we can design new nukes without testing them and therefore violating the test ban treaties.</p></div><p>Actually, this has been a well established practice for years in high energy density (HED) physics.  On all of the big lasers like NIF, OMEGA, and NIKE government projects doing largely classified research get first dibs on operations time.  There are many groups doing peaceful energy and astrophysics research as well, but they tend to be less priority and have to do a lot of work proving their experiments before getting shot time.  NIF, for example, is only just going to be accepting proposals from outside groups this December.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , the NIF will be used , at least some of the time , to re-create the conditions inside of an exploding nuclear warhead so we can design new nukes without testing them and therefore violating the test ban treaties.Actually , this has been a well established practice for years in high energy density ( HED ) physics .
On all of the big lasers like NIF , OMEGA , and NIKE government projects doing largely classified research get first dibs on operations time .
There are many groups doing peaceful energy and astrophysics research as well , but they tend to be less priority and have to do a lot of work proving their experiments before getting shot time .
NIF , for example , is only just going to be accepting proposals from outside groups this December .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, the NIF will be used, at least some of the time, to re-create the conditions inside of an exploding nuclear warhead so we can design new nukes without testing them and therefore violating the test ban treaties.Actually, this has been a well established practice for years in high energy density (HED) physics.
On all of the big lasers like NIF, OMEGA, and NIKE government projects doing largely classified research get first dibs on operations time.
There are many groups doing peaceful energy and astrophysics research as well, but they tend to be less priority and have to do a lot of work proving their experiments before getting shot time.
NIF, for example, is only just going to be accepting proposals from outside groups this December.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30124680</id>
	<title>Cheap clean energy will save the planet.</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258381500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Recycling and clean manufacturing processes will become economically viable because the energy to do it will be cheap.</i></p><p>Even now recycling uses less energy than refining raw materials, <a href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=environment\_recycling-basics" title="doe.gov">recycling saves energy</a> [doe.gov].</p><p><i>Wealthy people reproduce less than poor ones, so population growth will be slowed or even reversed.</i></p><p>Now this brings up something not many people know or realize.  As people's income goes up they have fewer children and care more about the environment.  When people are starving they don't care about much else but once they no longer have to fight to scratch a living they start caring about other things.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recycling and clean manufacturing processes will become economically viable because the energy to do it will be cheap.Even now recycling uses less energy than refining raw materials , recycling saves energy [ doe.gov ] .Wealthy people reproduce less than poor ones , so population growth will be slowed or even reversed.Now this brings up something not many people know or realize .
As people 's income goes up they have fewer children and care more about the environment .
When people are starving they do n't care about much else but once they no longer have to fight to scratch a living they start caring about other things .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recycling and clean manufacturing processes will become economically viable because the energy to do it will be cheap.Even now recycling uses less energy than refining raw materials, recycling saves energy [doe.gov].Wealthy people reproduce less than poor ones, so population growth will be slowed or even reversed.Now this brings up something not many people know or realize.
As people's income goes up they have fewer children and care more about the environment.
When people are starving they don't care about much else but once they no longer have to fight to scratch a living they start caring about other things.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105770</id>
	<title>Did slashdot just got slashdotted?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258302120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is first time I ever saw this -

Error 503 Service Unavailable

Service Unavailable
Guru Meditation:

XID: 595044882
Varnish</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is first time I ever saw this - Error 503 Service Unavailable Service Unavailable Guru Meditation : XID : 595044882 Varnish</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is first time I ever saw this -

Error 503 Service Unavailable

Service Unavailable
Guru Meditation:

XID: 595044882
Varnish</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106358</id>
	<title>HiPER</title>
	<author>Xinvoker</author>
	<datestamp>1258307100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>HiPER will be a European project that will take advantage of the findings of NIF to use IC Fusion as an energy source. (NIF has mainly military purposes).It will hopefully be ready sooner than ITER, and much cheaper. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiPER" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiPER</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>HiPER will be a European project that will take advantage of the findings of NIF to use IC Fusion as an energy source .
( NIF has mainly military purposes ) .It will hopefully be ready sooner than ITER , and much cheaper .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiPER [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HiPER will be a European project that will take advantage of the findings of NIF to use IC Fusion as an energy source.
(NIF has mainly military purposes).It will hopefully be ready sooner than ITER, and much cheaper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiPER [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106094</id>
	<title>Re:Deuterium is hardly "endless"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258305120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you should look up "quite limited."  Deuterium is naturally found at something like every 1 in 10000 hydrogens in the ocean.  There is a lot of hydrogen in the ocean - this is a mind boggling huge number.  There are plants in existence which can produce over a 100 tons of heavy water (contain deuterium) a year.  The article said that a reaction required milligrams.</p><p>I am more concerned about the tritium they require - this is rare.  Though, it can be produced in fission plants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you should look up " quite limited .
" Deuterium is naturally found at something like every 1 in 10000 hydrogens in the ocean .
There is a lot of hydrogen in the ocean - this is a mind boggling huge number .
There are plants in existence which can produce over a 100 tons of heavy water ( contain deuterium ) a year .
The article said that a reaction required milligrams.I am more concerned about the tritium they require - this is rare .
Though , it can be produced in fission plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you should look up "quite limited.
"  Deuterium is naturally found at something like every 1 in 10000 hydrogens in the ocean.
There is a lot of hydrogen in the ocean - this is a mind boggling huge number.
There are plants in existence which can produce over a 100 tons of heavy water (contain deuterium) a year.
The article said that a reaction required milligrams.I am more concerned about the tritium they require - this is rare.
Though, it can be produced in fission plants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106236</id>
	<title>Thomas Cochran</title>
	<author>dvh.tosomja</author>
	<datestamp>1258306320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thomas Cochran? Are you 100\% sure it is not Zefram Cochrane?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thomas Cochran ?
Are you 100 \ % sure it is not Zefram Cochrane ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thomas Cochran?
Are you 100\% sure it is not Zefram Cochrane?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107702</id>
	<title>Clean cheap energy will save the planet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258316220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recycling and clean manufacturing processes will become economically viable because the energy to do it will be cheap.</p><p>Planting in the desert will become economically viable because the energy to desalinate water will be cheap.</p><p>People will fight fewer wars over geographically concentrated energy resources.</p><p>Wealthy people reproduce less than poor ones, so population growth will be slowed or even reversed.</p><p>Cheap clean energy will save the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recycling and clean manufacturing processes will become economically viable because the energy to do it will be cheap.Planting in the desert will become economically viable because the energy to desalinate water will be cheap.People will fight fewer wars over geographically concentrated energy resources.Wealthy people reproduce less than poor ones , so population growth will be slowed or even reversed.Cheap clean energy will save the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recycling and clean manufacturing processes will become economically viable because the energy to do it will be cheap.Planting in the desert will become economically viable because the energy to desalinate water will be cheap.People will fight fewer wars over geographically concentrated energy resources.Wealthy people reproduce less than poor ones, so population growth will be slowed or even reversed.Cheap clean energy will save the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109350</id>
	<title>Re:Proof of Concept</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258283160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Particle accelerators. Tokamaks.<br>Do I have to give more examples?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Particle accelerators .
Tokamaks.Do I have to give more examples ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Particle accelerators.
Tokamaks.Do I have to give more examples?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106688</id>
	<title>Worth doing, but kick the military out</title>
	<author>Entropius</author>
	<datestamp>1258309500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a long (~1 hour) plenary talk about this at a recent American Physical Society conference.</p><p>The NIF is exciting scientifically for studying both fusion and "extreme" materials science. No, it's not going to turn into a power plant once we get it working, but fusion power is too promising to <i>not</i> take steps toward it. We won't be able to roll out fusion power in time to avert climate change, of course, so it's not a first priority for energy research. But it is certainly worth doing on its scientific merits alone.</p><p>Trouble is, the main intent behind the NIF isn't science -- it's "stockpile stewardship" and weapons development. If it were simply a science experiment I imagine that the science goals could be achieved far more cheaply, and with a higher degree of openness. (For instance, some of the other approaches to fusion seem more promising. But the US's flagship fusion project is this one -- just because you can learn about bombs with it.)</p><p>Science that is worth doing (which in my opinion the NIF is) should be done completely independent of the military (so it can be done honestly) and it should be done openly (so it can be useful to society).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a long ( ~ 1 hour ) plenary talk about this at a recent American Physical Society conference.The NIF is exciting scientifically for studying both fusion and " extreme " materials science .
No , it 's not going to turn into a power plant once we get it working , but fusion power is too promising to not take steps toward it .
We wo n't be able to roll out fusion power in time to avert climate change , of course , so it 's not a first priority for energy research .
But it is certainly worth doing on its scientific merits alone.Trouble is , the main intent behind the NIF is n't science -- it 's " stockpile stewardship " and weapons development .
If it were simply a science experiment I imagine that the science goals could be achieved far more cheaply , and with a higher degree of openness .
( For instance , some of the other approaches to fusion seem more promising .
But the US 's flagship fusion project is this one -- just because you can learn about bombs with it .
) Science that is worth doing ( which in my opinion the NIF is ) should be done completely independent of the military ( so it can be done honestly ) and it should be done openly ( so it can be useful to society ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a long (~1 hour) plenary talk about this at a recent American Physical Society conference.The NIF is exciting scientifically for studying both fusion and "extreme" materials science.
No, it's not going to turn into a power plant once we get it working, but fusion power is too promising to not take steps toward it.
We won't be able to roll out fusion power in time to avert climate change, of course, so it's not a first priority for energy research.
But it is certainly worth doing on its scientific merits alone.Trouble is, the main intent behind the NIF isn't science -- it's "stockpile stewardship" and weapons development.
If it were simply a science experiment I imagine that the science goals could be achieved far more cheaply, and with a higher degree of openness.
(For instance, some of the other approaches to fusion seem more promising.
But the US's flagship fusion project is this one -- just because you can learn about bombs with it.
)Science that is worth doing (which in my opinion the NIF is) should be done completely independent of the military (so it can be done honestly) and it should be done openly (so it can be useful to society).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108216</id>
	<title>Re:Three points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258318740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Point three: Calling it the Ultimate Green Energy Source is a cover story.</em></p><p>Exactly backwards. The stockpile stewardship program is the defense-related cover story that allows NIF to get funded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Point three : Calling it the Ultimate Green Energy Source is a cover story.Exactly backwards .
The stockpile stewardship program is the defense-related cover story that allows NIF to get funded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point three: Calling it the Ultimate Green Energy Source is a cover story.Exactly backwards.
The stockpile stewardship program is the defense-related cover story that allows NIF to get funded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105816</id>
	<title>Proof of Concept</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1258302720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cochran says the NIF laser is still not powerful enough. Even if it were, he says, "these machines are just going to be too big, and too costly, and they'll never be competitive."</p></div><p>Proof of concept devices area always oversized and more costly than the production versions.  Once you know it works and how it works, you can start shrinking it down and since the development is done, the cost per unit goes down further.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cochran says the NIF laser is still not powerful enough .
Even if it were , he says , " these machines are just going to be too big , and too costly , and they 'll never be competitive .
" Proof of concept devices area always oversized and more costly than the production versions .
Once you know it works and how it works , you can start shrinking it down and since the development is done , the cost per unit goes down further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cochran says the NIF laser is still not powerful enough.
Even if it were, he says, "these machines are just going to be too big, and too costly, and they'll never be competitive.
"Proof of concept devices area always oversized and more costly than the production versions.
Once you know it works and how it works, you can start shrinking it down and since the development is done, the cost per unit goes down further.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112558</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1258314060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Perhaps you'd like to give up your 40 hours work weeks, week ends, OSHA regulations, retirement and disability insurance</p></div><p>First of all, you don't need a union to enforce OSHA regulations. There are plenty of other ways employees can get their employers to enforce OSHA regulations. Secondly, whats this nonsense about 40 hour work weeks and week ends and insurance? There are plenty of industries in the united states right now that don't offer any of those to their employees AND those employees make way less than their uneducated counterparts working in the unions. So please, get a reality check. UAW workers demand stuff they don't deserve. The fact that they get it is what pisses off the rest of us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you 'd like to give up your 40 hours work weeks , week ends , OSHA regulations , retirement and disability insuranceFirst of all , you do n't need a union to enforce OSHA regulations .
There are plenty of other ways employees can get their employers to enforce OSHA regulations .
Secondly , whats this nonsense about 40 hour work weeks and week ends and insurance ?
There are plenty of industries in the united states right now that do n't offer any of those to their employees AND those employees make way less than their uneducated counterparts working in the unions .
So please , get a reality check .
UAW workers demand stuff they do n't deserve .
The fact that they get it is what pisses off the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Perhaps you'd like to give up your 40 hours work weeks, week ends, OSHA regulations, retirement and disability insuranceFirst of all, you don't need a union to enforce OSHA regulations.
There are plenty of other ways employees can get their employers to enforce OSHA regulations.
Secondly, whats this nonsense about 40 hour work weeks and week ends and insurance?
There are plenty of industries in the united states right now that don't offer any of those to their employees AND those employees make way less than their uneducated counterparts working in the unions.
So please, get a reality check.
UAW workers demand stuff they don't deserve.
The fact that they get it is what pisses off the rest of us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105792</id>
	<title>"Step" towards controlled fusion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258302420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have had Farnsworth fusors for decades. We can control fusion. You know, for a geek website we sure do play fast and loose with facts and poor summaries.<br>Maybe "step towards controlled fusion power"? Words convey meaning, folks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have had Farnsworth fusors for decades .
We can control fusion .
You know , for a geek website we sure do play fast and loose with facts and poor summaries.Maybe " step towards controlled fusion power " ?
Words convey meaning , folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have had Farnsworth fusors for decades.
We can control fusion.
You know, for a geek website we sure do play fast and loose with facts and poor summaries.Maybe "step towards controlled fusion power"?
Words convey meaning, folks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112610</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1258314960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey buddy! I see you're posting in this thread. This is a union thread. No one posts here unless they're in the Teamsters Comment Posters Union.</p><p>That's a nice car you've got there. Wouldn't want Mikey to bust it up would you? Best pay up your dues now. Oh yeah, if you payup Mikey and the boys will make sure you get a pay rise.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Despite all the ignorance, the UAW workers don't actually make that much more than their non-union counterparts in the South, but you get the same blind rage from people because ZOMG UNIONS~!!1!!11ONEONEELEVEN</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39499" title="cnsnews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39499</a> [cnsnews.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>He explained that in 2006, widely available industry and Labor Department statistics placed the average labor cost for UAW-represented workers at the former DaimlerChrysler at $75.86 per hour. For Ford it was $70.51, he said, and for General Motors it was $73.26.</p><p>&ldquo;That includes the hourly pay, plus the benefits they&rsquo;re receiving and all the other costs to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, including legacy costs &ndash; retirement costs, pensions, and so on &ndash; so it&rsquo;s looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers,&rdquo; Perry said.</p><p>For U.S. workers at Toyota, however, the per hour labor cost is around $47.60, around $43 for Honda and around $42 for Nissan, Perry added, for an average of around $44.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey buddy !
I see you 're posting in this thread .
This is a union thread .
No one posts here unless they 're in the Teamsters Comment Posters Union.That 's a nice car you 've got there .
Would n't want Mikey to bust it up would you ?
Best pay up your dues now .
Oh yeah , if you payup Mikey and the boys will make sure you get a pay rise.Despite all the ignorance , the UAW workers do n't actually make that much more than their non-union counterparts in the South , but you get the same blind rage from people because ZOMG UNIONS ~ ! ! 1 !
! 11ONEONEELEVEN http : //www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx ? RsrcID = 39499 [ cnsnews.com ] He explained that in 2006 , widely available industry and Labor Department statistics placed the average labor cost for UAW-represented workers at the former DaimlerChrysler at $ 75.86 per hour .
For Ford it was $ 70.51 , he said , and for General Motors it was $ 73.26.    That includes the hourly pay , plus the benefits they    re receiving and all the other costs to General Motors , Ford and Chrysler , including legacy costs    retirement costs , pensions , and so on    so it    s looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers ,    Perry said.For U.S. workers at Toyota , however , the per hour labor cost is around $ 47.60 , around $ 43 for Honda and around $ 42 for Nissan , Perry added , for an average of around $ 44 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey buddy!
I see you're posting in this thread.
This is a union thread.
No one posts here unless they're in the Teamsters Comment Posters Union.That's a nice car you've got there.
Wouldn't want Mikey to bust it up would you?
Best pay up your dues now.
Oh yeah, if you payup Mikey and the boys will make sure you get a pay rise.Despite all the ignorance, the UAW workers don't actually make that much more than their non-union counterparts in the South, but you get the same blind rage from people because ZOMG UNIONS~!!1!
!11ONEONEELEVEN http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39499 [cnsnews.com] He explained that in 2006, widely available industry and Labor Department statistics placed the average labor cost for UAW-represented workers at the former DaimlerChrysler at $75.86 per hour.
For Ford it was $70.51, he said, and for General Motors it was $73.26.“That includes the hourly pay, plus the benefits they’re receiving and all the other costs to General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, including legacy costs – retirement costs, pensions, and so on – so it’s looking at the total labor costs per hour worked for workers,” Perry said.For U.S. workers at Toyota, however, the per hour labor cost is around $47.60, around $43 for Honda and around $42 for Nissan, Perry added, for an average of around $44.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105806</id>
	<title>creative name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258302600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess they didn't bring in the high priced consultant to come up with a better name than the stogie-esque <b>National Ignition Facility</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess they did n't bring in the high priced consultant to come up with a better name than the stogie-esque National Ignition Facility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess they didn't bring in the high priced consultant to come up with a better name than the stogie-esque National Ignition Facility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30124858</id>
	<title>Re:Three points</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258383360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Point one: Not spending money on fusion research is incredibly dumb.</i></p><p>Government subsidies fund inefficiencies and is government picking winners and losers.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Point one : Not spending money on fusion research is incredibly dumb.Government subsidies fund inefficiencies and is government picking winners and losers .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point one: Not spending money on fusion research is incredibly dumb.Government subsidies fund inefficiencies and is government picking winners and losers.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30121220</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1258365000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are a terrible human being for forcing people to not be able to work more than 40 hours a week if they choose. You live insulated in your ivory tower while a struggling auto worker cannot send his child to college because he cannot work overtime. You sick bastard.
<br> <br>
You also drive up the cost of production by keeping people in inefficient jobs. You could care less about the poor who cannot afford a car so they could get a better job on the other side of town and get ahead in life.<br> <br>
I petition you to rethink your evil ways and see the consequences of your actions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a terrible human being for forcing people to not be able to work more than 40 hours a week if they choose .
You live insulated in your ivory tower while a struggling auto worker can not send his child to college because he can not work overtime .
You sick bastard .
You also drive up the cost of production by keeping people in inefficient jobs .
You could care less about the poor who can not afford a car so they could get a better job on the other side of town and get ahead in life .
I petition you to rethink your evil ways and see the consequences of your actions .
The road to hell is paved with good intentions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a terrible human being for forcing people to not be able to work more than 40 hours a week if they choose.
You live insulated in your ivory tower while a struggling auto worker cannot send his child to college because he cannot work overtime.
You sick bastard.
You also drive up the cost of production by keeping people in inefficient jobs.
You could care less about the poor who cannot afford a car so they could get a better job on the other side of town and get ahead in life.
I petition you to rethink your evil ways and see the consequences of your actions.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30111498</id>
	<title>Units?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258301040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't anyone get their units straight?  This seems like such a simple matter, but when they're talking about energy, they always use power units; when they're talking about power, they always use energy units.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't anyone get their units straight ?
This seems like such a simple matter , but when they 're talking about energy , they always use power units ; when they 're talking about power , they always use energy units .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't anyone get their units straight?
This seems like such a simple matter, but when they're talking about energy, they always use power units; when they're talking about power, they always use energy units.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107176</id>
	<title>NIF == Nuclear Test Ban Treaty workaround</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258313160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sole purpose of NIF is reproducing conditions similiar to a nuke without setting off a nuke.  Its basically a way to work around various test ban treaties the US is signatory to.</p><p>Their token attempt at producing electrical power is just that no serious person expects that anything approaching commercial viability will EVER come out of such a design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sole purpose of NIF is reproducing conditions similiar to a nuke without setting off a nuke .
Its basically a way to work around various test ban treaties the US is signatory to.Their token attempt at producing electrical power is just that no serious person expects that anything approaching commercial viability will EVER come out of such a design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sole purpose of NIF is reproducing conditions similiar to a nuke without setting off a nuke.
Its basically a way to work around various test ban treaties the US is signatory to.Their token attempt at producing electrical power is just that no serious person expects that anything approaching commercial viability will EVER come out of such a design.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106906</id>
	<title>Wow; just WOW</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1258311420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read your posting and all I can think of is why is America failing? At one time, we succeeded because we did NOT put all of our eggs in one basket. We actually spread the money and approaches around so that we could figure out the best approach. Now, I have to read the idiot postings that LOVE coal/Oil, Hate AE, and at best tolerate Nukes. Or we have the pure nuke lovers that hate AE/coal/Oil. Finally, we have ppl like you that imagine that this is weapons research and not really a way to lower our energy costs.<br> <br>
Why do ppl like you push this kind of crap?  Solar research IS progressing. In many countries. BUT, we need to take multiple tacks and make sure that we have a cheap alternative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read your posting and all I can think of is why is America failing ?
At one time , we succeeded because we did NOT put all of our eggs in one basket .
We actually spread the money and approaches around so that we could figure out the best approach .
Now , I have to read the idiot postings that LOVE coal/Oil , Hate AE , and at best tolerate Nukes .
Or we have the pure nuke lovers that hate AE/coal/Oil .
Finally , we have ppl like you that imagine that this is weapons research and not really a way to lower our energy costs .
Why do ppl like you push this kind of crap ?
Solar research IS progressing .
In many countries .
BUT , we need to take multiple tacks and make sure that we have a cheap alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read your posting and all I can think of is why is America failing?
At one time, we succeeded because we did NOT put all of our eggs in one basket.
We actually spread the money and approaches around so that we could figure out the best approach.
Now, I have to read the idiot postings that LOVE coal/Oil, Hate AE, and at best tolerate Nukes.
Or we have the pure nuke lovers that hate AE/coal/Oil.
Finally, we have ppl like you that imagine that this is weapons research and not really a way to lower our energy costs.
Why do ppl like you push this kind of crap?
Solar research IS progressing.
In many countries.
BUT, we need to take multiple tacks and make sure that we have a cheap alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30117510</id>
	<title>Re:A better alternative</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1258396140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, because half a million people having money to do things like eat, buy stuff, and pay their mortgages is obviously not in the best interests of the economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because half a million people having money to do things like eat , buy stuff , and pay their mortgages is obviously not in the best interests of the economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because half a million people having money to do things like eat, buy stuff, and pay their mortgages is obviously not in the best interests of the economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105870</id>
	<title>NIF not the only or even best technology</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1258303260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be great if NIF could produce a working fusion system within the next century, but i find it a bit doubtful. There are two other fusion technologies which have aimed to reduce the size and complexity of fusion systems, instead of building massive billion dollar generators to instead build smaller technologies. These inlcude Polywell and Focus Fusion. Both are developed by engineers and appear to be honest attempts to develop fusion power and to do it with a reasonable amount of money, under 20 years, rather than centuries. While the government has given NIF billions of dollars, the polywell has received about 8 million in funding, despite the fact that if it is possible it could save the planet. Some scientists seem so enamored by the size and complexity, and unfeasibly of such machines as ITER they seem unwilling to consider smaller, cheaper and more practical alternatives, thus fusion always remains something far off in the centuries away future, when it is desperately needed now.</p><p>Id like to see polywell, focus fusion and the NIF fully funded however, since it is possible that one may be right and the others not workable, it increases the chance of finding a solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be great if NIF could produce a working fusion system within the next century , but i find it a bit doubtful .
There are two other fusion technologies which have aimed to reduce the size and complexity of fusion systems , instead of building massive billion dollar generators to instead build smaller technologies .
These inlcude Polywell and Focus Fusion .
Both are developed by engineers and appear to be honest attempts to develop fusion power and to do it with a reasonable amount of money , under 20 years , rather than centuries .
While the government has given NIF billions of dollars , the polywell has received about 8 million in funding , despite the fact that if it is possible it could save the planet .
Some scientists seem so enamored by the size and complexity , and unfeasibly of such machines as ITER they seem unwilling to consider smaller , cheaper and more practical alternatives , thus fusion always remains something far off in the centuries away future , when it is desperately needed now.Id like to see polywell , focus fusion and the NIF fully funded however , since it is possible that one may be right and the others not workable , it increases the chance of finding a solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be great if NIF could produce a working fusion system within the next century, but i find it a bit doubtful.
There are two other fusion technologies which have aimed to reduce the size and complexity of fusion systems, instead of building massive billion dollar generators to instead build smaller technologies.
These inlcude Polywell and Focus Fusion.
Both are developed by engineers and appear to be honest attempts to develop fusion power and to do it with a reasonable amount of money, under 20 years, rather than centuries.
While the government has given NIF billions of dollars, the polywell has received about 8 million in funding, despite the fact that if it is possible it could save the planet.
Some scientists seem so enamored by the size and complexity, and unfeasibly of such machines as ITER they seem unwilling to consider smaller, cheaper and more practical alternatives, thus fusion always remains something far off in the centuries away future, when it is desperately needed now.Id like to see polywell, focus fusion and the NIF fully funded however, since it is possible that one may be right and the others not workable, it increases the chance of finding a solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106434</id>
	<title>Natural Resources Defense Council objects...</title>
	<author>ghostis</author>
	<datestamp>1258307580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Natural Resources Defense Council spokesman calls fusion "snake oil".  Couldn't have seen that one coming...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  Reminds me of "Thank You For Smoking."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Natural Resources Defense Council spokesman calls fusion " snake oil " .
Could n't have seen that one coming... ; - ) Reminds me of " Thank You For Smoking .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Natural Resources Defense Council spokesman calls fusion "snake oil".
Couldn't have seen that one coming... ;-)  Reminds me of "Thank You For Smoking.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107078</id>
	<title>Re:Three points</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1258312500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Point One sounds pretty cool, but check your spelling, it's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable\_specific\_impulse\_magnetoplasma\_rocket" title="wikipedia.org">"V A S I M R"</a> [wikipedia.org].  Point Two, this energy generation method is not Short Term, at least not from what I have been reading.  The Neutron issue sounds interesting, except for the case of when Neutrons fly away, won't the Electrons, and Protons have as much freedom as the Neutrons?  And why do Neutrons "stick" to Protons in the first place?  Point Three shows a lack of doing your home work,  yes there will always be some evil genius trying to build a better mouse trap.  But the people that make the global decisions are not Evil Geniuses, or Politicians; they're Wealth Mongers, and they completely understand that killing customers is bad for business.  I still think about Point One! Damn! A working VASIMR Space Drive; now that's cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Point One sounds pretty cool , but check your spelling , it 's " V A S I M R " [ wikipedia.org ] .
Point Two , this energy generation method is not Short Term , at least not from what I have been reading .
The Neutron issue sounds interesting , except for the case of when Neutrons fly away , wo n't the Electrons , and Protons have as much freedom as the Neutrons ?
And why do Neutrons " stick " to Protons in the first place ?
Point Three shows a lack of doing your home work , yes there will always be some evil genius trying to build a better mouse trap .
But the people that make the global decisions are not Evil Geniuses , or Politicians ; they 're Wealth Mongers , and they completely understand that killing customers is bad for business .
I still think about Point One !
Damn ! A working VASIMR Space Drive ; now that 's cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point One sounds pretty cool, but check your spelling, it's "V A S I M R" [wikipedia.org].
Point Two, this energy generation method is not Short Term, at least not from what I have been reading.
The Neutron issue sounds interesting, except for the case of when Neutrons fly away, won't the Electrons, and Protons have as much freedom as the Neutrons?
And why do Neutrons "stick" to Protons in the first place?
Point Three shows a lack of doing your home work,  yes there will always be some evil genius trying to build a better mouse trap.
But the people that make the global decisions are not Evil Geniuses, or Politicians; they're Wealth Mongers, and they completely understand that killing customers is bad for business.
I still think about Point One!
Damn! A working VASIMR Space Drive; now that's cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109204</id>
	<title>Re:NRDC?</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1258282020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This Cochran guy is just pissed off because he didn't receive funding for his proposed warp drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This Cochran guy is just pissed off because he did n't receive funding for his proposed warp drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Cochran guy is just pissed off because he didn't receive funding for his proposed warp drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106022</id>
	<title>Re:Could the NIF be scaled to a fusion process?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258304520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NIF can be a good test bed for fusion research, but it isn't a practical reactor. We would need much more efficient, and higher repetition rate lasers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NIF can be a good test bed for fusion research , but it is n't a practical reactor .
We would need much more efficient , and higher repetition rate lasers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NIF can be a good test bed for fusion research, but it isn't a practical reactor.
We would need much more efficient, and higher repetition rate lasers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30128782</id>
	<title>Re:Three points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258472880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Point two: Relying on fusion power to make for a short-term fix is also dumb. Especially if you think it's going to be safe and clean. The problem with fusion is how many neutrons it emits. Even when you use one of the fusion chains designed not to produce neutrons, you produce a good amount. The reactor core is going to be even more radioactive than a fission reactor core. And even if you get to a "Breakeven" point, that doesn't mean that you'll be price-competitive with other forms of power.</i> <br> <br>

Two words: p-B11 Polywells.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Point two : Relying on fusion power to make for a short-term fix is also dumb .
Especially if you think it 's going to be safe and clean .
The problem with fusion is how many neutrons it emits .
Even when you use one of the fusion chains designed not to produce neutrons , you produce a good amount .
The reactor core is going to be even more radioactive than a fission reactor core .
And even if you get to a " Breakeven " point , that does n't mean that you 'll be price-competitive with other forms of power .
Two words : p-B11 Polywells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point two: Relying on fusion power to make for a short-term fix is also dumb.
Especially if you think it's going to be safe and clean.
The problem with fusion is how many neutrons it emits.
Even when you use one of the fusion chains designed not to produce neutrons, you produce a good amount.
The reactor core is going to be even more radioactive than a fission reactor core.
And even if you get to a "Breakeven" point, that doesn't mean that you'll be price-competitive with other forms of power.
Two words: p-B11 Polywells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106190</id>
	<title>The nation that comes up with fusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258305960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will be instantly empowered to enslave and slaughter all other nations. And it won't even have to declare war, because that nation will be the only one left. It's a weapon of unlimited power. The only other horror almost comparative to it is the slow but sure erosion of everybody's privacy on facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will be instantly empowered to enslave and slaughter all other nations .
And it wo n't even have to declare war , because that nation will be the only one left .
It 's a weapon of unlimited power .
The only other horror almost comparative to it is the slow but sure erosion of everybody 's privacy on facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will be instantly empowered to enslave and slaughter all other nations.
And it won't even have to declare war, because that nation will be the only one left.
It's a weapon of unlimited power.
The only other horror almost comparative to it is the slow but sure erosion of everybody's privacy on facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30111368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30110474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30117590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30122918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30126654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30110312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30113672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30124858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30111170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30124986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30113534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30117980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30110946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30119620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30124680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30121220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30111604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30110734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30117510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30128782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30121312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_15_1412233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30110312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30110734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30124858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30128782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107702
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30111170
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112548
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30124680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30121312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30111604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30107622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30126654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30122918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30124986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30110946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108032
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30119620
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30113534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30117510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106344
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30113672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30110474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30121220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30112884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106666
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30117980
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30117590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_15_1412233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30105866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30109492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30111368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30108708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_15_1412233.30106906
</commentlist>
</conversation>
