<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_23_013255</id>
	<title>After 35 Years, Another Message Sent From Arecibo</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1258989060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>0xdeadbeef writes <i>"Two weeks ago, MIT artist-in-residence <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe\_Davis\_(artist)">Joe Davis</a> used the Arecibo radio telescope to send a message to three stars in honor of the 35th anniversary of the famous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo\_message">Drake-Sagan transmission to M13</a> in 1974. It was apparently allowed but not endorsed by the director of the facility, and used a jury-rigged signal source on what will now be known as the 'coolest iPhone in the world.' The message encoded a DNA sequence, but no word yet on whether it disabled any alien shields. You can get the low-down on <i>Centauri Dreams</i>: <a href="http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=10283">Part 1</a>, <a href="http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=10346">Part 2</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>0xdeadbeef writes " Two weeks ago , MIT artist-in-residence Joe Davis used the Arecibo radio telescope to send a message to three stars in honor of the 35th anniversary of the famous Drake-Sagan transmission to M13 in 1974 .
It was apparently allowed but not endorsed by the director of the facility , and used a jury-rigged signal source on what will now be known as the 'coolest iPhone in the world .
' The message encoded a DNA sequence , but no word yet on whether it disabled any alien shields .
You can get the low-down on Centauri Dreams : Part 1 , Part 2 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0xdeadbeef writes "Two weeks ago, MIT artist-in-residence Joe Davis used the Arecibo radio telescope to send a message to three stars in honor of the 35th anniversary of the famous Drake-Sagan transmission to M13 in 1974.
It was apparently allowed but not endorsed by the director of the facility, and used a jury-rigged signal source on what will now be known as the 'coolest iPhone in the world.
' The message encoded a DNA sequence, but no word yet on whether it disabled any alien shields.
You can get the low-down on Centauri Dreams: Part 1, Part 2.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200626</id>
	<title>Alien response</title>
	<author>matrixownsyou</author>
	<datestamp>1258979460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"stfu already"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" stfu already "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"stfu already"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200598</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1258979100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you'd find that the translation of 4kb of info from a page in an alien encyclopaedia, would be a far bigger issue than either the bandwidth or the 200 year lag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'd find that the translation of 4kb of info from a page in an alien encyclopaedia , would be a far bigger issue than either the bandwidth or the 200 year lag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'd find that the translation of 4kb of info from a page in an alien encyclopaedia, would be a far bigger issue than either the bandwidth or the 200 year lag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199544</id>
	<title>iPhone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258913580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please stop this shit. Oh come on, we're geeks, not some pointy-haired boss puppets. No iPhone, iMac or other "trendy" stuff. We're just geeks who can understand the stuff without extra explaining in layman terms. No advertising, no patronising, no other dumbing. Just please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop this shit .
Oh come on , we 're geeks , not some pointy-haired boss puppets .
No iPhone , iMac or other " trendy " stuff .
We 're just geeks who can understand the stuff without extra explaining in layman terms .
No advertising , no patronising , no other dumbing .
Just please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop this shit.
Oh come on, we're geeks, not some pointy-haired boss puppets.
No iPhone, iMac or other "trendy" stuff.
We're just geeks who can understand the stuff without extra explaining in layman terms.
No advertising, no patronising, no other dumbing.
Just please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200706</id>
	<title>Again?</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1258980780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if we are going to get one back: "Can you keep the ^\%&pound;$&amp;^$*$&amp;^ noise down!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if we are going to get one back : " Can you keep the ^ \ %   $ &amp; ^ $ * $ &amp; ^ noise down !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if we are going to get one back: "Can you keep the ^\%£$&amp;^$*$&amp;^ noise down!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200588</id>
	<title>Re:And it was</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1258978980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lower Life Forms, Comfy Planet, Free Food!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lower Life Forms , Comfy Planet , Free Food !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lower Life Forms, Comfy Planet, Free Food!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199956</id>
	<title>Give it up, man</title>
	<author>jbatista</author>
	<datestamp>1259008380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just give it up, she's, er I mean they, are just not interested in you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just give it up , she 's , er I mean they , are just not interested in you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just give it up, she's, er I mean they, are just not interested in you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200836</id>
	<title>Interstellar Communication</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258983120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theres an app for that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theres an app for that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theres an app for that</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199474</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>voss</author>
	<datestamp>1258912560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the reason why noone has heard us, is not because noone is out there, but is because our technology for interstellar communication still sucks.<br>Oddly enough that makes me feel much better about the chances of finding someone out there....eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the reason why noone has heard us , is not because noone is out there , but is because our technology for interstellar communication still sucks.Oddly enough that makes me feel much better about the chances of finding someone out there....eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the reason why noone has heard us, is not because noone is out there, but is because our technology for interstellar communication still sucks.Oddly enough that makes me feel much better about the chances of finding someone out there....eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202654</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258995180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>~&gt; ping GJ 83.1<br>PING GJ 83.1 (REALLYREALLYFARAWAY) 56(84) bytes of data.<br>64 bytes from GJ 83.1: icmp\_seq=1 ttl=64 time=GJ 14.51 yrs<br>64 bytes from GJ 83.1: icmp\_seq=2 ttl=64 time=GJ 14.51 yrs<br>64 bytes from GJ 83.1: icmp\_seq=3 ttl=64 time=GJ 14.51 yrs<br>--- GJ 83.1 ping statistics ---<br>3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0\% packet loss<br>rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 83.11/83.1/83.1 yrs<br>~&gt;</p><p>Well! I guess that's the problem with warcraft!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>~ &gt; ping GJ 83.1PING GJ 83.1 ( REALLYREALLYFARAWAY ) 56 ( 84 ) bytes of data.64 bytes from GJ 83.1 : icmp \ _seq = 1 ttl = 64 time = GJ 14.51 yrs64 bytes from GJ 83.1 : icmp \ _seq = 2 ttl = 64 time = GJ 14.51 yrs64 bytes from GJ 83.1 : icmp \ _seq = 3 ttl = 64 time = GJ 14.51 yrs--- GJ 83.1 ping statistics ---3 packets transmitted , 3 received , 0 \ % packet lossrtt min/avg/max/mdev = 83.11/83.1/83.1 yrs ~ &gt; Well !
I guess that 's the problem with warcraft !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>~&gt; ping GJ 83.1PING GJ 83.1 (REALLYREALLYFARAWAY) 56(84) bytes of data.64 bytes from GJ 83.1: icmp\_seq=1 ttl=64 time=GJ 14.51 yrs64 bytes from GJ 83.1: icmp\_seq=2 ttl=64 time=GJ 14.51 yrs64 bytes from GJ 83.1: icmp\_seq=3 ttl=64 time=GJ 14.51 yrs--- GJ 83.1 ping statistics ---3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0\% packet lossrtt min/avg/max/mdev = 83.11/83.1/83.1 yrs~&gt;Well!
I guess that's the problem with warcraft!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934</id>
	<title>And it was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258906800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Send More Funding</htmltext>
<tokenext>Send More Funding</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Send More Funding</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199632</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258914900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+3 Interesting, huh?</p><p>This (and some previous, as well as some following) comments, have absolutely no clue whatsoever about E&amp;M radiation.  If you don't know, don't post.</p><p>The strength of electromagnetic radiation drops off as the square of distance. (As long as you're far enough away to ignore "near-field effects", which for the astronomical distances we are talking about, they can very well be ignored.)</p><p>It is always the square of the distance no matter what antenna geometry, gain, feed, or other technological measure is employed.  It is not exponential (as stated by a previous post).  They do not degrade "less slowly" as stated in the parent post.  (And - "less slowly" - does that mean they degrade more faster?)</p><p>I swear, I hardly ever post here, but I'm going to have to create an account just so I can reply to all the erroneous understandings of E&amp;M that get modded up.  I expected this readership to be better than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 3 Interesting , huh ? This ( and some previous , as well as some following ) comments , have absolutely no clue whatsoever about E&amp;M radiation .
If you do n't know , do n't post.The strength of electromagnetic radiation drops off as the square of distance .
( As long as you 're far enough away to ignore " near-field effects " , which for the astronomical distances we are talking about , they can very well be ignored .
) It is always the square of the distance no matter what antenna geometry , gain , feed , or other technological measure is employed .
It is not exponential ( as stated by a previous post ) .
They do not degrade " less slowly " as stated in the parent post .
( And - " less slowly " - does that mean they degrade more faster ?
) I swear , I hardly ever post here , but I 'm going to have to create an account just so I can reply to all the erroneous understandings of E&amp;M that get modded up .
I expected this readership to be better than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+3 Interesting, huh?This (and some previous, as well as some following) comments, have absolutely no clue whatsoever about E&amp;M radiation.
If you don't know, don't post.The strength of electromagnetic radiation drops off as the square of distance.
(As long as you're far enough away to ignore "near-field effects", which for the astronomical distances we are talking about, they can very well be ignored.
)It is always the square of the distance no matter what antenna geometry, gain, feed, or other technological measure is employed.
It is not exponential (as stated by a previous post).
They do not degrade "less slowly" as stated in the parent post.
(And - "less slowly" - does that mean they degrade more faster?
)I swear, I hardly ever post here, but I'm going to have to create an account just so I can reply to all the erroneous understandings of E&amp;M that get modded up.
I expected this readership to be better than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199132</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258908420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pretty sure the power drops off with an inverse square law.</p><p>Exponential != really fast.  It's really really really really fast, eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty sure the power drops off with an inverse square law.Exponential ! = really fast .
It 's really really really really fast , eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty sure the power drops off with an inverse square law.Exponential != really fast.
It's really really really really fast, eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201920</id>
	<title>DNA Sequence?</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1258991280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alien #1: We're getting a weird signal from that yellow star.
</p><p>Alien #2: I thought I told you not to bother with yellow stars and only listen to the orange ones - yellow stars won't have INTELLIGENT life.
</p><p>Alien #1: But this signal it's definately not natural, look at it.
</p><p>Alien #2: Smeg!, not astronomical phenomena known could make this signal it appears so, so random.
</p><p>Alien #1: Let's try to decipher it.
</p><p>Alien #2: Oh lets!
</p><p>They try and try, but there is just no rhyme nor reason to the signal.  Also it is never repeated, so it is assumed to be locally generated noise.  It's called the 'Smegma Signal' and is a popular subject among those aliens who are known to wear tinfoil trousers to protect their brains from 'psychic waves'.  The other aliens assume they probably sat down to hard when they were a larvae and tore a nerve bundle or three.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alien # 1 : We 're getting a weird signal from that yellow star .
Alien # 2 : I thought I told you not to bother with yellow stars and only listen to the orange ones - yellow stars wo n't have INTELLIGENT life .
Alien # 1 : But this signal it 's definately not natural , look at it .
Alien # 2 : Smeg ! , not astronomical phenomena known could make this signal it appears so , so random .
Alien # 1 : Let 's try to decipher it .
Alien # 2 : Oh lets !
They try and try , but there is just no rhyme nor reason to the signal .
Also it is never repeated , so it is assumed to be locally generated noise .
It 's called the 'Smegma Signal ' and is a popular subject among those aliens who are known to wear tinfoil trousers to protect their brains from 'psychic waves' .
The other aliens assume they probably sat down to hard when they were a larvae and tore a nerve bundle or three .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alien #1: We're getting a weird signal from that yellow star.
Alien #2: I thought I told you not to bother with yellow stars and only listen to the orange ones - yellow stars won't have INTELLIGENT life.
Alien #1: But this signal it's definately not natural, look at it.
Alien #2: Smeg!, not astronomical phenomena known could make this signal it appears so, so random.
Alien #1: Let's try to decipher it.
Alien #2: Oh lets!
They try and try, but there is just no rhyme nor reason to the signal.
Also it is never repeated, so it is assumed to be locally generated noise.
It's called the 'Smegma Signal' and is a popular subject among those aliens who are known to wear tinfoil trousers to protect their brains from 'psychic waves'.
The other aliens assume they probably sat down to hard when they were a larvae and tore a nerve bundle or three.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199208</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>ZorbaTHut</author>
	<datestamp>1258909260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Useless, perhaps, but not technically impossible.</p></div></blockquote><p>The entire Wikipedia section on the production of titanium is a little under 4 kilobytes, which would take a bit over an hour to transmit at those rates. Imagine an alien species has a new ultra-efficient titanium refining process - would you wait a day to get the summary of it downloaded for your scientists? I sure as hell would.</p><p>The two-hundred-year transmission lag to go a hundred lightyears is a far bigger issue than the bandwidth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Useless , perhaps , but not technically impossible.The entire Wikipedia section on the production of titanium is a little under 4 kilobytes , which would take a bit over an hour to transmit at those rates .
Imagine an alien species has a new ultra-efficient titanium refining process - would you wait a day to get the summary of it downloaded for your scientists ?
I sure as hell would.The two-hundred-year transmission lag to go a hundred lightyears is a far bigger issue than the bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Useless, perhaps, but not technically impossible.The entire Wikipedia section on the production of titanium is a little under 4 kilobytes, which would take a bit over an hour to transmit at those rates.
Imagine an alien species has a new ultra-efficient titanium refining process - would you wait a day to get the summary of it downloaded for your scientists?
I sure as hell would.The two-hundred-year transmission lag to go a hundred lightyears is a far bigger issue than the bandwidth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200544</id>
	<title>Arecibo message already answered...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258977720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... in August 15, 1977.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow\_signal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... in August 15 , 1977.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow \ _signal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... in August 15, 1977.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow\_signal</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199604</id>
	<title>Re:Just don't take any calls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258914480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From a link in the first blog posting:</p><p>"Later that decade, Davis led a quasi-covert operation that recorded the vaginal contractions of ballerinas with the Boston Ballet and other women, then translated this impetus of human conception into text, music, phonetic speech and ultimately into radio signals, which were beamed from M.I.T.'s Millstone radar to Epsilon Eridani, Tau Ceti and two other nearby star systems. "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From a link in the first blog posting : " Later that decade , Davis led a quasi-covert operation that recorded the vaginal contractions of ballerinas with the Boston Ballet and other women , then translated this impetus of human conception into text , music , phonetic speech and ultimately into radio signals , which were beamed from M.I.T .
's Millstone radar to Epsilon Eridani , Tau Ceti and two other nearby star systems .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a link in the first blog posting:"Later that decade, Davis led a quasi-covert operation that recorded the vaginal contractions of ballerinas with the Boston Ballet and other women, then translated this impetus of human conception into text, music, phonetic speech and ultimately into radio signals, which were beamed from M.I.T.
's Millstone radar to Epsilon Eridani, Tau Ceti and two other nearby star systems.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</id>
	<title>Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258906860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The idea that we can send radio signals to alien civilizations, or receive them, is unfortunately wishful thinking. "Contact" notwithstanding, it's not possible. We could never pick up a radio signal from an alien civilization because the power of a signal from a point source drops off exponentially. And it's not a matter of having a better amplifier either, because radio waves are actually quantized....eventually your signal has degraded to individual photons, and it doesn't take very long. My friend and I calculated that even with a MW-level transmitter, an alien civilazation on Alpha Centauri would need an impractically large dish to intercept even a trickle of photons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that we can send radio signals to alien civilizations , or receive them , is unfortunately wishful thinking .
" Contact " notwithstanding , it 's not possible .
We could never pick up a radio signal from an alien civilization because the power of a signal from a point source drops off exponentially .
And it 's not a matter of having a better amplifier either , because radio waves are actually quantized....eventually your signal has degraded to individual photons , and it does n't take very long .
My friend and I calculated that even with a MW-level transmitter , an alien civilazation on Alpha Centauri would need an impractically large dish to intercept even a trickle of photons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that we can send radio signals to alien civilizations, or receive them, is unfortunately wishful thinking.
"Contact" notwithstanding, it's not possible.
We could never pick up a radio signal from an alien civilization because the power of a signal from a point source drops off exponentially.
And it's not a matter of having a better amplifier either, because radio waves are actually quantized....eventually your signal has degraded to individual photons, and it doesn't take very long.
My friend and I calculated that even with a MW-level transmitter, an alien civilazation on Alpha Centauri would need an impractically large dish to intercept even a trickle of photons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202628</id>
	<title>Re:And it was</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1258995120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you are offering the aliens to come take our comfy planet from us lower life forms and eat us for food?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are offering the aliens to come take our comfy planet from us lower life forms and eat us for food ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are offering the aliens to come take our comfy planet from us lower life forms and eat us for food?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199056</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>AlexBirch</author>
	<datestamp>1258907700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you have a blog where you publish these calculations, etc? <br>
This would be a great article for popular science, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have a blog where you publish these calculations , etc ?
This would be a great article for popular science , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have a blog where you publish these calculations, etc?
This would be a great article for popular science, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199348</id>
	<title>Re:And it was</title>
	<author>poopdeville</author>
	<datestamp>1258910820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's this Drake Sagan guy?  He sounds important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's this Drake Sagan guy ?
He sounds important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's this Drake Sagan guy?
He sounds important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200474</id>
	<title>You did WHAT?!?</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1258975980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realise that sending a message with an Apple product is tantamount to declaring war? Goddammit, did you not see that documentary with the MacBook?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realise that sending a message with an Apple product is tantamount to declaring war ?
Goddammit , did you not see that documentary with the MacBook ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realise that sending a message with an Apple product is tantamount to declaring war?
Goddammit, did you not see that documentary with the MacBook?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200572</id>
	<title>Re:And it was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258978200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Interstellar communication?  There's an app for that!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Interstellar communication ?
There 's an app for that !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Interstellar communication?
There's an app for that!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199022</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1258907460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that Alpha Centauri's staggeringly advanced "alien" technology has solved this problem long, long ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Alpha Centauri 's staggeringly advanced " alien " technology has solved this problem long , long ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Alpha Centauri's staggeringly advanced "alien" technology has solved this problem long, long ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202136</id>
	<title>Re:Dangerous</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1258992360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Only 10\%?  It's pretty much 100\%, from the sample size we know (sample = 1 planet, dominant lifeform is extremely aggressive predator).  If we hadn't been aggressive, we wouldn't be the dominant life form - something else would be, and we'd be their cows and goats and pigs.
</p><p>
On a galactic scale, the most aggressive life form will wipe out the others - so by the time they find out about us, they've probably had lots of experience. They're more likely to say "Nuke them from orbit - it's the only way to be sure" than to be peaceful in any first contact scenario.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 10 \ % ?
It 's pretty much 100 \ % , from the sample size we know ( sample = 1 planet , dominant lifeform is extremely aggressive predator ) .
If we had n't been aggressive , we would n't be the dominant life form - something else would be , and we 'd be their cows and goats and pigs .
On a galactic scale , the most aggressive life form will wipe out the others - so by the time they find out about us , they 've probably had lots of experience .
They 're more likely to say " Nuke them from orbit - it 's the only way to be sure " than to be peaceful in any first contact scenario .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Only 10\%?
It's pretty much 100\%, from the sample size we know (sample = 1 planet, dominant lifeform is extremely aggressive predator).
If we hadn't been aggressive, we wouldn't be the dominant life form - something else would be, and we'd be their cows and goats and pigs.
On a galactic scale, the most aggressive life form will wipe out the others - so by the time they find out about us, they've probably had lots of experience.
They're more likely to say "Nuke them from orbit - it's the only way to be sure" than to be peaceful in any first contact scenario.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200762</id>
	<title>Re:Practical joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258981440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the message almost certainly contains enough information to score an unambiguous hit in a decent database of chemical compounds.</p><p>They would have to search in all possible databases, since they don't know that it is chemistry, which means it might score all sorts of unrelated hits. That's where the assumption comes in that the receiver is intelligent in the same way that we are.</p><p>The point of this experiment, or piece of art, was to learn more about ourselves by finding out what we would send to another civilization if we could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the message almost certainly contains enough information to score an unambiguous hit in a decent database of chemical compounds.They would have to search in all possible databases , since they do n't know that it is chemistry , which means it might score all sorts of unrelated hits .
That 's where the assumption comes in that the receiver is intelligent in the same way that we are.The point of this experiment , or piece of art , was to learn more about ourselves by finding out what we would send to another civilization if we could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the message almost certainly contains enough information to score an unambiguous hit in a decent database of chemical compounds.They would have to search in all possible databases, since they don't know that it is chemistry, which means it might score all sorts of unrelated hits.
That's where the assumption comes in that the receiver is intelligent in the same way that we are.The point of this experiment, or piece of art, was to learn more about ourselves by finding out what we would send to another civilization if we could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199644</id>
	<title>Re:Practical joke</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1258915080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a good chance that this kind of biochemistry is universal; the universe is full of the kind of stuff that our DNA and proteins are made from, but we haven't observed a lot of other complex chemicals elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a good chance that this kind of biochemistry is universal ; the universe is full of the kind of stuff that our DNA and proteins are made from , but we have n't observed a lot of other complex chemicals elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a good chance that this kind of biochemistry is universal; the universe is full of the kind of stuff that our DNA and proteins are made from, but we haven't observed a lot of other complex chemicals elsewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199634</id>
	<title>Ouch.</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1258914900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was a tough lesson in dream dispersal.</p><p>Did you <i>read</i> the comments on that dude's blog?</p><p>I'd have added some of my own, but I just didn't have the heart.</p><p>Ouch.</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was a tough lesson in dream dispersal.Did you read the comments on that dude 's blog ? I 'd have added some of my own , but I just did n't have the heart.Ouch.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was a tough lesson in dream dispersal.Did you read the comments on that dude's blog?I'd have added some of my own, but I just didn't have the heart.Ouch.-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200646</id>
	<title>Re:Dangerous</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1258979940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why broadcast our location with those odds? It's not logical.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It is logical if you take the position that WE are the agressive ones. Like you pointed out, broadcasting a signal is a sign of confidence - first it shows that we have the technology to do it (note the lack of signals being received from us - perhaps we're the most advanced!) and second that we have the interest to do it, and the confidence to deal with the consequences.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Now there is a possible scenario where the xenos (if they exist) have moved beyond radio, or are just lying in wait passively listening for radio signals in order to pounce - but that's a rather paranoid view isn't it?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Either way, I would enjoy a little green alien pet, or on the other hand, being some alien's little pink pet...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why broadcast our location with those odds ?
It 's not logical .
      It is logical if you take the position that WE are the agressive ones .
Like you pointed out , broadcasting a signal is a sign of confidence - first it shows that we have the technology to do it ( note the lack of signals being received from us - perhaps we 're the most advanced !
) and second that we have the interest to do it , and the confidence to deal with the consequences .
      Now there is a possible scenario where the xenos ( if they exist ) have moved beyond radio , or are just lying in wait passively listening for radio signals in order to pounce - but that 's a rather paranoid view is n't it ?
      Either way , I would enjoy a little green alien pet , or on the other hand , being some alien 's little pink pet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why broadcast our location with those odds?
It's not logical.
      It is logical if you take the position that WE are the agressive ones.
Like you pointed out, broadcasting a signal is a sign of confidence - first it shows that we have the technology to do it (note the lack of signals being received from us - perhaps we're the most advanced!
) and second that we have the interest to do it, and the confidence to deal with the consequences.
      Now there is a possible scenario where the xenos (if they exist) have moved beyond radio, or are just lying in wait passively listening for radio signals in order to pounce - but that's a rather paranoid view isn't it?
      Either way, I would enjoy a little green alien pet, or on the other hand, being some alien's little pink pet...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201040</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258985640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But *why* is the apostrophe the single hardest symbol for people to use when I always thought that people who routinely discuss the workings of the universe and the intricacies of programming languages are smart? IT'S MEANS *IT IS*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But * why * is the apostrophe the single hardest symbol for people to use when I always thought that people who routinely discuss the workings of the universe and the intricacies of programming languages are smart ?
IT 'S MEANS * IT IS * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But *why* is the apostrophe the single hardest symbol for people to use when I always thought that people who routinely discuss the workings of the universe and the intricacies of programming languages are smart?
IT'S MEANS *IT IS*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202520</id>
	<title>Re:And it was</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258994460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was a waste of money. If they wanted to spend money on a message that no one would read or listen to, they ought to have just spent a stamp or a few cellphone minutes contacting their local senator. They'd get just as large of an audience either way.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was a waste of money .
If they wanted to spend money on a message that no one would read or listen to , they ought to have just spent a stamp or a few cellphone minutes contacting their local senator .
They 'd get just as large of an audience either way .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was a waste of money.
If they wanted to spend money on a message that no one would read or listen to, they ought to have just spent a stamp or a few cellphone minutes contacting their local senator.
They'd get just as large of an audience either way.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200734</id>
	<title>Re:Dangerous</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1258981140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any alien civilization with the means to harm us in any way doesn't need a radio signal to find us. They're well beyond that stage.<br> <br>When/If we ever find intelligent life out there, we will observe them for many generations before we ever have the means to visit them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any alien civilization with the means to harm us in any way does n't need a radio signal to find us .
They 're well beyond that stage .
When/If we ever find intelligent life out there , we will observe them for many generations before we ever have the means to visit them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any alien civilization with the means to harm us in any way doesn't need a radio signal to find us.
They're well beyond that stage.
When/If we ever find intelligent life out there, we will observe them for many generations before we ever have the means to visit them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201884</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>drerwk</author>
	<datestamp>1258991040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a point source at any reasonable (astronomical) distance, that is to say it produces a spherical wave front not plane waves. It does fall off as 1/r^2. There are at least a couple of reasons to build big antennae, 1) to increase the area of the collection, and hence the energy collected, 2) to increase the aperture to minimize diffraction - of course the VLA has a much larger effective aperture. <br>See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction#Diffraction\_by\_a\_circular\_aperture" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction#Diffraction\_by\_a\_circular\_aperture</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>Though the approximation I like is lamba/Lens ~ distance/final area.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a point source at any reasonable ( astronomical ) distance , that is to say it produces a spherical wave front not plane waves .
It does fall off as 1/r ^ 2 .
There are at least a couple of reasons to build big antennae , 1 ) to increase the area of the collection , and hence the energy collected , 2 ) to increase the aperture to minimize diffraction - of course the VLA has a much larger effective aperture .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction # Diffraction \ _by \ _a \ _circular \ _aperture [ wikipedia.org ] Though the approximation I like is lamba/Lens ~ distance/final area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a point source at any reasonable (astronomical) distance, that is to say it produces a spherical wave front not plane waves.
It does fall off as 1/r^2.
There are at least a couple of reasons to build big antennae, 1) to increase the area of the collection, and hence the energy collected, 2) to increase the aperture to minimize diffraction - of course the VLA has a much larger effective aperture.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction#Diffraction\_by\_a\_circular\_aperture [wikipedia.org] Though the approximation I like is lamba/Lens ~ distance/final area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200748</id>
	<title>97\% of statistics are made up to make a point</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1258981320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Based on human behavior" how? 1 in 10 of our responses to alien messages have been aggressive? 1 in 10 of humans would lead an interstellar invasion fleet according to polls? I'm curious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Based on human behavior " how ?
1 in 10 of our responses to alien messages have been aggressive ?
1 in 10 of humans would lead an interstellar invasion fleet according to polls ?
I 'm curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Based on human behavior" how?
1 in 10 of our responses to alien messages have been aggressive?
1 in 10 of humans would lead an interstellar invasion fleet according to polls?
I'm curious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200584</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>CptPicard</author>
	<datestamp>1258978860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it does not drop off "exponentially". That would be a much more extreme dropoff than inverse-square.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it does not drop off " exponentially " .
That would be a much more extreme dropoff than inverse-square .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it does not drop off "exponentially".
That would be a much more extreme dropoff than inverse-square.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199020</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258907460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I believe calculations have been done which show that two Arecibo type telescopes could communicate across the galaxy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I believe calculations have been done which show that two Arecibo type telescopes could communicate across the galaxy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I believe calculations have been done which show that two Arecibo type telescopes could communicate across the galaxy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201814</id>
	<title>From my experience...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258990740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope he has family or friends on M13 or that M13 is within his calling plan. Otherwise he will need significant funding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope he has family or friends on M13 or that M13 is within his calling plan .
Otherwise he will need significant funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope he has family or friends on M13 or that M13 is within his calling plan.
Otherwise he will need significant funding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200186</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1258970220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It is true that omni directional radio sources are subject to inverse square law, but directional signals degrade less slowly.</p></div></blockquote><p>As it is a linear partial differential equation, all solutions to the wave equation and equations of its type are governed by what is known as the "fundamental solution" or "Green's function" of the equation. In the case of wave type equations(in 3 or more dimensions), this solution will be a delta function type solution which decreases inversely with distance from the source. Squaring its amplitude to obtain energy gives an inverse square energy decrease.</p><p>It must be stressed that <b>all</b> solutions of the wave equation, no matter what the sources, or boundary or initial conditions, <i>must</i> all be functions derived, more or less, from convolutions of the fundamental solution with the source terms. You cannot escape the inverse square behaviour of wave propagation over long distances with finite wave sources. The fundamental solution characterises all waves because of the linearity of the wave equation.</p><p>Now, there is a second fundamental solution for the wave equation; the so called "acausal" Green's function, which represents an inwardly collapsing wave, or by some conventions, a wave travelling backwards through time. Naturally, these waves are not considered in the context of the transmission of signals. Even if they were, these waves also display and inverse square relation for signal strength( going backwards in time of course).</p><p>This has been your daily mathematical public service announcement. Complaints to be directed to the Dean.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is true that omni directional radio sources are subject to inverse square law , but directional signals degrade less slowly.As it is a linear partial differential equation , all solutions to the wave equation and equations of its type are governed by what is known as the " fundamental solution " or " Green 's function " of the equation .
In the case of wave type equations ( in 3 or more dimensions ) , this solution will be a delta function type solution which decreases inversely with distance from the source .
Squaring its amplitude to obtain energy gives an inverse square energy decrease.It must be stressed that all solutions of the wave equation , no matter what the sources , or boundary or initial conditions , must all be functions derived , more or less , from convolutions of the fundamental solution with the source terms .
You can not escape the inverse square behaviour of wave propagation over long distances with finite wave sources .
The fundamental solution characterises all waves because of the linearity of the wave equation.Now , there is a second fundamental solution for the wave equation ; the so called " acausal " Green 's function , which represents an inwardly collapsing wave , or by some conventions , a wave travelling backwards through time .
Naturally , these waves are not considered in the context of the transmission of signals .
Even if they were , these waves also display and inverse square relation for signal strength ( going backwards in time of course ) .This has been your daily mathematical public service announcement .
Complaints to be directed to the Dean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is true that omni directional radio sources are subject to inverse square law, but directional signals degrade less slowly.As it is a linear partial differential equation, all solutions to the wave equation and equations of its type are governed by what is known as the "fundamental solution" or "Green's function" of the equation.
In the case of wave type equations(in 3 or more dimensions), this solution will be a delta function type solution which decreases inversely with distance from the source.
Squaring its amplitude to obtain energy gives an inverse square energy decrease.It must be stressed that all solutions of the wave equation, no matter what the sources, or boundary or initial conditions, must all be functions derived, more or less, from convolutions of the fundamental solution with the source terms.
You cannot escape the inverse square behaviour of wave propagation over long distances with finite wave sources.
The fundamental solution characterises all waves because of the linearity of the wave equation.Now, there is a second fundamental solution for the wave equation; the so called "acausal" Green's function, which represents an inwardly collapsing wave, or by some conventions, a wave travelling backwards through time.
Naturally, these waves are not considered in the context of the transmission of signals.
Even if they were, these waves also display and inverse square relation for signal strength( going backwards in time of course).This has been your daily mathematical public service announcement.
Complaints to be directed to the Dean.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199228</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>speed of lightx2</author>
	<datestamp>1258909500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sorry, no. It drops potentially.</htmltext>
<tokenext>sorry , no .
It drops potentially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sorry, no.
It drops potentially.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203620</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1259000460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So the achievable rate over 100ly using only current Earth technology at both ends is about <b>a bit per second</b>.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Just like my first discounted TRS-80 modem! Ah, the memories.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the achievable rate over 100ly using only current Earth technology at both ends is about a bit per second .
Just like my first discounted TRS-80 modem !
Ah , the memories .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the achievable rate over 100ly using only current Earth technology at both ends is about a bit per second.
Just like my first discounted TRS-80 modem!
Ah, the memories.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258909200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have no idea about what you are talking about. It is true that omni directional radio sources are subject to inverse square law, but directional signals degrade less slowly. Scientists have calculated that using the Arecibo dish at one megawatt the signal could be received by a similarly sized dish 10000 lightyears away. I think I trust calculations done by people with PhDs in astronomy more than calculations done by you and your friend</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no idea about what you are talking about .
It is true that omni directional radio sources are subject to inverse square law , but directional signals degrade less slowly .
Scientists have calculated that using the Arecibo dish at one megawatt the signal could be received by a similarly sized dish 10000 lightyears away .
I think I trust calculations done by people with PhDs in astronomy more than calculations done by you and your friend</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no idea about what you are talking about.
It is true that omni directional radio sources are subject to inverse square law, but directional signals degrade less slowly.
Scientists have calculated that using the Arecibo dish at one megawatt the signal could be received by a similarly sized dish 10000 lightyears away.
I think I trust calculations done by people with PhDs in astronomy more than calculations done by you and your friend</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199732</id>
	<title>Re:iPhone?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258917300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. I don&rsquo;t think the phone model would have been mentioned (and with a wink nonetheless) that way if it were another phone.</p><p>Besides: Even a iPhone that sent stuff to another planet <em>and</em> got a reply, can&rsquo;t beat a Linux running Nokia N900 with built-in full root access, from a company whose phones had SSH terminal software available for more than seven years now. &lt;/proper-geek-fanboyism&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I don    t think the phone model would have been mentioned ( and with a wink nonetheless ) that way if it were another phone.Besides : Even a iPhone that sent stuff to another planet and got a reply , can    t beat a Linux running Nokia N900 with built-in full root access , from a company whose phones had SSH terminal software available for more than seven years now .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I don’t think the phone model would have been mentioned (and with a wink nonetheless) that way if it were another phone.Besides: Even a iPhone that sent stuff to another planet and got a reply, can’t beat a Linux running Nokia N900 with built-in full root access, from a company whose phones had SSH terminal software available for more than seven years now.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201742</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1258990440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoil sport!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoil sport !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoil sport!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200386</id>
	<title>Re:Practical joke</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1258974420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The message is irrelevant, there's only so much they can learn from us even if they understand the message. What really matters is that they know we're there somewhere up in the sky.

</p><p>What puzzles me is that we do it once every 35 years for a few minutes, yet the rest of the time we spend it carefully listening, as if aliens would do what we <i>do not</i> do, which is actively trying to communicate with them. They won't pick up a damn thing unless we beam it to them specifically, so if they're as dumb as us and only listen and don't try to send then not much is every going to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The message is irrelevant , there 's only so much they can learn from us even if they understand the message .
What really matters is that they know we 're there somewhere up in the sky .
What puzzles me is that we do it once every 35 years for a few minutes , yet the rest of the time we spend it carefully listening , as if aliens would do what we do not do , which is actively trying to communicate with them .
They wo n't pick up a damn thing unless we beam it to them specifically , so if they 're as dumb as us and only listen and do n't try to send then not much is every going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The message is irrelevant, there's only so much they can learn from us even if they understand the message.
What really matters is that they know we're there somewhere up in the sky.
What puzzles me is that we do it once every 35 years for a few minutes, yet the rest of the time we spend it carefully listening, as if aliens would do what we do not do, which is actively trying to communicate with them.
They won't pick up a damn thing unless we beam it to them specifically, so if they're as dumb as us and only listen and don't try to send then not much is every going to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199908</id>
	<title>Re:And it was</title>
	<author>johnw</author>
	<datestamp>1259007420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it was - "Kids and grown ups love it so, the happy world of Arecibo"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it was - " Kids and grown ups love it so , the happy world of Arecibo "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it was - "Kids and grown ups love it so, the happy world of Arecibo"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201062</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258985700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The inverse square law applies whatever kind of antenna is used.</p><p>It is just that a directional antenna concentrates the power in the appropriate direction, rather than spreading it out in an omni fashion. This means you have more *effective* power in one direction (or maybe multiple directions depending on the antenna type)to start off with. A dish is extremley directional, thus has far more gain (and you get far more ERP [*EFFECTIVE* Radiated Power] than a dipole, or beam type antenna.</p><p>Typically the bigger the dish, the bigger the gain at a certain frequency. Typically the higher the frequency, the bigger the gain as well. Aricebo is jolly large.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The inverse square law applies whatever kind of antenna is used.It is just that a directional antenna concentrates the power in the appropriate direction , rather than spreading it out in an omni fashion .
This means you have more * effective * power in one direction ( or maybe multiple directions depending on the antenna type ) to start off with .
A dish is extremley directional , thus has far more gain ( and you get far more ERP [ * EFFECTIVE * Radiated Power ] than a dipole , or beam type antenna.Typically the bigger the dish , the bigger the gain at a certain frequency .
Typically the higher the frequency , the bigger the gain as well .
Aricebo is jolly large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The inverse square law applies whatever kind of antenna is used.It is just that a directional antenna concentrates the power in the appropriate direction, rather than spreading it out in an omni fashion.
This means you have more *effective* power in one direction (or maybe multiple directions depending on the antenna type)to start off with.
A dish is extremley directional, thus has far more gain (and you get far more ERP [*EFFECTIVE* Radiated Power] than a dipole, or beam type antenna.Typically the bigger the dish, the bigger the gain at a certain frequency.
Typically the higher the frequency, the bigger the gain as well.
Aricebo is jolly large.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203892</id>
	<title>Meanwhile in another galaxy...</title>
	<author>marqs</author>
	<datestamp>1259002020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Damn, I just get a busy tone when trying to call Earth. They are official deleted from my phone book!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Damn , I just get a busy tone when trying to call Earth .
They are official deleted from my phone book !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Damn, I just get a busy tone when trying to call Earth.
They are official deleted from my phone book!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199008</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258907340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> We could never pick up a radio signal from an alien civilization because the power of a signal from a point source drops off exponentially..</p></div><p>Umm..... its not a "point source" its a spherical reflector..... the whole point of the construction of big antennas is to allow you to do precisely what it is you friend appears to believe is impossible.</p><p>We now return you to your usual<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. chaos</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We could never pick up a radio signal from an alien civilization because the power of a signal from a point source drops off exponentially..Umm..... its not a " point source " its a spherical reflector..... the whole point of the construction of big antennas is to allow you to do precisely what it is you friend appears to believe is impossible.We now return you to your usual / .
chaos</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We could never pick up a radio signal from an alien civilization because the power of a signal from a point source drops off exponentially..Umm..... its not a "point source" its a spherical reflector..... the whole point of the construction of big antennas is to allow you to do precisely what it is you friend appears to believe is impossible.We now return you to your usual /.
chaos
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201198</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1258986780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A broadcasting alien civilization would only use a reflector if it knew where you were. I was speaking to the situation where said civilization is blindly broadcasting in all directions in the hope of the signal reaching someone else.<br><br>Ok, geometrically.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A broadcasting alien civilization would only use a reflector if it knew where you were .
I was speaking to the situation where said civilization is blindly broadcasting in all directions in the hope of the signal reaching someone else.Ok , geometrically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A broadcasting alien civilization would only use a reflector if it knew where you were.
I was speaking to the situation where said civilization is blindly broadcasting in all directions in the hope of the signal reaching someone else.Ok, geometrically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202646</id>
	<title>Re:And it was</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1258995180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Free Food!</i> <br> <br>
Indeed. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To\_Serve\_Man\_(The\_Twilight\_Zone)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Like this, maybe...</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free Food !
Indeed. Like this , maybe... [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free Food!
Indeed. Like this, maybe... [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200200</id>
	<title>Re:Practical joke</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1258970400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Without any context --- e.g., our biochemistry, amino acid structure, nature of DNA --- this message amounts to about the worst practical joke in the history of interstellar communication.</p></div><p>But it is probably also the -best- practical joke in -our-history of interstellar communication.  How many other interstellar practical jokes have we played?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It has a relatively non-random structure, so clearly must mean something, and yet they'll never figure it out.</p></div><p>It might just be a lack of imagination on my part, but I can't picture an organism evolving without some type of intrinsic code.  If we got such a code, we'd probably realize that it was something similar to nucleotide sequences and that we didn't have all the tools to do anything with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without any context --- e.g. , our biochemistry , amino acid structure , nature of DNA --- this message amounts to about the worst practical joke in the history of interstellar communication.But it is probably also the -best- practical joke in -our-history of interstellar communication .
How many other interstellar practical jokes have we played ? It has a relatively non-random structure , so clearly must mean something , and yet they 'll never figure it out.It might just be a lack of imagination on my part , but I ca n't picture an organism evolving without some type of intrinsic code .
If we got such a code , we 'd probably realize that it was something similar to nucleotide sequences and that we did n't have all the tools to do anything with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without any context --- e.g., our biochemistry, amino acid structure, nature of DNA --- this message amounts to about the worst practical joke in the history of interstellar communication.But it is probably also the -best- practical joke in -our-history of interstellar communication.
How many other interstellar practical jokes have we played?It has a relatively non-random structure, so clearly must mean something, and yet they'll never figure it out.It might just be a lack of imagination on my part, but I can't picture an organism evolving without some type of intrinsic code.
If we got such a code, we'd probably realize that it was something similar to nucleotide sequences and that we didn't have all the tools to do anything with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30204080</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Shadowmist</author>
	<datestamp>1259002980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This particular item was more of an homage to Sagan and co.  than an actual scientific experiment.

That said, I do remember reading about Areceibo in a National Geographic article, which stated that Arecibo could pick up a message from a duplicate of itself transmitting anywhere in the Milky Way Galaxy, barring unfavorable local conditions within line of sight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This particular item was more of an homage to Sagan and co. than an actual scientific experiment .
That said , I do remember reading about Areceibo in a National Geographic article , which stated that Arecibo could pick up a message from a duplicate of itself transmitting anywhere in the Milky Way Galaxy , barring unfavorable local conditions within line of sight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This particular item was more of an homage to Sagan and co.  than an actual scientific experiment.
That said, I do remember reading about Areceibo in a National Geographic article, which stated that Arecibo could pick up a message from a duplicate of itself transmitting anywhere in the Milky Way Galaxy, barring unfavorable local conditions within line of sight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203512</id>
	<title>Re:We are here! Come and get us!</title>
	<author>Stupid McStupidson</author>
	<datestamp>1258999800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>    They won't care too much about our DNA. We won't care much either, since the near-luminal velocity missiles will hit before they are spotted. On the off chance you survive the cataclysm, I'd start trying to figure out how to survive without electricity. Fucking Sagan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They wo n't care too much about our DNA .
We wo n't care much either , since the near-luminal velocity missiles will hit before they are spotted .
On the off chance you survive the cataclysm , I 'd start trying to figure out how to survive without electricity .
Fucking Sagan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    They won't care too much about our DNA.
We won't care much either, since the near-luminal velocity missiles will hit before they are spotted.
On the off chance you survive the cataclysm, I'd start trying to figure out how to survive without electricity.
Fucking Sagan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200400</id>
	<title>Re:Dangerous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've been broadcasting our position ever since Marconi played with sparks. In some wavelengths (radio, TV, mobile phones, radar,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...), the earth has been *by orders of magnitude* the brightest object in the sky. So we've been this beacon for more than a century now; we don't have much to loose by trying to set up intelligent communication. (not that this is a criticism on the inaneness of what we've been broadcasting until now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p><p>Moreover, we got where we are by being curious, not by being aggressive. Survival of the fittest has brought us where we were 5000 years ago, in about 5 million years. Curiosity has brought us from where we were 5000 years ago to where we are now. Compare the rate of change, and it's quite clear what's the more effective way of progress. You can bet that anything that can interpret these messages and has the capacity to do something with them will know that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been broadcasting our position ever since Marconi played with sparks .
In some wavelengths ( radio , TV , mobile phones , radar , ... ) , the earth has been * by orders of magnitude * the brightest object in the sky .
So we 've been this beacon for more than a century now ; we do n't have much to loose by trying to set up intelligent communication .
( not that this is a criticism on the inaneness of what we 've been broadcasting until now ; - ) ) Moreover , we got where we are by being curious , not by being aggressive .
Survival of the fittest has brought us where we were 5000 years ago , in about 5 million years .
Curiosity has brought us from where we were 5000 years ago to where we are now .
Compare the rate of change , and it 's quite clear what 's the more effective way of progress .
You can bet that anything that can interpret these messages and has the capacity to do something with them will know that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been broadcasting our position ever since Marconi played with sparks.
In some wavelengths (radio, TV, mobile phones, radar, ...), the earth has been *by orders of magnitude* the brightest object in the sky.
So we've been this beacon for more than a century now; we don't have much to loose by trying to set up intelligent communication.
(not that this is a criticism on the inaneness of what we've been broadcasting until now ;-))Moreover, we got where we are by being curious, not by being aggressive.
Survival of the fittest has brought us where we were 5000 years ago, in about 5 million years.
Curiosity has brought us from where we were 5000 years ago to where we are now.
Compare the rate of change, and it's quite clear what's the more effective way of progress.
You can bet that anything that can interpret these messages and has the capacity to do something with them will know that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258908480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly, we just solved this problem in E&amp;M class.  If you had antennas with 80 dBi gain at both ends and a megawatt of power, that would be sufficient to transmit 10^5 bits per second over a lightyear gap with a received power level above the thermal noise floor (e.g. the antenna does enough work on the receiver to flip a bit).  Raise the distance to 100 lightyears and reduce the gain to 73 dBi (e.g. Arecibo) and you lose 5.5 orders of magnitude in bit rate.  Up the power to three megawatts (not hard to imagine) and you get back half an order of magnitude.  So the achievable rate over 100ly using only current Earth technology at both ends is about a bit per second.  Useless, perhaps, but not technically impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly , we just solved this problem in E&amp;M class .
If you had antennas with 80 dBi gain at both ends and a megawatt of power , that would be sufficient to transmit 10 ^ 5 bits per second over a lightyear gap with a received power level above the thermal noise floor ( e.g .
the antenna does enough work on the receiver to flip a bit ) .
Raise the distance to 100 lightyears and reduce the gain to 73 dBi ( e.g .
Arecibo ) and you lose 5.5 orders of magnitude in bit rate .
Up the power to three megawatts ( not hard to imagine ) and you get back half an order of magnitude .
So the achievable rate over 100ly using only current Earth technology at both ends is about a bit per second .
Useless , perhaps , but not technically impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly, we just solved this problem in E&amp;M class.
If you had antennas with 80 dBi gain at both ends and a megawatt of power, that would be sufficient to transmit 10^5 bits per second over a lightyear gap with a received power level above the thermal noise floor (e.g.
the antenna does enough work on the receiver to flip a bit).
Raise the distance to 100 lightyears and reduce the gain to 73 dBi (e.g.
Arecibo) and you lose 5.5 orders of magnitude in bit rate.
Up the power to three megawatts (not hard to imagine) and you get back half an order of magnitude.
So the achievable rate over 100ly using only current Earth technology at both ends is about a bit per second.
Useless, perhaps, but not technically impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203886</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1259001960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  an alien civilazation on Alpha Centauri would need an impractically large dish to intercept even a trickle of photons.</p></div><p>How did you calculate what is practical or impractical for an alien civilisation to build?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>an alien civilazation on Alpha Centauri would need an impractically large dish to intercept even a trickle of photons.How did you calculate what is practical or impractical for an alien civilisation to build ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  an alien civilazation on Alpha Centauri would need an impractically large dish to intercept even a trickle of photons.How did you calculate what is practical or impractical for an alien civilisation to build?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200862</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>pbrooks100</author>
	<datestamp>1258983540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slow data is better than no data...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slow data is better than no data.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slow data is better than no data...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200718</id>
	<title>They should have resent the original message.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258980900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Arecibo message was designed to be as easy as possible to decode, it would be possible to do so with just a pencil and paper.</p><p>They should keep sending this same Arecibo message each time, rather than making cleverer and more complex ones.<br>The reason for this is that the content is not so important, compared to the importance of allowing another species to recognise and decode it.<br>The alien species could correlate the signals they received, and multiple copies of the same bit pattern over time would stand out above random noise.<br>If a different one is sent each time, it would look more like noise.</p><p>Twenty five years is nothing compared to the time scales involved in interstellar travel, and indeed interstellar radio communication.<br>Lets keep this simple and not try to get clever with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Arecibo message was designed to be as easy as possible to decode , it would be possible to do so with just a pencil and paper.They should keep sending this same Arecibo message each time , rather than making cleverer and more complex ones.The reason for this is that the content is not so important , compared to the importance of allowing another species to recognise and decode it.The alien species could correlate the signals they received , and multiple copies of the same bit pattern over time would stand out above random noise.If a different one is sent each time , it would look more like noise.Twenty five years is nothing compared to the time scales involved in interstellar travel , and indeed interstellar radio communication.Lets keep this simple and not try to get clever with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Arecibo message was designed to be as easy as possible to decode, it would be possible to do so with just a pencil and paper.They should keep sending this same Arecibo message each time, rather than making cleverer and more complex ones.The reason for this is that the content is not so important, compared to the importance of allowing another species to recognise and decode it.The alien species could correlate the signals they received, and multiple copies of the same bit pattern over time would stand out above random noise.If a different one is sent each time, it would look more like noise.Twenty five years is nothing compared to the time scales involved in interstellar travel, and indeed interstellar radio communication.Lets keep this simple and not try to get clever with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200414</id>
	<title>Re: transmission lag</title>
	<author>neonsignal</author>
	<datestamp>1258974900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I guess that rules out Quake then...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that rules out Quake then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I guess that rules out Quake then...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200170</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>pelrun</author>
	<datestamp>1258969980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But *why* is it still the square of the distance when I always thought that was just a natural consequence of the increase in volume of a sphere as it's radius increases? If antenna gain makes no difference, then why bother with it at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But * why * is it still the square of the distance when I always thought that was just a natural consequence of the increase in volume of a sphere as it 's radius increases ?
If antenna gain makes no difference , then why bother with it at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But *why* is it still the square of the distance when I always thought that was just a natural consequence of the increase in volume of a sphere as it's radius increases?
If antenna gain makes no difference, then why bother with it at all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202056</id>
	<title>Everytime in 35 years is too infrequent....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258991880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No wonder why we can't find intelligent life out there.  There is probably several thousand really interesting alien civilizations out there and they each are sitting there wondering if they are the only ones out there. So, every 35 years they send a brief message out into the universe expecting one of the other civilizations to notice that particular transmission over all the background noise.  Of course, they each justify it because of lack of funding but they really shouldn't complain when they don't find intelligent civilizations either.</p><p>On top of that, sending a DNA sequence is simply stupid. If I were to receive a message from an alien civilization, I'd be far more interested in their sciences, culture, and theology than a short sample of their DNA. I'm not sure what I'd do with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No wonder why we ca n't find intelligent life out there .
There is probably several thousand really interesting alien civilizations out there and they each are sitting there wondering if they are the only ones out there .
So , every 35 years they send a brief message out into the universe expecting one of the other civilizations to notice that particular transmission over all the background noise .
Of course , they each justify it because of lack of funding but they really should n't complain when they do n't find intelligent civilizations either.On top of that , sending a DNA sequence is simply stupid .
If I were to receive a message from an alien civilization , I 'd be far more interested in their sciences , culture , and theology than a short sample of their DNA .
I 'm not sure what I 'd do with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No wonder why we can't find intelligent life out there.
There is probably several thousand really interesting alien civilizations out there and they each are sitting there wondering if they are the only ones out there.
So, every 35 years they send a brief message out into the universe expecting one of the other civilizations to notice that particular transmission over all the background noise.
Of course, they each justify it because of lack of funding but they really shouldn't complain when they don't find intelligent civilizations either.On top of that, sending a DNA sequence is simply stupid.
If I were to receive a message from an alien civilization, I'd be far more interested in their sciences, culture, and theology than a short sample of their DNA.
I'm not sure what I'd do with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201146</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1258986360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's to do with the spread.  Take a flashlight and shine it on a piece of paper 1m away.  Measure the radius of the circle.  Now move the paper 2m away and measure the circle again.  The light is spreading out at a fixed angle from the front of the flashlight, so the radius of the second circle will be twice as big as the first one.  Because the radius is twice as big, the area will be four times as big.  Now try it with a laser.  You'll see the same thing[1].  The radius at 2m will be twice the radius at 1m and the area will be four times the area at 1m.  The spread in absolute terms, however, will be much smaller.  If you look from one side of the beam, and put some smoke into its path so you can see it, you will see a triangle.  You can make the angle at the top of the triangle (the signal source) very small.  With a laser, the angle is theoretically zero, and practically very close to zero.  The signal spread is always (distance * some constant)^2, but the constant can be very small.

<p>
[1] Well, not quite, you also need to subtract the radius at the source of the beam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's to do with the spread .
Take a flashlight and shine it on a piece of paper 1m away .
Measure the radius of the circle .
Now move the paper 2m away and measure the circle again .
The light is spreading out at a fixed angle from the front of the flashlight , so the radius of the second circle will be twice as big as the first one .
Because the radius is twice as big , the area will be four times as big .
Now try it with a laser .
You 'll see the same thing [ 1 ] .
The radius at 2m will be twice the radius at 1m and the area will be four times the area at 1m .
The spread in absolute terms , however , will be much smaller .
If you look from one side of the beam , and put some smoke into its path so you can see it , you will see a triangle .
You can make the angle at the top of the triangle ( the signal source ) very small .
With a laser , the angle is theoretically zero , and practically very close to zero .
The signal spread is always ( distance * some constant ) ^ 2 , but the constant can be very small .
[ 1 ] Well , not quite , you also need to subtract the radius at the source of the beam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's to do with the spread.
Take a flashlight and shine it on a piece of paper 1m away.
Measure the radius of the circle.
Now move the paper 2m away and measure the circle again.
The light is spreading out at a fixed angle from the front of the flashlight, so the radius of the second circle will be twice as big as the first one.
Because the radius is twice as big, the area will be four times as big.
Now try it with a laser.
You'll see the same thing[1].
The radius at 2m will be twice the radius at 1m and the area will be four times the area at 1m.
The spread in absolute terms, however, will be much smaller.
If you look from one side of the beam, and put some smoke into its path so you can see it, you will see a triangle.
You can make the angle at the top of the triangle (the signal source) very small.
With a laser, the angle is theoretically zero, and practically very close to zero.
The signal spread is always (distance * some constant)^2, but the constant can be very small.
[1] Well, not quite, you also need to subtract the radius at the source of the beam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30231400</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Flere Imsaho</author>
	<datestamp>1257162120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...but directional signals degrade less slowly"</p><p>[pedant] Hang on, doesn't less slowly = faster? [/pedant}</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...but directional signals degrade less slowly " [ pedant ] Hang on , does n't less slowly = faster ?
[ /pedant }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...but directional signals degrade less slowly"[pedant] Hang on, doesn't less slowly = faster?
[/pedant}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30210010</id>
	<title>Only one thing good about it</title>
	<author>mattr</author>
	<datestamp>1258995780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is nice he provided a good bit of PR on the web for Arecibo. The bit about using an iPod is essential to his artistic statement I suppose, "coolest iPod in the world" is maybe something that could have gotten Apple to fund Arecibo if he had been at all interested in it. That would have gotten the director on his side too.</p><p>May I suggest the one thing we should NOT send is our DNA sequences.</p><p>1) Low security. If they were able to do anything with it I would be pretty worried! Sending them the key to our metabolism is a Bad Idea.<br>2) Impossible to fully decode without knowledge of Earth biology.<br>3) A very inefficient signal. A better message could have been devised, with much more fun and stimulation, by a competent university department.<br>4) I have a problem with a guy who says this sort of thing to Arecibo's interim director. It is typical wannabe bullshit. I've worked with artists but none would have the balls to go to a scientific research center and tell them that SETI is not about finding aliens. As if he had never read Contact.</p><blockquote><div><p>I explained that projects concerned with the search for extraterrestrial intelligence are really more about a search for ourselves; that they make us look much more intensely at ourselves than we look away into space and that nobody seems to see that part of it. I wanted to make clear to him that this was not really a project about &ldquo;aliens&rdquo;.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is nice he provided a good bit of PR on the web for Arecibo .
The bit about using an iPod is essential to his artistic statement I suppose , " coolest iPod in the world " is maybe something that could have gotten Apple to fund Arecibo if he had been at all interested in it .
That would have gotten the director on his side too.May I suggest the one thing we should NOT send is our DNA sequences.1 ) Low security .
If they were able to do anything with it I would be pretty worried !
Sending them the key to our metabolism is a Bad Idea.2 ) Impossible to fully decode without knowledge of Earth biology.3 ) A very inefficient signal .
A better message could have been devised , with much more fun and stimulation , by a competent university department.4 ) I have a problem with a guy who says this sort of thing to Arecibo 's interim director .
It is typical wannabe bullshit .
I 've worked with artists but none would have the balls to go to a scientific research center and tell them that SETI is not about finding aliens .
As if he had never read Contact.I explained that projects concerned with the search for extraterrestrial intelligence are really more about a search for ourselves ; that they make us look much more intensely at ourselves than we look away into space and that nobody seems to see that part of it .
I wanted to make clear to him that this was not really a project about    aliens    .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is nice he provided a good bit of PR on the web for Arecibo.
The bit about using an iPod is essential to his artistic statement I suppose, "coolest iPod in the world" is maybe something that could have gotten Apple to fund Arecibo if he had been at all interested in it.
That would have gotten the director on his side too.May I suggest the one thing we should NOT send is our DNA sequences.1) Low security.
If they were able to do anything with it I would be pretty worried!
Sending them the key to our metabolism is a Bad Idea.2) Impossible to fully decode without knowledge of Earth biology.3) A very inefficient signal.
A better message could have been devised, with much more fun and stimulation, by a competent university department.4) I have a problem with a guy who says this sort of thing to Arecibo's interim director.
It is typical wannabe bullshit.
I've worked with artists but none would have the balls to go to a scientific research center and tell them that SETI is not about finding aliens.
As if he had never read Contact.I explained that projects concerned with the search for extraterrestrial intelligence are really more about a search for ourselves; that they make us look much more intensely at ourselves than we look away into space and that nobody seems to see that part of it.
I wanted to make clear to him that this was not really a project about “aliens”.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203836</id>
	<title>Amanda Seyfried/Julianne Moore love scene?  Check!</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1259001720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The message encoded a DNA sequence</p><p>Great.  Now they'll shove it into a machine and start cranking out babies to see what they're like.</p><p>Indeed, from their tech level, it'll prolly be trivial to "simulate" an actual planetfull of people, to see how they'd behave and treat one another and then they'd find out that we're all nasty sacks of...</p><p>Uhhh.  Oh oh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The message encoded a DNA sequenceGreat .
Now they 'll shove it into a machine and start cranking out babies to see what they 're like.Indeed , from their tech level , it 'll prolly be trivial to " simulate " an actual planetfull of people , to see how they 'd behave and treat one another and then they 'd find out that we 're all nasty sacks of...Uhhh .
Oh oh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The message encoded a DNA sequenceGreat.
Now they'll shove it into a machine and start cranking out babies to see what they're like.Indeed, from their tech level, it'll prolly be trivial to "simulate" an actual planetfull of people, to see how they'd behave and treat one another and then they'd find out that we're all nasty sacks of...Uhhh.
Oh oh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198994</id>
	<title>Just don't take any calls</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1258907280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...while sending messages through the telescope. Because, you know, you are not allowed to redistribute those ring tones.</p><p>BTW whats a "Poetica Vaginal transmission"? Sounds interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...while sending messages through the telescope .
Because , you know , you are not allowed to redistribute those ring tones.BTW whats a " Poetica Vaginal transmission " ?
Sounds interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...while sending messages through the telescope.
Because, you know, you are not allowed to redistribute those ring tones.BTW whats a "Poetica Vaginal transmission"?
Sounds interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30244618</id>
	<title>messages to outer space, how about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259328420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>messages to outer space, how about</p><p>ERROR:404 page not found</p><p>or</p><p>Cheep vaigar, canadian pharmasy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>messages to outer space , how aboutERROR : 404 page not foundorCheep vaigar , canadian pharmasy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>messages to outer space, how aboutERROR:404 page not foundorCheep vaigar, canadian pharmasy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202472</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1258994160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OTOH the entire section on Britney Spears<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I can imagine more people interested about alien B.P. than titita.. titani... whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH the entire section on Britney Spears ...I can imagine more people interested about alien B.P .
than titita.. titani... whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH the entire section on Britney Spears ...I can imagine more people interested about alien B.P.
than titita.. titani... whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30204684</id>
	<title>I sense a science fiction plot..</title>
	<author>Simulant</author>
	<datestamp>1259006460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Alien race re-creates humans based on DNA sequence received from Arecibo.  Hilarity ensues....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alien race re-creates humans based on DNA sequence received from Arecibo .
Hilarity ensues... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Alien race re-creates humans based on DNA sequence received from Arecibo.
Hilarity ensues....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199064</id>
	<title>Practical joke</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1258907760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without any context --- e.g., our biochemistry, amino acid structure, nature of DNA --- this message amounts to about the worst practical joke in the history of interstellar communication.  It has a relatively non-random structure, so clearly must mean something, and yet they'll never figure it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without any context --- e.g. , our biochemistry , amino acid structure , nature of DNA --- this message amounts to about the worst practical joke in the history of interstellar communication .
It has a relatively non-random structure , so clearly must mean something , and yet they 'll never figure it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without any context --- e.g., our biochemistry, amino acid structure, nature of DNA --- this message amounts to about the worst practical joke in the history of interstellar communication.
It has a relatively non-random structure, so clearly must mean something, and yet they'll never figure it out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201342</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258987920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If that's what you expect, you may as well give up.  This is Slashdot; trying to educate the users here is like trying to stop a hurricane by pissing into the wind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If that 's what you expect , you may as well give up .
This is Slashdot ; trying to educate the users here is like trying to stop a hurricane by pissing into the wind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that's what you expect, you may as well give up.
This is Slashdot; trying to educate the users here is like trying to stop a hurricane by pissing into the wind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199550</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>Loomismeister</author>
	<datestamp>1258913580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Radio waves aren't made out of photons?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Radio waves are n't made out of photons ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Radio waves aren't made out of photons?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199686</id>
	<title>Lost in translation</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1258916340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that we didn't beam out the Wikipedia article for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arecibo\_message.svg" title="wikipedia.org">the first message,</a> [wikipedia.org] I'm going to try and anticipate what the alien civilization will see it as by deciphering it myself without reading the article first:</p><p>"From top to bottom, the word 'aliens' in white English letters, a purple rock, some Space Invaders, a man with a giant blue head and a staff to his right, some white noise, and a bunch of stars over Planet GMail."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that we did n't beam out the Wikipedia article for the first message , [ wikipedia.org ] I 'm going to try and anticipate what the alien civilization will see it as by deciphering it myself without reading the article first : " From top to bottom , the word 'aliens ' in white English letters , a purple rock , some Space Invaders , a man with a giant blue head and a staff to his right , some white noise , and a bunch of stars over Planet GMail .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that we didn't beam out the Wikipedia article for the first message, [wikipedia.org] I'm going to try and anticipate what the alien civilization will see it as by deciphering it myself without reading the article first:"From top to bottom, the word 'aliens' in white English letters, a purple rock, some Space Invaders, a man with a giant blue head and a staff to his right, some white noise, and a bunch of stars over Planet GMail.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199210</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>sahonen</author>
	<datestamp>1258909320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering that your transmission is going to take a hundred years to get there in the first place, 1 bit per second wouldn't be all that bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that your transmission is going to take a hundred years to get there in the first place , 1 bit per second would n't be all that bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that your transmission is going to take a hundred years to get there in the first place, 1 bit per second wouldn't be all that bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201580</id>
	<title>The ad reborn</title>
	<author>arthurpaliden</author>
	<datestamp>1258989360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Can you hear me now?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Can you hear me now ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Can you hear me now?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200014</id>
	<title>Re:And it was</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1259009460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...No, really. We're still waiting for your reply. Seriously. So hurry up. Like, people are starting to think we're crazy, or on the fringe or something. Or just wrongmaybe. But we know you're real, right? So please, just say something. Ooh, wait! Id you're real and intelligent, don't say anything, then we'll know. OMG, LOL, thanx. Are you on Twitter?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...No , really .
We 're still waiting for your reply .
Seriously. So hurry up .
Like , people are starting to think we 're crazy , or on the fringe or something .
Or just wrongmaybe .
But we know you 're real , right ?
So please , just say something .
Ooh , wait !
Id you 're real and intelligent , do n't say anything , then we 'll know .
OMG , LOL , thanx .
Are you on Twitter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...No, really.
We're still waiting for your reply.
Seriously. So hurry up.
Like, people are starting to think we're crazy, or on the fringe or something.
Or just wrongmaybe.
But we know you're real, right?
So please, just say something.
Ooh, wait!
Id you're real and intelligent, don't say anything, then we'll know.
OMG, LOL, thanx.
Are you on Twitter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202030</id>
	<title>Re:We are here! Come and get us!</title>
	<author>redhat\_redneck</author>
	<datestamp>1258991760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's a cookbook!!!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a cookbook ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a cookbook!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201598</id>
	<title>Re:And it was</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1258989420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please stop with the anal probes. Trailer parks angry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please stop with the anal probes .
Trailer parks angry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please stop with the anal probes.
Trailer parks angry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30209934</id>
	<title>Re:And it was</title>
	<author>virtualnz</author>
	<datestamp>1258994820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't aliens already have contacted us if they're interested? Clearly we're not as interesting as other life forms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't aliens already have contacted us if they 're interested ?
Clearly we 're not as interesting as other life forms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't aliens already have contacted us if they're interested?
Clearly we're not as interesting as other life forms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199522</id>
	<title>Re:And it was</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1258913220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>... The weather is here, wish you were beautiful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... The weather is here , wish you were beautiful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... The weather is here, wish you were beautiful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200430</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1258975200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But *why* is it still the square of the distance when I always thought that was just a natural consequence of the increase in volume of a sphere as it's radius increases? If antenna gain makes no difference, then why bother with it at all?</p></div><p>Because although the covered area is much smaller, it still grows quadratically with distance (there simply is no such thing as an exactly parallel beam). The antenna makes a difference in that you get a higher signal in the desired direction to begin with. If your signal is e.g. 25 times as strong in a certain direction, it will remain 25 times as strong even after millions of lightyears. So at a distance where the weak signal would be barely detectable, you still have 25 times the threshold, which should be clearly detectable. Indeed, 25 times the strength means 5 times the reach, due to the inverse scale law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But * why * is it still the square of the distance when I always thought that was just a natural consequence of the increase in volume of a sphere as it 's radius increases ?
If antenna gain makes no difference , then why bother with it at all ? Because although the covered area is much smaller , it still grows quadratically with distance ( there simply is no such thing as an exactly parallel beam ) .
The antenna makes a difference in that you get a higher signal in the desired direction to begin with .
If your signal is e.g .
25 times as strong in a certain direction , it will remain 25 times as strong even after millions of lightyears .
So at a distance where the weak signal would be barely detectable , you still have 25 times the threshold , which should be clearly detectable .
Indeed , 25 times the strength means 5 times the reach , due to the inverse scale law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But *why* is it still the square of the distance when I always thought that was just a natural consequence of the increase in volume of a sphere as it's radius increases?
If antenna gain makes no difference, then why bother with it at all?Because although the covered area is much smaller, it still grows quadratically with distance (there simply is no such thing as an exactly parallel beam).
The antenna makes a difference in that you get a higher signal in the desired direction to begin with.
If your signal is e.g.
25 times as strong in a certain direction, it will remain 25 times as strong even after millions of lightyears.
So at a distance where the weak signal would be barely detectable, you still have 25 times the threshold, which should be clearly detectable.
Indeed, 25 times the strength means 5 times the reach, due to the inverse scale law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199958</id>
	<title>Useless message</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259008440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What. A. Useless. Message.</p><p>The message is nearly meaningless noise. There is structure, but not so much as to not be unambitiously random. The chances are that if anyone gets the message they'd assume it was just noise.  What a horrible waste. We would have done so much better sending an obvious integer sequence a few times: more obvious in the presence of noise, and more likely to be recognized as meaningful by a foreign life.</p><p>No wonder they didn't want to help this guy out, he's obviously a cargo-cult-wannabe-scientist.  "I play with beakers and transmitters, so I'm a scientist too".</p><p>
&nbsp; Sure&mdash; SETI things are more about understanding ourselves and pushing the technological boundaries. But that understanding comes from deep and considered thought about these issues, not by sending some artists to play scientist on some expensive equipment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What .
A. Useless .
Message.The message is nearly meaningless noise .
There is structure , but not so much as to not be unambitiously random .
The chances are that if anyone gets the message they 'd assume it was just noise .
What a horrible waste .
We would have done so much better sending an obvious integer sequence a few times : more obvious in the presence of noise , and more likely to be recognized as meaningful by a foreign life.No wonder they did n't want to help this guy out , he 's obviously a cargo-cult-wannabe-scientist .
" I play with beakers and transmitters , so I 'm a scientist too " .
  Sure    SETI things are more about understanding ourselves and pushing the technological boundaries .
But that understanding comes from deep and considered thought about these issues , not by sending some artists to play scientist on some expensive equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What.
A. Useless.
Message.The message is nearly meaningless noise.
There is structure, but not so much as to not be unambitiously random.
The chances are that if anyone gets the message they'd assume it was just noise.
What a horrible waste.
We would have done so much better sending an obvious integer sequence a few times: more obvious in the presence of noise, and more likely to be recognized as meaningful by a foreign life.No wonder they didn't want to help this guy out, he's obviously a cargo-cult-wannabe-scientist.
"I play with beakers and transmitters, so I'm a scientist too".
  Sure— SETI things are more about understanding ourselves and pushing the technological boundaries.
But that understanding comes from deep and considered thought about these issues, not by sending some artists to play scientist on some expensive equipment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202656</id>
	<title>Returned Message:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258995180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No thanks. Earth (particularly, U.S.A) is brain-dead.</p><p>Yours in Baikonur (Cosmodrome),<br>Kilgore T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No thanks .
Earth ( particularly , U.S.A ) is brain-dead.Yours in Baikonur ( Cosmodrome ) ,Kilgore T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No thanks.
Earth (particularly, U.S.A) is brain-dead.Yours in Baikonur (Cosmodrome),Kilgore T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056</id>
	<title>Dangerous</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258966980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have no idea if the receiver is friendly. Based on human behavior, we can roughly guess that <b>at least</b> 10\% of any/all intelligent receivers will be agressive. <b>Why broadcast our location with those odds?</b> It's not logical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have no idea if the receiver is friendly .
Based on human behavior , we can roughly guess that at least 10 \ % of any/all intelligent receivers will be agressive .
Why broadcast our location with those odds ?
It 's not logical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have no idea if the receiver is friendly.
Based on human behavior, we can roughly guess that at least 10\% of any/all intelligent receivers will be agressive.
Why broadcast our location with those odds?
It's not logical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200936</id>
	<title>Re:Dangerous</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1258984740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Based on human behavior, we can roughly guess that at least 10\% of any/all intelligent receivers will be agressive.</p></div><p>Really want to mess with your head?  Try this on for size.  Based on human behavior, we can roughly guess that at least 90\% of any/all intelligent receivers will believe in some form of supernatural friend in the sky whom runs the whole show.  Now how are they going to freak out when a dude in the sky starts talking to them?</p><p>See, now slashdotters whom watch too much BSG are worried about fighting the cylons, but the average (and below average) moron on the street is going to be worried about the supernatural implications.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on human behavior , we can roughly guess that at least 10 \ % of any/all intelligent receivers will be agressive.Really want to mess with your head ?
Try this on for size .
Based on human behavior , we can roughly guess that at least 90 \ % of any/all intelligent receivers will believe in some form of supernatural friend in the sky whom runs the whole show .
Now how are they going to freak out when a dude in the sky starts talking to them ? See , now slashdotters whom watch too much BSG are worried about fighting the cylons , but the average ( and below average ) moron on the street is going to be worried about the supernatural implications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on human behavior, we can roughly guess that at least 10\% of any/all intelligent receivers will be agressive.Really want to mess with your head?
Try this on for size.
Based on human behavior, we can roughly guess that at least 90\% of any/all intelligent receivers will believe in some form of supernatural friend in the sky whom runs the whole show.
Now how are they going to freak out when a dude in the sky starts talking to them?See, now slashdotters whom watch too much BSG are worried about fighting the cylons, but the average (and below average) moron on the street is going to be worried about the supernatural implications.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201078</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1258985820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn't include the 3000 years it would take to figure out the alien language over such a slow connection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't include the 3000 years it would take to figure out the alien language over such a slow connection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't include the 3000 years it would take to figure out the alien language over such a slow connection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198986</id>
	<title>We are here! Come and get us!</title>
	<author>orkysoft</author>
	<datestamp>1258907220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are very tasty snacks! Here, have our DNA, and grow some appetizers for the long journey!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are very tasty snacks !
Here , have our DNA , and grow some appetizers for the long journey !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are very tasty snacks!
Here, have our DNA, and grow some appetizers for the long journey!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200532</id>
	<title>Re:Dangerous</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1258977540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whether we imagine aliens to be friend of foe tells a lot about our own perception and mind set. And this perception changed dramatically over the decades up to a point where pop culture (or sci-fi too) overwhelmingly considers aliens to be a threat. It wasn't so earlier. How comes that?

Another point to ponder is this: if an alien culture were able to travel faster than light (and receive our signals before they arrived, but let's not be distracted by that), they would also be immensely more advanced than us, and would have paid us a (deadly of friendly) visit a long time ago since we started radio and TV broadcasting... if they thought we were worthy enough for a visit at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether we imagine aliens to be friend of foe tells a lot about our own perception and mind set .
And this perception changed dramatically over the decades up to a point where pop culture ( or sci-fi too ) overwhelmingly considers aliens to be a threat .
It was n't so earlier .
How comes that ?
Another point to ponder is this : if an alien culture were able to travel faster than light ( and receive our signals before they arrived , but let 's not be distracted by that ) , they would also be immensely more advanced than us , and would have paid us a ( deadly of friendly ) visit a long time ago since we started radio and TV broadcasting... if they thought we were worthy enough for a visit at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether we imagine aliens to be friend of foe tells a lot about our own perception and mind set.
And this perception changed dramatically over the decades up to a point where pop culture (or sci-fi too) overwhelmingly considers aliens to be a threat.
It wasn't so earlier.
How comes that?
Another point to ponder is this: if an alien culture were able to travel faster than light (and receive our signals before they arrived, but let's not be distracted by that), they would also be immensely more advanced than us, and would have paid us a (deadly of friendly) visit a long time ago since we started radio and TV broadcasting... if they thought we were worthy enough for a visit at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199738</id>
	<title>Not endorsed</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1258917480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it that some guy is taking the liberty to send anything he pleases to the aliens?</p><p>I mean, if we're going to seriously entretain the idea that some day some other civilization might receive the message, then such things should be planned carefully to be as meaningful, easily decodable and as non-threatening as possible lest it bite us in the ass some day. That excludes random people with access to the hardware sending messages just because they can out of their own initiative.</p><p>Just for a start, iPhone text to speech? There has to be some better way to encode a DNA sequence that would more obvious to decode that machine-generated voice in a human language.</p><p>And, if we're not really taking this seriously and this is just a gimmick, why bother in the first place? Surely there has to be some better use of the equipment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that some guy is taking the liberty to send anything he pleases to the aliens ? I mean , if we 're going to seriously entretain the idea that some day some other civilization might receive the message , then such things should be planned carefully to be as meaningful , easily decodable and as non-threatening as possible lest it bite us in the ass some day .
That excludes random people with access to the hardware sending messages just because they can out of their own initiative.Just for a start , iPhone text to speech ?
There has to be some better way to encode a DNA sequence that would more obvious to decode that machine-generated voice in a human language.And , if we 're not really taking this seriously and this is just a gimmick , why bother in the first place ?
Surely there has to be some better use of the equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that some guy is taking the liberty to send anything he pleases to the aliens?I mean, if we're going to seriously entretain the idea that some day some other civilization might receive the message, then such things should be planned carefully to be as meaningful, easily decodable and as non-threatening as possible lest it bite us in the ass some day.
That excludes random people with access to the hardware sending messages just because they can out of their own initiative.Just for a start, iPhone text to speech?
There has to be some better way to encode a DNA sequence that would more obvious to decode that machine-generated voice in a human language.And, if we're not really taking this seriously and this is just a gimmick, why bother in the first place?
Surely there has to be some better use of the equipment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203388</id>
	<title>Re:We are here! Come and get us!</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258999140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reply: "Nah, all you chordates taste like chicken. You can have all your stinken bases back."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reply : " Nah , all you chordates taste like chicken .
You can have all your stinken bases back .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reply: "Nah, all you chordates taste like chicken.
You can have all your stinken bases back.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199222</id>
	<title>Re:Wishful thinking</title>
	<author>turtleAJ</author>
	<datestamp>1258909380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is a picture of the dish,<br><a href="http://www.wikipuertorico.com/index.php?title=Arecibo\_Observatory" title="wikipuertorico.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wikipuertorico.com/index.php?title=Arecibo\_Observatory</a> [wikipuertorico.com]</p><p>Pretty cool thing to go and visit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a picture of the dish,http : //www.wikipuertorico.com/index.php ? title = Arecibo \ _Observatory [ wikipuertorico.com ] Pretty cool thing to go and visit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a picture of the dish,http://www.wikipuertorico.com/index.php?title=Arecibo\_Observatory [wikipuertorico.com]Pretty cool thing to go and visit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30204080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30231400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30209934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_23_013255_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_013255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202628
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30209934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_013255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30210010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_013255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_013255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_013255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_013255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_013255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_013255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_013255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_013255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_23_013255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30198936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199208
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200414
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200598
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201078
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202472
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30202654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199632
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200170
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201040
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201146
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200430
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30231400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30204080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30200584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30203886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30199022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_23_013255.30201742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
