<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_09_1641208</id>
	<title>New Hubble Ultra Deep Field In Infrared</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1260376800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Hynee writes <i>"Just in time for Christmas, <a href="http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/31/">HubbleSite has released</a> a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble\_Ultra\_Deep\_Field">Hubble Ultra Deep Field</a> redux. <a href="http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/survey/hubble-ultra-deep-field/2004/07/">The original</a> was in visible light; this version, five years on, is <a href="http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/31/image/a/">in infrared (1.05, 1.25 and 1.6 um)</a>.
The observation is in support of the upcoming <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_Webb\_Space\_Telescope">JWST</a>, which will observe exclusively in infrared, but the <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/09/2138243/Hubble-Releases-First-Post-Upgrade-Images?art\_pos=2">newly installed WFC3</a> does seem to provide some extra resolution over the 2004 visible observations with WFC2."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hynee writes " Just in time for Christmas , HubbleSite has released a Hubble Ultra Deep Field redux .
The original was in visible light ; this version , five years on , is in infrared ( 1.05 , 1.25 and 1.6 um ) .
The observation is in support of the upcoming JWST , which will observe exclusively in infrared , but the newly installed WFC3 does seem to provide some extra resolution over the 2004 visible observations with WFC2 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hynee writes "Just in time for Christmas, HubbleSite has released a Hubble Ultra Deep Field redux.
The original was in visible light; this version, five years on, is in infrared (1.05, 1.25 and 1.6 um).
The observation is in support of the upcoming JWST, which will observe exclusively in infrared, but the newly installed WFC3 does seem to provide some extra resolution over the 2004 visible observations with WFC2.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30383116</id>
	<title>FRIST STOP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>private sex party To use the GNAA 200 ru8nigng NT</htmltext>
<tokenext>private sex party To use the GNAA 200 ru8nigng NT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>private sex party To use the GNAA 200 ru8nigng NT</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379158</id>
	<title>Re:Ahem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To the extent that the observations and estimations of the galaxy's ages are accurate, yes it was enough time.  Now they want to figure out how they formed <i>more quickly than expected</i>.  If there is no reason to suspect that the observations and estimations are not accurate enough to rely on, then it must be our expectations of the time required for galaxy formation that is in need of revision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To the extent that the observations and estimations of the galaxy 's ages are accurate , yes it was enough time .
Now they want to figure out how they formed more quickly than expected .
If there is no reason to suspect that the observations and estimations are not accurate enough to rely on , then it must be our expectations of the time required for galaxy formation that is in need of revision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the extent that the observations and estimations of the galaxy's ages are accurate, yes it was enough time.
Now they want to figure out how they formed more quickly than expected.
If there is no reason to suspect that the observations and estimations are not accurate enough to rely on, then it must be our expectations of the time required for galaxy formation that is in need of revision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378348</id>
	<title>The're out there...</title>
	<author>gabereiser</author>
	<datestamp>1259604780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>somewhere...  waiting to enslave us.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>somewhere... waiting to enslave us.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>somewhere...  waiting to enslave us.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379224</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>Cunk</author>
	<datestamp>1259609160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new image is 2.4 arc-minutes wide according to hubblesite.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new image is 2.4 arc-minutes wide according to hubblesite.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new image is 2.4 arc-minutes wide according to hubblesite.org</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379512</id>
	<title>Re:More life</title>
	<author>eleuthero</author>
	<datestamp>1259610840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People tend to be arrogant - we don't know of anything outside ourselves and so it must not exist. Strangely, and I do find it quite strange, many of my fellow Christians intimate that there cannot be life anywhere but here. How that fits with belief in someone else we cannot see or prove, I don't know. It seems to me best to suggest that there might be aliens and there might not be. If the purpose of the universe does not involve such (again, remembering I am a Christian here), then they would not exist. If their existence does fit in with God's plan, then they certainly exist (some have suggested that this is perhaps the identity of "angels" from CS Lewis  to various others). The question then becomes not, do they exist, but, what relevance to life on earth do other beings elsewhere have (which might change should there ever be a point of contact).</htmltext>
<tokenext>People tend to be arrogant - we do n't know of anything outside ourselves and so it must not exist .
Strangely , and I do find it quite strange , many of my fellow Christians intimate that there can not be life anywhere but here .
How that fits with belief in someone else we can not see or prove , I do n't know .
It seems to me best to suggest that there might be aliens and there might not be .
If the purpose of the universe does not involve such ( again , remembering I am a Christian here ) , then they would not exist .
If their existence does fit in with God 's plan , then they certainly exist ( some have suggested that this is perhaps the identity of " angels " from CS Lewis to various others ) .
The question then becomes not , do they exist , but , what relevance to life on earth do other beings elsewhere have ( which might change should there ever be a point of contact ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People tend to be arrogant - we don't know of anything outside ourselves and so it must not exist.
Strangely, and I do find it quite strange, many of my fellow Christians intimate that there cannot be life anywhere but here.
How that fits with belief in someone else we cannot see or prove, I don't know.
It seems to me best to suggest that there might be aliens and there might not be.
If the purpose of the universe does not involve such (again, remembering I am a Christian here), then they would not exist.
If their existence does fit in with God's plan, then they certainly exist (some have suggested that this is perhaps the identity of "angels" from CS Lewis  to various others).
The question then becomes not, do they exist, but, what relevance to life on earth do other beings elsewhere have (which might change should there ever be a point of contact).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379086</id>
	<title>Re:fake</title>
	<author>thelonious</author>
	<datestamp>1259608440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, they have been shopped</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , they have been shopped</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, they have been shopped</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378654</id>
	<title>Am I the only one...</title>
	<author>Fez</author>
	<datestamp>1259606040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one that misread that as "Deep Fried" and expected a completely different kind of story?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one that misread that as " Deep Fried " and expected a completely different kind of story ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one that misread that as "Deep Fried" and expected a completely different kind of story?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379102</id>
	<title>is there any way to contribute?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always loved astronomy but I'm not good enough to pay all my bills as a engineer. Seeing how I cannot sign a check and be done with it are there any other resources I can contribute?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always loved astronomy but I 'm not good enough to pay all my bills as a engineer .
Seeing how I can not sign a check and be done with it are there any other resources I can contribute ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always loved astronomy but I'm not good enough to pay all my bills as a engineer.
Seeing how I cannot sign a check and be done with it are there any other resources I can contribute?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379266</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259609400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That picture represents a tiny tiny 11 arc-minute square of the sky (according to Wikipedia, it's like looking through a 1mm x 1mm square hole from 1m away) and it is absolutely jam packed with galaxies, each one containing millions of stars.</p></div><p>Make that billions of stars.  Yep, we're tiny alright.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That picture represents a tiny tiny 11 arc-minute square of the sky ( according to Wikipedia , it 's like looking through a 1mm x 1mm square hole from 1m away ) and it is absolutely jam packed with galaxies , each one containing millions of stars.Make that billions of stars .
Yep , we 're tiny alright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That picture represents a tiny tiny 11 arc-minute square of the sky (according to Wikipedia, it's like looking through a 1mm x 1mm square hole from 1m away) and it is absolutely jam packed with galaxies, each one containing millions of stars.Make that billions of stars.
Yep, we're tiny alright.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378410</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>ThorofAsgard</author>
	<datestamp>1259605080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only Carl Sagan were alive to see these new images.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only Carl Sagan were alive to see these new images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only Carl Sagan were alive to see these new images.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</id>
	<title>Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1259603280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That picture represents a tiny tiny 11 arc-minute square of the sky (according to Wikipedia, it's like looking through a 1mm x 1mm square hole from 1m away) and it is absolutely jam packed with galaxies, each one containing millions of stars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That picture represents a tiny tiny 11 arc-minute square of the sky ( according to Wikipedia , it 's like looking through a 1mm x 1mm square hole from 1m away ) and it is absolutely jam packed with galaxies , each one containing millions of stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That picture represents a tiny tiny 11 arc-minute square of the sky (according to Wikipedia, it's like looking through a 1mm x 1mm square hole from 1m away) and it is absolutely jam packed with galaxies, each one containing millions of stars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30382438</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>IdleTime</author>
	<datestamp>1259582580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What remains to be done, is to find an empty patch in this new image and do the same for this "empty" patch. But I guess the equipment is not good enough for another level of depth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What remains to be done , is to find an empty patch in this new image and do the same for this " empty " patch .
But I guess the equipment is not good enough for another level of depth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What remains to be done, is to find an empty patch in this new image and do the same for this "empty" patch.
But I guess the equipment is not good enough for another level of depth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378238</id>
	<title>Need Bigger Hubble!</title>
	<author>Favonius Cornelius</author>
	<datestamp>1259604120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Hubble has a tiny mirror. Imagine what we could see if it was 10m or 20m. We can do it easily! Well ok maybe not easy, but we should do it, no matter the cost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Hubble has a tiny mirror .
Imagine what we could see if it was 10m or 20m .
We can do it easily !
Well ok maybe not easy , but we should do it , no matter the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Hubble has a tiny mirror.
Imagine what we could see if it was 10m or 20m.
We can do it easily!
Well ok maybe not easy, but we should do it, no matter the cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378398</id>
	<title>That is FUCKING AMAZING.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is truly amazing. I've been out of the field for about a decade now since retiring, but when I got my PhD in Astronomy in the 1960s, we never expected to have such fantastic photography of the celestial bodies. This is truly a tremendous accomplishment by all involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is truly amazing .
I 've been out of the field for about a decade now since retiring , but when I got my PhD in Astronomy in the 1960s , we never expected to have such fantastic photography of the celestial bodies .
This is truly a tremendous accomplishment by all involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is truly amazing.
I've been out of the field for about a decade now since retiring, but when I got my PhD in Astronomy in the 1960s, we never expected to have such fantastic photography of the celestial bodies.
This is truly a tremendous accomplishment by all involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30381380</id>
	<title>Re:More life</title>
	<author>Gogogoch</author>
	<datestamp>1259577660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems to me best to suggest that there might be aliens and there might not be.</p> </div><p>You observation is very astute. May I suggest that you are either an ignorant Christian pedophile, or you are not.</p><p>But hold! You said "and" instead of "or"! You're thinking from a quantum mechanical perspective. My apologies, I think you're right. There are aliens, and there are not aliens, and it will not be decided until with observe them? Cool. But to them we're the aliens..... ah shit, let's just say they are 'angels'.</p><p>---<br>Atheism is the rejection of dogmas, for it is the non-assertion of a delusional positive. - G.K Chesterfield</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me best to suggest that there might be aliens and there might not be .
You observation is very astute .
May I suggest that you are either an ignorant Christian pedophile , or you are not.But hold !
You said " and " instead of " or " !
You 're thinking from a quantum mechanical perspective .
My apologies , I think you 're right .
There are aliens , and there are not aliens , and it will not be decided until with observe them ?
Cool. But to them we 're the aliens..... ah shit , let 's just say they are 'angels'.---Atheism is the rejection of dogmas , for it is the non-assertion of a delusional positive .
- G.K Chesterfield</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me best to suggest that there might be aliens and there might not be.
You observation is very astute.
May I suggest that you are either an ignorant Christian pedophile, or you are not.But hold!
You said "and" instead of "or"!
You're thinking from a quantum mechanical perspective.
My apologies, I think you're right.
There are aliens, and there are not aliens, and it will not be decided until with observe them?
Cool. But to them we're the aliens..... ah shit, let's just say they are 'angels'.---Atheism is the rejection of dogmas, for it is the non-assertion of a delusional positive.
- G.K Chesterfield
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379274</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259609460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, the <a href="http://http//hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/31/fastfacts/" title="http" rel="nofollow">HubbleSite</a> [http] says it's 2.4 arcminutes.  Whatever an arcminute is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , the HubbleSite [ http ] says it 's 2.4 arcminutes .
Whatever an arcminute is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, the HubbleSite [http] says it's 2.4 arcminutes.
Whatever an arcminute is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378724</id>
	<title>Age of life</title>
	<author>Rashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1259606400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess that at an age of 600 million years there was no life yet in the universe. I wonder at what age life may first have existed, and at what age intelligent life could have evolved. One could imagine a series of 'life bubbles' outside of which no life (or intelligent life) is to be expected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that at an age of 600 million years there was no life yet in the universe .
I wonder at what age life may first have existed , and at what age intelligent life could have evolved .
One could imagine a series of 'life bubbles ' outside of which no life ( or intelligent life ) is to be expected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that at an age of 600 million years there was no life yet in the universe.
I wonder at what age life may first have existed, and at what age intelligent life could have evolved.
One could imagine a series of 'life bubbles' outside of which no life (or intelligent life) is to be expected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379278</id>
	<title>It's not that big...</title>
	<author>Golddess</author>
	<datestamp>1259609460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is simply awesome looking.  But... <a href="http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/31/image/a/warn/" title="hubblesite.org">only 2345x2039</a> [hubblesite.org]?  The original maxed out at
<a href="http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/survey/hubble\%20ultra\%20deep\%20field/2004/07/image/a/warn/" title="hubblesite.org">6200x6200</a> [hubblesite.org].  What gives?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is simply awesome looking .
But... only 2345x2039 [ hubblesite.org ] ?
The original maxed out at 6200x6200 [ hubblesite.org ] .
What gives ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is simply awesome looking.
But... only 2345x2039 [hubblesite.org]?
The original maxed out at
6200x6200 [hubblesite.org].
What gives?
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378796</id>
	<title>Re:fake</title>
	<author>H0p313ss</author>
	<datestamp>1259606940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If these images are infrared as they supposedly claim, why can I see them?  Humans can't see infrared.</p></div><p>I do hope you were trolling... that's the dumbest question I've heard in a long time. And I have teenagers... (I will show this to them, they will laugh...)</p><p>So, assuming it was a joke. Tres drole, tres drole.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/golfclap</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If these images are infrared as they supposedly claim , why can I see them ?
Humans ca n't see infrared.I do hope you were trolling... that 's the dumbest question I 've heard in a long time .
And I have teenagers... ( I will show this to them , they will laugh... ) So , assuming it was a joke .
Tres drole , tres drole .
/golfclap</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these images are infrared as they supposedly claim, why can I see them?
Humans can't see infrared.I do hope you were trolling... that's the dumbest question I've heard in a long time.
And I have teenagers... (I will show this to them, they will laugh...)So, assuming it was a joke.
Tres drole, tres drole.
/golfclap
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379108</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>teeloo</author>
	<datestamp>1259608620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how many of these 11 arc-minutes squares are there in the sky? And while you're at it, can you count the number of galaxies and multiply by.....

thx.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how many of these 11 arc-minutes squares are there in the sky ?
And while you 're at it , can you count the number of galaxies and multiply by.... . thx .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how many of these 11 arc-minutes squares are there in the sky?
And while you're at it, can you count the number of galaxies and multiply by.....

thx.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30386484</id>
	<title>deep field of the deep field?</title>
	<author>simplerThanPossible</author>
	<datestamp>1260446340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can they take a tiny part of the deep field image, that is (apparently) black, and do the same thing again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can they take a tiny part of the deep field image , that is ( apparently ) black , and do the same thing again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can they take a tiny part of the deep field image, that is (apparently) black, and do the same thing again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379450</id>
	<title>Anyone else</title>
	<author>proxy318</author>
	<datestamp>1259610600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read that as "Hubble Ultra Deep Fried"? I thought they were making cheese sticks in space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read that as " Hubble Ultra Deep Fried " ?
I thought they were making cheese sticks in space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read that as "Hubble Ultra Deep Fried"?
I thought they were making cheese sticks in space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378900</id>
	<title>Re:Need Bigger Hubble!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well the 42m mirror E-ELT is coming up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_Extremely\_Large\_Telescope<br>Too bad they cancelled the 100m OWL, it would have kicked ass http://www.gemini.edu/science/maxat/future/future.html<br>Besides, it had a much catchier name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the 42m mirror E-ELT is coming up http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European \ _Extremely \ _Large \ _TelescopeToo bad they cancelled the 100m OWL , it would have kicked ass http : //www.gemini.edu/science/maxat/future/future.htmlBesides , it had a much catchier name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the 42m mirror E-ELT is coming up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European\_Extremely\_Large\_TelescopeToo bad they cancelled the 100m OWL, it would have kicked ass http://www.gemini.edu/science/maxat/future/future.htmlBesides, it had a much catchier name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378688</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>Fulseman</author>
	<datestamp>1259606220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your girlfriends name is Hubble too?  What are the odds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your girlfriends name is Hubble too ?
What are the odds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your girlfriends name is Hubble too?
What are the odds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379738</id>
	<title>Re:Ahem...</title>
	<author>\_bug\_</author>
	<datestamp>1259612160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt any of those spiral galaxies are 500 million years from the big bang.</p><p>Just about every object in the image has a different age. Several of the spiral galaxies you see are billions of years from the big bang. The 500 million years from big bang objects are more likely to be giant clouds of gasses and stars. The sort of stuff we didn't see with the visible light images taken in 2004, but that we can now see with the infrared filters used to make the new image.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt any of those spiral galaxies are 500 million years from the big bang.Just about every object in the image has a different age .
Several of the spiral galaxies you see are billions of years from the big bang .
The 500 million years from big bang objects are more likely to be giant clouds of gasses and stars .
The sort of stuff we did n't see with the visible light images taken in 2004 , but that we can now see with the infrared filters used to make the new image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt any of those spiral galaxies are 500 million years from the big bang.Just about every object in the image has a different age.
Several of the spiral galaxies you see are billions of years from the big bang.
The 500 million years from big bang objects are more likely to be giant clouds of gasses and stars.
The sort of stuff we didn't see with the visible light images taken in 2004, but that we can now see with the infrared filters used to make the new image.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30380024</id>
	<title>Re:More life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>many of my fellow Christians intimate that there cannot be life anywhere but here</i> </p><p>That's very strange, considering that an absolute belief in Christianity practically requires a belief in non-terrestrial life.  Perhaps the "fellow Christians" that you associate with are simply unfamiliar with the teachings of their own religion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>many of my fellow Christians intimate that there can not be life anywhere but here That 's very strange , considering that an absolute belief in Christianity practically requires a belief in non-terrestrial life .
Perhaps the " fellow Christians " that you associate with are simply unfamiliar with the teachings of their own religion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>many of my fellow Christians intimate that there cannot be life anywhere but here That's very strange, considering that an absolute belief in Christianity practically requires a belief in non-terrestrial life.
Perhaps the "fellow Christians" that you associate with are simply unfamiliar with the teachings of their own religion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378152</id>
	<title>Alot of blue out there</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1259603580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking at that image leave me with no dought there is life out there,its just too far away to contact or visit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at that image leave me with no dought there is life out there,its just too far away to contact or visit : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at that image leave me with no dought there is life out there,its just too far away to contact or visit :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378670</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To put that into an easier perspective to visualize for people too lazy to check wikipedia before doing the calculations themselves, the width of the image is about 1/10th to 1/8th the diameter of the Moon seen from Earth (depending on when and where you are).</p><p>(Heh, captcha was "abstruse".)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To put that into an easier perspective to visualize for people too lazy to check wikipedia before doing the calculations themselves , the width of the image is about 1/10th to 1/8th the diameter of the Moon seen from Earth ( depending on when and where you are ) .
( Heh , captcha was " abstruse " .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To put that into an easier perspective to visualize for people too lazy to check wikipedia before doing the calculations themselves, the width of the image is about 1/10th to 1/8th the diameter of the Moon seen from Earth (depending on when and where you are).
(Heh, captcha was "abstruse".
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379906</id>
	<title>Re:fake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If these images are infrared as they supposedly claim, why can I see them?  Humans can't see infrared.</p></div><p>It's a trick to out the aliens. You posted AC, but we will find you. Now, for the rest, if you will please read the following text...</p><p> <b>This post was caused by a static charge from a weather balloon igniting swamp gas.</b> </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If these images are infrared as they supposedly claim , why can I see them ?
Humans ca n't see infrared.It 's a trick to out the aliens .
You posted AC , but we will find you .
Now , for the rest , if you will please read the following text... This post was caused by a static charge from a weather balloon igniting swamp gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these images are infrared as they supposedly claim, why can I see them?
Humans can't see infrared.It's a trick to out the aliens.
You posted AC, but we will find you.
Now, for the rest, if you will please read the following text... This post was caused by a static charge from a weather balloon igniting swamp gas. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378946</id>
	<title>More life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seeing that image which is a TINY fraction (perhaps too small to even be considered a fraction) of the universe makes me wonder how some people think there can't be any other life in the universe... We just can't communicate with it because of distance/delay concerns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing that image which is a TINY fraction ( perhaps too small to even be considered a fraction ) of the universe makes me wonder how some people think there ca n't be any other life in the universe... We just ca n't communicate with it because of distance/delay concerns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing that image which is a TINY fraction (perhaps too small to even be considered a fraction) of the universe makes me wonder how some people think there can't be any other life in the universe... We just can't communicate with it because of distance/delay concerns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379080</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>Brad1138</author>
	<datestamp>1259608440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is so nice God took the time to make these Galaxies so we could have light at night. A couple more moons probably would have been easier though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is so nice God took the time to make these Galaxies so we could have light at night .
A couple more moons probably would have been easier though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is so nice God took the time to make these Galaxies so we could have light at night.
A couple more moons probably would have been easier though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379414</id>
	<title>Comparison Between 2004 and 2009 Images</title>
	<author>\_bug\_</author>
	<datestamp>1259610360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I took the 2004 UDF image and rotated/cropped as needed to match with the 2009 UDF image so you can switch between the two and compare the differences.</p><p><a href="http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7015/hubbleudf1.jpg" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">2004 UDF</a> [imageshack.us] | <a href="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2346/hubbleudf2.jpg" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">2009 UDF</a> [imageshack.us]</p><p>The new image uses infrared versus the visible light filters from the 2004 image. The resolution may not differ much between the two images, but the infrared will pick up deeper objects that we missed with the visible light filters. However the visible light image tends to pick up more detail such as in the spiral galaxy in the middle-left. That galaxy is known as UDF 7556 and what you see is how it was 6.1 billion years after the big bang.</p><p>This stuff is so cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I took the 2004 UDF image and rotated/cropped as needed to match with the 2009 UDF image so you can switch between the two and compare the differences.2004 UDF [ imageshack.us ] | 2009 UDF [ imageshack.us ] The new image uses infrared versus the visible light filters from the 2004 image .
The resolution may not differ much between the two images , but the infrared will pick up deeper objects that we missed with the visible light filters .
However the visible light image tends to pick up more detail such as in the spiral galaxy in the middle-left .
That galaxy is known as UDF 7556 and what you see is how it was 6.1 billion years after the big bang.This stuff is so cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took the 2004 UDF image and rotated/cropped as needed to match with the 2009 UDF image so you can switch between the two and compare the differences.2004 UDF [imageshack.us] | 2009 UDF [imageshack.us]The new image uses infrared versus the visible light filters from the 2004 image.
The resolution may not differ much between the two images, but the infrared will pick up deeper objects that we missed with the visible light filters.
However the visible light image tends to pick up more detail such as in the spiral galaxy in the middle-left.
That galaxy is known as UDF 7556 and what you see is how it was 6.1 billion years after the big bang.This stuff is so cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378988</id>
	<title>Merry christmas</title>
	<author>mugurel</author>
	<datestamp>1259607960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just in time for Christmas,...</p></div><p>Deep fried in infrared, duh! this is just the neighbor's christmas tree!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just in time for Christmas,...Deep fried in infrared , duh !
this is just the neighbor 's christmas tree !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just in time for Christmas,...Deep fried in infrared, duh!
this is just the neighbor's christmas tree!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379900</id>
	<title>Technical Corrections</title>
	<author>Einer2</author>
	<datestamp>1259613300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The optical observations of the UDF from 2004 were conducted with the Advanced Camera for Surveys/Wide Field Channel (ACS/WFC) not the predecessor to WFC3 (Wide Field/Planetary Camera 2, or WF/PC2). Also, the optical channel of WFC3 does offer a small improvement in pixel scale (40 milliarcseconds/pixel, versus 50 mas/pix for ACS/WFC. However, the near-infrared channel (where these images were taken) only has a pixel scale of 130 mas/pix, a factor of ~2.5 worse than ACS/WFC.<br> <br>

(The diffraction limit of HST varies from ~50 mas at 500 nm to ~150 mas at 1.5 microns, so the native resolution is worse as well. However, undersampling of images due to the detectors' oversized pixels is what dominates the fine details of its effective resolution. The true resolution is actually hard to estimate offhand for images like this. Each observation occurs with sub-pixel offsets with respect to the others, so if you subsample and stack them, you can recover much of the resolution that was lost due to undersampling. With many orbits' worth of images contributing to the UDF, they might have gotten back all of the lost resolution.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The optical observations of the UDF from 2004 were conducted with the Advanced Camera for Surveys/Wide Field Channel ( ACS/WFC ) not the predecessor to WFC3 ( Wide Field/Planetary Camera 2 , or WF/PC2 ) .
Also , the optical channel of WFC3 does offer a small improvement in pixel scale ( 40 milliarcseconds/pixel , versus 50 mas/pix for ACS/WFC .
However , the near-infrared channel ( where these images were taken ) only has a pixel scale of 130 mas/pix , a factor of ~ 2.5 worse than ACS/WFC .
( The diffraction limit of HST varies from ~ 50 mas at 500 nm to ~ 150 mas at 1.5 microns , so the native resolution is worse as well .
However , undersampling of images due to the detectors ' oversized pixels is what dominates the fine details of its effective resolution .
The true resolution is actually hard to estimate offhand for images like this .
Each observation occurs with sub-pixel offsets with respect to the others , so if you subsample and stack them , you can recover much of the resolution that was lost due to undersampling .
With many orbits ' worth of images contributing to the UDF , they might have gotten back all of the lost resolution .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The optical observations of the UDF from 2004 were conducted with the Advanced Camera for Surveys/Wide Field Channel (ACS/WFC) not the predecessor to WFC3 (Wide Field/Planetary Camera 2, or WF/PC2).
Also, the optical channel of WFC3 does offer a small improvement in pixel scale (40 milliarcseconds/pixel, versus 50 mas/pix for ACS/WFC.
However, the near-infrared channel (where these images were taken) only has a pixel scale of 130 mas/pix, a factor of ~2.5 worse than ACS/WFC.
(The diffraction limit of HST varies from ~50 mas at 500 nm to ~150 mas at 1.5 microns, so the native resolution is worse as well.
However, undersampling of images due to the detectors' oversized pixels is what dominates the fine details of its effective resolution.
The true resolution is actually hard to estimate offhand for images like this.
Each observation occurs with sub-pixel offsets with respect to the others, so if you subsample and stack them, you can recover much of the resolution that was lost due to undersampling.
With many orbits' worth of images contributing to the UDF, they might have gotten back all of the lost resolution.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30380528</id>
	<title>Re:Need Bigger Hubble!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that we need to build a unmanned lunar observatory (but built by humans on the moon).  I would like to see a 100m or larger liquid mercury mirror with a reflecting mirror that is in Lunar orbit.  Radio telescopes at a few locations may be a simpler goal to start with however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that we need to build a unmanned lunar observatory ( but built by humans on the moon ) .
I would like to see a 100m or larger liquid mercury mirror with a reflecting mirror that is in Lunar orbit .
Radio telescopes at a few locations may be a simpler goal to start with however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that we need to build a unmanned lunar observatory (but built by humans on the moon).
I would like to see a 100m or larger liquid mercury mirror with a reflecting mirror that is in Lunar orbit.
Radio telescopes at a few locations may be a simpler goal to start with however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30394056</id>
	<title>Re:Ahem...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260439200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell that to the dark energy lunatics. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell that to the dark energy lunatics .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell that to the dark energy lunatics.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378522</id>
	<title>fake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If these images are infrared as they supposedly claim, why can I see them?  Humans can't see infrared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If these images are infrared as they supposedly claim , why can I see them ?
Humans ca n't see infrared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these images are infrared as they supposedly claim, why can I see them?
Humans can't see infrared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30383104</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1259586420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You laugh but I told by a pastor once that I should consider the possibilty that all the stars in the sky at night are there because his god loves us to much and wanted to give us something truly beautiful to look at. He said it honestly, like it was what he actually believed. It was really quite sad, or disturbing, or both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You laugh but I told by a pastor once that I should consider the possibilty that all the stars in the sky at night are there because his god loves us to much and wanted to give us something truly beautiful to look at .
He said it honestly , like it was what he actually believed .
It was really quite sad , or disturbing , or both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You laugh but I told by a pastor once that I should consider the possibilty that all the stars in the sky at night are there because his god loves us to much and wanted to give us something truly beautiful to look at.
He said it honestly, like it was what he actually believed.
It was really quite sad, or disturbing, or both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378042</id>
	<title>CmdrTaco and kdawson love cocks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259602980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CmdrTaco and kdawson have 2 inch penises that they have to use tweezers to jack off.  When they go to the glory hole they get confused for toddlers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CmdrTaco and kdawson have 2 inch penises that they have to use tweezers to jack off .
When they go to the glory hole they get confused for toddlers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CmdrTaco and kdawson have 2 inch penises that they have to use tweezers to jack off.
When they go to the glory hole they get confused for toddlers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30398856</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260474360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the older hubble udf(taken before 2009) it took about 13 billion of that size to cover the entire sky... this one is tighter and less of the sky so your math is off somewhere.  The last one had an estimated 10,000 galaxies.  That makes at least 130 billion galaxies everywhere, extrapolating roughly from the older one and this one contains a lot of deeper galaxies unseen by the previous UDF.  I would guess this new one (~sept2009) makes our conservative estimate of the # of galaxies in the visible universe larger by at least a factor of 10...so at least 1.3 trillion galaxies in the visible universe conservatively.  The kinky alien sex acts going on out there...you have no idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the older hubble udf ( taken before 2009 ) it took about 13 billion of that size to cover the entire sky... this one is tighter and less of the sky so your math is off somewhere .
The last one had an estimated 10,000 galaxies .
That makes at least 130 billion galaxies everywhere , extrapolating roughly from the older one and this one contains a lot of deeper galaxies unseen by the previous UDF .
I would guess this new one ( ~ sept2009 ) makes our conservative estimate of the # of galaxies in the visible universe larger by at least a factor of 10...so at least 1.3 trillion galaxies in the visible universe conservatively .
The kinky alien sex acts going on out there...you have no idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the older hubble udf(taken before 2009) it took about 13 billion of that size to cover the entire sky... this one is tighter and less of the sky so your math is off somewhere.
The last one had an estimated 10,000 galaxies.
That makes at least 130 billion galaxies everywhere, extrapolating roughly from the older one and this one contains a lot of deeper galaxies unseen by the previous UDF.
I would guess this new one (~sept2009) makes our conservative estimate of the # of galaxies in the visible universe larger by at least a factor of 10...so at least 1.3 trillion galaxies in the visible universe conservatively.
The kinky alien sex acts going on out there...you have no idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30382772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379654</id>
	<title>clearly time and distance....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time and Distance must not work the way we think they do.  The spaces seen here are unfathomable and immeasureable by our current methods.  We can attach numbers to the distances but have no clear conception of just how far and long it is in our minds.  If we are to traverse these distances, then we need to be rethinking our notions of how time and distance function.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time and Distance must not work the way we think they do .
The spaces seen here are unfathomable and immeasureable by our current methods .
We can attach numbers to the distances but have no clear conception of just how far and long it is in our minds .
If we are to traverse these distances , then we need to be rethinking our notions of how time and distance function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time and Distance must not work the way we think they do.
The spaces seen here are unfathomable and immeasureable by our current methods.
We can attach numbers to the distances but have no clear conception of just how far and long it is in our minds.
If we are to traverse these distances, then we need to be rethinking our notions of how time and distance function.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30385412</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1259609040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I put the new one on top of the old one. XCF <a href="http://melikamp.com/features/hubble-deep-space-fields-2004-2009.xcf.tar.bz2" title="melikamp.com">here</a> [melikamp.com], you will need tar, bzip2, gimp.

</p><p>I can definitely find a few places where the new image has a small spot, while the old one has dark background.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I put the new one on top of the old one .
XCF here [ melikamp.com ] , you will need tar , bzip2 , gimp .
I can definitely find a few places where the new image has a small spot , while the old one has dark background .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I put the new one on top of the old one.
XCF here [melikamp.com], you will need tar, bzip2, gimp.
I can definitely find a few places where the new image has a small spot, while the old one has dark background.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379216</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259609160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the only way that life can exist is if an invisible sky daddy created it.<br>
<br>
Which is why I truly believe that light pollution is a conspiracy meant to hide the vastness that is space from the average person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the only way that life can exist is if an invisible sky daddy created it .
Which is why I truly believe that light pollution is a conspiracy meant to hide the vastness that is space from the average person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet some people continue to cling to the belief that the only way that life can exist is if an invisible sky daddy created it.
Which is why I truly believe that light pollution is a conspiracy meant to hide the vastness that is space from the average person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30382772</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>Physics Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1259584560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So how many of these 11 arc-minutes squares are there in the sky?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>
Well, some quick math gives about 25.7 million of this size region to cover the entire sky. (assuming I didn't miss a decimal point
</p><p>
As far as number of galaxies in the photo, I'll leave that up to you to count.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how many of these 11 arc-minutes squares are there in the sky ?
.. . Well , some quick math gives about 25.7 million of this size region to cover the entire sky .
( assuming I did n't miss a decimal point As far as number of galaxies in the photo , I 'll leave that up to you to count .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how many of these 11 arc-minutes squares are there in the sky?
...
Well, some quick math gives about 25.7 million of this size region to cover the entire sky.
(assuming I didn't miss a decimal point

As far as number of galaxies in the photo, I'll leave that up to you to count.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30381032</id>
	<title>Re:More life</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1259576220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, the Mormons, which are an offshoot of Christianity, do believe in life on other planets.  They even believe that God (Jahweh) is an alien that lives on the planet Kolob, and is one of many such gods.</p><p>They probably don't talk openly about this very much with outsiders, just as Scientologists don't talk openly about Xenu and the Galactic Confederation, though it's central to their belief that Xenu brought billions of people here and killed them with atomic bombs to reduce overpopulation, and their souls ("thetas") are plaguing us now and causing what appear to be mental disorders.</p><p>How any sane, rational person can believe any of these things (or any of the beliefs of more "mainstream" religions) when presented with them laid out clearly and plainly, I have no idea.  It all borders on insanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , the Mormons , which are an offshoot of Christianity , do believe in life on other planets .
They even believe that God ( Jahweh ) is an alien that lives on the planet Kolob , and is one of many such gods.They probably do n't talk openly about this very much with outsiders , just as Scientologists do n't talk openly about Xenu and the Galactic Confederation , though it 's central to their belief that Xenu brought billions of people here and killed them with atomic bombs to reduce overpopulation , and their souls ( " thetas " ) are plaguing us now and causing what appear to be mental disorders.How any sane , rational person can believe any of these things ( or any of the beliefs of more " mainstream " religions ) when presented with them laid out clearly and plainly , I have no idea .
It all borders on insanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, the Mormons, which are an offshoot of Christianity, do believe in life on other planets.
They even believe that God (Jahweh) is an alien that lives on the planet Kolob, and is one of many such gods.They probably don't talk openly about this very much with outsiders, just as Scientologists don't talk openly about Xenu and the Galactic Confederation, though it's central to their belief that Xenu brought billions of people here and killed them with atomic bombs to reduce overpopulation, and their souls ("thetas") are plaguing us now and causing what appear to be mental disorders.How any sane, rational person can believe any of these things (or any of the beliefs of more "mainstream" religions) when presented with them laid out clearly and plainly, I have no idea.
It all borders on insanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378932</id>
	<title>Ahem...</title>
	<author>kipsate</author>
	<datestamp>1259607600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps a stupid question, but is 500 million years enough time for all of these spiral galaxies to form?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps a stupid question , but is 500 million years enough time for all of these spiral galaxies to form ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps a stupid question, but is 500 million years enough time for all of these spiral galaxies to form?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30384484</id>
	<title>UDF Infrared Lines</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1259597040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I took the extra large web image and decided to draw some lines to connect large (12 pixel or more), bright (50\% luminous) objects together.  The point was to try to find large regions of relatively dark sky in the image.  Why?  The original deep field images were taken upon "black" sky to see what really long exposures could find.  Now with the ultra deep field images, it's plenty clear that most "black" sky has lots of galaxies visible.  So, in the future, it'd probably be a good idea to take an ultra deep field image of a "black" part of the ultra deep field image just to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.</p><p>Besides, the images are pretty.</p><p> <a href="http://imagebin.ca/view/Picc\_02J.html" title="imagebin.ca" rel="nofollow">Hubble UDF Infrared with lines connecting large, bright objects</a> [imagebin.ca] </p><p> <a href="http://imagebin.ca/view/Zm9fD1.html" title="imagebin.ca" rel="nofollow">The same as above, but with the large, bright objects colored to better differentiate what counts as "large, bright objects"</a> [imagebin.ca] </p><p>PS - I used two slightly different, slowish python scripts to do the actual drawing.  I'll post them as well, if anyone is interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I took the extra large web image and decided to draw some lines to connect large ( 12 pixel or more ) , bright ( 50 \ % luminous ) objects together .
The point was to try to find large regions of relatively dark sky in the image .
Why ? The original deep field images were taken upon " black " sky to see what really long exposures could find .
Now with the ultra deep field images , it 's plenty clear that most " black " sky has lots of galaxies visible .
So , in the future , it 'd probably be a good idea to take an ultra deep field image of a " black " part of the ultra deep field image just to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.Besides , the images are pretty .
Hubble UDF Infrared with lines connecting large , bright objects [ imagebin.ca ] The same as above , but with the large , bright objects colored to better differentiate what counts as " large , bright objects " [ imagebin.ca ] PS - I used two slightly different , slowish python scripts to do the actual drawing .
I 'll post them as well , if anyone is interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I took the extra large web image and decided to draw some lines to connect large (12 pixel or more), bright (50\% luminous) objects together.
The point was to try to find large regions of relatively dark sky in the image.
Why?  The original deep field images were taken upon "black" sky to see what really long exposures could find.
Now with the ultra deep field images, it's plenty clear that most "black" sky has lots of galaxies visible.
So, in the future, it'd probably be a good idea to take an ultra deep field image of a "black" part of the ultra deep field image just to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.Besides, the images are pretty.
Hubble UDF Infrared with lines connecting large, bright objects [imagebin.ca]  The same as above, but with the large, bright objects colored to better differentiate what counts as "large, bright objects" [imagebin.ca] PS - I used two slightly different, slowish python scripts to do the actual drawing.
I'll post them as well, if anyone is interested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30381724</id>
	<title>Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble</title>
	<author>zawarski</author>
	<datestamp>1259579160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Space is big .
Really big .
You just wo n't believe how vastly , hugely , mind- bogglingly big it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space is big.
Really big.
You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30380528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30381032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30381380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30383104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30398856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30382772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30382438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30394056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30385412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30381724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1641208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30380024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1641208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30382438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30381724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30383104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30385412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379108
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30382772
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30398856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1641208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30380528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1641208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30381380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30380024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30381032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1641208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1641208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1641208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1641208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1641208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30378932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30394056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1641208.30379738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
