<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_09_192215</id>
	<title>Nvidia Announces 3D Blu-ray Format For 2010</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260387660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Nvidia has announced that <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/354025/nvidia-announces-3d-blu-ray-for-2010">3D Blu-ray movies will begin appearing in 2010</a>. A spokesman confirmed that the Blu-ray Association &mdash; to which Nvidia is a contributor &mdash; had settled on the 'proper parameters [for] what constitutes a 3D Blu-ray' and claimed the first 3D Blu-ray films would hit the shelves 'towards the end of Summer 2010.' Nvidia will support the standard through its 3D Vision technology, using bit rates of around 60Mbits/second &mdash; twice that of a standard movie &mdash; although HDMI 1.3 'should have sufficient bandwidth' to ensure smooth playback. New files will be encoded using the MVC-AVC format, which is based on the AVC format currently used by Blu-ray movies.'</i> <strong>Update:</strong> HotHardware has some <a href="http://hothardware.com/News/NVIDIA-Demos-3D-BluRay-On-3D-Vision/">additional details, including images of demo hardware</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Nvidia has announced that 3D Blu-ray movies will begin appearing in 2010 .
A spokesman confirmed that the Blu-ray Association    to which Nvidia is a contributor    had settled on the 'proper parameters [ for ] what constitutes a 3D Blu-ray ' and claimed the first 3D Blu-ray films would hit the shelves 'towards the end of Summer 2010 .
' Nvidia will support the standard through its 3D Vision technology , using bit rates of around 60Mbits/second    twice that of a standard movie    although HDMI 1.3 'should have sufficient bandwidth ' to ensure smooth playback .
New files will be encoded using the MVC-AVC format , which is based on the AVC format currently used by Blu-ray movies .
' Update : HotHardware has some additional details , including images of demo hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Nvidia has announced that 3D Blu-ray movies will begin appearing in 2010.
A spokesman confirmed that the Blu-ray Association — to which Nvidia is a contributor — had settled on the 'proper parameters [for] what constitutes a 3D Blu-ray' and claimed the first 3D Blu-ray films would hit the shelves 'towards the end of Summer 2010.
' Nvidia will support the standard through its 3D Vision technology, using bit rates of around 60Mbits/second — twice that of a standard movie — although HDMI 1.3 'should have sufficient bandwidth' to ensure smooth playback.
New files will be encoded using the MVC-AVC format, which is based on the AVC format currently used by Blu-ray movies.
' Update: HotHardware has some additional details, including images of demo hardware.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380044</id>
	<title>fuck blueray</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://fuckbluray.com/" title="fuckbluray.com" rel="nofollow">http://fuckbluray.com/</a> [fuckbluray.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //fuckbluray.com/ [ fuckbluray.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://fuckbluray.com/ [fuckbluray.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30384928</id>
	<title>Behind the curve</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1259602020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm sure the people who can afford a fullHD tv@120Hz and a new player to see shrek 3D will rush to buy it. All 20 of them.</i> </p><p>TigerDirect will gladly sell you a brand-new 46" Sony BRAVIA LCD and Sony Blu-Ray player for $1300. 1080p. 120 Hz Refresh.</p><p> Both set and player have Ethernet connectivity and together will deliver pretty much every widget and streaming media service you could name.</p><p> <a href="http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5566422&amp;sku=S190-4672&amp;cm\_re=Homepage-\_-Spot\%2001d-\_-CatId\_37\_S190-4672" title="tigerdirect.com">Sony KDL46W5150 BRAVIA W Series 46" LCD HDTV and Sony Blu-Ray Disc Player Bundle(FREE SHIPPING)</a> [tigerdirect.com] </p><p>The 120 Hz set is easy to find, if not quite yet entry level. The Blu-Ray disk had a very successful Black Friday.</p><p>When the ugrade bug bites, it bites hard.<br>When my sister's family made the move up to big screen HD their PS3 video game purchases doubled and re-doubled.</p><p>The basic cable box was replaced by the HD digital recorder. Blu-Ray and Netflix and WiFi home networking were woven into the mix not long after.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the people who can afford a fullHD tv @ 120Hz and a new player to see shrek 3D will rush to buy it .
All 20 of them .
TigerDirect will gladly sell you a brand-new 46 " Sony BRAVIA LCD and Sony Blu-Ray player for $ 1300 .
1080p. 120 Hz Refresh .
Both set and player have Ethernet connectivity and together will deliver pretty much every widget and streaming media service you could name .
Sony KDL46W5150 BRAVIA W Series 46 " LCD HDTV and Sony Blu-Ray Disc Player Bundle ( FREE SHIPPING ) [ tigerdirect.com ] The 120 Hz set is easy to find , if not quite yet entry level .
The Blu-Ray disk had a very successful Black Friday.When the ugrade bug bites , it bites hard.When my sister 's family made the move up to big screen HD their PS3 video game purchases doubled and re-doubled.The basic cable box was replaced by the HD digital recorder .
Blu-Ray and Netflix and WiFi home networking were woven into the mix not long after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the people who can afford a fullHD tv@120Hz and a new player to see shrek 3D will rush to buy it.
All 20 of them.
TigerDirect will gladly sell you a brand-new 46" Sony BRAVIA LCD and Sony Blu-Ray player for $1300.
1080p. 120 Hz Refresh.
Both set and player have Ethernet connectivity and together will deliver pretty much every widget and streaming media service you could name.
Sony KDL46W5150 BRAVIA W Series 46" LCD HDTV and Sony Blu-Ray Disc Player Bundle(FREE SHIPPING) [tigerdirect.com] The 120 Hz set is easy to find, if not quite yet entry level.
The Blu-Ray disk had a very successful Black Friday.When the ugrade bug bites, it bites hard.When my sister's family made the move up to big screen HD their PS3 video game purchases doubled and re-doubled.The basic cable box was replaced by the HD digital recorder.
Blu-Ray and Netflix and WiFi home networking were woven into the mix not long after.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30385518</id>
	<title>Enhanced Kre-Alkalyn</title>
	<author>nancys</author>
	<datestamp>1259611020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that's about as badass as a gaming rig gets. I hope you're ready to sell a kidney to fund it.
<a href="http://ezinearticles.com/?Enhanced-Kre-Alkalyn-Review&amp;id=3366238" title="ezinearticles.com" rel="nofollow">Enhanced Kre-Alkalyn</a> [ezinearticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's about as badass as a gaming rig gets .
I hope you 're ready to sell a kidney to fund it .
Enhanced Kre-Alkalyn [ ezinearticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's about as badass as a gaming rig gets.
I hope you're ready to sell a kidney to fund it.
Enhanced Kre-Alkalyn [ezinearticles.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382306</id>
	<title>Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1259581980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses? </i></p><p>This is under development, but the challenge is that non-glasses based 3D systems need to code a large number of views - you may need to be able to generate 100 views so that everyone in the room can view 3D properly.  Rather than code and transmit ~50 views, it is likely that you will have to code and transmit 3D model (think: Quake model) and render the views at the display device.</p><p>The different views can be steered in different directions using lenticular arrays, a matrix of small mirrors or other beam steering devices on the display surface, or computer-generated holograms (aka electronically controlled diffraction-grating matrix).</p><p>I've seen some 12-view lenticular displays based on a quad-HD resolution 2D LCD panel that begins to be acceptable - but I've also seen a small <a href="http://gl.ict.usc.edu/Research/3DDisplay/" title="usc.edu">~200-view, 360-degree display</a> [usc.edu] based on a single spinning mirror that was awesome, but wouldn't scale to a 50" screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there some wicked cool technology that 's going to work on my existing ( brand new ) TV without glasses ?
This is under development , but the challenge is that non-glasses based 3D systems need to code a large number of views - you may need to be able to generate 100 views so that everyone in the room can view 3D properly .
Rather than code and transmit ~ 50 views , it is likely that you will have to code and transmit 3D model ( think : Quake model ) and render the views at the display device.The different views can be steered in different directions using lenticular arrays , a matrix of small mirrors or other beam steering devices on the display surface , or computer-generated holograms ( aka electronically controlled diffraction-grating matrix ) .I 've seen some 12-view lenticular displays based on a quad-HD resolution 2D LCD panel that begins to be acceptable - but I 've also seen a small ~ 200-view , 360-degree display [ usc.edu ] based on a single spinning mirror that was awesome , but would n't scale to a 50 " screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?
This is under development, but the challenge is that non-glasses based 3D systems need to code a large number of views - you may need to be able to generate 100 views so that everyone in the room can view 3D properly.
Rather than code and transmit ~50 views, it is likely that you will have to code and transmit 3D model (think: Quake model) and render the views at the display device.The different views can be steered in different directions using lenticular arrays, a matrix of small mirrors or other beam steering devices on the display surface, or computer-generated holograms (aka electronically controlled diffraction-grating matrix).I've seen some 12-view lenticular displays based on a quad-HD resolution 2D LCD panel that begins to be acceptable - but I've also seen a small ~200-view, 360-degree display [usc.edu] based on a single spinning mirror that was awesome, but wouldn't scale to a 50" screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380224</id>
	<title>Eh</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1259572080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA.  First of all, there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz and do 3d.  Most of them use DLP for their light engine, but I think the very latest model LCDs can also do it.  (that is, they've gotten the LCD crystals fast enough that there isn't too much ghosting between frames to do 3d)</p><p>Second, if you RTFA, you'll see it mention that the ps3 has plenty of power to display a 3d blueray movie.  PS3 has ALWAYS been the best blue ray player, from the very beginning.</p><p>And finally : there are a fair number of major movies that had theater releases in 3d.  Obviously Avatar is the next one up.  This standard will enable home viewers to watch these films again.  It will be somewhat expensive : even if you have a ps3, most folks would need a new TV, and the glasses will probably retail for $30-$50 or so a pair once it's mass market.</p><p>3d gaming is the killer app for stereoscopic displays though.  It's been possible for many years, and it's a fantastic improvement in computer graphics.  The next generation of consoles may just have enough graphics horsepower to make it a mainstream activity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .
First of all , there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz and do 3d .
Most of them use DLP for their light engine , but I think the very latest model LCDs can also do it .
( that is , they 've gotten the LCD crystals fast enough that there is n't too much ghosting between frames to do 3d ) Second , if you RTFA , you 'll see it mention that the ps3 has plenty of power to display a 3d blueray movie .
PS3 has ALWAYS been the best blue ray player , from the very beginning.And finally : there are a fair number of major movies that had theater releases in 3d .
Obviously Avatar is the next one up .
This standard will enable home viewers to watch these films again .
It will be somewhat expensive : even if you have a ps3 , most folks would need a new TV , and the glasses will probably retail for $ 30- $ 50 or so a pair once it 's mass market.3d gaming is the killer app for stereoscopic displays though .
It 's been possible for many years , and it 's a fantastic improvement in computer graphics .
The next generation of consoles may just have enough graphics horsepower to make it a mainstream activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.
First of all, there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz and do 3d.
Most of them use DLP for their light engine, but I think the very latest model LCDs can also do it.
(that is, they've gotten the LCD crystals fast enough that there isn't too much ghosting between frames to do 3d)Second, if you RTFA, you'll see it mention that the ps3 has plenty of power to display a 3d blueray movie.
PS3 has ALWAYS been the best blue ray player, from the very beginning.And finally : there are a fair number of major movies that had theater releases in 3d.
Obviously Avatar is the next one up.
This standard will enable home viewers to watch these films again.
It will be somewhat expensive : even if you have a ps3, most folks would need a new TV, and the glasses will probably retail for $30-$50 or so a pair once it's mass market.3d gaming is the killer app for stereoscopic displays though.
It's been possible for many years, and it's a fantastic improvement in computer graphics.
The next generation of consoles may just have enough graphics horsepower to make it a mainstream activity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30393836</id>
	<title>Can we stop calling them "3D"?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260438180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And call them "Stereo"?</p><p>Because you wouldn&rsquo;t call stereo audio "binaural audio" too, would you?</p><p>You can start calling it 3D, if you can actually focus on different depths and rotate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And call them " Stereo " ? Because you wouldn    t call stereo audio " binaural audio " too , would you ? You can start calling it 3D , if you can actually focus on different depths and rotate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And call them "Stereo"?Because you wouldn’t call stereo audio "binaural audio" too, would you?You can start calling it 3D, if you can actually focus on different depths and rotate it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381488</id>
	<title>One question</title>
	<author>Nerdposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1259578080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the DRM also 3D? Does it actually come out and stab you in the eye?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the DRM also 3D ?
Does it actually come out and stab you in the eye ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the DRM also 3D?
Does it actually come out and stab you in the eye?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380466</id>
	<title>Re:What's the diff?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is the method of delivery.  The Coraline 3D Bluray comes with the colored glasses method of separating the overlapping images.  The nVidia approach is to cover one eye, show the remaining eye an image, cover that eye and uncover the other and then show the newly exposed eye a slightly different angle of the same image.</p><p>The colored glasses method is good because it can work on any color display created since technicolor.  The bad part is, the coloring of the movie is slightly off (very noticeable to me).</p><p>The shuttered glasses method is good because there is no color distortion.  The bad part is you need a screen with a refresh of 60Hz (30Hz per eye, causes flicker) or 120Hz (60Hz per eye, little to no flicker) and the associated hardware to render or display the images.  I'm not 100\%, but the nVidia method requires 120Hz to work properly.</p><p>I've viewed both methods and must say the shutter glasses gave the best result of the 2, but I think the polarized method is the best after seeing all 3 methods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is the method of delivery .
The Coraline 3D Bluray comes with the colored glasses method of separating the overlapping images .
The nVidia approach is to cover one eye , show the remaining eye an image , cover that eye and uncover the other and then show the newly exposed eye a slightly different angle of the same image.The colored glasses method is good because it can work on any color display created since technicolor .
The bad part is , the coloring of the movie is slightly off ( very noticeable to me ) .The shuttered glasses method is good because there is no color distortion .
The bad part is you need a screen with a refresh of 60Hz ( 30Hz per eye , causes flicker ) or 120Hz ( 60Hz per eye , little to no flicker ) and the associated hardware to render or display the images .
I 'm not 100 \ % , but the nVidia method requires 120Hz to work properly.I 've viewed both methods and must say the shutter glasses gave the best result of the 2 , but I think the polarized method is the best after seeing all 3 methods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is the method of delivery.
The Coraline 3D Bluray comes with the colored glasses method of separating the overlapping images.
The nVidia approach is to cover one eye, show the remaining eye an image, cover that eye and uncover the other and then show the newly exposed eye a slightly different angle of the same image.The colored glasses method is good because it can work on any color display created since technicolor.
The bad part is, the coloring of the movie is slightly off (very noticeable to me).The shuttered glasses method is good because there is no color distortion.
The bad part is you need a screen with a refresh of 60Hz (30Hz per eye, causes flicker) or 120Hz (60Hz per eye, little to no flicker) and the associated hardware to render or display the images.
I'm not 100\%, but the nVidia method requires 120Hz to work properly.I've viewed both methods and must say the shutter glasses gave the best result of the 2, but I think the polarized method is the best after seeing all 3 methods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381464</id>
	<title>Re:Cool!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think MVC is more efficient than that.  Regular AVC, plus the Z-axis information and differences.  Maybe they have the equivalent of B-frames for depth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think MVC is more efficient than that .
Regular AVC , plus the Z-axis information and differences .
Maybe they have the equivalent of B-frames for depth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think MVC is more efficient than that.
Regular AVC, plus the Z-axis information and differences.
Maybe they have the equivalent of B-frames for depth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380106</id>
	<title>No need for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an nice history of having no need for this nor wanting it.</p><p>Stop working on 2D 3D displays and do more work on holograms (although I doubt I'd want to watch a 2hr movie as a hologram.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an nice history of having no need for this nor wanting it.Stop working on 2D 3D displays and do more work on holograms ( although I doubt I 'd want to watch a 2hr movie as a hologram .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an nice history of having no need for this nor wanting it.Stop working on 2D 3D displays and do more work on holograms (although I doubt I'd want to watch a 2hr movie as a hologram.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381440</id>
	<title>Re:Like that's going to work this time...</title>
	<author>Aeros</author>
	<datestamp>1259577960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>well if they sell them at $5 million each that's $100 million!  Might work...</htmltext>
<tokenext>well if they sell them at $ 5 million each that 's $ 100 million !
Might work.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well if they sell them at $5 million each that's $100 million!
Might work...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</id>
	<title>Remind me why we need (or even want) this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses? Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!"  I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying. Then again, maybe I'm just too old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there some wicked cool technology that 's going to work on my existing ( brand new ) TV without glasses ?
Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect , in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is " in 3d !
" I 've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they 're pretty annoying .
Then again , maybe I 'm just too old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?
Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!
"  I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying.
Then again, maybe I'm just too old.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382162</id>
	<title>Re:Cool!</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1259581260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How does multiview work? </i></p><p>Already, MPEG-4 AVC encoding (and MPEG-2 before it) predict the current frame from past and future frames, thus only coding the difference in the frames, generally motion.</p><p>MPEG-4 Multiview Coding (MVC) allows a right eye frame to be predicted from past, current, and future left eye frames as well.</p><p>Unfortunately, there is a big difference between "motion prediction" which generally offsets of just a few pixels between frames that can be well coded as linear block movement, and "stereoscopic disparity prediction", which involves longer offsets and block affine transforms due to parallax.  Since MVC only has linear block motion prediction, it turns out that MVC doesn't give as much compression as you may think over just coding left and right eye separately, but MVC is simple and does save some bits, but someday we may see even better stereoscopic compression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does multiview work ?
Already , MPEG-4 AVC encoding ( and MPEG-2 before it ) predict the current frame from past and future frames , thus only coding the difference in the frames , generally motion.MPEG-4 Multiview Coding ( MVC ) allows a right eye frame to be predicted from past , current , and future left eye frames as well.Unfortunately , there is a big difference between " motion prediction " which generally offsets of just a few pixels between frames that can be well coded as linear block movement , and " stereoscopic disparity prediction " , which involves longer offsets and block affine transforms due to parallax .
Since MVC only has linear block motion prediction , it turns out that MVC does n't give as much compression as you may think over just coding left and right eye separately , but MVC is simple and does save some bits , but someday we may see even better stereoscopic compression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does multiview work?
Already, MPEG-4 AVC encoding (and MPEG-2 before it) predict the current frame from past and future frames, thus only coding the difference in the frames, generally motion.MPEG-4 Multiview Coding (MVC) allows a right eye frame to be predicted from past, current, and future left eye frames as well.Unfortunately, there is a big difference between "motion prediction" which generally offsets of just a few pixels between frames that can be well coded as linear block movement, and "stereoscopic disparity prediction", which involves longer offsets and block affine transforms due to parallax.
Since MVC only has linear block motion prediction, it turns out that MVC doesn't give as much compression as you may think over just coding left and right eye separately, but MVC is simple and does save some bits, but someday we may see even better stereoscopic compression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30386412</id>
	<title>Re:Color? Why?</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1260445020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>no one ever said that about color.    You might be thinking of the switch to wide screen formant</htmltext>
<tokenext>no one ever said that about color .
You might be thinking of the switch to wide screen formant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no one ever said that about color.
You might be thinking of the switch to wide screen formant</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382234</id>
	<title>Re:Color? Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or wear 2 pairs at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or wear 2 pairs at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or wear 2 pairs at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30385384</id>
	<title>Re:3D glasses the death of this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up.  This crap is even worse than that aural illusion shit sound card makers have been screwing with for the past decade or so to trick you into hearing things in surround sound.  But with this, not only do you get a headache, you have to wear stupid glasses for the privilege.</p><p>Knock this shit off.  I've had enough.</p><p>And get off my fucking lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
This crap is even worse than that aural illusion shit sound card makers have been screwing with for the past decade or so to trick you into hearing things in surround sound .
But with this , not only do you get a headache , you have to wear stupid glasses for the privilege.Knock this shit off .
I 've had enough.And get off my fucking lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
This crap is even worse than that aural illusion shit sound card makers have been screwing with for the past decade or so to trick you into hearing things in surround sound.
But with this, not only do you get a headache, you have to wear stupid glasses for the privilege.Knock this shit off.
I've had enough.And get off my fucking lawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380138</id>
	<title>Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?</p></div><p>You can use the old school red/blue polarized trick to get 3d stereo with your current hardware (http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D\_Vision\_Discover\_Main.html).  You're SOL on the no glasses thing though.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!"  I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying. Then again, maybe I'm just too old.</p></div><p>I think the 3d will initially be a cheap gimmick, but eventually turn into a normal tasteful part of movie watching.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there some wicked cool technology that 's going to work on my existing ( brand new ) TV without glasses ? You can use the old school red/blue polarized trick to get 3d stereo with your current hardware ( http : //www.nvidia.com/object/3D \ _Vision \ _Discover \ _Main.html ) .
You 're SOL on the no glasses thing though .
Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect , in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is " in 3d !
" I 've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they 're pretty annoying .
Then again , maybe I 'm just too old.I think the 3d will initially be a cheap gimmick , but eventually turn into a normal tasteful part of movie watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?You can use the old school red/blue polarized trick to get 3d stereo with your current hardware (http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D\_Vision\_Discover\_Main.html).
You're SOL on the no glasses thing though.
Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!
"  I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying.
Then again, maybe I'm just too old.I think the 3d will initially be a cheap gimmick, but eventually turn into a normal tasteful part of movie watching.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381936</id>
	<title>Re:Color? Why?</title>
	<author>KraftDinner</author>
	<datestamp>1259580180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here, just wear these fresh contact lenses instead of those clunky glasses: <a href="http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20090827ptan20090213459.php" title="freshpatents.com">http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20090827ptan20090213459.php</a> [freshpatents.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , just wear these fresh contact lenses instead of those clunky glasses : http : //www.freshpatents.com/-dt20090827ptan20090213459.php [ freshpatents.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, just wear these fresh contact lenses instead of those clunky glasses: http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20090827ptan20090213459.php [freshpatents.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380442</id>
	<title>Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1259573460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you feel about stereo sound?  Stereo vision is just the same issue, except with more to gain since eyes are much higher bandwidth than ears.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you feel about stereo sound ?
Stereo vision is just the same issue , except with more to gain since eyes are much higher bandwidth than ears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you feel about stereo sound?
Stereo vision is just the same issue, except with more to gain since eyes are much higher bandwidth than ears.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381650</id>
	<title>Blu Rays can store porn, this reminds me of a show</title>
	<author>Aan Cocks</author>
	<datestamp>1259578740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THE JENNY JONES SHOW<br>"I have a perverse sexual fetish"</p><p>Jenny: Hi, and welcome to today's show - "I have a perverse sexual fetish." Let me warn you, today's topic is on the distrubing side. We will meet three men who at first glance appear to be normal, sane, and well-educated but thier deviant addiction to the popular Internet website Slashdot.org and individual sexual perversions set them apart from you and I.</p><p>Audience: EWWWWW!</p><p>Jenny: Let us meet our first guest, Harry Knowles.</p><p>(Harry Knowles, webmaster of the popular movie rumor site Aint It Cool News, is escorted from the backstage area in a wheelchair.)</p><p>Jenny: Hello Harry. I must say, I have visited your site many times and am honored to finally speak with you. So tell us, what is your sexual perversion?</p><p>Harry: Well Jenny...I have never admitted this before...but...I'm sorry.</p><p>(Harry is obviously distraught.)</p><p>Jenny: Don't be. Does it have anything to do with your paralysis?</p><p>Harry: Yes. I once enjoyed a normal sex-life, but that changed after the accident which left me paralyised from the waist down and left me unable to orgasm.</p><p>Jenny: That's understandable</p><p>Harry: It gets worse. After hours of masturbation and ingesting dangerous amounts of amyl-nitrate, I realized only one thing gives me any semblance of carnal pleasure....</p><p>(Harry pauses.)</p><p>Harry (head in hands): I like to pour hot grits down my pants.</p><p>Audience: EWWWWW!</p><p>Jenny: Hot grits...as in the breakfast food..??</p><p>Harry (in tears): Yes. Hot grits as in warm ground corn. I like to pour them down my pants. It feels so warm, so tender...don't hate me, is it wrong for a man to do the only thing that pleasures him?</p><p>Jenny: No, no it is not. It is obvious this strains you.</p><p>Harry (smiling): Strains me? Oh heavens no! Hot grits are a wonderful lover! Oh, to feel her sweet carress on my lifeless genitals. It is that of the great muse, Natalie Portman!</p><p>Audience: WOOOOO! NATALIE PORTMAN!</p><p>Harry: Yes Jenny, I am a gritsman...and I love it!</p><p>Jenny: Well I am glad you have found some way of self-satisfaction in material objects. Our next guest, however, finds gratification only in the digital world. Signal 11, come out!</p><p>(Signal 11, posterboy karma whore of Slashdot, is escorted from the backstage area. He sits, legs crossed, in a chair next to Harry Knowles.)</p><p>(Somewhere in the audience screams of "-1, Troll" are heard. Signal 11 reaches into his pocket and withdraws a phone. The phone is solid black, save for the words "BITCHSLAP" written on it. He quickly hits the button labeled "speed dial to cmdr. taco" and converses briefly. Suddenly, the entire audience is quiet and Signal 11 smiles.)</p><p>Jenny: Hello Signal 11.</p><p>Signal 11: Hello Jenny. I am pleased to be here. Perhaps after the show we can go orchestrate e-commerce applications?</p><p>Jenny: Uhhhh....anyway, what is your sexual perversion?</p><p>Signal 11: It all stems from my inability to syndicate interactive communities properly, embrace strategic supply-chains in the correct vortals....and that I have only one testicle.</p><p>Jenny: Wow. Those buzzwords. You strike me as one Insightful, Interesting, and Informative guy!</p><p>Signal 11: No need for the praise Jenny. My mod squad is on it. Say, how about that recent merger between Bungie and Micro$oft? That's going to leverage killer e-markets!</p><p>Audience: mmmmgrgppgh</p><p>Jenny: (laughing) Ha ha ha ha! "Micro$oft" You are a true master of language Signal 11, and Funny too!</p><p>Audience: mmmmgrgppgh</p><p>(Several geeky looking men come running in from backstage. Each carries a bit of karma labeled Insightful, Interesting, Informative, and Funny. They all rush to Signal 11's side and begin showering him with karma. It is obvious he is receiveng a sexual thrill from this public attention.)</p><p>Audience: mmmmgrgppgh</p><p>Jenny: You...you...you're a karma whore!</p><p>Signal 11: Yes Jenny, I am a karma whore...and I love it! I must run to the bathroom now.</p><p>(Signa</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THE JENNY JONES SHOW " I have a perverse sexual fetish " Jenny : Hi , and welcome to today 's show - " I have a perverse sexual fetish .
" Let me warn you , today 's topic is on the distrubing side .
We will meet three men who at first glance appear to be normal , sane , and well-educated but thier deviant addiction to the popular Internet website Slashdot.org and individual sexual perversions set them apart from you and I.Audience : EWWWWW ! Jenny : Let us meet our first guest , Harry Knowles .
( Harry Knowles , webmaster of the popular movie rumor site Aint It Cool News , is escorted from the backstage area in a wheelchair .
) Jenny : Hello Harry .
I must say , I have visited your site many times and am honored to finally speak with you .
So tell us , what is your sexual perversion ? Harry : Well Jenny...I have never admitted this before...but...I 'm sorry .
( Harry is obviously distraught .
) Jenny : Do n't be .
Does it have anything to do with your paralysis ? Harry : Yes .
I once enjoyed a normal sex-life , but that changed after the accident which left me paralyised from the waist down and left me unable to orgasm.Jenny : That 's understandableHarry : It gets worse .
After hours of masturbation and ingesting dangerous amounts of amyl-nitrate , I realized only one thing gives me any semblance of carnal pleasure.... ( Harry pauses .
) Harry ( head in hands ) : I like to pour hot grits down my pants.Audience : EWWWWW ! Jenny : Hot grits...as in the breakfast food.. ?
? Harry ( in tears ) : Yes .
Hot grits as in warm ground corn .
I like to pour them down my pants .
It feels so warm , so tender...do n't hate me , is it wrong for a man to do the only thing that pleasures him ? Jenny : No , no it is not .
It is obvious this strains you.Harry ( smiling ) : Strains me ?
Oh heavens no !
Hot grits are a wonderful lover !
Oh , to feel her sweet carress on my lifeless genitals .
It is that of the great muse , Natalie Portman ! Audience : WOOOOO !
NATALIE PORTMAN ! Harry : Yes Jenny , I am a gritsman...and I love it ! Jenny : Well I am glad you have found some way of self-satisfaction in material objects .
Our next guest , however , finds gratification only in the digital world .
Signal 11 , come out !
( Signal 11 , posterboy karma whore of Slashdot , is escorted from the backstage area .
He sits , legs crossed , in a chair next to Harry Knowles .
) ( Somewhere in the audience screams of " -1 , Troll " are heard .
Signal 11 reaches into his pocket and withdraws a phone .
The phone is solid black , save for the words " BITCHSLAP " written on it .
He quickly hits the button labeled " speed dial to cmdr .
taco " and converses briefly .
Suddenly , the entire audience is quiet and Signal 11 smiles .
) Jenny : Hello Signal 11.Signal 11 : Hello Jenny .
I am pleased to be here .
Perhaps after the show we can go orchestrate e-commerce applications ? Jenny : Uhhhh....anyway , what is your sexual perversion ? Signal 11 : It all stems from my inability to syndicate interactive communities properly , embrace strategic supply-chains in the correct vortals....and that I have only one testicle.Jenny : Wow .
Those buzzwords .
You strike me as one Insightful , Interesting , and Informative guy ! Signal 11 : No need for the praise Jenny .
My mod squad is on it .
Say , how about that recent merger between Bungie and Micro $ oft ?
That 's going to leverage killer e-markets ! Audience : mmmmgrgppghJenny : ( laughing ) Ha ha ha ha !
" Micro $ oft " You are a true master of language Signal 11 , and Funny too ! Audience : mmmmgrgppgh ( Several geeky looking men come running in from backstage .
Each carries a bit of karma labeled Insightful , Interesting , Informative , and Funny .
They all rush to Signal 11 's side and begin showering him with karma .
It is obvious he is receiveng a sexual thrill from this public attention .
) Audience : mmmmgrgppghJenny : You...you...you 're a karma whore ! Signal 11 : Yes Jenny , I am a karma whore...and I love it !
I must run to the bathroom now .
( Signa</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THE JENNY JONES SHOW"I have a perverse sexual fetish"Jenny: Hi, and welcome to today's show - "I have a perverse sexual fetish.
" Let me warn you, today's topic is on the distrubing side.
We will meet three men who at first glance appear to be normal, sane, and well-educated but thier deviant addiction to the popular Internet website Slashdot.org and individual sexual perversions set them apart from you and I.Audience: EWWWWW!Jenny: Let us meet our first guest, Harry Knowles.
(Harry Knowles, webmaster of the popular movie rumor site Aint It Cool News, is escorted from the backstage area in a wheelchair.
)Jenny: Hello Harry.
I must say, I have visited your site many times and am honored to finally speak with you.
So tell us, what is your sexual perversion?Harry: Well Jenny...I have never admitted this before...but...I'm sorry.
(Harry is obviously distraught.
)Jenny: Don't be.
Does it have anything to do with your paralysis?Harry: Yes.
I once enjoyed a normal sex-life, but that changed after the accident which left me paralyised from the waist down and left me unable to orgasm.Jenny: That's understandableHarry: It gets worse.
After hours of masturbation and ingesting dangerous amounts of amyl-nitrate, I realized only one thing gives me any semblance of carnal pleasure....(Harry pauses.
)Harry (head in hands): I like to pour hot grits down my pants.Audience: EWWWWW!Jenny: Hot grits...as in the breakfast food..?
?Harry (in tears): Yes.
Hot grits as in warm ground corn.
I like to pour them down my pants.
It feels so warm, so tender...don't hate me, is it wrong for a man to do the only thing that pleasures him?Jenny: No, no it is not.
It is obvious this strains you.Harry (smiling): Strains me?
Oh heavens no!
Hot grits are a wonderful lover!
Oh, to feel her sweet carress on my lifeless genitals.
It is that of the great muse, Natalie Portman!Audience: WOOOOO!
NATALIE PORTMAN!Harry: Yes Jenny, I am a gritsman...and I love it!Jenny: Well I am glad you have found some way of self-satisfaction in material objects.
Our next guest, however, finds gratification only in the digital world.
Signal 11, come out!
(Signal 11, posterboy karma whore of Slashdot, is escorted from the backstage area.
He sits, legs crossed, in a chair next to Harry Knowles.
)(Somewhere in the audience screams of "-1, Troll" are heard.
Signal 11 reaches into his pocket and withdraws a phone.
The phone is solid black, save for the words "BITCHSLAP" written on it.
He quickly hits the button labeled "speed dial to cmdr.
taco" and converses briefly.
Suddenly, the entire audience is quiet and Signal 11 smiles.
)Jenny: Hello Signal 11.Signal 11: Hello Jenny.
I am pleased to be here.
Perhaps after the show we can go orchestrate e-commerce applications?Jenny: Uhhhh....anyway, what is your sexual perversion?Signal 11: It all stems from my inability to syndicate interactive communities properly, embrace strategic supply-chains in the correct vortals....and that I have only one testicle.Jenny: Wow.
Those buzzwords.
You strike me as one Insightful, Interesting, and Informative guy!Signal 11: No need for the praise Jenny.
My mod squad is on it.
Say, how about that recent merger between Bungie and Micro$oft?
That's going to leverage killer e-markets!Audience: mmmmgrgppghJenny: (laughing) Ha ha ha ha!
"Micro$oft" You are a true master of language Signal 11, and Funny too!Audience: mmmmgrgppgh(Several geeky looking men come running in from backstage.
Each carries a bit of karma labeled Insightful, Interesting, Informative, and Funny.
They all rush to Signal 11's side and begin showering him with karma.
It is obvious he is receiveng a sexual thrill from this public attention.
)Audience: mmmmgrgppghJenny: You...you...you're a karma whore!Signal 11: Yes Jenny, I am a karma whore...and I love it!
I must run to the bathroom now.
(Signa</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380456</id>
	<title>Re:Color? Why?</title>
	<author>MooseMuffin</author>
	<datestamp>1259573520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't need to wear special glasses to see color tv.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need to wear special glasses to see color tv .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need to wear special glasses to see color tv.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379992</id>
	<title>More details including a notebook version...</title>
	<author>MojoKid</author>
	<datestamp>1259613780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, some nice high res images of the Acer panel here:
<a href="http://hothardware.com/News/NVIDIA-Demos-3D-BluRay-On-3D-Vision/" title="hothardware.com">http://hothardware.com/News/NVIDIA-Demos-3D-BluRay-On-3D-Vision/</a> [hothardware.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , some nice high res images of the Acer panel here : http : //hothardware.com/News/NVIDIA-Demos-3D-BluRay-On-3D-Vision/ [ hothardware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, some nice high res images of the Acer panel here:
http://hothardware.com/News/NVIDIA-Demos-3D-BluRay-On-3D-Vision/ [hothardware.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30386000</id>
	<title>Re:New players AGAIN?</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1260439800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PS3 only needs a firmware update to play 3d blu-rays according to Sony. No need to buy a new one if you got the best<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PS3 only needs a firmware update to play 3d blu-rays according to Sony .
No need to buy a new one if you got the best ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PS3 only needs a firmware update to play 3d blu-rays according to Sony.
No need to buy a new one if you got the best ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30386408</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1260444960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz</p></div><p>99.9\% of HDTV's on the market do not do 120 hz</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz99.9 \ % of HDTV 's on the market do not do 120 hz</tokentext>
<sentencetext> there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz99.9\% of HDTV's on the market do not do 120 hz
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380176</id>
	<title>Re:New players AGAIN?</title>
	<author>Killer Orca</author>
	<datestamp>1259571720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Players are the least of their worries, HDTVs were so cheap this holiday season they'll be harder pressed to make people buy a new 3d HDTV in only a years time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Players are the least of their worries , HDTVs were so cheap this holiday season they 'll be harder pressed to make people buy a new 3d HDTV in only a years time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Players are the least of their worries, HDTVs were so cheap this holiday season they'll be harder pressed to make people buy a new 3d HDTV in only a years time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380104</id>
	<title>Re:New players AGAIN?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting. If I could see out of both eyes, I'd consider buying one (then again, I haven't bought the current run of crap... err... blu-ray stuff, so I won't have wasted money on it). Unlike vanilla crap-ra- I mean blu-ray, this actually seems like it could be worth the upgrade. At least, if you have two eyes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
If I could see out of both eyes , I 'd consider buying one ( then again , I have n't bought the current run of crap... err... blu-ray stuff , so I wo n't have wasted money on it ) .
Unlike vanilla crap-ra- I mean blu-ray , this actually seems like it could be worth the upgrade .
At least , if you have two eyes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
If I could see out of both eyes, I'd consider buying one (then again, I haven't bought the current run of crap... err... blu-ray stuff, so I won't have wasted money on it).
Unlike vanilla crap-ra- I mean blu-ray, this actually seems like it could be worth the upgrade.
At least, if you have two eyes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090</id>
	<title>Like that's going to work this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA<p><div class="quote"><p>3D Blu-ray movies will need screens with refresh rates of 120Hz, double the current standard of 60Hz, and 2x speed Blu-ray drives. As with all of Nvidia's 3D products, shutter glasses will be required to view films.

The new specification raises concerns about the capability of current hardware to play forthcoming 3D releases, with Berraondo confirming that &ldquo;future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips&rdquo; to play content smoothly, with &ldquo;the majority&rdquo; of major manufacturers set to release &ldquo;brand new players&rdquo; next year.</p></div><p>I'm sure the people who can afford a fullHD tv@120Hz and a new player to see shrek 3D will rush to buy it. All 20 of them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA3D Blu-ray movies will need screens with refresh rates of 120Hz , double the current standard of 60Hz , and 2x speed Blu-ray drives .
As with all of Nvidia 's 3D products , shutter glasses will be required to view films .
The new specification raises concerns about the capability of current hardware to play forthcoming 3D releases , with Berraondo confirming that    future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips    to play content smoothly , with    the majority    of major manufacturers set to release    brand new players    next year.I 'm sure the people who can afford a fullHD tv @ 120Hz and a new player to see shrek 3D will rush to buy it .
All 20 of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA3D Blu-ray movies will need screens with refresh rates of 120Hz, double the current standard of 60Hz, and 2x speed Blu-ray drives.
As with all of Nvidia's 3D products, shutter glasses will be required to view films.
The new specification raises concerns about the capability of current hardware to play forthcoming 3D releases, with Berraondo confirming that “future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips” to play content smoothly, with “the majority” of major manufacturers set to release “brand new players” next year.I'm sure the people who can afford a fullHD tv@120Hz and a new player to see shrek 3D will rush to buy it.
All 20 of them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380934</id>
	<title>Re:Like that's going to work this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259575860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually you can get 60" Mitsubishi DLP @1080P that will do the current version of Nvidia's 3D Vision they have out for gaming for $1100.  The Nvidia 3D Vision package with the glasses and wifi base is like $200, so for $1400 you can have a nice TV with the 3D gaming package......I don't see how that is at all considered all that expensive.  I would happily drop $1400 on the DLP and the 3D Vision package to plug up my PC into that 60" and get some mad Call Of Duty Modern Warfare II in HD + Stereoscopic 3D action.....what game lover wouldn't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually you can get 60 " Mitsubishi DLP @ 1080P that will do the current version of Nvidia 's 3D Vision they have out for gaming for $ 1100 .
The Nvidia 3D Vision package with the glasses and wifi base is like $ 200 , so for $ 1400 you can have a nice TV with the 3D gaming package......I do n't see how that is at all considered all that expensive .
I would happily drop $ 1400 on the DLP and the 3D Vision package to plug up my PC into that 60 " and get some mad Call Of Duty Modern Warfare II in HD + Stereoscopic 3D action.....what game lover would n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually you can get 60" Mitsubishi DLP @1080P that will do the current version of Nvidia's 3D Vision they have out for gaming for $1100.
The Nvidia 3D Vision package with the glasses and wifi base is like $200, so for $1400 you can have a nice TV with the 3D gaming package......I don't see how that is at all considered all that expensive.
I would happily drop $1400 on the DLP and the 3D Vision package to plug up my PC into that 60" and get some mad Call Of Duty Modern Warfare II in HD + Stereoscopic 3D action.....what game lover wouldn't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380234</id>
	<title>3D glasses the death of this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until you can manage 3D without the polarised glasses, I doubt it'll take off as anything more than a novelty. This is more of a barrier than even new hardware requirements. You average viewer wants to be able to relax in front of a movie. Those that don't wear glasses to begin with - ie the majority - can't do that while wearing these glasses. Until you can relax, fall asleep and cuddle or get romantic without having to worry about glasses poking you in the head or eye or getting in the way, it just isn't going to be mainstream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until you can manage 3D without the polarised glasses , I doubt it 'll take off as anything more than a novelty .
This is more of a barrier than even new hardware requirements .
You average viewer wants to be able to relax in front of a movie .
Those that do n't wear glasses to begin with - ie the majority - ca n't do that while wearing these glasses .
Until you can relax , fall asleep and cuddle or get romantic without having to worry about glasses poking you in the head or eye or getting in the way , it just is n't going to be mainstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until you can manage 3D without the polarised glasses, I doubt it'll take off as anything more than a novelty.
This is more of a barrier than even new hardware requirements.
You average viewer wants to be able to relax in front of a movie.
Those that don't wear glasses to begin with - ie the majority - can't do that while wearing these glasses.
Until you can relax, fall asleep and cuddle or get romantic without having to worry about glasses poking you in the head or eye or getting in the way, it just isn't going to be mainstream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380132</id>
	<title>Re:New players AGAIN?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1259614680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PS9, featuring ultraviolet Ray 5D technology is set to drop in another month.  Think I'll wait for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PS9 , featuring ultraviolet Ray 5D technology is set to drop in another month .
Think I 'll wait for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PS9, featuring ultraviolet Ray 5D technology is set to drop in another month.
Think I'll wait for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380554</id>
	<title>Re:New players AGAIN?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1259574060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>C'mon, did you really think the evolution of A/V media and equipment had finally come to a permanent conclusion with whatever you got at BestBuy last Black Friday?   If the technology is any good, cost and adoption are just matters of time; right at first it will cost a fair bit extra, eventually it will be standard on low-end hardware.  Just like color, just like stereo, just like digital tuners...</htmltext>
<tokenext>C'mon , did you really think the evolution of A/V media and equipment had finally come to a permanent conclusion with whatever you got at BestBuy last Black Friday ?
If the technology is any good , cost and adoption are just matters of time ; right at first it will cost a fair bit extra , eventually it will be standard on low-end hardware .
Just like color , just like stereo , just like digital tuners.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C'mon, did you really think the evolution of A/V media and equipment had finally come to a permanent conclusion with whatever you got at BestBuy last Black Friday?
If the technology is any good, cost and adoption are just matters of time; right at first it will cost a fair bit extra, eventually it will be standard on low-end hardware.
Just like color, just like stereo, just like digital tuners...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30392976</id>
	<title>Re:It will NEVER catch on.</title>
	<author>carlmenezes</author>
	<datestamp>1260478200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I think it will. The difference between 2D and the perceived 3D the glasses offer is enough that people will be willing to put up with the glasses, \_\_ as long as they look good wearing them and as long as the glasses are comfortable \_\_ . I mean, people all over the world are perfectly fine with wearing glasses so they can see clearer. The trade off - asking them to don glasses for a couple of hours for a much more immersive entertainment experience - is not really that big an ask.

In addition, the next stumbling block would be the kind of VR sickness you get from too much 3D content if the camera angles don't co-incide with what your eyes are used to. I'm thinking of watching stuff like the Lord Of The Rings Trilogy in 3D. Its tiring enough watching them back to back in 2D<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

Finally, I think the glasses will be temporary. In fact, I suspect there already are practical solutions that don't require glasses (if you take SIGGraph from 10 years ago as any kind of indication). Its just that the consumer is being made to shell out for incremental upgrades.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think it will .
The difference between 2D and the perceived 3D the glasses offer is enough that people will be willing to put up with the glasses , \ _ \ _ as long as they look good wearing them and as long as the glasses are comfortable \ _ \ _ .
I mean , people all over the world are perfectly fine with wearing glasses so they can see clearer .
The trade off - asking them to don glasses for a couple of hours for a much more immersive entertainment experience - is not really that big an ask .
In addition , the next stumbling block would be the kind of VR sickness you get from too much 3D content if the camera angles do n't co-incide with what your eyes are used to .
I 'm thinking of watching stuff like the Lord Of The Rings Trilogy in 3D .
Its tiring enough watching them back to back in 2D : ) Finally , I think the glasses will be temporary .
In fact , I suspect there already are practical solutions that do n't require glasses ( if you take SIGGraph from 10 years ago as any kind of indication ) .
Its just that the consumer is being made to shell out for incremental upgrades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think it will.
The difference between 2D and the perceived 3D the glasses offer is enough that people will be willing to put up with the glasses, \_\_ as long as they look good wearing them and as long as the glasses are comfortable \_\_ .
I mean, people all over the world are perfectly fine with wearing glasses so they can see clearer.
The trade off - asking them to don glasses for a couple of hours for a much more immersive entertainment experience - is not really that big an ask.
In addition, the next stumbling block would be the kind of VR sickness you get from too much 3D content if the camera angles don't co-incide with what your eyes are used to.
I'm thinking of watching stuff like the Lord Of The Rings Trilogy in 3D.
Its tiring enough watching them back to back in 2D :)

Finally, I think the glasses will be temporary.
In fact, I suspect there already are practical solutions that don't require glasses (if you take SIGGraph from 10 years ago as any kind of indication).
Its just that the consumer is being made to shell out for incremental upgrades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30385260</id>
	<title>Re:3D glasses the death of this</title>
	<author>WCVanHorne</author>
	<datestamp>1259606400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually you've got it backwards.  In many or most first world countries the majority of people wear glasses.  It is possible that eliminating reading glasses may take the number under 50\% but since I have seen it quoted as almost 2/3 perhaps not.  In any event it is also for these people that the 3D glasses are a PITA since they have to go over the prescription ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually you 've got it backwards .
In many or most first world countries the majority of people wear glasses .
It is possible that eliminating reading glasses may take the number under 50 \ % but since I have seen it quoted as almost 2/3 perhaps not .
In any event it is also for these people that the 3D glasses are a PITA since they have to go over the prescription ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually you've got it backwards.
In many or most first world countries the majority of people wear glasses.
It is possible that eliminating reading glasses may take the number under 50\% but since I have seen it quoted as almost 2/3 perhaps not.
In any event it is also for these people that the 3D glasses are a PITA since they have to go over the prescription ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296</id>
	<title>Color? Why?</title>
	<author>dazedNconfuzed</author>
	<datestamp>1259572620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Show of hands please: how many here think "color" in movies is just a technological gimmick?</p><p>Dig back in time and you'll find pretty much the same complaints about the introduction of color into cinema. "Doesn't add to the plot." "Distracting when directors go 'look! color!'" "Waste of money upgrading perfectly good 5-inch black-and-white TVs." "Nobody really wants to see skin close-up in color."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...thing is, color is a part of our visual perception of the world, and we now demand it - in good quality - for our movies; ditto 3D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Show of hands please : how many here think " color " in movies is just a technological gimmick ? Dig back in time and you 'll find pretty much the same complaints about the introduction of color into cinema .
" Does n't add to the plot .
" " Distracting when directors go 'look !
color ! ' " " Waste of money upgrading perfectly good 5-inch black-and-white TVs .
" " Nobody really wants to see skin close-up in color .
" ...thing is , color is a part of our visual perception of the world , and we now demand it - in good quality - for our movies ; ditto 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show of hands please: how many here think "color" in movies is just a technological gimmick?Dig back in time and you'll find pretty much the same complaints about the introduction of color into cinema.
"Doesn't add to the plot.
" "Distracting when directors go 'look!
color!'" "Waste of money upgrading perfectly good 5-inch black-and-white TVs.
" "Nobody really wants to see skin close-up in color.
" ...thing is, color is a part of our visual perception of the world, and we now demand it - in good quality - for our movies; ditto 3D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380136</id>
	<title>What's the point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't we establish back in the '70s that nobody is that interested in 3d movies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't we establish back in the '70s that nobody is that interested in 3d movies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't we establish back in the '70s that nobody is that interested in 3d movies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381748</id>
	<title>Re:Color? Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And you may not a few years down the track too.</p><p>Funny that on a site like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. people are so quick to dismiss brand new technology as the absolutely final iterattion even before it's released and start complaining about all the downsides. Just search 3D in slashdot to come up with a list of articles talking about companies who are working on 3D display technology that will not require glasses.</p><p>Honestly, the "I can't see the difference between blu-ray and DVD" comments hold more value than "I don't need special glasses"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And you may not a few years down the track too.Funny that on a site like / .
people are so quick to dismiss brand new technology as the absolutely final iterattion even before it 's released and start complaining about all the downsides .
Just search 3D in slashdot to come up with a list of articles talking about companies who are working on 3D display technology that will not require glasses.Honestly , the " I ca n't see the difference between blu-ray and DVD " comments hold more value than " I do n't need special glasses "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you may not a few years down the track too.Funny that on a site like /.
people are so quick to dismiss brand new technology as the absolutely final iterattion even before it's released and start complaining about all the downsides.
Just search 3D in slashdot to come up with a list of articles talking about companies who are working on 3D display technology that will not require glasses.Honestly, the "I can't see the difference between blu-ray and DVD" comments hold more value than "I don't need special glasses"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30410808</id>
	<title>Re:3D glasses the death of this</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260551400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And those who DO wear glasses often find that they can't wear the special 3-d glasses plus their regular ones without a great deal of discomfort (if they don't fall right off that is). So they can see a 3-d blur and or a clear non-3d image with serious ghosting. Either way, a headache will soon follow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And those who DO wear glasses often find that they ca n't wear the special 3-d glasses plus their regular ones without a great deal of discomfort ( if they do n't fall right off that is ) .
So they can see a 3-d blur and or a clear non-3d image with serious ghosting .
Either way , a headache will soon follow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And those who DO wear glasses often find that they can't wear the special 3-d glasses plus their regular ones without a great deal of discomfort (if they don't fall right off that is).
So they can see a 3-d blur and or a clear non-3d image with serious ghosting.
Either way, a headache will soon follow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381014</id>
	<title>Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1259576160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?</p></div><p>No.</p><p>You will almost always need glasses, except possibly for special 3D monitors that sit close enough to your face to be able to send different images to each eye by using a fancy grating.</p><p>However, the glasses you will need won't suck like the red/green ones you are used to.  They will be either grey lenses with each eye polarized differently or they will be shutter glasses that actively flip on and off for each eye at a pretty high frequency (probably 60 hz) - depending on the display device.</p><p>Either way you get full color images - just like you can get today at the various 3D theaters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there some wicked cool technology that 's going to work on my existing ( brand new ) TV without glasses ? No.You will almost always need glasses , except possibly for special 3D monitors that sit close enough to your face to be able to send different images to each eye by using a fancy grating.However , the glasses you will need wo n't suck like the red/green ones you are used to .
They will be either grey lenses with each eye polarized differently or they will be shutter glasses that actively flip on and off for each eye at a pretty high frequency ( probably 60 hz ) - depending on the display device.Either way you get full color images - just like you can get today at the various 3D theaters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?No.You will almost always need glasses, except possibly for special 3D monitors that sit close enough to your face to be able to send different images to each eye by using a fancy grating.However, the glasses you will need won't suck like the red/green ones you are used to.
They will be either grey lenses with each eye polarized differently or they will be shutter glasses that actively flip on and off for each eye at a pretty high frequency (probably 60 hz) - depending on the display device.Either way you get full color images - just like you can get today at the various 3D theaters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381738</id>
	<title>Re:Color? Why?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1259579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that the only issue? Seems to be. The inconvenience of wearing special glasses won't stop the 3D market from thriving, as the 3D movie market is still going decades after it came out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that the only issue ?
Seems to be .
The inconvenience of wearing special glasses wo n't stop the 3D market from thriving , as the 3D movie market is still going decades after it came out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that the only issue?
Seems to be.
The inconvenience of wearing special glasses won't stop the 3D market from thriving, as the 3D movie market is still going decades after it came out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380052</id>
	<title>and all of the movies are X Rated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Pornsumers rejoice</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Pornsumers rejoice</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Pornsumers rejoice</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379980</id>
	<title>f1srt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>got it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>got it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>got it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380350</id>
	<title>Re:Color? Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bollocks. People wanted color from the start, it was damn expensive to produce with the crap technology back then. 3D will take off, but only when you don't have do wear stupid glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bollocks .
People wanted color from the start , it was damn expensive to produce with the crap technology back then .
3D will take off , but only when you do n't have do wear stupid glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bollocks.
People wanted color from the start, it was damn expensive to produce with the crap technology back then.
3D will take off, but only when you don't have do wear stupid glasses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380832</id>
	<title>Re:New players AGAIN?</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1259575380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Erm... Avatar &amp; Tron Legacy in 3d anyone ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm... Avatar &amp; Tron Legacy in 3d anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm... Avatar &amp; Tron Legacy in 3d anyone ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380710</id>
	<title>It will NEVER catch on.</title>
	<author>rAiNsT0rm</author>
	<datestamp>1259574780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never. I'd love to believe that this will be some great new leap forward, but it is just a massive mis-step by a company trying to find new revenue streams. BR adoption is tepid at best, and that doesn't even exclude most of the population by requiring special glasses. It's always been a gimmick and nothing more. 3D offers very little to the viewer and certainly not enough to warrant wearing glasses for every movie you sit down to watch. Majorly flawed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never .
I 'd love to believe that this will be some great new leap forward , but it is just a massive mis-step by a company trying to find new revenue streams .
BR adoption is tepid at best , and that does n't even exclude most of the population by requiring special glasses .
It 's always been a gimmick and nothing more .
3D offers very little to the viewer and certainly not enough to warrant wearing glasses for every movie you sit down to watch .
Majorly flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never.
I'd love to believe that this will be some great new leap forward, but it is just a massive mis-step by a company trying to find new revenue streams.
BR adoption is tepid at best, and that doesn't even exclude most of the population by requiring special glasses.
It's always been a gimmick and nothing more.
3D offers very little to the viewer and certainly not enough to warrant wearing glasses for every movie you sit down to watch.
Majorly flawed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380144</id>
	<title>Re:New players AGAIN?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;&gt;&gt; &ldquo;future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips&rdquo; to play content smoothly, with &ldquo;the majority&rdquo; of major manufacturers set to release &ldquo;brand new players&rdquo; next year.</p><p>Good luck selling those, you're going to need it!</p></div><p>Bah, we live in a throw-away society anyway, sadly enough.  Chances are that POS hardware you paid top dollar for 3 years ago will die sometime soon anyway, nothing in electronics is built to last anymore.</p><p>The more the consumer products have the look and feel of a computer, the better the chances are you'll be replacing/upgrading them like they were computers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt;    future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips    to play content smoothly , with    the majority    of major manufacturers set to release    brand new players    next year.Good luck selling those , you 're going to need it ! Bah , we live in a throw-away society anyway , sadly enough .
Chances are that POS hardware you paid top dollar for 3 years ago will die sometime soon anyway , nothing in electronics is built to last anymore.The more the consumer products have the look and feel of a computer , the better the chances are you 'll be replacing/upgrading them like they were computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt; “future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips” to play content smoothly, with “the majority” of major manufacturers set to release “brand new players” next year.Good luck selling those, you're going to need it!Bah, we live in a throw-away society anyway, sadly enough.
Chances are that POS hardware you paid top dollar for 3 years ago will die sometime soon anyway, nothing in electronics is built to last anymore.The more the consumer products have the look and feel of a computer, the better the chances are you'll be replacing/upgrading them like they were computers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380134</id>
	<title>Re:New players AGAIN?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your also going to need a new panel if you only have a 60HZ TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your also going to need a new panel if you only have a 60HZ TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your also going to need a new panel if you only have a 60HZ TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381282</id>
	<title>Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1259577300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!"</p></div></blockquote><p>Probably about the same time the technology becomes ubiquitous. Remember when Stereo sound was the cool new technology? One need only listen to an old Beatles album to be reminded about how that was abused.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect , in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is " in 3d !
" Probably about the same time the technology becomes ubiquitous .
Remember when Stereo sound was the cool new technology ?
One need only listen to an old Beatles album to be reminded about how that was abused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!
"Probably about the same time the technology becomes ubiquitous.
Remember when Stereo sound was the cool new technology?
One need only listen to an old Beatles album to be reminded about how that was abused.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30383240</id>
	<title>I can't see 3D</title>
	<author>Arcady13</author>
	<datestamp>1259587200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate 3D movies. I have to squint and concentrate really hard just to see it without it looking like two images. Then I get a headache fairly quickly. And the effect isn't really impressive anyway. And you want me to wear some stupid glasses for this honor of watching some fake 3D crap? Fuck 3D movies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate 3D movies .
I have to squint and concentrate really hard just to see it without it looking like two images .
Then I get a headache fairly quickly .
And the effect is n't really impressive anyway .
And you want me to wear some stupid glasses for this honor of watching some fake 3D crap ?
Fuck 3D movies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate 3D movies.
I have to squint and concentrate really hard just to see it without it looking like two images.
Then I get a headache fairly quickly.
And the effect isn't really impressive anyway.
And you want me to wear some stupid glasses for this honor of watching some fake 3D crap?
Fuck 3D movies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30383208</id>
	<title>Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1259587020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe this is what the poster before me said, I don't know... but when I listen to Stereo music, the music sounds better and everything else around me sounds normal in spite of the music. With 3D, everything's going to look very abnormal, except for the 3D show.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is what the poster before me said , I do n't know... but when I listen to Stereo music , the music sounds better and everything else around me sounds normal in spite of the music .
With 3D , everything 's going to look very abnormal , except for the 3D show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this is what the poster before me said, I don't know... but when I listen to Stereo music, the music sounds better and everything else around me sounds normal in spite of the music.
With 3D, everything's going to look very abnormal, except for the 3D show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380100</id>
	<title>Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1259614500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Age has nothing to do with it. You're just too discerning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Age has nothing to do with it .
You 're just too discerning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Age has nothing to do with it.
You're just too discerning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382570</id>
	<title>Re:New players AGAIN?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1259583360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It works for the computer industry....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It works for the computer industry... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works for the computer industry....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380794</id>
	<title>There is no encoder for MVC profile of H.264 yet..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259575200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe there's a single encoder, software or otherwise, that can actually create an MVC h.264 compatible stream for these hypothetical 3-d blu-rays.  Heck, the spec just got fixed 2 months ago!<br>And no sane person is going to write one because there's no hardware that can play it back and no content to store with it.<br>When blu-ray came around, pretty much all new movies (and many many old) would benefit from the HD resolution.  How much media is out there that would benefit from 3-d display now?  How about in 2 years?<br>Sorry, but this is too early for a disc standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe there 's a single encoder , software or otherwise , that can actually create an MVC h.264 compatible stream for these hypothetical 3-d blu-rays .
Heck , the spec just got fixed 2 months ago ! And no sane person is going to write one because there 's no hardware that can play it back and no content to store with it.When blu-ray came around , pretty much all new movies ( and many many old ) would benefit from the HD resolution .
How much media is out there that would benefit from 3-d display now ?
How about in 2 years ? Sorry , but this is too early for a disc standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe there's a single encoder, software or otherwise, that can actually create an MVC h.264 compatible stream for these hypothetical 3-d blu-rays.
Heck, the spec just got fixed 2 months ago!And no sane person is going to write one because there's no hardware that can play it back and no content to store with it.When blu-ray came around, pretty much all new movies (and many many old) would benefit from the HD resolution.
How much media is out there that would benefit from 3-d display now?
How about in 2 years?Sorry, but this is too early for a disc standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380830</id>
	<title>Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1259575320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses? Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!"  I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying. Then again, maybe I'm just too old.</p></div><p>1) No<br>2) No<br>3) Yes they are annoying<br>4) I'll get off your lawn soon enough</p><p>There is never a NEED for anything like this. Television wasn't necessary since the Radio could deliver the news. But now it's considered pretty staple.</p><p>These kind of advancements in the entertainment business help drive new technologies. If 3D becomes popular enough, it'll get developed properly (compare the first Black and white televisions versus todays HDTVs). Once it's done up right, it'll be a completely new immersive experience, watching nearly everything in 3D. The applications in my mind are nearly limitless, everything from programming to gaming to general work productivity.</p><p>And as many many people have said before: The only thing really required for this to really take off is the porn industry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there some wicked cool technology that 's going to work on my existing ( brand new ) TV without glasses ?
Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect , in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is " in 3d !
" I 've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they 're pretty annoying .
Then again , maybe I 'm just too old.1 ) No2 ) No3 ) Yes they are annoying4 ) I 'll get off your lawn soon enoughThere is never a NEED for anything like this .
Television was n't necessary since the Radio could deliver the news .
But now it 's considered pretty staple.These kind of advancements in the entertainment business help drive new technologies .
If 3D becomes popular enough , it 'll get developed properly ( compare the first Black and white televisions versus todays HDTVs ) .
Once it 's done up right , it 'll be a completely new immersive experience , watching nearly everything in 3D .
The applications in my mind are nearly limitless , everything from programming to gaming to general work productivity.And as many many people have said before : The only thing really required for this to really take off is the porn industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there some wicked cool technology that's going to work on my existing (brand new) TV without glasses?
Will the directors stop putting in just-for-the-effect, in-your-face scenes meant only to remind you the film is "in 3d!
"  I've watched a couple of modern 3D films at home and - honestly - they're pretty annoying.
Then again, maybe I'm just too old.1) No2) No3) Yes they are annoying4) I'll get off your lawn soon enoughThere is never a NEED for anything like this.
Television wasn't necessary since the Radio could deliver the news.
But now it's considered pretty staple.These kind of advancements in the entertainment business help drive new technologies.
If 3D becomes popular enough, it'll get developed properly (compare the first Black and white televisions versus todays HDTVs).
Once it's done up right, it'll be a completely new immersive experience, watching nearly everything in 3D.
The applications in my mind are nearly limitless, everything from programming to gaming to general work productivity.And as many many people have said before: The only thing really required for this to really take off is the porn industry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380930</id>
	<title>Re:Like that's going to work this time...</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1259575800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how much they'll be gouging for these movies. I notice the price of normal Blu-ray disks still hasn't come down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how much they 'll be gouging for these movies .
I notice the price of normal Blu-ray disks still has n't come down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how much they'll be gouging for these movies.
I notice the price of normal Blu-ray disks still hasn't come down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381174</id>
	<title>Re:3D glasses the death of this</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1259576760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I follow you're reasoning... unless it's that people with normal glasses can't enjoy movies.  I'm sure they do, so its just a matter of getting used to it, which we seem to be capable of in a theater.  Wait, you think people didn't go to the new 3d movies becuase of the glasses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I follow you 're reasoning... unless it 's that people with normal glasses ca n't enjoy movies .
I 'm sure they do , so its just a matter of getting used to it , which we seem to be capable of in a theater .
Wait , you think people did n't go to the new 3d movies becuase of the glasses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I follow you're reasoning... unless it's that people with normal glasses can't enjoy movies.
I'm sure they do, so its just a matter of getting used to it, which we seem to be capable of in a theater.
Wait, you think people didn't go to the new 3d movies becuase of the glasses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381992</id>
	<title>Re:Like that's going to work this time...</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1259580420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm what? When I bought my new monitor, I made sure it was 120hz. It's definitely HD, and wasn't to expensive as far as monitors go. Then I spent $100 on shutterglasses. I am not rich. If I had a blu-ray player, I'd be able to use this technology right now (2x drives are out already, right?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm what ?
When I bought my new monitor , I made sure it was 120hz .
It 's definitely HD , and was n't to expensive as far as monitors go .
Then I spent $ 100 on shutterglasses .
I am not rich .
If I had a blu-ray player , I 'd be able to use this technology right now ( 2x drives are out already , right ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm what?
When I bought my new monitor, I made sure it was 120hz.
It's definitely HD, and wasn't to expensive as far as monitors go.
Then I spent $100 on shutterglasses.
I am not rich.
If I had a blu-ray player, I'd be able to use this technology right now (2x drives are out already, right?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381128</id>
	<title>Re:New players AGAIN?</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1259576580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My bet: HDMI 1.3 is not compatible with current generation, so I'd have to buy new player, a new TV and a new amplifier. All encrypted and protected to death so I cannot save any shows and watch them on any other TV.</p><p>Make a wild guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My bet : HDMI 1.3 is not compatible with current generation , so I 'd have to buy new player , a new TV and a new amplifier .
All encrypted and protected to death so I can not save any shows and watch them on any other TV.Make a wild guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My bet: HDMI 1.3 is not compatible with current generation, so I'd have to buy new player, a new TV and a new amplifier.
All encrypted and protected to death so I cannot save any shows and watch them on any other TV.Make a wild guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381866</id>
	<title>I don't know how to use the tags on /. sadly but..</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1259579760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I beleive the 'donotwant' tag is quite sufficient here.<br>I couldn't care less about this and it's going to dilute the blu ray market which is already unfortunately weak.<br>I believe this is a foolish move.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I beleive the 'donotwant ' tag is quite sufficient here.I could n't care less about this and it 's going to dilute the blu ray market which is already unfortunately weak.I believe this is a foolish move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I beleive the 'donotwant' tag is quite sufficient here.I couldn't care less about this and it's going to dilute the blu ray market which is already unfortunately weak.I believe this is a foolish move.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380514</id>
	<title>There's a few gems...</title>
	<author>gmarsh</author>
	<datestamp>1259573820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can personally recommend the following:</p><p>- Any of the IMAX 3D science/nature films. It's 3D because it was filmed in 3D, not because the director wants you ducking shit.<br>- "Up", the recent kids movie. I saw this one in 3D a while ago, and I must say, it was tastefully done.</p><p>But yes, most directors use 3D as an effect instead of a canvas, and the results are horribly annoying.</p><p>It's like CGI; there's a few directors who know how to use it well and tastefully (Terminator 2's T1000 being the ultimate example of good CGI), and then there's MICHAELBAYSPLOSIONS!!!111...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can personally recommend the following : - Any of the IMAX 3D science/nature films .
It 's 3D because it was filmed in 3D , not because the director wants you ducking shit.- " Up " , the recent kids movie .
I saw this one in 3D a while ago , and I must say , it was tastefully done.But yes , most directors use 3D as an effect instead of a canvas , and the results are horribly annoying.It 's like CGI ; there 's a few directors who know how to use it well and tastefully ( Terminator 2 's T1000 being the ultimate example of good CGI ) , and then there 's MICHAELBAYSPLOSIONS ! !
! 111.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can personally recommend the following:- Any of the IMAX 3D science/nature films.
It's 3D because it was filmed in 3D, not because the director wants you ducking shit.- "Up", the recent kids movie.
I saw this one in 3D a while ago, and I must say, it was tastefully done.But yes, most directors use 3D as an effect instead of a canvas, and the results are horribly annoying.It's like CGI; there's a few directors who know how to use it well and tastefully (Terminator 2's T1000 being the ultimate example of good CGI), and then there's MICHAELBAYSPLOSIONS!!
!111...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381656</id>
	<title>Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Remind me why we need (or even want) this</i></p><p>DUH! High-def 3D Porn obviously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remind me why we need ( or even want ) thisDUH !
High-def 3D Porn obviously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remind me why we need (or even want) thisDUH!
High-def 3D Porn obviously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380142</id>
	<title>What's the diff?</title>
	<author>stupkid</author>
	<datestamp>1259614740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the difference between this "3D" and the "3D" included on existing titles like the Coraline Bluray disc?  Is this just a proprietary technology requiring special hardware with the same relative outcome?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the difference between this " 3D " and the " 3D " included on existing titles like the Coraline Bluray disc ?
Is this just a proprietary technology requiring special hardware with the same relative outcome ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the difference between this "3D" and the "3D" included on existing titles like the Coraline Bluray disc?
Is this just a proprietary technology requiring special hardware with the same relative outcome?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382064</id>
	<title>Re:Like that's going to work this time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259580840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nvidia's shutter glasses need to die in a hurry.  I have found that polarized glasses work much better, dont require batteries or as much weight, and have no moving parts to break.</p><p>If its going to require all new hardware anyways, why not mesh two LCD's together, interlaced at 90 degree different polarity (like one line<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/// with the next \\\) so that glasses can be configured (\\\)(///) so each eye sees a different perspective.  More comfortable, easier to deploy, and doesnt require noisy, heavy shutter glasses</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nvidia 's shutter glasses need to die in a hurry .
I have found that polarized glasses work much better , dont require batteries or as much weight , and have no moving parts to break.If its going to require all new hardware anyways , why not mesh two LCD 's together , interlaced at 90 degree different polarity ( like one line /// with the next \ \ \ ) so that glasses can be configured ( \ \ \ ) ( /// ) so each eye sees a different perspective .
More comfortable , easier to deploy , and doesnt require noisy , heavy shutter glasses</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nvidia's shutter glasses need to die in a hurry.
I have found that polarized glasses work much better, dont require batteries or as much weight, and have no moving parts to break.If its going to require all new hardware anyways, why not mesh two LCD's together, interlaced at 90 degree different polarity (like one line /// with the next \\\) so that glasses can be configured (\\\)(///) so each eye sees a different perspective.
More comfortable, easier to deploy, and doesnt require noisy, heavy shutter glasses</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380082</id>
	<title>Good luck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259614320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they thought 1080p was a tough sell, wait until they see the underwhelming reaction from the public when this crap rolls out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they thought 1080p was a tough sell , wait until they see the underwhelming reaction from the public when this crap rolls out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they thought 1080p was a tough sell, wait until they see the underwhelming reaction from the public when this crap rolls out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381366</id>
	<title>Re:Like that's going to work this time...</title>
	<author>atmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1259577600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My Sony Bravia X-Series I bought a few years ago is 100Hz/120Hz (depending on source) and the latest does 200Hz/240Hz depending on source. Admittedly it doesn't accept sources over 60Hz and uses frame interpolation (they call it "Motionflow") to increase the frame rate from the source, but the most expensive part is ensuring the panel can do the refresh rate. Other manufacturers have equivalent frame interpolation technology too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My Sony Bravia X-Series I bought a few years ago is 100Hz/120Hz ( depending on source ) and the latest does 200Hz/240Hz depending on source .
Admittedly it does n't accept sources over 60Hz and uses frame interpolation ( they call it " Motionflow " ) to increase the frame rate from the source , but the most expensive part is ensuring the panel can do the refresh rate .
Other manufacturers have equivalent frame interpolation technology too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Sony Bravia X-Series I bought a few years ago is 100Hz/120Hz (depending on source) and the latest does 200Hz/240Hz depending on source.
Admittedly it doesn't accept sources over 60Hz and uses frame interpolation (they call it "Motionflow") to increase the frame rate from the source, but the most expensive part is ensuring the panel can do the refresh rate.
Other manufacturers have equivalent frame interpolation technology too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381034</id>
	<title>Nope, bought a PS3... others may work</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1259576220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Good luck selling those, you're going to need it!</i></p><p>Why?  There's plenty of demand for cheap used Blu-Ray players.</p><p>But I question the need to sell - many people use PS3's for blu-ray and they should be able to support this with a firmware update - the PS3 came out of the gate supporting HDMI 1.3.</p><p>Players that do not support HDMI 1.3 would be the ones that might have to be let go of, but newer players that do might also be able simply to be updated to add support.</p><p>However, I don't really see the 3D stuff being more than a gimmick for a few years yet, at least.  You might as well also complain about having to sell your old display as well, after all that will need upgrading too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck selling those , you 're going to need it ! Why ?
There 's plenty of demand for cheap used Blu-Ray players.But I question the need to sell - many people use PS3 's for blu-ray and they should be able to support this with a firmware update - the PS3 came out of the gate supporting HDMI 1.3.Players that do not support HDMI 1.3 would be the ones that might have to be let go of , but newer players that do might also be able simply to be updated to add support.However , I do n't really see the 3D stuff being more than a gimmick for a few years yet , at least .
You might as well also complain about having to sell your old display as well , after all that will need upgrading too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck selling those, you're going to need it!Why?
There's plenty of demand for cheap used Blu-Ray players.But I question the need to sell - many people use PS3's for blu-ray and they should be able to support this with a firmware update - the PS3 came out of the gate supporting HDMI 1.3.Players that do not support HDMI 1.3 would be the ones that might have to be let go of, but newer players that do might also be able simply to be updated to add support.However, I don't really see the 3D stuff being more than a gimmick for a few years yet, at least.
You might as well also complain about having to sell your old display as well, after all that will need upgrading too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380502</id>
	<title>Cool!</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1259573760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does multiview work?  Is each video channel its own stream?  Or is one channel a master, and deltas stored off that?  Do they share common base frames?</p><p>I don't enjoy 3d movies.  I don't find wearing glasses that long to be comfortable, and I don't find any added benefit to the extra dimensionality of the product.  I saw the 3d Toy Story double feature at the local theater, and while the 3d was near perfect, I never once felt it added anything to my enjoyment.  I've also seen Coraline, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and Monsters vs. Aliens in 3d, and I think I'm done.  They're just not worth it.</p><p>3d video games, however, might be interesting, if they can lighten up the glasses and figure out a way to make them work with my own glasses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does multiview work ?
Is each video channel its own stream ?
Or is one channel a master , and deltas stored off that ?
Do they share common base frames ? I do n't enjoy 3d movies .
I do n't find wearing glasses that long to be comfortable , and I do n't find any added benefit to the extra dimensionality of the product .
I saw the 3d Toy Story double feature at the local theater , and while the 3d was near perfect , I never once felt it added anything to my enjoyment .
I 've also seen Coraline , Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and Monsters vs. Aliens in 3d , and I think I 'm done .
They 're just not worth it.3d video games , however , might be interesting , if they can lighten up the glasses and figure out a way to make them work with my own glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does multiview work?
Is each video channel its own stream?
Or is one channel a master, and deltas stored off that?
Do they share common base frames?I don't enjoy 3d movies.
I don't find wearing glasses that long to be comfortable, and I don't find any added benefit to the extra dimensionality of the product.
I saw the 3d Toy Story double feature at the local theater, and while the 3d was near perfect, I never once felt it added anything to my enjoyment.
I've also seen Coraline, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and Monsters vs. Aliens in 3d, and I think I'm done.
They're just not worth it.3d video games, however, might be interesting, if they can lighten up the glasses and figure out a way to make them work with my own glasses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30385908</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260438240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>RTFA.  First of all, there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz and do 3d.  Most of them use DLP for their light engine, but I think the very latest model LCDs can also do it.</p></div><p>DLP is a projector technology. Most consumer models use a single chip running at 3x the frame rate with a spinning colour wheel to get a full colour display. This is remarkably easy to upgrade to 3D - just have a six segment polarized wheel, a screen that doesn't mess the polarization up, polarized glasses, and away you go. Not need for shutter glasses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .
First of all , there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz and do 3d .
Most of them use DLP for their light engine , but I think the very latest model LCDs can also do it.DLP is a projector technology .
Most consumer models use a single chip running at 3x the frame rate with a spinning colour wheel to get a full colour display .
This is remarkably easy to upgrade to 3D - just have a six segment polarized wheel , a screen that does n't mess the polarization up , polarized glasses , and away you go .
Not need for shutter glasses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.
First of all, there have been several models of TV that can actually display 120 hz and do 3d.
Most of them use DLP for their light engine, but I think the very latest model LCDs can also do it.DLP is a projector technology.
Most consumer models use a single chip running at 3x the frame rate with a spinning colour wheel to get a full colour display.
This is remarkably easy to upgrade to 3D - just have a six segment polarized wheel, a screen that doesn't mess the polarization up, polarized glasses, and away you go.
Not need for shutter glasses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380184</id>
	<title>Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1259571780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, you aren't.  "Old" people had plot-free 3D monster flicks with the terrible paper red-blue glasses back in the 1950s.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you are n't .
" Old " people had plot-free 3D monster flicks with the terrible paper red-blue glasses back in the 1950s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you aren't.
"Old" people had plot-free 3D monster flicks with the terrible paper red-blue glasses back in the 1950s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30386460</id>
	<title>3d is still not good enough.</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1260445920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I own some Nvidia 3d active shutter glasses, and we are still a long way from 3d being good enough to be worth it.  By the time the tech makes the leaps to make it HOW YOU ACTUALLY perceive things, I bet they will have 3d TV's/ full color holograms, no need for glasses.   You are always aware of the cone watching 3d.   They can bring things out of the screen  but the closer the objects get to you on z axis , the narrow the y axis.
 Scenes never look like real life.   They look like a 3d movie.   85\% of the time you are aware 'this is a effect'
I've seen the latest 3d movies in the theaters the 3dfanboys have hardon's for, and they are not any better.  Children care about this, because they
don't know better.  It also makes movie watching just a little too active.   In real life your eyes would foucs differently on a object close up, but here everything is the same
distance from you, the distance to the screen. Making watching 3d a little,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...active.  I suppose you would get used to it thou.   When they can make watching a movie look like watching a play, I'll start caring</htmltext>
<tokenext>I own some Nvidia 3d active shutter glasses , and we are still a long way from 3d being good enough to be worth it .
By the time the tech makes the leaps to make it HOW YOU ACTUALLY perceive things , I bet they will have 3d TV 's/ full color holograms , no need for glasses .
You are always aware of the cone watching 3d .
They can bring things out of the screen but the closer the objects get to you on z axis , the narrow the y axis .
Scenes never look like real life .
They look like a 3d movie .
85 \ % of the time you are aware 'this is a effect ' I 've seen the latest 3d movies in the theaters the 3dfanboys have hardon 's for , and they are not any better .
Children care about this , because they do n't know better .
It also makes movie watching just a little too active .
In real life your eyes would foucs differently on a object close up , but here everything is the same distance from you , the distance to the screen .
Making watching 3d a little , ...active .
I suppose you would get used to it thou .
When they can make watching a movie look like watching a play , I 'll start caring</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I own some Nvidia 3d active shutter glasses, and we are still a long way from 3d being good enough to be worth it.
By the time the tech makes the leaps to make it HOW YOU ACTUALLY perceive things, I bet they will have 3d TV's/ full color holograms, no need for glasses.
You are always aware of the cone watching 3d.
They can bring things out of the screen  but the closer the objects get to you on z axis , the narrow the y axis.
Scenes never look like real life.
They look like a 3d movie.
85\% of the time you are aware 'this is a effect'
I've seen the latest 3d movies in the theaters the 3dfanboys have hardon's for, and they are not any better.
Children care about this, because they
don't know better.
It also makes movie watching just a little too active.
In real life your eyes would foucs differently on a object close up, but here everything is the same
distance from you, the distance to the screen.
Making watching 3d a little, ...active.
I suppose you would get used to it thou.
When they can make watching a movie look like watching a play, I'll start caring</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381496</id>
	<title>Re:New players AGAIN?</title>
	<author>pnewhook</author>
	<datestamp>1259578140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just get a PS3 - future proof.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just get a PS3 - future proof .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just get a PS3 - future proof.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380754</id>
	<title>MVC-AVC?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259575020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MVC is a chain of adult video stores here in northern Virginia.  It's great to see that Nvidia understands what audience will be first up to buy this technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MVC is a chain of adult video stores here in northern Virginia .
It 's great to see that Nvidia understands what audience will be first up to buy this technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MVC is a chain of adult video stores here in northern Virginia.
It's great to see that Nvidia understands what audience will be first up to buy this technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380572</id>
	<title>solved the easy part...</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Figuring out the specs for en/decoding the data is no big deal.  Display devices capable of producing the images without costing a small fortune and requiring the viewer to wear glasses... that's the challenge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Figuring out the specs for en/decoding the data is no big deal .
Display devices capable of producing the images without costing a small fortune and requiring the viewer to wear glasses... that 's the challenge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Figuring out the specs for en/decoding the data is no big deal.
Display devices capable of producing the images without costing a small fortune and requiring the viewer to wear glasses... that's the challenge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996</id>
	<title>New players AGAIN?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt; &ldquo;future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips&rdquo; to play content smoothly, with &ldquo;the majority&rdquo; of major manufacturers set to release &ldquo;brand new players&rdquo; next year.</p><p>Good luck selling those, you're going to need it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt;    future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips    to play content smoothly , with    the majority    of major manufacturers set to release    brand new players    next year.Good luck selling those , you 're going to need it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt; “future Blu-ray equipment will need more powerful chips” to play content smoothly, with “the majority” of major manufacturers set to release “brand new players” next year.Good luck selling those, you're going to need it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30383548</id>
	<title>Re:Color? Why?</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1259589120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The choice wasn't between upgrading a TV to the new standard and not, it was between going to the cinema and staying home. In order differentiate their product, movie studios introduced widescreen, increased the use of color, and the movie theatres installed air conditioning.</p><p>The first widescreen movies were composed for 1.33:1 and then cropped...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The choice was n't between upgrading a TV to the new standard and not , it was between going to the cinema and staying home .
In order differentiate their product , movie studios introduced widescreen , increased the use of color , and the movie theatres installed air conditioning.The first widescreen movies were composed for 1.33 : 1 and then cropped.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The choice wasn't between upgrading a TV to the new standard and not, it was between going to the cinema and staying home.
In order differentiate their product, movie studios introduced widescreen, increased the use of color, and the movie theatres installed air conditioning.The first widescreen movies were composed for 1.33:1 and then cropped...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380340</id>
	<title>Re:Remind me why we need (or even want) this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their tech reminds me of an OLD pair of LCD glasses I had back in 98 or 99. The new ones are only different in that instead of being locked to 24fps per eye, these smoothly deliver 60fps to each eye. They work great with 3-D video games. Really, they're quite awesome and you owe it to yourself to try it if you see it in stores. Just don't buy it... it's not so enjoyable or comfortable for extended periods of time.</p><p>Anyway, while it works great with games, not so much with the Blu Ray demos I've seen in stores. Most people can't even tell it's working. I only can because I know what I'm looking for, but most movie footage doesn't really lend itself to using the effect.</p><p>In either case, it's just a demo until they can figure a really good convincing way to do it that doesn't require a dorky pair of glasses tethered to the system in some fashion, and won't give you a headache after a short period of use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their tech reminds me of an OLD pair of LCD glasses I had back in 98 or 99 .
The new ones are only different in that instead of being locked to 24fps per eye , these smoothly deliver 60fps to each eye .
They work great with 3-D video games .
Really , they 're quite awesome and you owe it to yourself to try it if you see it in stores .
Just do n't buy it... it 's not so enjoyable or comfortable for extended periods of time.Anyway , while it works great with games , not so much with the Blu Ray demos I 've seen in stores .
Most people ca n't even tell it 's working .
I only can because I know what I 'm looking for , but most movie footage does n't really lend itself to using the effect.In either case , it 's just a demo until they can figure a really good convincing way to do it that does n't require a dorky pair of glasses tethered to the system in some fashion , and wo n't give you a headache after a short period of use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their tech reminds me of an OLD pair of LCD glasses I had back in 98 or 99.
The new ones are only different in that instead of being locked to 24fps per eye, these smoothly deliver 60fps to each eye.
They work great with 3-D video games.
Really, they're quite awesome and you owe it to yourself to try it if you see it in stores.
Just don't buy it... it's not so enjoyable or comfortable for extended periods of time.Anyway, while it works great with games, not so much with the Blu Ray demos I've seen in stores.
Most people can't even tell it's working.
I only can because I know what I'm looking for, but most movie footage doesn't really lend itself to using the effect.In either case, it's just a demo until they can figure a really good convincing way to do it that doesn't require a dorky pair of glasses tethered to the system in some fashion, and won't give you a headache after a short period of use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30386408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30384928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30386000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30383548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30385908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30385384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30385260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30386412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30392976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30383208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30410808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_192215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30384928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30410808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30385384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30385260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30386408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30385908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30392976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30386000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30379992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30383208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380340
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30386412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30383548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30382234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30380136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_192215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_192215.30381866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
