<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_10_0554200</id>
	<title><em>America's Army</em> Games Cost $33 Million Over 10 Years</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260433500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Responding to a Freedom Of Information Act request, the US government has <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/news/6242635.html">revealed the operating costs of the <em>America's Army</em> game series</a> over the past decade. The total bill comes to $32.8 million, with yearly costs varying from $1.3 million to $5.6 million.
<i>"While operating <em>America's Army 3</em> does involve ongoing expenses, paying the game's original development team isn't one of them. Days after the game launched in June, representatives with the Army confirmed that ties were severed with the Emeryville, California-based team behind the project, and future development efforts were being consolidated at the <em>America's Army</em> program office at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. A decade after its initial foray into the world of gaming, the Army doesn't appear to be withdrawing from the industry anytime soon. In denying other aspects of the FOIA request, the Army stated 'disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the Department of the Army's competitive position in the gaming industry.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Responding to a Freedom Of Information Act request , the US government has revealed the operating costs of the America 's Army game series over the past decade .
The total bill comes to $ 32.8 million , with yearly costs varying from $ 1.3 million to $ 5.6 million .
" While operating America 's Army 3 does involve ongoing expenses , paying the game 's original development team is n't one of them .
Days after the game launched in June , representatives with the Army confirmed that ties were severed with the Emeryville , California-based team behind the project , and future development efforts were being consolidated at the America 's Army program office at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama .
A decade after its initial foray into the world of gaming , the Army does n't appear to be withdrawing from the industry anytime soon .
In denying other aspects of the FOIA request , the Army stated 'disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the Department of the Army 's competitive position in the gaming industry .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Responding to a Freedom Of Information Act request, the US government has revealed the operating costs of the America's Army game series over the past decade.
The total bill comes to $32.8 million, with yearly costs varying from $1.3 million to $5.6 million.
"While operating America's Army 3 does involve ongoing expenses, paying the game's original development team isn't one of them.
Days after the game launched in June, representatives with the Army confirmed that ties were severed with the Emeryville, California-based team behind the project, and future development efforts were being consolidated at the America's Army program office at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama.
A decade after its initial foray into the world of gaming, the Army doesn't appear to be withdrawing from the industry anytime soon.
In denying other aspects of the FOIA request, the Army stated 'disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the Department of the Army's competitive position in the gaming industry.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387958</id>
	<title>Re:Why so much for just 3 games?</title>
	<author>snaz555</author>
	<datestamp>1260460020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not high at all, $32M is peanuts for three mass market software products of this size and complexity.  The more interesting question is why it has taken them so long to get where they are today.  The answer to both questions lies in the fact that they work with enlisted personnel - for whom this may be their first job.  They're cheap and enthusiastic, but slow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not high at all , $ 32M is peanuts for three mass market software products of this size and complexity .
The more interesting question is why it has taken them so long to get where they are today .
The answer to both questions lies in the fact that they work with enlisted personnel - for whom this may be their first job .
They 're cheap and enthusiastic , but slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not high at all, $32M is peanuts for three mass market software products of this size and complexity.
The more interesting question is why it has taken them so long to get where they are today.
The answer to both questions lies in the fact that they work with enlisted personnel - for whom this may be their first job.
They're cheap and enthusiastic, but slow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30398918</id>
	<title>building their own... engine??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260562020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Although what amazes me is that the army spends millions building their own game and engine.."</p><p>Actually, the Army licensed the Unreal engine from Epic for AA. They didn't build one from scratch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Although what amazes me is that the army spends millions building their own game and engine.. " Actually , the Army licensed the Unreal engine from Epic for AA .
They did n't build one from scratch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Although what amazes me is that the army spends millions building their own game and engine.."Actually, the Army licensed the Unreal engine from Epic for AA.
They didn't build one from scratch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386560</id>
	<title>America's Air Force</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1260447480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I were the Air force, I would grab one of the OSS forms of a sim (flight gear comes to mind), and then enhance the daylight out of it, so that it can do dogfights. Finally, include both regular aircrafts AND the new drones on these.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were the Air force , I would grab one of the OSS forms of a sim ( flight gear comes to mind ) , and then enhance the daylight out of it , so that it can do dogfights .
Finally , include both regular aircrafts AND the new drones on these .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were the Air force, I would grab one of the OSS forms of a sim (flight gear comes to mind), and then enhance the daylight out of it, so that it can do dogfights.
Finally, include both regular aircrafts AND the new drones on these.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387200</id>
	<title>The Army should not be making videogames...</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1260454980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If our Army is going to continue to make videogames, surely we can provide our citizens with Universal Single Payer Health Care....</p><p>right?</p><p>I mean we really must have no budgetary problems at all, surely we can afford to take care of our people if we can use our military as entertainment for our children we hope to send to their death overseas...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If our Army is going to continue to make videogames , surely we can provide our citizens with Universal Single Payer Health Care....right ? I mean we really must have no budgetary problems at all , surely we can afford to take care of our people if we can use our military as entertainment for our children we hope to send to their death overseas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If our Army is going to continue to make videogames, surely we can provide our citizens with Universal Single Payer Health Care....right?I mean we really must have no budgetary problems at all, surely we can afford to take care of our people if we can use our military as entertainment for our children we hope to send to their death overseas...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386514</id>
	<title>Re:How much does a missile cost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260446940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fucking moron.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386894</id>
	<title>Recreation for soldiers</title>
	<author>BondGamer</author>
	<datestamp>1260452040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have played America's Army a bit and there are a ton of active duty military playing the game. So it has quite an appeal. Plus the army runs training simulations with America's Army. So it has many more benefits than just being "a game". Of course some people are still going to claim it will be a waste of money.

If you haven't played, it isn't just another FPS. The game is based on realism. You don't respawn after you die. If an enemy sees you first you die. There isn't kill streaks that give you power ups. Oh, and the current version is super buggy. Probably because they fired the entire development team after the last release.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have played America 's Army a bit and there are a ton of active duty military playing the game .
So it has quite an appeal .
Plus the army runs training simulations with America 's Army .
So it has many more benefits than just being " a game " .
Of course some people are still going to claim it will be a waste of money .
If you have n't played , it is n't just another FPS .
The game is based on realism .
You do n't respawn after you die .
If an enemy sees you first you die .
There is n't kill streaks that give you power ups .
Oh , and the current version is super buggy .
Probably because they fired the entire development team after the last release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have played America's Army a bit and there are a ton of active duty military playing the game.
So it has quite an appeal.
Plus the army runs training simulations with America's Army.
So it has many more benefits than just being "a game".
Of course some people are still going to claim it will be a waste of money.
If you haven't played, it isn't just another FPS.
The game is based on realism.
You don't respawn after you die.
If an enemy sees you first you die.
There isn't kill streaks that give you power ups.
Oh, and the current version is super buggy.
Probably because they fired the entire development team after the last release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388816</id>
	<title>Re:Horrible thought</title>
	<author>jalefkowit</author>
	<datestamp>1260464340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just make the early levels an actual game and then switch them over to controlling a murderbot (without telling them, natch) once they reach a high enough score/rank/level to have weeded out the experimenters/griefers/etc. Problem solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just make the early levels an actual game and then switch them over to controlling a murderbot ( without telling them , natch ) once they reach a high enough score/rank/level to have weeded out the experimenters/griefers/etc .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just make the early levels an actual game and then switch them over to controlling a murderbot (without telling them, natch) once they reach a high enough score/rank/level to have weeded out the experimenters/griefers/etc.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386220</id>
	<title>Re:Compared to US$40 million for Modern Warfare 2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260442680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MW2 made $550M in the first week, they definitely got to fix this and transition to living off your taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MW2 made $ 550M in the first week , they definitely got to fix this and transition to living off your taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MW2 made $550M in the first week, they definitely got to fix this and transition to living off your taxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386490</id>
	<title>Budget Summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260446400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People seem to assume that is development costs; but AA's budget, in true Army style, could include a lot more - from printing copies, facility costs, operational costs such as vehicle gas, travel and TDY expenses, etc.</p><p>That said, 33 mill is pretty impressive, especially if it is all in costs of the organization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People seem to assume that is development costs ; but AA 's budget , in true Army style , could include a lot more - from printing copies , facility costs , operational costs such as vehicle gas , travel and TDY expenses , etc.That said , 33 mill is pretty impressive , especially if it is all in costs of the organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People seem to assume that is development costs; but AA's budget, in true Army style, could include a lot more - from printing copies, facility costs, operational costs such as vehicle gas, travel and TDY expenses, etc.That said, 33 mill is pretty impressive, especially if it is all in costs of the organization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30395550</id>
	<title>Re:Less than the cost of a single cruise missile.</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1260444660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe next to the VA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe next to the VA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe next to the VA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385906</id>
	<title>America's Army</title>
	<author>Zerak-Tul</author>
	<datestamp>1260438240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real deal; not quite as cheap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real deal ; not quite as cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real deal; not quite as cheap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386546</id>
	<title>Re:Less than the cost of a single cruise missile.</title>
	<author>rpillala</author>
	<datestamp>1260447420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That depends less on the cost and more on the effect.  If the Army was trying to make a popular online FPS, then yeah I guess.  One wonders if this is a valid goal for the Army.  The game is supposed to be a recruitment tool, right?  Is there data on how effective it has been in that role?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends less on the cost and more on the effect .
If the Army was trying to make a popular online FPS , then yeah I guess .
One wonders if this is a valid goal for the Army .
The game is supposed to be a recruitment tool , right ?
Is there data on how effective it has been in that role ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends less on the cost and more on the effect.
If the Army was trying to make a popular online FPS, then yeah I guess.
One wonders if this is a valid goal for the Army.
The game is supposed to be a recruitment tool, right?
Is there data on how effective it has been in that role?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30393588</id>
	<title>Re:Compared to US$40 million for Modern Warfare 2</title>
	<author>dlanod</author>
	<datestamp>1260437220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if the phrase 'disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the Department of the Army's competitive position in the gaming industry.' indicates any competitive advantages they might have...</p><p>OTOH, I think I just really like that phrase and intend to reuse it whereever possible given it's one I never thought I'd see anyone utter in complete seriousness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the phrase 'disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the Department of the Army 's competitive position in the gaming industry .
' indicates any competitive advantages they might have...OTOH , I think I just really like that phrase and intend to reuse it whereever possible given it 's one I never thought I 'd see anyone utter in complete seriousness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the phrase 'disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the Department of the Army's competitive position in the gaming industry.
' indicates any competitive advantages they might have...OTOH, I think I just really like that phrase and intend to reuse it whereever possible given it's one I never thought I'd see anyone utter in complete seriousness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386364</id>
	<title>Re:How about relative to other recruitment methods</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260444480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well considering a lot of "gamers" I know, with the exception of the hardcore types who would be afraid to leave their rooms, joined the army when they turned 18, or got a wild hair up their ass about it all of a sudden.</p><p>Funny enough, they all had america's army.</p><p>Also, conscription is the other alternative, and the efficiency there is pretty bad, such as those who arent the type to fight trying to surrender in the middle of a firefight or running away, revealing the location of a platoon and getting them all killed vs. a bunch of brainwashed and highly motivated soldiers who think it's time to play the game for real.</p><p>I'd say it's working quite well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well considering a lot of " gamers " I know , with the exception of the hardcore types who would be afraid to leave their rooms , joined the army when they turned 18 , or got a wild hair up their ass about it all of a sudden.Funny enough , they all had america 's army.Also , conscription is the other alternative , and the efficiency there is pretty bad , such as those who arent the type to fight trying to surrender in the middle of a firefight or running away , revealing the location of a platoon and getting them all killed vs. a bunch of brainwashed and highly motivated soldiers who think it 's time to play the game for real.I 'd say it 's working quite well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well considering a lot of "gamers" I know, with the exception of the hardcore types who would be afraid to leave their rooms, joined the army when they turned 18, or got a wild hair up their ass about it all of a sudden.Funny enough, they all had america's army.Also, conscription is the other alternative, and the efficiency there is pretty bad, such as those who arent the type to fight trying to surrender in the middle of a firefight or running away, revealing the location of a platoon and getting them all killed vs. a bunch of brainwashed and highly motivated soldiers who think it's time to play the game for real.I'd say it's working quite well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387268</id>
	<title>Re:Competitive in the gaming industry?!?!</title>
	<author>lobsterGun</author>
	<datestamp>1260455580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order for information to be considered exempt from release under the FOIA it must fit into one of the following categories AND there must be a legitimate Government purpose served by withholding it:</p><ol><li>Information which is currently and properly classified.</li><li>Information that pertains solely to the internal rules and practices of the agency. (This exemption has two profiles, "high" and "low." The "high" profile permits withholding of a document that, if released, would allow circumvention of an agency rule, policy, or statute, thereby impeding the agency in the conduct of its mission. The "low" profile permits withholding if there is no public interest in the document, and it would be an administrative burden to process the request.)</li><li>Information specifically exempted by a statute establishing particular criteria for withholding. The language of the statute must clearly state that the information will not be disclosed.</li><li>Information such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a company on a privileged or confidential basis that, if released, would result in competitive harm to the company, impair the government's ability to obtain like information in the future, or protect the government's interest in compliance with program effectiveness.</li><li>Inter-agency memoranda that are deliberative in nature; this exemption is appropriate for internal documents that are part of the decision making process and contain subjective evaluations, opinions and recommendations.</li><li>Information the release of which could reasonably be expected to constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of individuals.</li><li>Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes that (a) could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings; (b) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication; (c) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of others, (d) disclose the identity of a confidential source, (e) disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or (f) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.</li><li> Certain records of agencies responsible for supervision of financial institutions.</li><li> Geological and geophysical information concerning wells.</li></ol><p>(Excerpted from: <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/5200-1r/appendix\_c.htm" title="fas.org">http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/5200-1r/appendix\_c.htm</a> [fas.org])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order for information to be considered exempt from release under the FOIA it must fit into one of the following categories AND there must be a legitimate Government purpose served by withholding it : Information which is currently and properly classified.Information that pertains solely to the internal rules and practices of the agency .
( This exemption has two profiles , " high " and " low .
" The " high " profile permits withholding of a document that , if released , would allow circumvention of an agency rule , policy , or statute , thereby impeding the agency in the conduct of its mission .
The " low " profile permits withholding if there is no public interest in the document , and it would be an administrative burden to process the request .
) Information specifically exempted by a statute establishing particular criteria for withholding .
The language of the statute must clearly state that the information will not be disclosed.Information such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a company on a privileged or confidential basis that , if released , would result in competitive harm to the company , impair the government 's ability to obtain like information in the future , or protect the government 's interest in compliance with program effectiveness.Inter-agency memoranda that are deliberative in nature ; this exemption is appropriate for internal documents that are part of the decision making process and contain subjective evaluations , opinions and recommendations.Information the release of which could reasonably be expected to constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of individuals.Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes that ( a ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings ; ( b ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication ; ( c ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of others , ( d ) disclose the identity of a confidential source , ( e ) disclose investigative techniques and procedures , or ( f ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual .
Certain records of agencies responsible for supervision of financial institutions .
Geological and geophysical information concerning wells .
( Excerpted from : http : //www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/5200-1r/appendix \ _c.htm [ fas.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order for information to be considered exempt from release under the FOIA it must fit into one of the following categories AND there must be a legitimate Government purpose served by withholding it:Information which is currently and properly classified.Information that pertains solely to the internal rules and practices of the agency.
(This exemption has two profiles, "high" and "low.
" The "high" profile permits withholding of a document that, if released, would allow circumvention of an agency rule, policy, or statute, thereby impeding the agency in the conduct of its mission.
The "low" profile permits withholding if there is no public interest in the document, and it would be an administrative burden to process the request.
)Information specifically exempted by a statute establishing particular criteria for withholding.
The language of the statute must clearly state that the information will not be disclosed.Information such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a company on a privileged or confidential basis that, if released, would result in competitive harm to the company, impair the government's ability to obtain like information in the future, or protect the government's interest in compliance with program effectiveness.Inter-agency memoranda that are deliberative in nature; this exemption is appropriate for internal documents that are part of the decision making process and contain subjective evaluations, opinions and recommendations.Information the release of which could reasonably be expected to constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of individuals.Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes that (a) could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings; (b) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication; (c) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of others, (d) disclose the identity of a confidential source, (e) disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or (f) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.
Certain records of agencies responsible for supervision of financial institutions.
Geological and geophysical information concerning wells.
(Excerpted from: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/5200-1r/appendix\_c.htm [fas.org])</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387660</id>
	<title>Re:Horrible thought</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1260458220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bad idea. It wouldn't take long until someone decides to fire at the "virtual" civilians or find out if the IFF keeps him from shooting his "virtual" teammates and if he can overcome it by starting a salvo and then rapidly turning.<br>
<br>
And assume people found out about this (perhaps by virtue of the drones teabagging killed enemies): They'd have to immediately cancel the project before someone hostile to the Army makes his way into the game and intentionally goes on a rampage.<br>
<br>
<br>
Letting random civilians remotely control military hardware is a phenomenally bad idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad idea .
It would n't take long until someone decides to fire at the " virtual " civilians or find out if the IFF keeps him from shooting his " virtual " teammates and if he can overcome it by starting a salvo and then rapidly turning .
And assume people found out about this ( perhaps by virtue of the drones teabagging killed enemies ) : They 'd have to immediately cancel the project before someone hostile to the Army makes his way into the game and intentionally goes on a rampage .
Letting random civilians remotely control military hardware is a phenomenally bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad idea.
It wouldn't take long until someone decides to fire at the "virtual" civilians or find out if the IFF keeps him from shooting his "virtual" teammates and if he can overcome it by starting a salvo and then rapidly turning.
And assume people found out about this (perhaps by virtue of the drones teabagging killed enemies): They'd have to immediately cancel the project before someone hostile to the Army makes his way into the game and intentionally goes on a rampage.
Letting random civilians remotely control military hardware is a phenomenally bad idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386068</id>
	<title>pissed off</title>
	<author>angelwolf71885</author>
	<datestamp>1260440820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>our tax dollars at work</htmltext>
<tokenext>our tax dollars at work</tokentext>
<sentencetext>our tax dollars at work</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386290</id>
	<title>Competitive in the gaming industry?!?!</title>
	<author>steve buttgereit</author>
	<datestamp>1260443580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'In denying other aspects of the FOIA request, the Army stated 'disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the Department of the Army's competitive position in the gaming industry.'</p><p>I'll be the first to admit that I'm a fan of America's Army and like the games.  But that the Federal Government, much less the Army, should be concerned with its ability to compete against private industry?  Isn't that contrary to our beliefs regarding the purposes of Government and of our economic system (at least in the U.S.)?  And to top it off, it's denying a FOIA request on the basis, not of national security, an on-going criminal investigation or violation of someone's privacy, but on the basis of what could be called a trade secret?  And it's so bogus to boot, they can invest as much as they want into the program to out-compete their private industry competitors without fear as they don't have to recoup their expenses... the Army won't go out of business if they spend foolishly.  Private companies on the other hand do go out of business when they fail to have excess revenues to costs... unless you're a car company or a well connected bank of course.  I know it's not the first time this has happened (Amtrak, USPS), but still... aren't the existing game companies good enough?</p><p>(Stepping off of soap box and taking big breath to facilitate big sigh)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'In denying other aspects of the FOIA request , the Army stated 'disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the Department of the Army 's competitive position in the gaming industry .
'I 'll be the first to admit that I 'm a fan of America 's Army and like the games .
But that the Federal Government , much less the Army , should be concerned with its ability to compete against private industry ?
Is n't that contrary to our beliefs regarding the purposes of Government and of our economic system ( at least in the U.S. ) ?
And to top it off , it 's denying a FOIA request on the basis , not of national security , an on-going criminal investigation or violation of someone 's privacy , but on the basis of what could be called a trade secret ?
And it 's so bogus to boot , they can invest as much as they want into the program to out-compete their private industry competitors without fear as they do n't have to recoup their expenses... the Army wo n't go out of business if they spend foolishly .
Private companies on the other hand do go out of business when they fail to have excess revenues to costs... unless you 're a car company or a well connected bank of course .
I know it 's not the first time this has happened ( Amtrak , USPS ) , but still... are n't the existing game companies good enough ?
( Stepping off of soap box and taking big breath to facilitate big sigh )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'In denying other aspects of the FOIA request, the Army stated 'disclosure of this information is likely to cause substantial harm to the Department of the Army's competitive position in the gaming industry.
'I'll be the first to admit that I'm a fan of America's Army and like the games.
But that the Federal Government, much less the Army, should be concerned with its ability to compete against private industry?
Isn't that contrary to our beliefs regarding the purposes of Government and of our economic system (at least in the U.S.)?
And to top it off, it's denying a FOIA request on the basis, not of national security, an on-going criminal investigation or violation of someone's privacy, but on the basis of what could be called a trade secret?
And it's so bogus to boot, they can invest as much as they want into the program to out-compete their private industry competitors without fear as they don't have to recoup their expenses... the Army won't go out of business if they spend foolishly.
Private companies on the other hand do go out of business when they fail to have excess revenues to costs... unless you're a car company or a well connected bank of course.
I know it's not the first time this has happened (Amtrak, USPS), but still... aren't the existing game companies good enough?
(Stepping off of soap box and taking big breath to facilitate big sigh)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386080</id>
	<title>Horrible thought</title>
	<author>warp\_kez</author>
	<datestamp>1260440940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This might not be a game.  You, the player as it were, might be controlling a remote drone in some far off country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This might not be a game .
You , the player as it were , might be controlling a remote drone in some far off country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might not be a game.
You, the player as it were, might be controlling a remote drone in some far off country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386058</id>
	<title>Re:How about relative to other recruitment methods</title>
	<author>imunfair</author>
	<datestamp>1260440760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd wager they're doing more with the game than just recruitment.  I'm sure there are a lot of interesting studies you could run on a game like that.  This doesn't mean it's tin foil nefarious stuff - a lot of academics would probably like to get their hands on that data set.</p><p>Behavioral factors, navigation patterns, learning and adapting.. I'm not even a scientist and I can think of all kinds of interesting offshoots from the game - I'd be pretty surprised if there were no scientists with government grants pursuing some sort of research involving it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd wager they 're doing more with the game than just recruitment .
I 'm sure there are a lot of interesting studies you could run on a game like that .
This does n't mean it 's tin foil nefarious stuff - a lot of academics would probably like to get their hands on that data set.Behavioral factors , navigation patterns , learning and adapting.. I 'm not even a scientist and I can think of all kinds of interesting offshoots from the game - I 'd be pretty surprised if there were no scientists with government grants pursuing some sort of research involving it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd wager they're doing more with the game than just recruitment.
I'm sure there are a lot of interesting studies you could run on a game like that.
This doesn't mean it's tin foil nefarious stuff - a lot of academics would probably like to get their hands on that data set.Behavioral factors, navigation patterns, learning and adapting.. I'm not even a scientist and I can think of all kinds of interesting offshoots from the game - I'd be pretty surprised if there were no scientists with government grants pursuing some sort of research involving it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386624</id>
	<title>Re:Less than the cost of a single cruise missile.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260448500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except a cruise missile costs about $500K dollars... so like 1/60th of these games</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except a cruise missile costs about $ 500K dollars... so like 1/60th of these games</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except a cruise missile costs about $500K dollars... so like 1/60th of these games</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385866</id>
	<title>Less than the cost of a single cruise missile.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260437640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three games in total on the budget of a startup... That's pretty good.</p><p>This would have to be one of the army's most cost-effective projects ever then, wouldn't it?</p><p>GrpA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three games in total on the budget of a startup... That 's pretty good.This would have to be one of the army 's most cost-effective projects ever then , would n't it ? GrpA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three games in total on the budget of a startup... That's pretty good.This would have to be one of the army's most cost-effective projects ever then, wouldn't it?GrpA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388140</id>
	<title>Re:Horrible thought</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1260461100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If that was true why wouldn't they allow aim bots?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If that was true why would n't they allow aim bots ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that was true why wouldn't they allow aim bots?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387822</id>
	<title>Re:How about relative to other recruitment methods</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260459180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't work for recruiting. Players are usually scared from joining the army when they see how much grenade spamming is done in guerrilla warfare.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't work for recruiting .
Players are usually scared from joining the army when they see how much grenade spamming is done in guerrilla warfare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't work for recruiting.
Players are usually scared from joining the army when they see how much grenade spamming is done in guerrilla warfare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30391806</id>
	<title>Re:America's Air Force</title>
	<author>Bios\_Hakr</author>
	<datestamp>1260473640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think OpenFalcon or FreeFalcon would be a better starting point.  Both are fairly realistic in their modeling of the F-16.  I think OF is out of development now; it's been shut down a while.  But FreeFalcon just had a major release and it's a *very* nice sim.</p><p>Get FF here:  <a href="http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14498" title="freefalcon.com">http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14498</a> [freefalcon.com]</p><p>Here's the 5.3 patch:  <a href="http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16562" title="freefalcon.com">http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16562</a> [freefalcon.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think OpenFalcon or FreeFalcon would be a better starting point .
Both are fairly realistic in their modeling of the F-16 .
I think OF is out of development now ; it 's been shut down a while .
But FreeFalcon just had a major release and it 's a * very * nice sim.Get FF here : http : //www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php ? t = 14498 [ freefalcon.com ] Here 's the 5.3 patch : http : //www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php ? t = 16562 [ freefalcon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think OpenFalcon or FreeFalcon would be a better starting point.
Both are fairly realistic in their modeling of the F-16.
I think OF is out of development now; it's been shut down a while.
But FreeFalcon just had a major release and it's a *very* nice sim.Get FF here:  http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14498 [freefalcon.com]Here's the 5.3 patch:  http://www.freefalcon.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16562 [freefalcon.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387102</id>
	<title>Economy Act</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260454080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting, because the federal government is not supposed to compete with commercial businesses. They are supposed to procure from industry. In fact, I believe that when this first came up with AA, they said that they WERE NOT trying to compete in the industry, just to provide a recruiting tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting , because the federal government is not supposed to compete with commercial businesses .
They are supposed to procure from industry .
In fact , I believe that when this first came up with AA , they said that they WERE NOT trying to compete in the industry , just to provide a recruiting tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting, because the federal government is not supposed to compete with commercial businesses.
They are supposed to procure from industry.
In fact, I believe that when this first came up with AA, they said that they WERE NOT trying to compete in the industry, just to provide a recruiting tool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386552</id>
	<title>They far more on NASCAR</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1260447480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Figure ten to twenty million plus per team fielded.</p><p>At least AA doesn't present war as a clean and easy and dismissible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Figure ten to twenty million plus per team fielded.At least AA does n't present war as a clean and easy and dismissible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Figure ten to twenty million plus per team fielded.At least AA doesn't present war as a clean and easy and dismissible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30391048</id>
	<title>Re:Competitive in the gaming industry?!?!</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1260471120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they should be concerned with the competition.  That $33mil was spent to put material in front of eyeballs to aide in recruiting and very basic military concepts (ranks, etc).  If you don't keep up, nobody sees it and your investment is over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they should be concerned with the competition .
That $ 33mil was spent to put material in front of eyeballs to aide in recruiting and very basic military concepts ( ranks , etc ) .
If you do n't keep up , nobody sees it and your investment is over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they should be concerned with the competition.
That $33mil was spent to put material in front of eyeballs to aide in recruiting and very basic military concepts (ranks, etc).
If you don't keep up, nobody sees it and your investment is over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30391956</id>
	<title>Re:Less than the cost of a single cruise missile.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260474240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol......33 million and the game doesnt work....too funny.......guess a few million dont mean anything nowadays</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol......33 million and the game doesnt work....too funny.......guess a few million dont mean anything nowadays</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol......33 million and the game doesnt work....too funny.......guess a few million dont mean anything nowadays</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387760</id>
	<title>Re:Why so much for just 3 games?</title>
	<author>StormyWeather</author>
	<datestamp>1260458880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>30 people at 75,000 a year for ten years would be around 25 mil with benefits.<br>Of course then there are server costs, publicity costs, office costs, hardware blah blah blah.</p><p>Seems reasonable cost to me for the end product.</p><p>I don't really agree with creating the product, because that should have been a private company creating the product at the army's direction if at all.  Government really shouldn't be in the business of private industry whether it's the army, or whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>30 people at 75,000 a year for ten years would be around 25 mil with benefits.Of course then there are server costs , publicity costs , office costs , hardware blah blah blah.Seems reasonable cost to me for the end product.I do n't really agree with creating the product , because that should have been a private company creating the product at the army 's direction if at all .
Government really should n't be in the business of private industry whether it 's the army , or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>30 people at 75,000 a year for ten years would be around 25 mil with benefits.Of course then there are server costs, publicity costs, office costs, hardware blah blah blah.Seems reasonable cost to me for the end product.I don't really agree with creating the product, because that should have been a private company creating the product at the army's direction if at all.
Government really shouldn't be in the business of private industry whether it's the army, or whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388112</id>
	<title>Re:How about relative to other recruitment methods</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1260460980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually my brother and I showed up to the recruiting office to pick up the game, they were disappointed when we said we only wanted the game.  I was 6ft and in reasonable shape, and my little brother was 6'5" defensive end on the football team.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually my brother and I showed up to the recruiting office to pick up the game , they were disappointed when we said we only wanted the game .
I was 6ft and in reasonable shape , and my little brother was 6'5 " defensive end on the football team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually my brother and I showed up to the recruiting office to pick up the game, they were disappointed when we said we only wanted the game.
I was 6ft and in reasonable shape, and my little brother was 6'5" defensive end on the football team.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386172</id>
	<title>Re:Horrible thought</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260442080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That gives me a great idea for a book - thanks!
<p>
-Orson Scott Card, circa 1985</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That gives me a great idea for a book - thanks !
-Orson Scott Card , circa 1985</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That gives me a great idea for a book - thanks!
-Orson Scott Card, circa 1985</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386202</id>
	<title>Horrible thought</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260442380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This might be a game.  You the player as it were, might be controlling nothing at all, wasting the precious moments of your life in an illusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This might be a game .
You the player as it were , might be controlling nothing at all , wasting the precious moments of your life in an illusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might be a game.
You the player as it were, might be controlling nothing at all, wasting the precious moments of your life in an illusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386472</id>
	<title>Why so much for just 3 games?</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1260446100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>32 million seems to much for just 3 video games. Why is it so high?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>32 million seems to much for just 3 video games .
Why is it so high ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>32 million seems to much for just 3 video games.
Why is it so high?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386420</id>
	<title>Re:How about relative to other recruitment methods</title>
	<author>Tarinth</author>
	<datestamp>1260445200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Numerous studies have shown that games are about the most consistent and effective way to reach young US males. They generally watch a lot less TV (sports being the possible exception).  Considering the huge marketing budget that is spent on advertising the Army, I'd wager that programs like this are highly effective--but I'd be very interested in additional data that reveals how many recruiting leads the Army associates with the program!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Numerous studies have shown that games are about the most consistent and effective way to reach young US males .
They generally watch a lot less TV ( sports being the possible exception ) .
Considering the huge marketing budget that is spent on advertising the Army , I 'd wager that programs like this are highly effective--but I 'd be very interested in additional data that reveals how many recruiting leads the Army associates with the program !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Numerous studies have shown that games are about the most consistent and effective way to reach young US males.
They generally watch a lot less TV (sports being the possible exception).
Considering the huge marketing budget that is spent on advertising the Army, I'd wager that programs like this are highly effective--but I'd be very interested in additional data that reveals how many recruiting leads the Army associates with the program!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387020</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260453420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>criminally stupid waste of money for propaganda for an unjust war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>criminally stupid waste of money for propaganda for an unjust war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>criminally stupid waste of money for propaganda for an unjust war.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385944</id>
	<title>Re:Compared to US$40 million for Modern Warfare 2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260438960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the industry has managers costing US$20 million<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the industry has managers costing US $ 20 million .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the industry has managers costing US$20 million ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30389728</id>
	<title>Re:Competitive in the gaming industry?!?!</title>
	<author>aero6dof</author>
	<datestamp>1260467040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's OK, sometimes the peas and carrots mix a little, but it's still perfectly edible...

I see this expenditure as a cost-effective, creative alternative vs. PR coming from a buy of ad-time on tv. It gets the army a little PR and introduces some realism vs most other FPSs.  The only people to complain might be other game companies in the niche of providing semi-realistic miltary FPS, but all indications is that there's no real effect there, see Call of Duty and Modern Warfare sales...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's OK , sometimes the peas and carrots mix a little , but it 's still perfectly edible.. . I see this expenditure as a cost-effective , creative alternative vs. PR coming from a buy of ad-time on tv .
It gets the army a little PR and introduces some realism vs most other FPSs .
The only people to complain might be other game companies in the niche of providing semi-realistic miltary FPS , but all indications is that there 's no real effect there , see Call of Duty and Modern Warfare sales.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's OK, sometimes the peas and carrots mix a little, but it's still perfectly edible...

I see this expenditure as a cost-effective, creative alternative vs. PR coming from a buy of ad-time on tv.
It gets the army a little PR and introduces some realism vs most other FPSs.
The only people to complain might be other game companies in the niche of providing semi-realistic miltary FPS, but all indications is that there's no real effect there, see Call of Duty and Modern Warfare sales...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385912</id>
	<title>Sad but true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260438240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>An average of $3.3 million a year for ANY government program seems quite reasonably priced!</htmltext>
<tokenext>An average of $ 3.3 million a year for ANY government program seems quite reasonably priced !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An average of $3.3 million a year for ANY government program seems quite reasonably priced!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386832</id>
	<title>Re:How about relative to other recruitment methods</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1260451320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Recruiting teams per shopping mall @$10 per hour, 8 h weekends, ~a few per ~50 states over ten years, front and back.<br>
The cost of having kids play a 33 million US$ Army branded computer game.<br>
Having kids turn up at a recruiting office after playing a game: <br>Priceless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recruiting teams per shopping mall @ $ 10 per hour , 8 h weekends , ~ a few per ~ 50 states over ten years , front and back .
The cost of having kids play a 33 million US $ Army branded computer game .
Having kids turn up at a recruiting office after playing a game : Priceless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recruiting teams per shopping mall @$10 per hour, 8 h weekends, ~a few per ~50 states over ten years, front and back.
The cost of having kids play a 33 million US$ Army branded computer game.
Having kids turn up at a recruiting office after playing a game: Priceless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30392836</id>
	<title>Re:Competitive in the gaming industry?!?!</title>
	<author>DigitalCrackPipe</author>
	<datestamp>1260477660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not competing for dollars, but for eyeballs.  The army wants to be able to get people to play the game and be influenced by it.  Making all of thier strategy available to everyone could allow private gaming companies to beat them to it.  That would mean less eyeballs and wow factor when they finally do release a product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not competing for dollars , but for eyeballs .
The army wants to be able to get people to play the game and be influenced by it .
Making all of thier strategy available to everyone could allow private gaming companies to beat them to it .
That would mean less eyeballs and wow factor when they finally do release a product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not competing for dollars, but for eyeballs.
The army wants to be able to get people to play the game and be influenced by it.
Making all of thier strategy available to everyone could allow private gaming companies to beat them to it.
That would mean less eyeballs and wow factor when they finally do release a product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386126</id>
	<title>That's twice USSR's whole propaganda budget!</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1260441660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I guess American Communism didn't reach their level of efficiency just yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I guess American Communism did n't reach their level of efficiency just yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I guess American Communism didn't reach their level of efficiency just yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30391934</id>
	<title>Re:Competitive in the gaming industry?!?!</title>
	<author>ivogan</author>
	<datestamp>1260474180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Information such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a company on a privileged or confidential basis that, if released, would result in competitive harm to the company, impair the government's ability to obtain like information in the future, or protect the government's interest in compliance with program effectiveness.</p></div><p>I wonder if this is the criteria for the withholding.  Could the Army have entered into a NDA with private industry?  What I picture is a situation where the Army lays out the budget for the project and a company agrees to write the code (A.I. behavior comes to mind) in return for whatever the Army can pay plus an agreement to not disclose the code.  It has been years since I played AA so this theory make not make sense in some aspects.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Information such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a company on a privileged or confidential basis that , if released , would result in competitive harm to the company , impair the government 's ability to obtain like information in the future , or protect the government 's interest in compliance with program effectiveness.I wonder if this is the criteria for the withholding .
Could the Army have entered into a NDA with private industry ?
What I picture is a situation where the Army lays out the budget for the project and a company agrees to write the code ( A.I .
behavior comes to mind ) in return for whatever the Army can pay plus an agreement to not disclose the code .
It has been years since I played AA so this theory make not make sense in some aspects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a company on a privileged or confidential basis that, if released, would result in competitive harm to the company, impair the government's ability to obtain like information in the future, or protect the government's interest in compliance with program effectiveness.I wonder if this is the criteria for the withholding.
Could the Army have entered into a NDA with private industry?
What I picture is a situation where the Army lays out the budget for the project and a company agrees to write the code (A.I.
behavior comes to mind) in return for whatever the Army can pay plus an agreement to not disclose the code.
It has been years since I played AA so this theory make not make sense in some aspects.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385862</id>
	<title>How much does a missile cost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260437580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thermal-guided. One of the kind a few hundreds of were launched at wooden tank dummies with a coal burner heaters inside, in Kosovo maybe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thermal-guided .
One of the kind a few hundreds of were launched at wooden tank dummies with a coal burner heaters inside , in Kosovo maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thermal-guided.
One of the kind a few hundreds of were launched at wooden tank dummies with a coal burner heaters inside, in Kosovo maybe?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388360</id>
	<title>Re:Why so much for just 3 games?</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1260462180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not high at all. Many individual games run that kind of budget and I recently read that Gran Turismo 5 has cost $60 million to date. Take a look at the credits for many of these games, these developers have a massive staff. Those salaries alone eat up a fairly significant portion of the budget. Then factor in all the other expenses and it's easy to see why the budgets are so large. That said, it does seem ridiculous that a game costs so much to develop, but that's just the nature of the kinds of games being developed today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not high at all .
Many individual games run that kind of budget and I recently read that Gran Turismo 5 has cost $ 60 million to date .
Take a look at the credits for many of these games , these developers have a massive staff .
Those salaries alone eat up a fairly significant portion of the budget .
Then factor in all the other expenses and it 's easy to see why the budgets are so large .
That said , it does seem ridiculous that a game costs so much to develop , but that 's just the nature of the kinds of games being developed today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not high at all.
Many individual games run that kind of budget and I recently read that Gran Turismo 5 has cost $60 million to date.
Take a look at the credits for many of these games, these developers have a massive staff.
Those salaries alone eat up a fairly significant portion of the budget.
Then factor in all the other expenses and it's easy to see why the budgets are so large.
That said, it does seem ridiculous that a game costs so much to develop, but that's just the nature of the kinds of games being developed today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30397864</id>
	<title>Re:Less than the cost of a single cruise missile.</title>
	<author>GrpA</author>
	<datestamp>1260459120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite...</p><p>The current per-UNIT cost of a cruise missile is $500K - The TOTAL cost of the Tomahawk cruise missile program is $11.2 BILLION...</p><p>The UNIT cost of America's Army is nil....</p><p>Given the US stockpile of around 3500 Tomahawks, that means that the TOTAL COST of just one cruise missile is still around the same price as the ENTIRE cost of AA and I think AA is still slightly cheaper if you take everything into account.</p><p>GrpA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite...The current per-UNIT cost of a cruise missile is $ 500K - The TOTAL cost of the Tomahawk cruise missile program is $ 11.2 BILLION...The UNIT cost of America 's Army is nil....Given the US stockpile of around 3500 Tomahawks , that means that the TOTAL COST of just one cruise missile is still around the same price as the ENTIRE cost of AA and I think AA is still slightly cheaper if you take everything into account.GrpA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite...The current per-UNIT cost of a cruise missile is $500K - The TOTAL cost of the Tomahawk cruise missile program is $11.2 BILLION...The UNIT cost of America's Army is nil....Given the US stockpile of around 3500 Tomahawks, that means that the TOTAL COST of just one cruise missile is still around the same price as the ENTIRE cost of AA and I think AA is still slightly cheaper if you take everything into account.GrpA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386840</id>
	<title>They ought to build a tax-funding add-on for it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260451320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it's fun (for some) to play shot 'em up &amp; stretegy games, that are based on real war,<br>I think it's time to look at the costs - both within the games and in Real Life (t(.</p><p>Some sort of US budget, as affected by all this silly military spending, needs URGENTLY<br>to be added to America's Army, so folks can begin to wake-up to the fact that they - or<br>their children (for generations to come) will need to pay for all this nonsense, someday...</p><p>Better they start to think about military costs in the context of such a game, rather than<br>wait for these costs to give rise to very real deficits &amp; credit crunches, etc. that can last<br>for decades...</p><p>Maybe a new game needs to be developed, eg, "Political Will - the Renewable Resource"<br>that let the player work through some of the possible effectes of such deficits...</p><p>(Maybe some of those who play -that- will invent workarounds that will prevent some of the<br>dire consequences to happen (or push their happening into the future, maybe even giving<br>rise to some wotkatounds.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's fun ( for some ) to play shot 'em up &amp; stretegy games , that are based on real war,I think it 's time to look at the costs - both within the games and in Real Life ( t ( .Some sort of US budget , as affected by all this silly military spending , needs URGENTLYto be added to America 's Army , so folks can begin to wake-up to the fact that they - ortheir children ( for generations to come ) will need to pay for all this nonsense , someday...Better they start to think about military costs in the context of such a game , rather thanwait for these costs to give rise to very real deficits &amp; credit crunches , etc .
that can lastfor decades...Maybe a new game needs to be developed , eg , " Political Will - the Renewable Resource " that let the player work through some of the possible effectes of such deficits... ( Maybe some of those who play -that- will invent workarounds that will prevent some of thedire consequences to happen ( or push their happening into the future , maybe even givingrise to some wotkatounds .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's fun (for some) to play shot 'em up &amp; stretegy games, that are based on real war,I think it's time to look at the costs - both within the games and in Real Life (t(.Some sort of US budget, as affected by all this silly military spending, needs URGENTLYto be added to America's Army, so folks can begin to wake-up to the fact that they - ortheir children (for generations to come) will need to pay for all this nonsense, someday...Better they start to think about military costs in the context of such a game, rather thanwait for these costs to give rise to very real deficits &amp; credit crunches, etc.
that can lastfor decades...Maybe a new game needs to be developed, eg, "Political Will - the Renewable Resource"that let the player work through some of the possible effectes of such deficits...(Maybe some of those who play -that- will invent workarounds that will prevent some of thedire consequences to happen (or push their happening into the future, maybe even givingrise to some wotkatounds.
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388026</id>
	<title>Re:The Army should not be making videogames...</title>
	<author>rhsanborn</author>
	<datestamp>1260460380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, because $33 million on a PR and training sim is the same thing as several trillion dollars on a single payor healthcare system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , because $ 33 million on a PR and training sim is the same thing as several trillion dollars on a single payor healthcare system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, because $33 million on a PR and training sim is the same thing as several trillion dollars on a single payor healthcare system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30397326</id>
	<title>Re:Compared to US$40 million for Modern Warfare 2</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1260454380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most of the manpower cost of a video game is artist time. DoD games and military sim stuff looks like crap comparatively because they don't put millions of dollars into artists. When I played America's Army the visual quality was about the same as most fan mods to commercial games.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You must be one of those people who thinks graphics are the only metric for judging a game. I've played MW and MW2 and found their gameplay to be lacking (I cant call it bad, but its the same as every FPS for the last 12 years so it gets boring quick), the stories tired and predicatable, the story/dialouge timing is terrible (often I'm looking in the wrong direction when there's dialogue, HL and HL2 mastered the art of keeping us looking at the non cut-scene cut-scene). Even graphically MW and MW2 wasn't that good (Disclosure: I'm a PC gamer).<br> <br>

Games like Sins of a Solar Empire prove you don't have to drop millions into art assets to sell a good game. Same with Indie games like braid (haven't played it but heard it was good) or Audiosurf as well as short titles like Portal.<br> <br>

Point in short, throwing money into a game will not automatically create a better product and to cover up for this even more money is thrown into marketing. This is where the industry goes wrong.<br> <br>

America's Army is more of a recruitment tool then a training tool not that I'm complaining mind you the US Army are quite honest about their intents (yvan eht nioj). True training tools are closer to VBS (Virtual Battlefield Simulation) which are, surprise surprise made from commercial video games both of which don't have state of the art graphics but engines geared towards realism. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBS1" title="wikipedia.org">VBS1</a> [wikipedia.org] was made from the original Operation Flashpoint and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VBS2" title="wikipedia.org">VBS2</a> [wikipedia.org] was made from Armed Assault (ARMA) the game play in both of these games are excellent even if a little frustrating but this is due to the games being geared towards realism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the manpower cost of a video game is artist time .
DoD games and military sim stuff looks like crap comparatively because they do n't put millions of dollars into artists .
When I played America 's Army the visual quality was about the same as most fan mods to commercial games .
You must be one of those people who thinks graphics are the only metric for judging a game .
I 've played MW and MW2 and found their gameplay to be lacking ( I cant call it bad , but its the same as every FPS for the last 12 years so it gets boring quick ) , the stories tired and predicatable , the story/dialouge timing is terrible ( often I 'm looking in the wrong direction when there 's dialogue , HL and HL2 mastered the art of keeping us looking at the non cut-scene cut-scene ) .
Even graphically MW and MW2 was n't that good ( Disclosure : I 'm a PC gamer ) .
Games like Sins of a Solar Empire prove you do n't have to drop millions into art assets to sell a good game .
Same with Indie games like braid ( have n't played it but heard it was good ) or Audiosurf as well as short titles like Portal .
Point in short , throwing money into a game will not automatically create a better product and to cover up for this even more money is thrown into marketing .
This is where the industry goes wrong .
America 's Army is more of a recruitment tool then a training tool not that I 'm complaining mind you the US Army are quite honest about their intents ( yvan eht nioj ) .
True training tools are closer to VBS ( Virtual Battlefield Simulation ) which are , surprise surprise made from commercial video games both of which do n't have state of the art graphics but engines geared towards realism .
VBS1 [ wikipedia.org ] was made from the original Operation Flashpoint and VBS2 [ wikipedia.org ] was made from Armed Assault ( ARMA ) the game play in both of these games are excellent even if a little frustrating but this is due to the games being geared towards realism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the manpower cost of a video game is artist time.
DoD games and military sim stuff looks like crap comparatively because they don't put millions of dollars into artists.
When I played America's Army the visual quality was about the same as most fan mods to commercial games.
You must be one of those people who thinks graphics are the only metric for judging a game.
I've played MW and MW2 and found their gameplay to be lacking (I cant call it bad, but its the same as every FPS for the last 12 years so it gets boring quick), the stories tired and predicatable, the story/dialouge timing is terrible (often I'm looking in the wrong direction when there's dialogue, HL and HL2 mastered the art of keeping us looking at the non cut-scene cut-scene).
Even graphically MW and MW2 wasn't that good (Disclosure: I'm a PC gamer).
Games like Sins of a Solar Empire prove you don't have to drop millions into art assets to sell a good game.
Same with Indie games like braid (haven't played it but heard it was good) or Audiosurf as well as short titles like Portal.
Point in short, throwing money into a game will not automatically create a better product and to cover up for this even more money is thrown into marketing.
This is where the industry goes wrong.
America's Army is more of a recruitment tool then a training tool not that I'm complaining mind you the US Army are quite honest about their intents (yvan eht nioj).
True training tools are closer to VBS (Virtual Battlefield Simulation) which are, surprise surprise made from commercial video games both of which don't have state of the art graphics but engines geared towards realism.
VBS1 [wikipedia.org] was made from the original Operation Flashpoint and VBS2 [wikipedia.org] was made from Armed Assault (ARMA) the game play in both of these games are excellent even if a little frustrating but this is due to the games being geared towards realism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385910</id>
	<title>Compared to US$40 million for Modern Warfare 2</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1260438240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>and the US army has managed how many releases over ten years for less money incl hosting?<br> <br>

Methinks the industry is doing something wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and the US army has managed how many releases over ten years for less money incl hosting ?
Methinks the industry is doing something wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and the US army has managed how many releases over ten years for less money incl hosting?
Methinks the industry is doing something wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387674</id>
	<title>Re:Compared to US$40 million for Modern Warfare 2</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1260458340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone obviously hasn't looked at the games side by side.</p><p>Most of the manpower cost of a video game is artist time. DoD games and military sim stuff looks like crap comparatively because they don't put millions of dollars into artists. When I played America's Army the visual quality was about the same as most fan mods to commercial games.</p><p>Although what amazes me is that the army spends millions building their own game and engine, then still turns around and spends $10k/seat on meta-VR for all of their sim training. I mean, I get it for large scale sims - as someone who worked in this area, there is a big difference between building a military sim engine that can span hundreds or thousands of miles and a video game engine that will span two - but for a lot of the small-scale infantry work like the fort benning training, I really don't see the point.</p><p>Supposedly they were looking at finally correcting that issue - I was at one point going to be the guy doing some of the work to make the game read mil-sim protocols, actually, before that part of the contract fell through. I wonder if they've made any progress since then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone obviously has n't looked at the games side by side.Most of the manpower cost of a video game is artist time .
DoD games and military sim stuff looks like crap comparatively because they do n't put millions of dollars into artists .
When I played America 's Army the visual quality was about the same as most fan mods to commercial games.Although what amazes me is that the army spends millions building their own game and engine , then still turns around and spends $ 10k/seat on meta-VR for all of their sim training .
I mean , I get it for large scale sims - as someone who worked in this area , there is a big difference between building a military sim engine that can span hundreds or thousands of miles and a video game engine that will span two - but for a lot of the small-scale infantry work like the fort benning training , I really do n't see the point.Supposedly they were looking at finally correcting that issue - I was at one point going to be the guy doing some of the work to make the game read mil-sim protocols , actually , before that part of the contract fell through .
I wonder if they 've made any progress since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone obviously hasn't looked at the games side by side.Most of the manpower cost of a video game is artist time.
DoD games and military sim stuff looks like crap comparatively because they don't put millions of dollars into artists.
When I played America's Army the visual quality was about the same as most fan mods to commercial games.Although what amazes me is that the army spends millions building their own game and engine, then still turns around and spends $10k/seat on meta-VR for all of their sim training.
I mean, I get it for large scale sims - as someone who worked in this area, there is a big difference between building a military sim engine that can span hundreds or thousands of miles and a video game engine that will span two - but for a lot of the small-scale infantry work like the fort benning training, I really don't see the point.Supposedly they were looking at finally correcting that issue - I was at one point going to be the guy doing some of the work to make the game read mil-sim protocols, actually, before that part of the contract fell through.
I wonder if they've made any progress since then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968</id>
	<title>How about relative to other recruitment methods?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260439320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much does it cost to recruit new soldiers via other methods? How about weighted by efficiency?</p><p>Just because it costs $33 million, doesn't mean it isn't a good deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much does it cost to recruit new soldiers via other methods ?
How about weighted by efficiency ? Just because it costs $ 33 million , does n't mean it is n't a good deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much does it cost to recruit new soldiers via other methods?
How about weighted by efficiency?Just because it costs $33 million, doesn't mean it isn't a good deal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386052</id>
	<title>Re:How about relative to other recruitment methods</title>
	<author>dushkin</author>
	<datestamp>1260440640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe not. But it's pretty damn awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe not .
But it 's pretty damn awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe not.
But it's pretty damn awesome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387270</id>
	<title>Re:Competitive in the gaming industry?!?!</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1260455580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to know why our government will compete against video game companies, but won't compete against internet service providers or health insurance companies. Maybe it's just that a video game is a good way to convince people to join the army. That's a much better reason to do this than improving people's lives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to know why our government will compete against video game companies , but wo n't compete against internet service providers or health insurance companies .
Maybe it 's just that a video game is a good way to convince people to join the army .
That 's a much better reason to do this than improving people 's lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to know why our government will compete against video game companies, but won't compete against internet service providers or health insurance companies.
Maybe it's just that a video game is a good way to convince people to join the army.
That's a much better reason to do this than improving people's lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386466</id>
	<title>How do they figure the costs?</title>
	<author>Higaran</author>
	<datestamp>1260446040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was at the auto show and the had a booth setup with a humvee and a bunch ov xboxes and pc running for people to play.  I remember at E3 one year and the had special forces guys drop in from a chopper and stuff like that.  I think the cost are probably more but they write the costs off as traning or recuritment or just plain old PR stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was at the auto show and the had a booth setup with a humvee and a bunch ov xboxes and pc running for people to play .
I remember at E3 one year and the had special forces guys drop in from a chopper and stuff like that .
I think the cost are probably more but they write the costs off as traning or recuritment or just plain old PR stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was at the auto show and the had a booth setup with a humvee and a bunch ov xboxes and pc running for people to play.
I remember at E3 one year and the had special forces guys drop in from a chopper and stuff like that.
I think the cost are probably more but they write the costs off as traning or recuritment or just plain old PR stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30390192</id>
	<title>Re:Sad but true</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1260468420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shit, their US TV advertising budget is more than 3.3M a year....  This is chump change.  And the unquantifiable savings in reduction in recruitment office costs, and weeding out of undesireables who have non-realistic views of army life easily saves more than that...</p><p>This was a good program.  I suggest increasing the funding to $6M anually and see what they can do with it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit , their US TV advertising budget is more than 3.3M a year.... This is chump change .
And the unquantifiable savings in reduction in recruitment office costs , and weeding out of undesireables who have non-realistic views of army life easily saves more than that...This was a good program .
I suggest increasing the funding to $ 6M anually and see what they can do with it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit, their US TV advertising budget is more than 3.3M a year....  This is chump change.
And the unquantifiable savings in reduction in recruitment office costs, and weeding out of undesireables who have non-realistic views of army life easily saves more than that...This was a good program.
I suggest increasing the funding to $6M anually and see what they can do with it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388048</id>
	<title>Re:The Army should not be making videogames...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1260460500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we can provide citizens with Universal Single Payer Health Care for $32.8 million over 10 years, I'd say you have a point. Something tells me that $32.8 million wouldn't last very long though.</p><p>As a 12-year vet myself, it is pretty clear to me, and the overwhelming majority of people who sign up, that our military is completely voluntary, so nobody is being sent "to their death".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we can provide citizens with Universal Single Payer Health Care for $ 32.8 million over 10 years , I 'd say you have a point .
Something tells me that $ 32.8 million would n't last very long though.As a 12-year vet myself , it is pretty clear to me , and the overwhelming majority of people who sign up , that our military is completely voluntary , so nobody is being sent " to their death " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we can provide citizens with Universal Single Payer Health Care for $32.8 million over 10 years, I'd say you have a point.
Something tells me that $32.8 million wouldn't last very long though.As a 12-year vet myself, it is pretty clear to me, and the overwhelming majority of people who sign up, that our military is completely voluntary, so nobody is being sent "to their death".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387200</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30389728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30391048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30393588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30391956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30398918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30392836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30397864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30391806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30391934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30397326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30395550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0554200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30390192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30391934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30389728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30391048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30392836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30391806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30397864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30391956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30395550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30398918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30397326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30393588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30386514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30387200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30388026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0554200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30385912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0554200.30390192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
