<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_10_2231237</id>
	<title>"Universal Jigsaw Puzzle" Hits Stores In Japan</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260442920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Riktov writes <i>"I came across this at a Tokyo toy store last week, and it's one of the coolest things I've seen in a long time. <a href="http://www.tenyo.co.jp/jigazo/">Jigazo Puzzle</a> is a jigsaw puzzle, but you can make <strong>anything</strong> with it. It has just 300 pieces which are all just varying shades of a single color, though a few have gradations across the piece; i.e., each piece is a generic pixel. Out of the box, you can make Mona Lisa, JFK, etc, arranging it according to symbols printed on the reverse side. But here's the amazing thing: take a photo (for example, of yourself) with a cell-phone, e-mail it to the company, and they will send you back a pattern that will recreate that photo.

This article is in Japanese, but as they say, <a href="http://news.ameba.jp/trend-news/2009/10/47222.html">a few pictures are worth a million words</a>. And 300 pixels are worth an infinite number of pictures."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Riktov writes " I came across this at a Tokyo toy store last week , and it 's one of the coolest things I 've seen in a long time .
Jigazo Puzzle is a jigsaw puzzle , but you can make anything with it .
It has just 300 pieces which are all just varying shades of a single color , though a few have gradations across the piece ; i.e. , each piece is a generic pixel .
Out of the box , you can make Mona Lisa , JFK , etc , arranging it according to symbols printed on the reverse side .
But here 's the amazing thing : take a photo ( for example , of yourself ) with a cell-phone , e-mail it to the company , and they will send you back a pattern that will recreate that photo .
This article is in Japanese , but as they say , a few pictures are worth a million words .
And 300 pixels are worth an infinite number of pictures .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Riktov writes "I came across this at a Tokyo toy store last week, and it's one of the coolest things I've seen in a long time.
Jigazo Puzzle is a jigsaw puzzle, but you can make anything with it.
It has just 300 pieces which are all just varying shades of a single color, though a few have gradations across the piece; i.e., each piece is a generic pixel.
Out of the box, you can make Mona Lisa, JFK, etc, arranging it according to symbols printed on the reverse side.
But here's the amazing thing: take a photo (for example, of yourself) with a cell-phone, e-mail it to the company, and they will send you back a pattern that will recreate that photo.
This article is in Japanese, but as they say, a few pictures are worth a million words.
And 300 pixels are worth an infinite number of pictures.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398358</id>
	<title>Multiple sets?</title>
	<author>DarkofPeace</author>
	<datestamp>1260466020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you combine multiple sets, do you get better resolution or just a larger picture?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you combine multiple sets , do you get better resolution or just a larger picture ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you combine multiple sets, do you get better resolution or just a larger picture?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397670</id>
	<title>If I worked at that company..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260457200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The instructions to create 'Beautiful Flower' would just end up with a jigsaw that looked remarkably like goatse.</p><p>Racing Car?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... goatse</p><p>Cat?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. goatse</p><p>Goatse?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. tubgirl.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The instructions to create 'Beautiful Flower ' would just end up with a jigsaw that looked remarkably like goatse.Racing Car ?
... goatseCat ?
.. goatseGoatse ?
.. tubgirl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The instructions to create 'Beautiful Flower' would just end up with a jigsaw that looked remarkably like goatse.Racing Car?
... goatseCat?
.. goatseGoatse?
.. tubgirl.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396072</id>
	<title>Looks familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260446700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The puzzle version of ascii art?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The puzzle version of ascii art ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The puzzle version of ascii art?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30400680</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1260541560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My version of the puzzle can generate infinite numbers of pictures.  All the pieces are white and it comes with a box of paints.</p><p>It's part of my line of "can't lose" Christmas toys, along with the ever popular "No-Miss Target Shooting (Barn not Included)."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My version of the puzzle can generate infinite numbers of pictures .
All the pieces are white and it comes with a box of paints.It 's part of my line of " ca n't lose " Christmas toys , along with the ever popular " No-Miss Target Shooting ( Barn not Included ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My version of the puzzle can generate infinite numbers of pictures.
All the pieces are white and it comes with a box of paints.It's part of my line of "can't lose" Christmas toys, along with the ever popular "No-Miss Target Shooting (Barn not Included).
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396272</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260447480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3 E 614 is pretty close to infinite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 E 614 is pretty close to infinite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 E 614 is pretty close to infinite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396062</id>
	<title>puzzle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260446640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not much of a puzzle if you can assemble the pieces in any orientation and layout you wish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not much of a puzzle if you can assemble the pieces in any orientation and layout you wish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not much of a puzzle if you can assemble the pieces in any orientation and layout you wish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396626</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260449340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over 9000!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over 9000 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over 9000!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396976</id>
	<title>Obama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260451560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol, I was thinking writing something funny about how long it would take before we saw a puzzle of Obama. Then I clicked on the link... dammit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol , I was thinking writing something funny about how long it would take before we saw a puzzle of Obama .
Then I clicked on the link... dammit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol, I was thinking writing something funny about how long it would take before we saw a puzzle of Obama.
Then I clicked on the link... dammit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30400940</id>
	<title>Fun with Bits</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1260543120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is some combination of bits that will give us a picture of life on another planet, or Cleopatra giving Elvis a hummer.  Maybe even me holding a lottery ticket with winning numbers.  A combination of bits might give us a #1 pop song sung by no one.</p><p>Fun to think about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is some combination of bits that will give us a picture of life on another planet , or Cleopatra giving Elvis a hummer .
Maybe even me holding a lottery ticket with winning numbers .
A combination of bits might give us a # 1 pop song sung by no one.Fun to think about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is some combination of bits that will give us a picture of life on another planet, or Cleopatra giving Elvis a hummer.
Maybe even me holding a lottery ticket with winning numbers.
A combination of bits might give us a #1 pop song sung by no one.Fun to think about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397246</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Etcetera</author>
	<datestamp>1260453660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there was a exclamation mark. 300 factorial, 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... x 2 x 1.</p><p>Incidentally, if anyone wants to calculate that, you'll need to use a float, and probably a double-, or quadruple-precision (YMMV) one at that.</p></div><p>C1 = 300!</p><p>R1 = 3.060575122185 x 10 ^ 614</p><p>The joys of hypercalc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there was a exclamation mark .
300 factorial , 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x ... x 2 x 1.Incidentally , if anyone wants to calculate that , you 'll need to use a float , and probably a double- , or quadruple-precision ( YMMV ) one at that.C1 = 300 ! R1 = 3.060575122185 x 10 ^ 614The joys of hypercalc : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there was a exclamation mark.
300 factorial, 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x ... x 2 x 1.Incidentally, if anyone wants to calculate that, you'll need to use a float, and probably a double-, or quadruple-precision (YMMV) one at that.C1 = 300!R1 = 3.060575122185 x 10 ^ 614The joys of hypercalc :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399850</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1260532740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please never apply for a job writing software in the financial sector.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please never apply for a job writing software in the financial sector .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please never apply for a job writing software in the financial sector.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397282</id>
	<title>Re:Sweet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260454020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cthulu has already attacked <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open-tags-except-xhtml-self-contained-tags" title="stackoverflow.com" rel="nofollow">Stack Overflow</a> [stackoverflow.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is next!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cthulu has already attacked Stack Overflow [ stackoverflow.com ] / .
is next !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cthulu has already attacked Stack Overflow [stackoverflow.com] /.
is next!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396334</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260447780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not necessarily.  There are 300! sequences of the pieces, but you also need to allow for a few more variables:

<ul>
<li>Rotation of pieces that are non-uniform in colour</li><li>Multiple arrangements - 15x20, 10x30, images etc.</li><li>Not using all the pieces - a 17x17 image for instance</li><li>Combining multiple sets of the same colour</li><li>Combining multiple sets of different colours</li></ul><p>

OK, the last two are technically cheating, and all but the first option would possibly require custom code since all the example images appear to be 15x20 portraits, but a suitable algorithm probably wouldn't be that hard to figure out.  I saw this on Firehose last night and worked out a few likely routines this morning, so I'd expect some custom FL/OSS code (and cheap Chinese manufactured knock-offs) to be available in fairly short order.  After that the race will be on to create the largest most impressive image before the fad inevitably passes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not necessarily .
There are 300 !
sequences of the pieces , but you also need to allow for a few more variables : Rotation of pieces that are non-uniform in colourMultiple arrangements - 15x20 , 10x30 , images etc.Not using all the pieces - a 17x17 image for instanceCombining multiple sets of the same colourCombining multiple sets of different colours OK , the last two are technically cheating , and all but the first option would possibly require custom code since all the example images appear to be 15x20 portraits , but a suitable algorithm probably would n't be that hard to figure out .
I saw this on Firehose last night and worked out a few likely routines this morning , so I 'd expect some custom FL/OSS code ( and cheap Chinese manufactured knock-offs ) to be available in fairly short order .
After that the race will be on to create the largest most impressive image before the fad inevitably passes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not necessarily.
There are 300!
sequences of the pieces, but you also need to allow for a few more variables:


Rotation of pieces that are non-uniform in colourMultiple arrangements - 15x20, 10x30, images etc.Not using all the pieces - a 17x17 image for instanceCombining multiple sets of the same colourCombining multiple sets of different colours

OK, the last two are technically cheating, and all but the first option would possibly require custom code since all the example images appear to be 15x20 portraits, but a suitable algorithm probably wouldn't be that hard to figure out.
I saw this on Firehose last night and worked out a few likely routines this morning, so I'd expect some custom FL/OSS code (and cheap Chinese manufactured knock-offs) to be available in fairly short order.
After that the race will be on to create the largest most impressive image before the fad inevitably passes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396506</id>
	<title>Re:Sweet</title>
	<author>CptPicard</author>
	<datestamp>1260448740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new here, it should be obvious. Send the company a picture of goatse, and have your pattern...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here , it should be obvious .
Send the company a picture of goatse , and have your pattern.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here, it should be obvious.
Send the company a picture of goatse, and have your pattern...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398556</id>
	<title>Re:puzzle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260468720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I printed out my application code and pasted it on the puzzle pieces. Then I reassembled it in four different ways. Makes just as much sense each way, my boss said. He will die for that. Soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I printed out my application code and pasted it on the puzzle pieces .
Then I reassembled it in four different ways .
Makes just as much sense each way , my boss said .
He will die for that .
Soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I printed out my application code and pasted it on the puzzle pieces.
Then I reassembled it in four different ways.
Makes just as much sense each way, my boss said.
He will die for that.
Soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30401252</id>
	<title>Re:puzzle?</title>
	<author>Nathrael</author>
	<datestamp>1260544680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds a lot like glorified real-life Paint to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds a lot like glorified real-life Paint to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds a lot like glorified real-life Paint to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396844</id>
	<title>Pixelblocks</title>
	<author>\_KiTA\_</author>
	<datestamp>1260450720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I liked these better when they were called <a href="http://www.pixelblocks.com/" title="pixelblocks.com">PixelBlocks</a> [pixelblocks.com].</p><p>I have a FF1 Fighter and a DQ1 Slime on my desk.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I liked these better when they were called PixelBlocks [ pixelblocks.com ] .I have a FF1 Fighter and a DQ1 Slime on my desk .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I liked these better when they were called PixelBlocks [pixelblocks.com].I have a FF1 Fighter and a DQ1 Slime on my desk.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396258</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260447420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>300! means 300 factorial.  Ie, 300*299*298*...*1</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>300 !
means 300 factorial .
Ie , 300 * 299 * 298 * ... * 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>300!
means 300 factorial.
Ie, 300*299*298*...*1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399548</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260528060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget the human visual system. The same combination of tiles maybe not always be perceived the same way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget the human visual system .
The same combination of tiles maybe not always be perceived the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget the human visual system.
The same combination of tiles maybe not always be perceived the same way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397720</id>
	<title>infinite?</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1260457740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just a minor quibble, but 300 pixels are <b>not</b> worth an infinite number of pictures.  They are actually only worth 300! (or 306 057 512 216 440 636 035 370 461 297 268 629 388 588 804 173 576 999 416 776 741 259 476 533 176 716 867 465 515 291 422 477 573 349 939 147 888 701 726 368 864 263 907 759 003 154 226 842 927 906 974 559 841 225 476 930 271 954 604 008 012 215 776 252 176 854 255 965 356 903 506 788 725 264 321 896 264 299 365 204 576 448 830 388 909 753 943 489 625 436 053 225 980 776 521 270 822 437 639 449 120 128 678 675 368 305 712 293 681 943 649 956 460 498 166 450 227 716 500 185 176 546 469 340 112 226 034 729 724 066 333 258 583 506 870 150 169 794 168 850 353 752 137 554 910 289 126 407 157 154 830 282 284 937 952 636 580 145 235 233 156 936 482 233 436 799 254 594 095 276 820 608 062 232 812 387 383 880 817 049 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000) pictures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a minor quibble , but 300 pixels are not worth an infinite number of pictures .
They are actually only worth 300 !
( or 306 057 512 216 440 636 035 370 461 297 268 629 388 588 804 173 576 999 416 776 741 259 476 533 176 716 867 465 515 291 422 477 573 349 939 147 888 701 726 368 864 263 907 759 003 154 226 842 927 906 974 559 841 225 476 930 271 954 604 008 012 215 776 252 176 854 255 965 356 903 506 788 725 264 321 896 264 299 365 204 576 448 830 388 909 753 943 489 625 436 053 225 980 776 521 270 822 437 639 449 120 128 678 675 368 305 712 293 681 943 649 956 460 498 166 450 227 716 500 185 176 546 469 340 112 226 034 729 724 066 333 258 583 506 870 150 169 794 168 850 353 752 137 554 910 289 126 407 157 154 830 282 284 937 952 636 580 145 235 233 156 936 482 233 436 799 254 594 095 276 820 608 062 232 812 387 383 880 817 049 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 ) pictures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a minor quibble, but 300 pixels are not worth an infinite number of pictures.
They are actually only worth 300!
(or 306 057 512 216 440 636 035 370 461 297 268 629 388 588 804 173 576 999 416 776 741 259 476 533 176 716 867 465 515 291 422 477 573 349 939 147 888 701 726 368 864 263 907 759 003 154 226 842 927 906 974 559 841 225 476 930 271 954 604 008 012 215 776 252 176 854 255 965 356 903 506 788 725 264 321 896 264 299 365 204 576 448 830 388 909 753 943 489 625 436 053 225 980 776 521 270 822 437 639 449 120 128 678 675 368 305 712 293 681 943 649 956 460 498 166 450 227 716 500 185 176 546 469 340 112 226 034 729 724 066 333 258 583 506 870 150 169 794 168 850 353 752 137 554 910 289 126 407 157 154 830 282 284 937 952 636 580 145 235 233 156 936 482 233 436 799 254 594 095 276 820 608 062 232 812 387 383 880 817 049 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000) pictures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396542</id>
	<title>For those without a decent calculator...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260448920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>300! (factorial) ~= 3.06 x 10^614</p><p>That's how many combinations there are, if each piece is unique and is used in the same 15x20 grid each time.</p><p>To put that in perspective, there are only about 10^80 atoms in the universe. You would need 2042 bits to represent that number in binary.</p><p>So yeah. For all intents and purposes, that's limitless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>300 !
( factorial ) ~ = 3.06 x 10 ^ 614That 's how many combinations there are , if each piece is unique and is used in the same 15x20 grid each time.To put that in perspective , there are only about 10 ^ 80 atoms in the universe .
You would need 2042 bits to represent that number in binary.So yeah .
For all intents and purposes , that 's limitless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>300!
(factorial) ~= 3.06 x 10^614That's how many combinations there are, if each piece is unique and is used in the same 15x20 grid each time.To put that in perspective, there are only about 10^80 atoms in the universe.
You would need 2042 bits to represent that number in binary.So yeah.
For all intents and purposes, that's limitless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398364</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're an idiot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397828</id>
	<title>Is it just me...</title>
	<author>barfy</author>
	<datestamp>1260458640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or does the product sound like Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's saying "Jigsaw Puzzle".</p><p>It's a "jigazo puzzle".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or does the product sound like Mickey Rooney 's character in Breakfast at Tiffany 's saying " Jigsaw Puzzle " .It 's a " jigazo puzzle " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or does the product sound like Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's saying "Jigsaw Puzzle".It's a "jigazo puzzle".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399326</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260524640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Each piece can be rotated individually, meaning you have to multiply your huge-ass number by 4^300</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Each piece can be rotated individually , meaning you have to multiply your huge-ass number by 4 ^ 300</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Each piece can be rotated individually, meaning you have to multiply your huge-ass number by 4^300</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396260</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260447420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there was a exclamation mark. 300 factorial, 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... x 2 x 1.</p><p>Incidentally, if anyone wants to calculate that, you'll need to use a float, and probably a double-, or quadruple-precision (YMMV) one at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there was a exclamation mark .
300 factorial , 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x ... x 2 x 1.Incidentally , if anyone wants to calculate that , you 'll need to use a float , and probably a double- , or quadruple-precision ( YMMV ) one at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there was a exclamation mark.
300 factorial, 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x ... x 2 x 1.Incidentally, if anyone wants to calculate that, you'll need to use a float, and probably a double-, or quadruple-precision (YMMV) one at that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397500</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260455880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They made a special word for this kind of situation: <i>transfinite</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>They made a special word for this kind of situation : transfinite</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They made a special word for this kind of situation: transfinite</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397258</id>
	<title>Re:Looks familiar</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1260453780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I don't know about that. I've used some converters and it was a little rough.  300 pixels is better resolution than some old cell phone screens lol.  I think you can do better than ASCII art level with this thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I do n't know about that .
I 've used some converters and it was a little rough .
300 pixels is better resolution than some old cell phone screens lol .
I think you can do better than ASCII art level with this thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I don't know about that.
I've used some converters and it was a little rough.
300 pixels is better resolution than some old cell phone screens lol.
I think you can do better than ASCII art level with this thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397458</id>
	<title>Re:love the name</title>
	<author>Riktov</author>
	<datestamp>1260455460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Jigazo" means "self-portrait" in Japanese. Clever naming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Jigazo " means " self-portrait " in Japanese .
Clever naming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Jigazo" means "self-portrait" in Japanese.
Clever naming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399606</id>
	<title>300!?</title>
	<author>Mr\_Miagi</author>
	<datestamp>1260528720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is madness!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is madness !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is madness!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260447180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm, with 300 pieces there are definitely more than 300 combinations of  pieces. Considering you can put it into any shape. That's like saying you're 1024 pixel monitor can only show 1024 different pictures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm , with 300 pieces there are definitely more than 300 combinations of pieces .
Considering you can put it into any shape .
That 's like saying you 're 1024 pixel monitor can only show 1024 different pictures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm, with 300 pieces there are definitely more than 300 combinations of  pieces.
Considering you can put it into any shape.
That's like saying you're 1024 pixel monitor can only show 1024 different pictures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399924</id>
	<title>A better idea</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1260533640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead, get yourself an arrangement of colored tiles, create a custom palette based on them, then convert the image of your choice to your palette colors. Et voila! Set grid to 1px, Zoom in, and get to tilin'. Then you can glue it all down to a coffee table when you're done and have a work of art that some idiot will pay you money for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead , get yourself an arrangement of colored tiles , create a custom palette based on them , then convert the image of your choice to your palette colors .
Et voila !
Set grid to 1px , Zoom in , and get to tilin' .
Then you can glue it all down to a coffee table when you 're done and have a work of art that some idiot will pay you money for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead, get yourself an arrangement of colored tiles, create a custom palette based on them, then convert the image of your choice to your palette colors.
Et voila!
Set grid to 1px, Zoom in, and get to tilin'.
Then you can glue it all down to a coffee table when you're done and have a work of art that some idiot will pay you money for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396410</id>
	<title>Re:puzzle?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260448200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had something similar as a kid, but there were two colors of varying saturation.  Grey (from black to white), and gold (from almost white to  intensely saturated).  The pieces were different shapes, though, so there was a puzzle aspect to it, though all the pieces were some number of squares in different configurations (like tetris pieces, but more shapes in different sizes of 1 to 10 or so squares).<br> <br>It came with a few patterns to copy from (tiger, city landscape, I can't recall the others, since I never did them).<br> <br>Unfortunately, there was no www at the time, so no website to submit pictures to for patterns.  One of my brothers did make some nice pictures based on photographs.<br> <br>The memory is a bit hazy, but I know the company that made it was asian (I remember there were pictograms and poorly translate English on the box).<br> <br>I know, I know -- cool story bro.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had something similar as a kid , but there were two colors of varying saturation .
Grey ( from black to white ) , and gold ( from almost white to intensely saturated ) .
The pieces were different shapes , though , so there was a puzzle aspect to it , though all the pieces were some number of squares in different configurations ( like tetris pieces , but more shapes in different sizes of 1 to 10 or so squares ) .
It came with a few patterns to copy from ( tiger , city landscape , I ca n't recall the others , since I never did them ) .
Unfortunately , there was no www at the time , so no website to submit pictures to for patterns .
One of my brothers did make some nice pictures based on photographs .
The memory is a bit hazy , but I know the company that made it was asian ( I remember there were pictograms and poorly translate English on the box ) .
I know , I know -- cool story bro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had something similar as a kid, but there were two colors of varying saturation.
Grey (from black to white), and gold (from almost white to  intensely saturated).
The pieces were different shapes, though, so there was a puzzle aspect to it, though all the pieces were some number of squares in different configurations (like tetris pieces, but more shapes in different sizes of 1 to 10 or so squares).
It came with a few patterns to copy from (tiger, city landscape, I can't recall the others, since I never did them).
Unfortunately, there was no www at the time, so no website to submit pictures to for patterns.
One of my brothers did make some nice pictures based on photographs.
The memory is a bit hazy, but I know the company that made it was asian (I remember there were pictograms and poorly translate English on the box).
I know, I know -- cool story bro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397766</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1260458100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>300! combinations at 300x1<br>300! combinations at 150x2<br>300! combinations at 100x3<br>.<br>.<br>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>300 !
combinations at 300x1300 !
combinations at 150x2300 !
combinations at 100x3.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>300!
combinations at 300x1300!
combinations at 150x2300!
combinations at 100x3...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396632</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1260449400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming it's a standard 4-sided, 1 connection per side puzzle piece, and discounting gradient pieces (rotations), and assuming each piece is unique (since I don't know the number per colors)...</p><p>Piece 1 can go in 1 place.<br>Piece 2 can go in 4 places.<br>Piece 3 can go in 6 places.<br>Piece 4 can go in 8 places.<br>Piece 5 can go in 10 or 9 places.</p><p>Etc.</p><p>Maximum ridiculousness results in 600 place choices for the last piece.  This gives a loose upper bound of 600*598*596...*4*1 / 4 (cardinal rotations) total layouts.  ( = 300! * 2^297 layouts.)  This is a loose upper bound because of the fact that when placing a piece you will often connect to more than 1 existing piece.  Simply substitute 2^297 with x^299 / 4, where x is your average edge growth factor.</p><p>There are only 9 rectangular layouts.<br>300x1<br>150x2<br>100x3<br>75x4<br>60x5<br>50x6<br>30x10<br>25x12<br>20x15</p><p>We're looking at 9 * 300! sane builds.</p><p>We're looking at 300! * 300! * X^299 / 4 for free-layout builds, where X is the average edge-growth factor (and is between 1 and 2).</p><p>! indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming it 's a standard 4-sided , 1 connection per side puzzle piece , and discounting gradient pieces ( rotations ) , and assuming each piece is unique ( since I do n't know the number per colors ) ...Piece 1 can go in 1 place.Piece 2 can go in 4 places.Piece 3 can go in 6 places.Piece 4 can go in 8 places.Piece 5 can go in 10 or 9 places.Etc.Maximum ridiculousness results in 600 place choices for the last piece .
This gives a loose upper bound of 600 * 598 * 596... * 4 * 1 / 4 ( cardinal rotations ) total layouts .
( = 300 !
* 2 ^ 297 layouts .
) This is a loose upper bound because of the fact that when placing a piece you will often connect to more than 1 existing piece .
Simply substitute 2 ^ 297 with x ^ 299 / 4 , where x is your average edge growth factor.There are only 9 rectangular layouts.300x1150x2100x375x460x550x630x1025x1220x15We 're looking at 9 * 300 !
sane builds.We 're looking at 300 !
* 300 !
* X ^ 299 / 4 for free-layout builds , where X is the average edge-growth factor ( and is between 1 and 2 ) . !
indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming it's a standard 4-sided, 1 connection per side puzzle piece, and discounting gradient pieces (rotations), and assuming each piece is unique (since I don't know the number per colors)...Piece 1 can go in 1 place.Piece 2 can go in 4 places.Piece 3 can go in 6 places.Piece 4 can go in 8 places.Piece 5 can go in 10 or 9 places.Etc.Maximum ridiculousness results in 600 place choices for the last piece.
This gives a loose upper bound of 600*598*596...*4*1 / 4 (cardinal rotations) total layouts.
( = 300!
* 2^297 layouts.
)  This is a loose upper bound because of the fact that when placing a piece you will often connect to more than 1 existing piece.
Simply substitute 2^297 with x^299 / 4, where x is your average edge growth factor.There are only 9 rectangular layouts.300x1150x2100x375x460x550x630x1025x1220x15We're looking at 9 * 300!
sane builds.We're looking at 300!
* 300!
* X^299 / 4 for free-layout builds, where X is the average edge-growth factor (and is between 1 and 2).!
indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397900</id>
	<title>Now all we need...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260459360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398422</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260466860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could probably get more than that if you rotate 90 degrees on the same spot those pixels that have a color gradient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could probably get more than that if you rotate 90 degrees on the same spot those pixels that have a color gradient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could probably get more than that if you rotate 90 degrees on the same spot those pixels that have a color gradient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397330</id>
	<title>If it was not japanese...</title>
	<author>mad flyer</author>
	<datestamp>1260454440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be considered totally retarded... But as usual the 'japan' aura hide the fact that it's nothing more than manual rasterisation...</p><p>Yes you can use human to do machine (computer) work... is it always smart/usefull/entertaining in a non masochist way ? not often...</p><p>Next up on 'news from japan' two new devices who, when combined can perfectly replace your printer:<br>pen and paper...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be considered totally retarded... But as usual the 'japan ' aura hide the fact that it 's nothing more than manual rasterisation...Yes you can use human to do machine ( computer ) work... is it always smart/usefull/entertaining in a non masochist way ?
not often...Next up on 'news from japan ' two new devices who , when combined can perfectly replace your printer : pen and paper.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be considered totally retarded... But as usual the 'japan' aura hide the fact that it's nothing more than manual rasterisation...Yes you can use human to do machine (computer) work... is it always smart/usefull/entertaining in a non masochist way ?
not often...Next up on 'news from japan' two new devices who, when combined can perfectly replace your printer:pen and paper...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399360</id>
	<title>Highly offtopic</title>
	<author>perryizgr8</author>
	<datestamp>1260525120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just entered fac(300) and before I could release the calc button I got 16 significant digits. And this is using a java app on my 200mhz phone with music playing in the background and slashdot open in opera mini. Can anyone tell me if it really multiplied 300 times or is it some neat trick?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just entered fac ( 300 ) and before I could release the calc button I got 16 significant digits .
And this is using a java app on my 200mhz phone with music playing in the background and slashdot open in opera mini .
Can anyone tell me if it really multiplied 300 times or is it some neat trick ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just entered fac(300) and before I could release the calc button I got 16 significant digits.
And this is using a java app on my 200mhz phone with music playing in the background and slashdot open in opera mini.
Can anyone tell me if it really multiplied 300 times or is it some neat trick?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399604</id>
	<title>here's the amazing thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260528660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"here's the amazing thing: take a photo (for example, of yourself) with a cell-phone, e-mail it to the company, and they will send you back a pattern that will recreate that photo."</p><p>Sorry, but that is not amazing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" here 's the amazing thing : take a photo ( for example , of yourself ) with a cell-phone , e-mail it to the company , and they will send you back a pattern that will recreate that photo .
" Sorry , but that is not amazing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"here's the amazing thing: take a photo (for example, of yourself) with a cell-phone, e-mail it to the company, and they will send you back a pattern that will recreate that photo.
"Sorry, but that is not amazing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399954</id>
	<title>However...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260534000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it cannot make a picture of my wife - that is: all black.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it can not make a picture of my wife - that is : all black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it cannot make a picture of my wife - that is: all black.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396278</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260447480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot to include rotations.  Its 1200!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to include rotations .
Its 1200 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to include rotations.
Its 1200!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397946</id>
	<title>Where can I get one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260459660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice Christmas present... Seems to cost about 1890 yen?  $22 or so.  Ship to US?</p><p>I see a couple on Ebay for $70 (pffft, yeah right).  Any ideas?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice Christmas present... Seems to cost about 1890 yen ?
$ 22 or so .
Ship to US ? I see a couple on Ebay for $ 70 ( pffft , yeah right ) .
Any ideas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice Christmas present... Seems to cost about 1890 yen?
$22 or so.
Ship to US?I see a couple on Ebay for $70 (pffft, yeah right).
Any ideas?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399392</id>
	<title>But it's not a puzzle anymore!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260525540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are no differing nipples and holes anymore, so you can&rsquo;t fail anymore. Which means that you can put it together in a wrong way without noticing. Oh, wait, there is a list of how to put it together, killing the <em>whole point</em> of putting a puzzle together.</p><p>I don&rsquo;t think that that way it will have any chances, after this little hype is over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no differing nipples and holes anymore , so you can    t fail anymore .
Which means that you can put it together in a wrong way without noticing .
Oh , wait , there is a list of how to put it together , killing the whole point of putting a puzzle together.I don    t think that that way it will have any chances , after this little hype is over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no differing nipples and holes anymore, so you can’t fail anymore.
Which means that you can put it together in a wrong way without noticing.
Oh, wait, there is a list of how to put it together, killing the whole point of putting a puzzle together.I don’t think that that way it will have any chances, after this little hype is over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397488</id>
	<title>Great site.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260455760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out http://www.ustillup.com for late night chat, dating and hook up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out http : //www.ustillup.com for late night chat , dating and hook up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out http://www.ustillup.com for late night chat, dating and hook up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398266</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260464700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, what a fucking 'tard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , what a fucking 'tard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, what a fucking 'tard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398032</id>
	<title>dithering</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260460740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want one of these in a special CGA-colors edition.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want one of these in a special CGA-colors edition .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want one of these in a special CGA-colors edition.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396620</id>
	<title>Re:Looks familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260449340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it is the puzzle version of Post-It art.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is the puzzle version of Post-It art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it is the puzzle version of Post-It art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397698</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1260457500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More like 300! I'd say.</p></div><p>Thats <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=300!" title="wolframalpha.com">pretty damn close</a> [wolframalpha.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More like 300 !
I 'd say.Thats pretty damn close [ wolframalpha.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like 300!
I'd say.Thats pretty damn close [wolframalpha.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396970</id>
	<title>love the name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260451560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love the name Jigazo Puzzle. It sounds like a Japanese guy saying "jigsaw" but with a thick Japanese accent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the name Jigazo Puzzle .
It sounds like a Japanese guy saying " jigsaw " but with a thick Japanese accent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the name Jigazo Puzzle.
It sounds like a Japanese guy saying "jigsaw" but with a thick Japanese accent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396104</id>
	<title>Sweet</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1260446820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now tell me the pattern for creating an image of unspeakable evil; like the Great Cthulhu. <br>Cthulhu fhtagn! Cthulhu fhtagn! Ia! Ia! Ia! The sleeper awakens!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now tell me the pattern for creating an image of unspeakable evil ; like the Great Cthulhu .
Cthulhu fhtagn !
Cthulhu fhtagn !
Ia ! Ia !
Ia ! The sleeper awakens !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now tell me the pattern for creating an image of unspeakable evil; like the Great Cthulhu.
Cthulhu fhtagn!
Cthulhu fhtagn!
Ia! Ia!
Ia! The sleeper awakens!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396862</id>
	<title>Colorblind</title>
	<author>assemblerex</author>
	<datestamp>1260450780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not colorblind friendly for sure! One box of blank pieces please!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not colorblind friendly for sure !
One box of blank pieces please !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not colorblind friendly for sure!
One box of blank pieces please!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397516</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1260456060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Piece 1 can go in 1 place.<br>
Piece 2 can go in 4 places.</i> <br> <br>
I'll buy that, so far.<br> <br>
<i>Piece 3 can go in 6 places.</i> <br> <br>
Here it breaks down.  Suppose you place piece one in the center, and piece two on top of piece one.  Piece 3 can go:<ol> <li>On top of piece 2</li><li>To the right of piece 2</li><li>To the right of piece 1</li><li>Below piece 1</li><li>To the left of piece 1</li><li>To the left of piece 2</li></ol><p>Now true, that is six places, but for only one of the layouts of pieces one and two.  Suppose you place piece one in the center, and piece two to the right of piece 1.  Piece 3 can go:</p><ol> <li>On top of piece 1</li><li>On top of piece 2</li><li>To the right of piece 2</li><li>Below piece 2</li><li>Below piece 1</li><li>To the left of piece 1</li></ol><p>Another six layouts.  In fact, there will be six layouts for each of the four layouts of the first two pieces.<br> <br>
Unfortunately, this method of counting then becomes unwieldly.  Consider the following layout of four pieces:<br> <br>Piece one is in the center.<br>Piece 2 is above piece 1.<br>Piece 3 is to the right of piece 2.<br> <br>Now piece 4 can go:</p><ol> <li>On top of piece 2</li><li>On top of piece 3</li><li>To the right of piece 3</li><li>Below piece 3</li><li>To the right of piece 1</li></ol><p>  Wait a minute.  Those last two are the same configuration.  You're going to get eight configurations of those four pieces that are identical.  The problem of duplicate layouts increases with each additional piece.  Your count may yield a maximum, but it won't yield a true count.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Piece 1 can go in 1 place .
Piece 2 can go in 4 places .
I 'll buy that , so far .
Piece 3 can go in 6 places .
Here it breaks down .
Suppose you place piece one in the center , and piece two on top of piece one .
Piece 3 can go : On top of piece 2To the right of piece 2To the right of piece 1Below piece 1To the left of piece 1To the left of piece 2Now true , that is six places , but for only one of the layouts of pieces one and two .
Suppose you place piece one in the center , and piece two to the right of piece 1 .
Piece 3 can go : On top of piece 1On top of piece 2To the right of piece 2Below piece 2Below piece 1To the left of piece 1Another six layouts .
In fact , there will be six layouts for each of the four layouts of the first two pieces .
Unfortunately , this method of counting then becomes unwieldly .
Consider the following layout of four pieces : Piece one is in the center.Piece 2 is above piece 1.Piece 3 is to the right of piece 2 .
Now piece 4 can go : On top of piece 2On top of piece 3To the right of piece 3Below piece 3To the right of piece 1 Wait a minute .
Those last two are the same configuration .
You 're going to get eight configurations of those four pieces that are identical .
The problem of duplicate layouts increases with each additional piece .
Your count may yield a maximum , but it wo n't yield a true count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Piece 1 can go in 1 place.
Piece 2 can go in 4 places.
I'll buy that, so far.
Piece 3 can go in 6 places.
Here it breaks down.
Suppose you place piece one in the center, and piece two on top of piece one.
Piece 3 can go: On top of piece 2To the right of piece 2To the right of piece 1Below piece 1To the left of piece 1To the left of piece 2Now true, that is six places, but for only one of the layouts of pieces one and two.
Suppose you place piece one in the center, and piece two to the right of piece 1.
Piece 3 can go: On top of piece 1On top of piece 2To the right of piece 2Below piece 2Below piece 1To the left of piece 1Another six layouts.
In fact, there will be six layouts for each of the four layouts of the first two pieces.
Unfortunately, this method of counting then becomes unwieldly.
Consider the following layout of four pieces: Piece one is in the center.Piece 2 is above piece 1.Piece 3 is to the right of piece 2.
Now piece 4 can go: On top of piece 2On top of piece 3To the right of piece 3Below piece 3To the right of piece 1  Wait a minute.
Those last two are the same configuration.
You're going to get eight configurations of those four pieces that are identical.
The problem of duplicate layouts increases with each additional piece.
Your count may yield a maximum, but it won't yield a true count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396616</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>1729</author>
	<datestamp>1260449340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there was a exclamation mark. 300 factorial, 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... x 2 x 1.</p><p>Incidentally, if anyone wants to calculate that, <b>you'll need to use a float</b>, and probably a double-, or quadruple-precision (YMMV) one at that.</p></div><p>If you're computing an integer-valued function, the result should be an integer.  In Python, which uses arbitrary precision integers by default, it's as simple as:<br><tt><br>&gt;&gt;&gt; import math<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; math.factorial(300)<br>306057512...  [truncated to get past the lameness filter]<br></tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there was a exclamation mark .
300 factorial , 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x ... x 2 x 1.Incidentally , if anyone wants to calculate that , you 'll need to use a float , and probably a double- , or quadruple-precision ( YMMV ) one at that.If you 're computing an integer-valued function , the result should be an integer .
In Python , which uses arbitrary precision integers by default , it 's as simple as : &gt; &gt; &gt; import math &gt; &gt; &gt; math.factorial ( 300 ) 306057512... [ truncated to get past the lameness filter ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there was a exclamation mark.
300 factorial, 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x ... x 2 x 1.Incidentally, if anyone wants to calculate that, you'll need to use a float, and probably a double-, or quadruple-precision (YMMV) one at that.If you're computing an integer-valued function, the result should be an integer.
In Python, which uses arbitrary precision integers by default, it's as simple as:&gt;&gt;&gt; import math&gt;&gt;&gt; math.factorial(300)306057512...  [truncated to get past the lameness filter]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398274</id>
	<title>All i know is:</title>
	<author>cyberzephyr</author>
	<datestamp>1260464700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to buy one!  I think it's unique and cool.  I probably would buy a couple for friends.  Unfortunately, i coul not get babel fish to translate for an address.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to buy one !
I think it 's unique and cool .
I probably would buy a couple for friends .
Unfortunately , i coul not get babel fish to translate for an address .
: - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to buy one!
I think it's unique and cool.
I probably would buy a couple for friends.
Unfortunately, i coul not get babel fish to translate for an address.
:-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397314</id>
	<title>Re:Sweet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260454320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i wish i still had mod points!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>i wish i still had mod points ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wish i still had mod points!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396104</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398690</id>
	<title>Lame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260471120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow this is alot lamer than the summary makes it out to be.  Ever heard of a mosaic before?  My mom makes them all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow this is alot lamer than the summary makes it out to be .
Ever heard of a mosaic before ?
My mom makes them all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow this is alot lamer than the summary makes it out to be.
Ever heard of a mosaic before?
My mom makes them all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399040</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1260563880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, but I would be truly impressed if anyone could regard that number of combinations anything but infinite to all intents and purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , but I would be truly impressed if anyone could regard that number of combinations anything but infinite to all intents and purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, but I would be truly impressed if anyone could regard that number of combinations anything but infinite to all intents and purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399690</id>
	<title>Japan rediscovers the pixel....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260530100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to sound rash, but what the hell is supposed to be so amazing about this? Neither the concept of mosiacs or tesselating shapes is new, and putting the two together is hardly a great leap in thinking. This is hardly different to what I expect a lot of kids did with their Lego.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to sound rash , but what the hell is supposed to be so amazing about this ?
Neither the concept of mosiacs or tesselating shapes is new , and putting the two together is hardly a great leap in thinking .
This is hardly different to what I expect a lot of kids did with their Lego .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to sound rash, but what the hell is supposed to be so amazing about this?
Neither the concept of mosiacs or tesselating shapes is new, and putting the two together is hardly a great leap in thinking.
This is hardly different to what I expect a lot of kids did with their Lego.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397092</id>
	<title>Lego Mosaic</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1260452340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems an awful lot like the Lego mosaics that people make. Lego also did a mosaic product for a while where you could upload an image and they would send you parts and instructions for making the image with 1x1 Lego plates.</p><p>I believe there is even software now to make the 'maps' yourself, much like cross-stitch, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems an awful lot like the Lego mosaics that people make .
Lego also did a mosaic product for a while where you could upload an image and they would send you parts and instructions for making the image with 1x1 Lego plates.I believe there is even software now to make the 'maps ' yourself , much like cross-stitch , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems an awful lot like the Lego mosaics that people make.
Lego also did a mosaic product for a while where you could upload an image and they would send you parts and instructions for making the image with 1x1 Lego plates.I believe there is even software now to make the 'maps' yourself, much like cross-stitch, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397262</id>
	<title>Ken Knowlton's mosaics</title>
	<author>dpbsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1260453840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that the pieces tile exactly as if they were squares, I'm not that impressed.</p><p>I'm much more impressed by what Ken Knowlton <a href="http://www.knowltonmosaics.com/" title="knowltonmosaics.com"> manages to do with seashells.</a> [knowltonmosaics.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the pieces tile exactly as if they were squares , I 'm not that impressed.I 'm much more impressed by what Ken Knowlton manages to do with seashells .
[ knowltonmosaics.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the pieces tile exactly as if they were squares, I'm not that impressed.I'm much more impressed by what Ken Knowlton  manages to do with seashells.
[knowltonmosaics.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398044</id>
	<title>Stop the "300!" BS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260460920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does everyone write about "Oh, its only 300! images! Oh noes!11"? It's not 300! combination, it's actually a lot more. Keep in mind that each piece can be rotated four ways which gives you</p><p>300! * 4^300</p><p>combinations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everyone write about " Oh , its only 300 !
images ! Oh noes ! 11 " ?
It 's not 300 !
combination , it 's actually a lot more .
Keep in mind that each piece can be rotated four ways which gives you300 !
* 4 ^ 300combinations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everyone write about "Oh, its only 300!
images! Oh noes!11"?
It's not 300!
combination, it's actually a lot more.
Keep in mind that each piece can be rotated four ways which gives you300!
* 4^300combinations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30400442</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Steve Max</author>
	<datestamp>1260539820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the values you're working with are of the order of one, then yes: 3x10^614 would, for all accounts and purposes, be infinite. But if you're working with values of the order of 10^1000, then 3x10^614 would be pretty much zero.<br>
<br>
One of the smartest physicists who has never been awarded a Nobel prize I've ever known used to say that "big", "small", "near", "far", etc are meaningless words if used by themselves. They have only meaning when youput them in context; 3x10^614 is big compared to one, but small compared to 10^1000, just like the Sun is very close to us compared to the nearest quasars, but very far away compared to the nearest cloud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the values you 're working with are of the order of one , then yes : 3x10 ^ 614 would , for all accounts and purposes , be infinite .
But if you 're working with values of the order of 10 ^ 1000 , then 3x10 ^ 614 would be pretty much zero .
One of the smartest physicists who has never been awarded a Nobel prize I 've ever known used to say that " big " , " small " , " near " , " far " , etc are meaningless words if used by themselves .
They have only meaning when youput them in context ; 3x10 ^ 614 is big compared to one , but small compared to 10 ^ 1000 , just like the Sun is very close to us compared to the nearest quasars , but very far away compared to the nearest cloud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the values you're working with are of the order of one, then yes: 3x10^614 would, for all accounts and purposes, be infinite.
But if you're working with values of the order of 10^1000, then 3x10^614 would be pretty much zero.
One of the smartest physicists who has never been awarded a Nobel prize I've ever known used to say that "big", "small", "near", "far", etc are meaningless words if used by themselves.
They have only meaning when youput them in context; 3x10^614 is big compared to one, but small compared to 10^1000, just like the Sun is very close to us compared to the nearest quasars, but very far away compared to the nearest cloud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088</id>
	<title>infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260446760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>More like 300! I'd say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More like 300 !
I 'd say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like 300!
I'd say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399614</id>
	<title>Re:Sweet</title>
	<author>tomtomtom777</author>
	<datestamp>1260528780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You must be new here, it should be obvious. Send the company a picture of goatse, and have your pattern...</p></div><p>I'm not sure that is possible. From google translate of the second link:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However, this fact "made a slight tint of color patterns," is what, this Jigazopazuru liver. By utilizing this pattern, with a whopping "Self Portrait" I would make the. Moreover, not only their faces can also face other people. Even great men in history, <b>even heterosexual love</b>, even in the face of the pet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "If life on Earth, even in the face any" I would make! What kind of mechanism and say something, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Well anyway, let's say that you actually try. </p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here , it should be obvious .
Send the company a picture of goatse , and have your pattern...I 'm not sure that is possible .
From google translate of the second link : However , this fact " made a slight tint of color patterns , " is what , this Jigazopazuru liver .
By utilizing this pattern , with a whopping " Self Portrait " I would make the .
Moreover , not only their faces can also face other people .
Even great men in history , even heterosexual love , even in the face of the pet ... " If life on Earth , even in the face any " I would make !
What kind of mechanism and say something , but ... Well anyway , let 's say that you actually try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here, it should be obvious.
Send the company a picture of goatse, and have your pattern...I'm not sure that is possible.
From google translate of the second link:However, this fact "made a slight tint of color patterns," is what, this Jigazopazuru liver.
By utilizing this pattern, with a whopping "Self Portrait" I would make the.
Moreover, not only their faces can also face other people.
Even great men in history, even heterosexual love, even in the face of the pet ... "If life on Earth, even in the face any" I would make!
What kind of mechanism and say something, but ... Well anyway, let's say that you actually try. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30401436</id>
	<title>Translation</title>
	<author>mattr</author>
	<datestamp>1260545520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FWIW it says take a photo with your cell phone, send it in and the response arrives.<br>They have variations in sepia, wine red, midnight blue, and a puzzle game -- but all are sold out.</p><p>By the way JIGAZO actually is how you read the three character name, which means "your own image" or maybe "self portrait image".</p><p>Here is what the separate white panel looks like:<br> <a href="http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/aw/d.html?is=m&amp;qid=1260541333&amp;a=B002HRFG7Q&amp;sr=8-4" title="amazon.co.jp">here</a> [amazon.co.jp] </p><p>And here is a blog, showing the process: <a href="http://clm.artiro.com/563" title="artiro.com">"I made the Jigazo puzzle!"</a> [artiro.com] <br>I'm not going to translate it entirely, but he says the pieces are nice and thick, and well formed. Also there is a guide image on the back of each piece and also, a light version of it is shown on the front of the piece as well so it's easy to understand.<br>It comes out looking quite good, the key is to look at it as if looking far away, with squinty eyes.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>It took him 90 minutes to make his first one, then the second time he got faster.</p><p>Translation..</p><p>Use the 300 pieces in the box and you can make anybody's face.<br>First in the World, a jigsaw puzzle that can do your face!<br>Jigazo Puzzle</p><p>Can you believe it?!<br>All the sample images shown here were made with the same 300 pieces.<br>In order to make your own face...<br>When you send a photo by cell phone email a response image will be sent back immediately.<br>Just put the pieces together the way it shows and voila!</p><p>By repositioning the same 300 pieces you can make images as varied as these!<br>1. Send your image to the email address printed in the included instruction manual<br>2. A response image with the answer arrives in your cell phone<br>3. When you line up the 300 pieces according to that, then your face is complete. You can use anyone's face!</p><p>(small print)<br>Sending your photo, and receiving the response image will incur packet communications charges according to your cell phone service provider's contract.<br>If you are going to be using it repeatedly, we recommend you use your service provider's fixed price unlimited packet plan.<br>Note that the creation of the response image by our company is without cost no matter how many times you use it.</p><p>Set contents<br>300 piece puzzle. Color of pieces differs depending on the set type.<br>Piece set-up tray<br>Starch adhesive and applicator spatula (or something like that)<br>Manual. Includes instruction images for the Mona Lisa, Girl with Pearl Earrings, Natsume Soseki (the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natsume\_S\%C5\%8Dseki" title="wikipedia.org">author</a> [wikipedia.org]), Kennedy (JFK), President Obama, Beethoven's face. You can immediately start playing with these faces without using a cell phone.</p><p>Other things you need:<br>A cell phone with camera functionality, from NTT DoCoMo, AU, Softbank Mobile (Disney Mobile and iPhone also included).<br>* When displaying your finished puzzle, please use separately sold 300 piece (white) panel specially for JIGAZO puzzles.</p><p>Price is 1890 yen, a bit over 20 bucks.</p><p>JIGAZO FAQ</p><p>Q1. When I send in a portrait photo with my cell phone, do you mail me back a finished puzzle?<br>A. No, that is incorrect. Your face is created only out of the 300 pieces in the box.</p><p>Q2. How do you do that?<br>A. There are 300 pieces in the box with slightly different tones.A program finds the tones closest to those of your face and sends back to your cell phone a response image specially for your face.</p><p>Q3. How quickly does the response image get sent back?<br>A. It depends on the state of the communications network, but in about 10 seconds it should be sent back and then you can immediately start playing.</p><p>Q4. How do you put the puzzle together?<br>A. Each of the pieces has a hint image on it, so you position the pieces as shown by the response animation. Enjoy watching your face gradually start to appear.</p><p>Q5. Can I only put the pieces together once?<br>A. No, you can redo it any number of times, and make anyone's face.You can pl</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW it says take a photo with your cell phone , send it in and the response arrives.They have variations in sepia , wine red , midnight blue , and a puzzle game -- but all are sold out.By the way JIGAZO actually is how you read the three character name , which means " your own image " or maybe " self portrait image " .Here is what the separate white panel looks like : here [ amazon.co.jp ] And here is a blog , showing the process : " I made the Jigazo puzzle !
" [ artiro.com ] I 'm not going to translate it entirely , but he says the pieces are nice and thick , and well formed .
Also there is a guide image on the back of each piece and also , a light version of it is shown on the front of the piece as well so it 's easy to understand.It comes out looking quite good , the key is to look at it as if looking far away , with squinty eyes .
; ) It took him 90 minutes to make his first one , then the second time he got faster.Translation..Use the 300 pieces in the box and you can make anybody 's face.First in the World , a jigsaw puzzle that can do your face ! Jigazo PuzzleCan you believe it ?
! All the sample images shown here were made with the same 300 pieces.In order to make your own face...When you send a photo by cell phone email a response image will be sent back immediately.Just put the pieces together the way it shows and voila ! By repositioning the same 300 pieces you can make images as varied as these ! 1 .
Send your image to the email address printed in the included instruction manual2 .
A response image with the answer arrives in your cell phone3 .
When you line up the 300 pieces according to that , then your face is complete .
You can use anyone 's face !
( small print ) Sending your photo , and receiving the response image will incur packet communications charges according to your cell phone service provider 's contract.If you are going to be using it repeatedly , we recommend you use your service provider 's fixed price unlimited packet plan.Note that the creation of the response image by our company is without cost no matter how many times you use it.Set contents300 piece puzzle .
Color of pieces differs depending on the set type.Piece set-up trayStarch adhesive and applicator spatula ( or something like that ) Manual .
Includes instruction images for the Mona Lisa , Girl with Pearl Earrings , Natsume Soseki ( the author [ wikipedia.org ] ) , Kennedy ( JFK ) , President Obama , Beethoven 's face .
You can immediately start playing with these faces without using a cell phone.Other things you need : A cell phone with camera functionality , from NTT DoCoMo , AU , Softbank Mobile ( Disney Mobile and iPhone also included ) .
* When displaying your finished puzzle , please use separately sold 300 piece ( white ) panel specially for JIGAZO puzzles.Price is 1890 yen , a bit over 20 bucks.JIGAZO FAQQ1 .
When I send in a portrait photo with my cell phone , do you mail me back a finished puzzle ? A .
No , that is incorrect .
Your face is created only out of the 300 pieces in the box.Q2 .
How do you do that ? A .
There are 300 pieces in the box with slightly different tones.A program finds the tones closest to those of your face and sends back to your cell phone a response image specially for your face.Q3 .
How quickly does the response image get sent back ? A .
It depends on the state of the communications network , but in about 10 seconds it should be sent back and then you can immediately start playing.Q4 .
How do you put the puzzle together ? A .
Each of the pieces has a hint image on it , so you position the pieces as shown by the response animation .
Enjoy watching your face gradually start to appear.Q5 .
Can I only put the pieces together once ? A .
No , you can redo it any number of times , and make anyone 's face.You can pl</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW it says take a photo with your cell phone, send it in and the response arrives.They have variations in sepia, wine red, midnight blue, and a puzzle game -- but all are sold out.By the way JIGAZO actually is how you read the three character name, which means "your own image" or maybe "self portrait image".Here is what the separate white panel looks like: here [amazon.co.jp] And here is a blog, showing the process: "I made the Jigazo puzzle!
" [artiro.com] I'm not going to translate it entirely, but he says the pieces are nice and thick, and well formed.
Also there is a guide image on the back of each piece and also, a light version of it is shown on the front of the piece as well so it's easy to understand.It comes out looking quite good, the key is to look at it as if looking far away, with squinty eyes.
;)It took him 90 minutes to make his first one, then the second time he got faster.Translation..Use the 300 pieces in the box and you can make anybody's face.First in the World, a jigsaw puzzle that can do your face!Jigazo PuzzleCan you believe it?
!All the sample images shown here were made with the same 300 pieces.In order to make your own face...When you send a photo by cell phone email a response image will be sent back immediately.Just put the pieces together the way it shows and voila!By repositioning the same 300 pieces you can make images as varied as these!1.
Send your image to the email address printed in the included instruction manual2.
A response image with the answer arrives in your cell phone3.
When you line up the 300 pieces according to that, then your face is complete.
You can use anyone's face!
(small print)Sending your photo, and receiving the response image will incur packet communications charges according to your cell phone service provider's contract.If you are going to be using it repeatedly, we recommend you use your service provider's fixed price unlimited packet plan.Note that the creation of the response image by our company is without cost no matter how many times you use it.Set contents300 piece puzzle.
Color of pieces differs depending on the set type.Piece set-up trayStarch adhesive and applicator spatula (or something like that)Manual.
Includes instruction images for the Mona Lisa, Girl with Pearl Earrings, Natsume Soseki (the author [wikipedia.org]), Kennedy (JFK), President Obama, Beethoven's face.
You can immediately start playing with these faces without using a cell phone.Other things you need:A cell phone with camera functionality, from NTT DoCoMo, AU, Softbank Mobile (Disney Mobile and iPhone also included).
* When displaying your finished puzzle, please use separately sold 300 piece (white) panel specially for JIGAZO puzzles.Price is 1890 yen, a bit over 20 bucks.JIGAZO FAQQ1.
When I send in a portrait photo with my cell phone, do you mail me back a finished puzzle?A.
No, that is incorrect.
Your face is created only out of the 300 pieces in the box.Q2.
How do you do that?A.
There are 300 pieces in the box with slightly different tones.A program finds the tones closest to those of your face and sends back to your cell phone a response image specially for your face.Q3.
How quickly does the response image get sent back?A.
It depends on the state of the communications network, but in about 10 seconds it should be sent back and then you can immediately start playing.Q4.
How do you put the puzzle together?A.
Each of the pieces has a hint image on it, so you position the pieces as shown by the response animation.
Enjoy watching your face gradually start to appear.Q5.
Can I only put the pieces together once?A.
No, you can redo it any number of times, and make anyone's face.You can pl</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30401334</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260544980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's like saying you're 1024 pixel monitor...</p></div><p>I am not!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's like saying you 're 1024 pixel monitor...I am not !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's like saying you're 1024 pixel monitor...I am not!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398150</id>
	<title>Re:infinite?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260462720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're computing an integer-valued function, the result should be an integer.</p></div><p>2 / 10 = douchebag.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're computing an integer-valued function , the result should be an integer.2 / 10 = douchebag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're computing an integer-valued function, the result should be an integer.2 / 10 = douchebag.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396616</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30400442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30400680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30401334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30401252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_2231237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398358
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399392
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30400680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30400442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396260
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396616
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398150
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397246
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398364
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30401334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30398556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30401252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_2231237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30397282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30396506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_2231237.30399614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
