<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_16_0323209</id>
	<title>Dying Star Mimics Our Sun's Death</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260993540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes <i>"In about 5 billion years, our Sun will face a nasty death. Scientists with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics this week released <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091215112047.htm">dramatic new pictures of a dying star</a> much like the Sun, about 550 light-years from Earth. According to the researchers, Chi Cygni has swollen in size to <a href="http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2009/pr200923\_images.html">become a red giant star</a> so large that if it were in our solar system it would swallow every planet out to Mars and cook the asteroid belt. The star has started to pulse dramatically, beating like a giant heart with a period of 408 days."</i> The research team produced a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhMeumI36BM">video of the pulsating star</a>, using infrared images captured via very long baseline interferometry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes " In about 5 billion years , our Sun will face a nasty death .
Scientists with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics this week released dramatic new pictures of a dying star much like the Sun , about 550 light-years from Earth .
According to the researchers , Chi Cygni has swollen in size to become a red giant star so large that if it were in our solar system it would swallow every planet out to Mars and cook the asteroid belt .
The star has started to pulse dramatically , beating like a giant heart with a period of 408 days .
" The research team produced a video of the pulsating star , using infrared images captured via very long baseline interferometry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes "In about 5 billion years, our Sun will face a nasty death.
Scientists with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics this week released dramatic new pictures of a dying star much like the Sun, about 550 light-years from Earth.
According to the researchers, Chi Cygni has swollen in size to become a red giant star so large that if it were in our solar system it would swallow every planet out to Mars and cook the asteroid belt.
The star has started to pulse dramatically, beating like a giant heart with a period of 408 days.
" The research team produced a video of the pulsating star, using infrared images captured via very long baseline interferometry.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455928</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1259671680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Sun is slowly getting hotter (over timescales of hundreds of millions of years) due to changes in the composition of its core.  In about one billion years this increase in temperature will be enough to have boiled off Earth's oceans making Earth a dead planet.  This will happen long before the Sun becomes a red giant, so unfortunately there will be no humans around to witness it, unless if we leave first and pay a visit to watch Sol's demise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Sun is slowly getting hotter ( over timescales of hundreds of millions of years ) due to changes in the composition of its core .
In about one billion years this increase in temperature will be enough to have boiled off Earth 's oceans making Earth a dead planet .
This will happen long before the Sun becomes a red giant , so unfortunately there will be no humans around to witness it , unless if we leave first and pay a visit to watch Sol 's demise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Sun is slowly getting hotter (over timescales of hundreds of millions of years) due to changes in the composition of its core.
In about one billion years this increase in temperature will be enough to have boiled off Earth's oceans making Earth a dead planet.
This will happen long before the Sun becomes a red giant, so unfortunately there will be no humans around to witness it, unless if we leave first and pay a visit to watch Sol's demise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454986</id>
	<title>Where are the pictures?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259659860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the SD link I can see "an artist's conception" of the dying star. This can be misleading. On the other hand, the video is cool. It could be cooler if it was accompanied by a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdyYGmibal4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">TARDIS sound effect...</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the SD link I can see " an artist 's conception " of the dying star .
This can be misleading .
On the other hand , the video is cool .
It could be cooler if it was accompanied by a TARDIS sound effect... [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the SD link I can see "an artist's conception" of the dying star.
This can be misleading.
On the other hand, the video is cool.
It could be cooler if it was accompanied by a TARDIS sound effect... [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454954</id>
	<title>Re:global warming</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1259659260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called <i>climate change</i> now. That way the dumbasses can say," We've never been at war with global warming, we've always been at war with global cooling"<br> <br>

And so it goes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called climate change now .
That way the dumbasses can say , " We 've never been at war with global warming , we 've always been at war with global cooling " And so it goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called climate change now.
That way the dumbasses can say," We've never been at war with global warming, we've always been at war with global cooling" 

And so it goes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455008</id>
	<title>dying star</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>oh my god you had me scared there for a minit I thought it said 5 thousand</htmltext>
<tokenext>oh my god you had me scared there for a minit I thought it said 5 thousand</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh my god you had me scared there for a minit I thought it said 5 thousand</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457074</id>
	<title>Re:Older than dirt</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1259680200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Older than dirt!? So what, this could happen like any moment then??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Older than dirt ! ?
So what , this could happen like any moment then ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Older than dirt!?
So what, this could happen like any moment then?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457312</id>
	<title>"thin gas" by time sun xpands to earth orbit</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1259681640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A hugely expanded sun would be a hot, tenuous gas by the time it expands to earth orbit.  People could acutal live in it with minor protection.  But the hot gas would relentlessly erode anything on the earth's surface. And eventually it would corrode away the earth itself after millions of years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A hugely expanded sun would be a hot , tenuous gas by the time it expands to earth orbit .
People could acutal live in it with minor protection .
But the hot gas would relentlessly erode anything on the earth 's surface .
And eventually it would corrode away the earth itself after millions of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A hugely expanded sun would be a hot, tenuous gas by the time it expands to earth orbit.
People could acutal live in it with minor protection.
But the hot gas would relentlessly erode anything on the earth's surface.
And eventually it would corrode away the earth itself after millions of years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459328</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1259689500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might suggest that you study the technology a bit more.  The Earth can support a much large population than 7 billion people using bio/nanotechnology to its full extent.  The biotechnology foundation is already in our hands and the nanotechnology foundation is being developed.  If the population drops to zero it will be because of our own stupidity and focus on the short term rather than the long term view.</p><p>We would never send bacteria on interstellar voyages.  Yes there are some which are hardy enough to survive the trip but the costs are so high and the trip so long that it would be pointless.  We would send nanorobots to dead or uninhabited (young) star systems programmed to transform them into potential places to live should individuals decide to leave the Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might suggest that you study the technology a bit more .
The Earth can support a much large population than 7 billion people using bio/nanotechnology to its full extent .
The biotechnology foundation is already in our hands and the nanotechnology foundation is being developed .
If the population drops to zero it will be because of our own stupidity and focus on the short term rather than the long term view.We would never send bacteria on interstellar voyages .
Yes there are some which are hardy enough to survive the trip but the costs are so high and the trip so long that it would be pointless .
We would send nanorobots to dead or uninhabited ( young ) star systems programmed to transform them into potential places to live should individuals decide to leave the Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might suggest that you study the technology a bit more.
The Earth can support a much large population than 7 billion people using bio/nanotechnology to its full extent.
The biotechnology foundation is already in our hands and the nanotechnology foundation is being developed.
If the population drops to zero it will be because of our own stupidity and focus on the short term rather than the long term view.We would never send bacteria on interstellar voyages.
Yes there are some which are hardy enough to survive the trip but the costs are so high and the trip so long that it would be pointless.
We would send nanorobots to dead or uninhabited (young) star systems programmed to transform them into potential places to live should individuals decide to leave the Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454878</id>
	<title>First!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259658120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nah</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nah</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nah</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459086</id>
	<title>Re:Not very long baseline interferometry</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1259688660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but the question is *why* can the data be recombined in radio astronomy and not IR astronomy.  I would think if its just a problem of having the actual light waves then it would be as easy as running an ultra-high purity fiber optic cable between the two observatories.  But if radio detectors can measure the frequencies sufficiently then why aren't we at the stage where IR or light detectors could as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but the question is * why * can the data be recombined in radio astronomy and not IR astronomy .
I would think if its just a problem of having the actual light waves then it would be as easy as running an ultra-high purity fiber optic cable between the two observatories .
But if radio detectors can measure the frequencies sufficiently then why are n't we at the stage where IR or light detectors could as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but the question is *why* can the data be recombined in radio astronomy and not IR astronomy.
I would think if its just a problem of having the actual light waves then it would be as easy as running an ultra-high purity fiber optic cable between the two observatories.
But if radio detectors can measure the frequencies sufficiently then why aren't we at the stage where IR or light detectors could as well?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457820</id>
	<title>Lazy Artists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259683860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought that "Artists Conception" looked oddly familiar. Then I remembered this; <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Discoveries/2009/0729/are-astronomers-watching-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-betelgeuse" title="csmonitor.com">http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Discoveries/2009/0729/are-astronomers-watching-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-betelgeuse</a> [csmonitor.com]</p><p>I seem to remember it was also in a <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/08/05/1231244/Surface-Plume-On-Betelgeuse-Imaged" title="slashdot.org">Slashdot article</a> [slashdot.org] that references <a href="http://astronomynow.com/news/n0907/29betel/" title="astronomynow.com">this</a> [astronomynow.com].</p><p>Uhm... so which is it, people? Or is it just clip art?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that " Artists Conception " looked oddly familiar .
Then I remembered this ; http : //www.csmonitor.com/Science/Discoveries/2009/0729/are-astronomers-watching-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-betelgeuse [ csmonitor.com ] I seem to remember it was also in a Slashdot article [ slashdot.org ] that references this [ astronomynow.com ] .Uhm... so which is it , people ?
Or is it just clip art ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that "Artists Conception" looked oddly familiar.
Then I remembered this; http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Discoveries/2009/0729/are-astronomers-watching-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-betelgeuse [csmonitor.com]I seem to remember it was also in a Slashdot article [slashdot.org] that references this [astronomynow.com].Uhm... so which is it, people?
Or is it just clip art?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454926</id>
	<title>global warming</title>
	<author>fearlezz</author>
	<datestamp>1259658780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So in about 5 billion years we won't hear all that global warming talk anymore?<br>Great!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So in about 5 billion years we wo n't hear all that global warming talk anymore ? Great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in about 5 billion years we won't hear all that global warming talk anymore?Great!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455986</id>
	<title>Wow. Just wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259672220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never seen so many who claim to be so intelligent display such a lack of knowledge as I have here. Stick to comic books and G4 guys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never seen so many who claim to be so intelligent display such a lack of knowledge as I have here .
Stick to comic books and G4 guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never seen so many who claim to be so intelligent display such a lack of knowledge as I have here.
Stick to comic books and G4 guys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454976</id>
	<title>long kiss goodnight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259659740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least we have time to read a bedtime story</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least we have time to read a bedtime story</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least we have time to read a bedtime story</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454984</id>
	<title>Is that a dish?</title>
	<author>Sparx139</author>
	<datestamp>1259659860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is an asterid belt some new meal from Burger King or something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is an asterid belt some new meal from Burger King or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is an asterid belt some new meal from Burger King or something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458964</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1259688240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Life has been around in one form or another for billions of years and has survived far more cataclysmic events than anything we could ever hope to dish out.</p></div><p>Most of it <b>didn't</b> survive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Life has been around in one form or another for billions of years and has survived far more cataclysmic events than anything we could ever hope to dish out.Most of it did n't survive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Life has been around in one form or another for billions of years and has survived far more cataclysmic events than anything we could ever hope to dish out.Most of it didn't survive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457636</id>
	<title>Re:Weird video...?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259683200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA: &ldquo;Observations by the Infrared Optical Telescope Array found that, at minimum radius, Chi Cygni shows marked inhomogeneities due to roiling "hotspots" on its surface.&rdquo;</p><p>Of course, that is only a theory, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA :    Observations by the Infrared Optical Telescope Array found that , at minimum radius , Chi Cygni shows marked inhomogeneities due to roiling " hotspots " on its surface.    Of course , that is only a theory , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA: “Observations by the Infrared Optical Telescope Array found that, at minimum radius, Chi Cygni shows marked inhomogeneities due to roiling "hotspots" on its surface.”Of course, that is only a theory, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455390</id>
	<title>Re:Older than dirt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259666520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The exact same picture was used in other sites as an artist's conception of Betelgeuse...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The exact same picture was used in other sites as an artist 's conception of Betelgeuse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The exact same picture was used in other sites as an artist's conception of Betelgeuse...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459872</id>
	<title>Re:Mimics something that hasn't happened?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1259691360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Our sun hasn't died yet, so shouldn't it be the other way around? </i></p><p>The next Final Fantasy game should include a new character(-class): the Reverse Mimic!  They mimic what another character is <i>going</i> to do.  Which would really mean the Reverse Mimic would do something the character could, and then that character has no choice but to do that when their turn came up.</p><p>If they wanted to play it like a joke character, the RM would always use the most useless abilities, or do things like always cast Doom on bosses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our sun has n't died yet , so should n't it be the other way around ?
The next Final Fantasy game should include a new character ( -class ) : the Reverse Mimic !
They mimic what another character is going to do .
Which would really mean the Reverse Mimic would do something the character could , and then that character has no choice but to do that when their turn came up.If they wanted to play it like a joke character , the RM would always use the most useless abilities , or do things like always cast Doom on bosses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our sun hasn't died yet, so shouldn't it be the other way around?
The next Final Fantasy game should include a new character(-class): the Reverse Mimic!
They mimic what another character is going to do.
Which would really mean the Reverse Mimic would do something the character could, and then that character has no choice but to do that when their turn came up.If they wanted to play it like a joke character, the RM would always use the most useless abilities, or do things like always cast Doom on bosses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454876</id>
	<title>Stop mimicking me!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259658060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mom, he won't stop saying whatever I say!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mom , he wo n't stop saying whatever I say !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mom, he won't stop saying whatever I say!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455308</id>
	<title>Comforting thoughts</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1259665680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's alright. The Yellowstone Caldera will blow up long before then and kill us all. So we won't be around to face the heat death of the Sun.</p><p>It is good to know these things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's alright .
The Yellowstone Caldera will blow up long before then and kill us all .
So we wo n't be around to face the heat death of the Sun.It is good to know these things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's alright.
The Yellowstone Caldera will blow up long before then and kill us all.
So we won't be around to face the heat death of the Sun.It is good to know these things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455452</id>
	<title>Just a thought</title>
	<author>CxDoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259667420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has nothing to do with TFA but it just occured to me - do we know of any system where the central body is not a star (or a more massive object), for example let's imagine Jupiter in place of the Sun?<br>Would it be possible to detect this kind of system at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with TFA but it just occured to me - do we know of any system where the central body is not a star ( or a more massive object ) , for example let 's imagine Jupiter in place of the Sun ? Would it be possible to detect this kind of system at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with TFA but it just occured to me - do we know of any system where the central body is not a star (or a more massive object), for example let's imagine Jupiter in place of the Sun?Would it be possible to detect this kind of system at all?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455242</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1259664780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you have a hard time (as all of us do) imagining the time periods involved. There was even no mammals 1/10th of that 5 billion years ago; heck, life hadn't really colonized land yet.</p><p>And anyway, the Sun is slowly becoming brighter as time passes; in around 1 billion years theere will be no oceans left on Earth, no biosphere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you have a hard time ( as all of us do ) imagining the time periods involved .
There was even no mammals 1/10th of that 5 billion years ago ; heck , life had n't really colonized land yet.And anyway , the Sun is slowly becoming brighter as time passes ; in around 1 billion years theere will be no oceans left on Earth , no biosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you have a hard time (as all of us do) imagining the time periods involved.
There was even no mammals 1/10th of that 5 billion years ago; heck, life hadn't really colonized land yet.And anyway, the Sun is slowly becoming brighter as time passes; in around 1 billion years theere will be no oceans left on Earth, no biosphere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456284</id>
	<title>I Didn't Know The Sun Blows</title>
	<author>ThePadrinoDotCom</author>
	<datestamp>1259674680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I Didn't Know The Sun Blows

 But today found out why the sun will blow up seems we need to start prepareing it's only 5 billion years from now.

The Padrino Dot Com
<a href="http://www.thepadrino.com/" title="thepadrino.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thepadrino.com/</a> [thepadrino.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I Did n't Know The Sun Blows But today found out why the sun will blow up seems we need to start prepareing it 's only 5 billion years from now .
The Padrino Dot Com http : //www.thepadrino.com/ [ thepadrino.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Didn't Know The Sun Blows

 But today found out why the sun will blow up seems we need to start prepareing it's only 5 billion years from now.
The Padrino Dot Com
http://www.thepadrino.com/ [thepadrino.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456214</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Disagree. I think a small human population (in the millions) will be around on Earth to witness the event.</p></div><p> I don't think the future humans will call themselves homo sapiens sapiens within a half a million years, let alone few billion. Whatever the species will be which will witness the event form sufficient distance, they need to be able to live past the event for it to have some significance.<br>Our beloved Milky Way will collide with the Andromeda in about 2 billion years like an intergalactic ejaculation. If the Earth has not been sterilized by asteroids by then, perhaps the radiation resulting from the collision will finish the job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disagree .
I think a small human population ( in the millions ) will be around on Earth to witness the event .
I do n't think the future humans will call themselves homo sapiens sapiens within a half a million years , let alone few billion .
Whatever the species will be which will witness the event form sufficient distance , they need to be able to live past the event for it to have some significance.Our beloved Milky Way will collide with the Andromeda in about 2 billion years like an intergalactic ejaculation .
If the Earth has not been sterilized by asteroids by then , perhaps the radiation resulting from the collision will finish the job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disagree.
I think a small human population (in the millions) will be around on Earth to witness the event.
I don't think the future humans will call themselves homo sapiens sapiens within a half a million years, let alone few billion.
Whatever the species will be which will witness the event form sufficient distance, they need to be able to live past the event for it to have some significance.Our beloved Milky Way will collide with the Andromeda in about 2 billion years like an intergalactic ejaculation.
If the Earth has not been sterilized by asteroids by then, perhaps the radiation resulting from the collision will finish the job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458026</id>
	<title>Re:Disfactual SD FUD</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1259684700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What specific objections do you have? You've rambled on but it strikes me that most of the content you object to comes from the CfA's own press release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What specific objections do you have ?
You 've rambled on but it strikes me that most of the content you object to comes from the CfA 's own press release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What specific objections do you have?
You've rambled on but it strikes me that most of the content you object to comes from the CfA's own press release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455094</id>
	<title>Link to images, etc.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259662260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those that cant follow links to the source, the images/mov and artists impression is here<br><br>http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2009/pr200923\_images.html</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those that cant follow links to the source , the images/mov and artists impression is herehttp : //www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2009/pr200923 \ _images.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those that cant follow links to the source, the images/mov and artists impression is herehttp://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2009/pr200923\_images.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455000</id>
	<title>Worst case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259660040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's up with all the negativity here? Didn't it occur that just maybe, we would manage to get off this rock and start colonizing the rest of the universe way before that happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's up with all the negativity here ?
Did n't it occur that just maybe , we would manage to get off this rock and start colonizing the rest of the universe way before that happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's up with all the negativity here?
Didn't it occur that just maybe, we would manage to get off this rock and start colonizing the rest of the universe way before that happens.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458252</id>
	<title>Re:Just a thought</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1259685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes - brown dwarfs.  Essentially matter can start to clump together anywhere.  Sometimes it clumps in large amounts, sometimes smaller.</p><p>If the object at the center of the system accretes enough mass to being nuclear fusion then it is a star, with the smallest being red dwarfs (stars then change colors and size as they become more massive - they also have shorter "lives" as they grow more massive).</p><p>Sometimes though the accretion of matter is insufficient to begin fusion, and you get a brown dwarf, which is basically a failed star.  It's chemically pretty close to Jupiter, but usually quite a bit more massive (it's about the same SIZE though - without becoming a star Jupiter is about as big as things typically get.  they just get more dense as their mass goes up).</p><p>As to something "more massive" than a star - not really.  Typically anything past a certain point begins fusion and becomes a star - period.  The fusion process will give enough pressure for the star to support itself and keep itself from collapsing.  The mass of the star can keep going up indefinitely and it'll fuse elements happily until it's mass can no longer support fusion of elements past a point.  At that point a REALLY massive star will no longer be able to support it's outer layers, in which case it implodes and generates a super nova.  Past a certain point it fully collapses in to a black hole (which is that super massive things become), but black holes were once stars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes - brown dwarfs .
Essentially matter can start to clump together anywhere .
Sometimes it clumps in large amounts , sometimes smaller.If the object at the center of the system accretes enough mass to being nuclear fusion then it is a star , with the smallest being red dwarfs ( stars then change colors and size as they become more massive - they also have shorter " lives " as they grow more massive ) .Sometimes though the accretion of matter is insufficient to begin fusion , and you get a brown dwarf , which is basically a failed star .
It 's chemically pretty close to Jupiter , but usually quite a bit more massive ( it 's about the same SIZE though - without becoming a star Jupiter is about as big as things typically get .
they just get more dense as their mass goes up ) .As to something " more massive " than a star - not really .
Typically anything past a certain point begins fusion and becomes a star - period .
The fusion process will give enough pressure for the star to support itself and keep itself from collapsing .
The mass of the star can keep going up indefinitely and it 'll fuse elements happily until it 's mass can no longer support fusion of elements past a point .
At that point a REALLY massive star will no longer be able to support it 's outer layers , in which case it implodes and generates a super nova .
Past a certain point it fully collapses in to a black hole ( which is that super massive things become ) , but black holes were once stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes - brown dwarfs.
Essentially matter can start to clump together anywhere.
Sometimes it clumps in large amounts, sometimes smaller.If the object at the center of the system accretes enough mass to being nuclear fusion then it is a star, with the smallest being red dwarfs (stars then change colors and size as they become more massive - they also have shorter "lives" as they grow more massive).Sometimes though the accretion of matter is insufficient to begin fusion, and you get a brown dwarf, which is basically a failed star.
It's chemically pretty close to Jupiter, but usually quite a bit more massive (it's about the same SIZE though - without becoming a star Jupiter is about as big as things typically get.
they just get more dense as their mass goes up).As to something "more massive" than a star - not really.
Typically anything past a certain point begins fusion and becomes a star - period.
The fusion process will give enough pressure for the star to support itself and keep itself from collapsing.
The mass of the star can keep going up indefinitely and it'll fuse elements happily until it's mass can no longer support fusion of elements past a point.
At that point a REALLY massive star will no longer be able to support it's outer layers, in which case it implodes and generates a super nova.
Past a certain point it fully collapses in to a black hole (which is that super massive things become), but black holes were once stars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455266</id>
	<title>Mimics something that hasn't happened?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259665140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our sun hasn't died yet, so shouldn't it be the other way around?   In a few billion years, our sun will mimic the death of this star.</p><p>Alright, I'm done being pedantic now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our sun has n't died yet , so should n't it be the other way around ?
In a few billion years , our sun will mimic the death of this star.Alright , I 'm done being pedantic now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our sun hasn't died yet, so shouldn't it be the other way around?
In a few billion years, our sun will mimic the death of this star.Alright, I'm done being pedantic now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455606</id>
	<title>Swan Song</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259668800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being that the star is Chi Cygni, I suppose this is its 'swan song'...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being that the star is Chi Cygni , I suppose this is its 'swan song'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being that the star is Chi Cygni, I suppose this is its 'swan song'...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458748</id>
	<title>Re:global warming</title>
	<author>edremy</author>
	<datestamp>1259687280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In all seriousness the Sun is gradually getting brighter, and the increased heat will kill off Earth's biosphere long before it gets to the red giant phase.  We only have 1-2 billion years tops, not 5.

<p>You may now panic</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In all seriousness the Sun is gradually getting brighter , and the increased heat will kill off Earth 's biosphere long before it gets to the red giant phase .
We only have 1-2 billion years tops , not 5 .
You may now panic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In all seriousness the Sun is gradually getting brighter, and the increased heat will kill off Earth's biosphere long before it gets to the red giant phase.
We only have 1-2 billion years tops, not 5.
You may now panic</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458332</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>sFurbo</author>
	<datestamp>1259685780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except for things living under water... It really is quite hard to kill a planet full of life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for things living under water... It really is quite hard to kill a planet full of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for things living under water... It really is quite hard to kill a planet full of life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455070</id>
	<title>Re:Older than dirt</title>
	<author>uid7306m</author>
	<datestamp>1259661360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rated "insightful"?  Claiming that astronomy is done for profit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rated " insightful " ?
Claiming that astronomy is done for profit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rated "insightful"?
Claiming that astronomy is done for profit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454946</id>
	<title>Solar cookery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259659080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asterid belt... Is that a fish dish? Sounds Norwegian</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asterid belt... Is that a fish dish ?
Sounds Norwegian</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asterid belt... Is that a fish dish?
Sounds Norwegian</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454922</id>
	<title>Older than dirt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259658720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1) We learned about this in school <br>
2) The picture is an artist's conception, I didn't see multiple pictures in TFA.  <br>
3) ??? <br>
4) Profit</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) We learned about this in school 2 ) The picture is an artist 's conception , I did n't see multiple pictures in TFA .
3 ) ? ? ?
4 ) Profit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) We learned about this in school 
2) The picture is an artist's conception, I didn't see multiple pictures in TFA.
3) ???
4) Profit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455746</id>
	<title>Re:Weird video...?</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1259670000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume that the star is tilted relative to us and there's some anisotropy of the atmosphere due to its oblate shape. If the poles were hotter and one was tilted at us, I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume that the star is tilted relative to us and there 's some anisotropy of the atmosphere due to its oblate shape .
If the poles were hotter and one was tilted at us , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume that the star is tilted relative to us and there's some anisotropy of the atmosphere due to its oblate shape.
If the poles were hotter and one was tilted at us, I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454980</id>
	<title>Global warming</title>
	<author>top3dentists</author>
	<datestamp>1259659800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isnt something we are seeing in the movie of 2012. Nothing to panic we humans would destroy the earth lot before by global warming therefore essential for us to have a solution for global warming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Isnt something we are seeing in the movie of 2012 .
Nothing to panic we humans would destroy the earth lot before by global warming therefore essential for us to have a solution for global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isnt something we are seeing in the movie of 2012.
Nothing to panic we humans would destroy the earth lot before by global warming therefore essential for us to have a solution for global warming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454912</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259658600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and release enough long-lasting pollutants to make life unsustainable.</p></div><p>Huh?  I might buy that we could kill ourselves off but it seems to be giving us too much credit to assume that we could kill off all life on this rock.  Life has been around in one form or another for billions of years and has survived far more cataclysmic events than anything we could ever hope to dish out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and release enough long-lasting pollutants to make life unsustainable.Huh ?
I might buy that we could kill ourselves off but it seems to be giving us too much credit to assume that we could kill off all life on this rock .
Life has been around in one form or another for billions of years and has survived far more cataclysmic events than anything we could ever hope to dish out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and release enough long-lasting pollutants to make life unsustainable.Huh?
I might buy that we could kill ourselves off but it seems to be giving us too much credit to assume that we could kill off all life on this rock.
Life has been around in one form or another for billions of years and has survived far more cataclysmic events than anything we could ever hope to dish out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457540</id>
	<title>Porn star?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259682840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>New close-up photos of the surface of this distant star show its throbbing motions in unprecedented detail.</p></div><p>Rule 34, baby!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>New close-up photos of the surface of this distant star show its throbbing motions in unprecedented detail.Rule 34 , baby !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New close-up photos of the surface of this distant star show its throbbing motions in unprecedented detail.Rule 34, baby!
!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456958</id>
	<title>Am I the only one</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1259679480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw the "Dying Star" in the headline and thought this article was about Lindsay Lohan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw the " Dying Star " in the headline and thought this article was about Lindsay Lohan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw the "Dying Star" in the headline and thought this article was about Lindsay Lohan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458918</id>
	<title>Mimics?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259688060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can Chi Cygni mimic something our sun has never done before?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can Chi Cygni mimic something our sun has never done before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can Chi Cygni mimic something our sun has never done before?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457726</id>
	<title>It's not "mimics"</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1259683560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A presently dying star cannot mimic the death of our own star, since it has not happened yet.  How about using "foreshadows" instead?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A presently dying star can not mimic the death of our own star , since it has not happened yet .
How about using " foreshadows " instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A presently dying star cannot mimic the death of our own star, since it has not happened yet.
How about using "foreshadows" instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456452</id>
	<title>Disfactual SD FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259676360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The folks at Harvard-Smithsonian and IOTA did some fine work. It could have been reported as they presented it and been very interesting science. When it gets filtered through a fake science reporting agent like Science Daily, and rewritten by one of said agent's fiction writers with only enough relevant background to make them capable of finding FUDish material that wouldn't be entirely inapplicable, the result is something that should have been rejected by the only places to which it should have been submitted: Hollywood movie producers.</p><p>The sun is a nearly a dwarf star. It will undergo a very mild death compared to larger stars. They will nova or supernova, but the sun will placidly swell to a red giant, pulse as it burns out, then shrink to white dwarf. Only true dwarf stars will undergo a milder demise, skipping the red giant phase. No amount of mediocre Hollywood scifi horrification and awfulism will change the fact that our mild mannered stellar companion has no evil supervillian alter ego waiting to take over at its end of days. Adding such extraneous comic book (as opposed to the more respectable graphic fiction) "reporting" is only done by a writer, or at the behest of an editor or publisher, who have no confidence in the science itself or their reportage of it being sufficiently interesting. rather than risk being factual for a readership interested in such things, they attempt to draw in a greater audience with an interest and education in science equal to that of the author's writing style, with the assumption that by adding the pseudo-scientific car wreck material they can get that larger audience to slow down and rubber neck at the bloody mess of hyperbole spray painted over the facts.</p><p>SD is as useful and accurate a source for science as The Economist, which has also been quoted here for similarly poor reasons. Slashdotters are for the most part sophisticated enough to be able to appreciate the facts without having to viddy the horrorshow while sipping a bit of the moloko plus (obSFref, Clockwork Orange). Th remainder, while not so inclined to factualism in science, are still so invariably capable when it comes to traditional<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reply banter that an article consisting of raw data would likely end up in a verbal tsunami repleat with references to Microsoft, Google and MafIAA (blaming them for the stellar death no doubt) and welcoming our Red Giant Overlords and their Soviet Russian Beowulf Clusters.</p><p>The very worst part of this example of poor writing in lieu of science journalism is being kept separate because it has nothing to do with science. Something that is happening now (or being observed now, relatively speaking) does not and can not mimic something that will happen in the future, whether that be in 5 billion years, or next week when you accept a job writing equally badly for an outlet equally unwilling to risk actual factual journalism. Unless, of course, one an say that one's present insufficient income from writing such trash mimics the income one will receive in the future when one continues of a career path of writing badly for outlets intentionally presenting said trash. All the more reason to stay in school, kids, and if you quit, go back.</p><p>Now, I don't expect<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers to follow Astrophysical Journal and the like in order to get unadulterated science to report on here. But I would hope that the submitters and editors would at least acknowledge the quality of the sources by presenting them such as "With their typical crunchy coating of fiction, fact mangling and FUD surrounding a center of creamy scientific nougat still untouched by science journalists' hands, Science Daily reassures us that it is 'an excellent driver' while setting fire to and waving madly an interesting article" dot dot dot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The folks at Harvard-Smithsonian and IOTA did some fine work .
It could have been reported as they presented it and been very interesting science .
When it gets filtered through a fake science reporting agent like Science Daily , and rewritten by one of said agent 's fiction writers with only enough relevant background to make them capable of finding FUDish material that would n't be entirely inapplicable , the result is something that should have been rejected by the only places to which it should have been submitted : Hollywood movie producers.The sun is a nearly a dwarf star .
It will undergo a very mild death compared to larger stars .
They will nova or supernova , but the sun will placidly swell to a red giant , pulse as it burns out , then shrink to white dwarf .
Only true dwarf stars will undergo a milder demise , skipping the red giant phase .
No amount of mediocre Hollywood scifi horrification and awfulism will change the fact that our mild mannered stellar companion has no evil supervillian alter ego waiting to take over at its end of days .
Adding such extraneous comic book ( as opposed to the more respectable graphic fiction ) " reporting " is only done by a writer , or at the behest of an editor or publisher , who have no confidence in the science itself or their reportage of it being sufficiently interesting .
rather than risk being factual for a readership interested in such things , they attempt to draw in a greater audience with an interest and education in science equal to that of the author 's writing style , with the assumption that by adding the pseudo-scientific car wreck material they can get that larger audience to slow down and rubber neck at the bloody mess of hyperbole spray painted over the facts.SD is as useful and accurate a source for science as The Economist , which has also been quoted here for similarly poor reasons .
Slashdotters are for the most part sophisticated enough to be able to appreciate the facts without having to viddy the horrorshow while sipping a bit of the moloko plus ( obSFref , Clockwork Orange ) .
Th remainder , while not so inclined to factualism in science , are still so invariably capable when it comes to traditional / .
reply banter that an article consisting of raw data would likely end up in a verbal tsunami repleat with references to Microsoft , Google and MafIAA ( blaming them for the stellar death no doubt ) and welcoming our Red Giant Overlords and their Soviet Russian Beowulf Clusters.The very worst part of this example of poor writing in lieu of science journalism is being kept separate because it has nothing to do with science .
Something that is happening now ( or being observed now , relatively speaking ) does not and can not mimic something that will happen in the future , whether that be in 5 billion years , or next week when you accept a job writing equally badly for an outlet equally unwilling to risk actual factual journalism .
Unless , of course , one an say that one 's present insufficient income from writing such trash mimics the income one will receive in the future when one continues of a career path of writing badly for outlets intentionally presenting said trash .
All the more reason to stay in school , kids , and if you quit , go back.Now , I do n't expect / .
readers to follow Astrophysical Journal and the like in order to get unadulterated science to report on here .
But I would hope that the submitters and editors would at least acknowledge the quality of the sources by presenting them such as " With their typical crunchy coating of fiction , fact mangling and FUD surrounding a center of creamy scientific nougat still untouched by science journalists ' hands , Science Daily reassures us that it is 'an excellent driver ' while setting fire to and waving madly an interesting article " dot dot dot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The folks at Harvard-Smithsonian and IOTA did some fine work.
It could have been reported as they presented it and been very interesting science.
When it gets filtered through a fake science reporting agent like Science Daily, and rewritten by one of said agent's fiction writers with only enough relevant background to make them capable of finding FUDish material that wouldn't be entirely inapplicable, the result is something that should have been rejected by the only places to which it should have been submitted: Hollywood movie producers.The sun is a nearly a dwarf star.
It will undergo a very mild death compared to larger stars.
They will nova or supernova, but the sun will placidly swell to a red giant, pulse as it burns out, then shrink to white dwarf.
Only true dwarf stars will undergo a milder demise, skipping the red giant phase.
No amount of mediocre Hollywood scifi horrification and awfulism will change the fact that our mild mannered stellar companion has no evil supervillian alter ego waiting to take over at its end of days.
Adding such extraneous comic book (as opposed to the more respectable graphic fiction) "reporting" is only done by a writer, or at the behest of an editor or publisher, who have no confidence in the science itself or their reportage of it being sufficiently interesting.
rather than risk being factual for a readership interested in such things, they attempt to draw in a greater audience with an interest and education in science equal to that of the author's writing style, with the assumption that by adding the pseudo-scientific car wreck material they can get that larger audience to slow down and rubber neck at the bloody mess of hyperbole spray painted over the facts.SD is as useful and accurate a source for science as The Economist, which has also been quoted here for similarly poor reasons.
Slashdotters are for the most part sophisticated enough to be able to appreciate the facts without having to viddy the horrorshow while sipping a bit of the moloko plus (obSFref, Clockwork Orange).
Th remainder, while not so inclined to factualism in science, are still so invariably capable when it comes to traditional /.
reply banter that an article consisting of raw data would likely end up in a verbal tsunami repleat with references to Microsoft, Google and MafIAA (blaming them for the stellar death no doubt) and welcoming our Red Giant Overlords and their Soviet Russian Beowulf Clusters.The very worst part of this example of poor writing in lieu of science journalism is being kept separate because it has nothing to do with science.
Something that is happening now (or being observed now, relatively speaking) does not and can not mimic something that will happen in the future, whether that be in 5 billion years, or next week when you accept a job writing equally badly for an outlet equally unwilling to risk actual factual journalism.
Unless, of course, one an say that one's present insufficient income from writing such trash mimics the income one will receive in the future when one continues of a career path of writing badly for outlets intentionally presenting said trash.
All the more reason to stay in school, kids, and if you quit, go back.Now, I don't expect /.
readers to follow Astrophysical Journal and the like in order to get unadulterated science to report on here.
But I would hope that the submitters and editors would at least acknowledge the quality of the sources by presenting them such as "With their typical crunchy coating of fiction, fact mangling and FUD surrounding a center of creamy scientific nougat still untouched by science journalists' hands, Science Daily reassures us that it is 'an excellent driver' while setting fire to and waving madly an interesting article" dot dot dot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456724</id>
	<title>I panicked</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1259678220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I panicked for a moment - I thought it said five <i>million</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I panicked for a moment - I thought it said five million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I panicked for a moment - I thought it said five million.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454958</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care? (come on!!!)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259659320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ahhh okay!<br>I suppose that  we must live on the trees, thinking how we feed our children. <br>But... I just think on that before and that don't really work for us h-been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human]</p><p>Now really? You don't care?<br>Come on man, It's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ "news for NERDs. stuff that matters"</p><p>If you don't care, you are @wrong pLace!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p><p>[1POST here, I don't resist.]</p><p>Best regards,</p><p>peace!</p><p>vinn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ahhh okay ! I suppose that we must live on the trees , thinking how we feed our children .
But... I just think on that before and that do n't really work for us h-been [ http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human ] Now really ?
You do n't care ? Come on man , It 's ./ " news for NERDs .
stuff that matters " If you do n't care , you are @ wrong pLace !
: p [ 1POST here , I do n't resist .
] Best regards,peace ! vinn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ahhh okay!I suppose that  we must live on the trees, thinking how we feed our children.
But... I just think on that before and that don't really work for us h-been [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human]Now really?
You don't care?Come on man, It's ./ "news for NERDs.
stuff that matters"If you don't care, you are @wrong pLace!
:p[1POST here, I don't resist.
]Best regards,peace!vinn</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455020</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>lobiusmoop</author>
	<datestamp>1259660460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disagree. I think a small human population (in the millions) will be around on Earth to witness the event.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I don't think the planet will be healthy enough for 7 billion of us, but I also don't think it will be poisoned enough to drop the population to 0 before Sol expires.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I also think we'll be content in sending bacteria to other worlds rather than humans - they are a much more resilient and adaptable species really - humans are too dependent on a tight range of environmental conditions to live in other worlds, we just need to make the best of what we have here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disagree .
I think a small human population ( in the millions ) will be around on Earth to witness the event .
    I do n't think the planet will be healthy enough for 7 billion of us , but I also do n't think it will be poisoned enough to drop the population to 0 before Sol expires .
    I also think we 'll be content in sending bacteria to other worlds rather than humans - they are a much more resilient and adaptable species really - humans are too dependent on a tight range of environmental conditions to live in other worlds , we just need to make the best of what we have here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disagree.
I think a small human population (in the millions) will be around on Earth to witness the event.
    I don't think the planet will be healthy enough for 7 billion of us, but I also don't think it will be poisoned enough to drop the population to 0 before Sol expires.
    I also think we'll be content in sending bacteria to other worlds rather than humans - they are a much more resilient and adaptable species really - humans are too dependent on a tight range of environmental conditions to live in other worlds, we just need to make the best of what we have here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458094</id>
	<title>Re:Mimics something that hasn't happened?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1259684940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends.  That's only the case if you think of time as a linear progression.  We certainly perceive it as that, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily so.  A brick falling to the ground perceives up and down to be a linear progression over which is has no control, but to the outside observer they're independent points that can be moved between as one wishes.</p><p>If time is the same outside of our frame of reference (ie, if t is just another axis that can be adjusted much like we perceive x, y, and z to be), then the sun dying later in time wouldn't make a difference as to which was mimicking which.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends .
That 's only the case if you think of time as a linear progression .
We certainly perceive it as that , but that does n't mean it 's necessarily so .
A brick falling to the ground perceives up and down to be a linear progression over which is has no control , but to the outside observer they 're independent points that can be moved between as one wishes.If time is the same outside of our frame of reference ( ie , if t is just another axis that can be adjusted much like we perceive x , y , and z to be ) , then the sun dying later in time would n't make a difference as to which was mimicking which .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends.
That's only the case if you think of time as a linear progression.
We certainly perceive it as that, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily so.
A brick falling to the ground perceives up and down to be a linear progression over which is has no control, but to the outside observer they're independent points that can be moved between as one wishes.If time is the same outside of our frame of reference (ie, if t is just another axis that can be adjusted much like we perceive x, y, and z to be), then the sun dying later in time wouldn't make a difference as to which was mimicking which.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455332</id>
	<title>Mars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259665980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think if it will swallow Mars is still an open question. I think the current majority is rather that it will not swallow Mars, but only be so big that the sun will extend to the point where Mars is now. But Mars might no longer be there because Sun has lost too much mass till then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think if it will swallow Mars is still an open question .
I think the current majority is rather that it will not swallow Mars , but only be so big that the sun will extend to the point where Mars is now .
But Mars might no longer be there because Sun has lost too much mass till then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think if it will swallow Mars is still an open question.
I think the current majority is rather that it will not swallow Mars, but only be so big that the sun will extend to the point where Mars is now.
But Mars might no longer be there because Sun has lost too much mass till then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458832</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1259687640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Vogons didn't seem to have much trouble destroying Earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Vogons did n't seem to have much trouble destroying Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Vogons didn't seem to have much trouble destroying Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459172</id>
	<title>Title Nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Dying Star Mimics Our Sun's Death"</p><p>A star can't mimic our sun dying if our sun hasn't died yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dying Star Mimics Our Sun 's Death " A star ca n't mimic our sun dying if our sun has n't died yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dying Star Mimics Our Sun's Death"A star can't mimic our sun dying if our sun hasn't died yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30466614</id>
	<title>It is quite simply fiction</title>
	<author>bradbury</author>
	<datestamp>1259671740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The problem with the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. lead-in and the SD article quoting an astronomer is that THEY ARE BOTH PROBABLY WRONG!  I have this problem all the time when I see shows on the Discovery Channel or the Science Channel where they explain how the sun *will* die in 5 billion years (The implicit assumption is that the current natural laws of physics will apply for that period -- and within an intelligent species framework that may be completely false.  What they SHOULD be saying is "The sun, if allowed to continue on its natural evolutionary course, will die in 5 billion years."  But qualified it, of course, sounds less dramatic. IMO, the probability of that occurring, is nearly zero.  Why?  Because our solar system is inhabited by an intelligent technological species and if we could stop talking about the next great iPhone app or global warming [1] for just a minute we might begin a discussion about how to develop real molecular scale nanotechnology [2] and the best way to approach dismantling the sun so it never becomes a red giant.
</p><p>
For the unaware, we are "dismantling" planets *now* -- what do you think launching satellites to explore foreign bodies (that don't return to earth) or crashing them into foreign bodies (where some of the material ejected may reach escape velocity for said body) is???  Now given the influx in asteroid/comet/solar ion debris I suspect the Earth is still in a net mass gaining state -- but we know how to invert that situation should we choose to do so.  We do understand the physics involved and have the technology to manage it.
</p><p>
What most people are unaware of is that there has been some thought devoted to planetary dismantlement.  Freeman Dyson did some (in discussing in 1960 in Science the dismantlement of Jupiter to create a Dyson shell) [1]).  David Criswell [3] thought of some more/better paths to dismantlement.
</p><p>
So the answer is very clear -- we dismantle the sun at a rate which slows its aging -- so the 5 Billion years number becomes ENTIRELY fictional -- we cannot predict what a technological civilization would do.  But there are significant odds that it might dismantle the sun to the point where its lifetime is on the order of that of a red dwarf (several hundred billion years or more with no red giant phase).  Ample time to decide when and how to move to a new star with a new lease on life.
</p><p>
1. In a molecular nanotechnology enabled world, there isn't really a "global warming" perspective to worry about.  It is too simple to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in some inert form.  People who are in the hard-core "global warming" camp should ask themselves why when I wrote the paper "Sapphire Mansions" in 2001, did I not instead call them "Diamond Mansions"? [4]  It was because I did not wish to encourage the sucking of CO2 out of the atmosphere to the extent that all plants would DIE!
<br>
2. Molecular scale Nanotechnology has been defined and reviewed since 1992 (Drexler, Nanosystems) -- over 15 ago!.  During that period nobody has said it is "incorrect", nobody has said it violates "laws of physics", at the most people may have said it is "hard".  But if I can point out 4+ paths to get there -- so one has to wonder if it is simply not a lack of technological imagination that keeps us from already being there (and as a species having such methods in our technology toolbox).
<br>
3. David R. Criswell from Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience, Eds.: Ben R. Finney and Eric M. Jones, University of California Press, 1985, Chapter 4, pp 50-87.
4. It may be worth noting that the "Sapphire Mansions" phase of human development I consider to probably be limited to a few decades -- while the "Matrioshka Brains" phase lasts the life of our engineered sun (or longer).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the / .
lead-in and the SD article quoting an astronomer is that THEY ARE BOTH PROBABLY WRONG !
I have this problem all the time when I see shows on the Discovery Channel or the Science Channel where they explain how the sun * will * die in 5 billion years ( The implicit assumption is that the current natural laws of physics will apply for that period -- and within an intelligent species framework that may be completely false .
What they SHOULD be saying is " The sun , if allowed to continue on its natural evolutionary course , will die in 5 billion years .
" But qualified it , of course , sounds less dramatic .
IMO , the probability of that occurring , is nearly zero .
Why ? Because our solar system is inhabited by an intelligent technological species and if we could stop talking about the next great iPhone app or global warming [ 1 ] for just a minute we might begin a discussion about how to develop real molecular scale nanotechnology [ 2 ] and the best way to approach dismantling the sun so it never becomes a red giant .
For the unaware , we are " dismantling " planets * now * -- what do you think launching satellites to explore foreign bodies ( that do n't return to earth ) or crashing them into foreign bodies ( where some of the material ejected may reach escape velocity for said body ) is ? ? ?
Now given the influx in asteroid/comet/solar ion debris I suspect the Earth is still in a net mass gaining state -- but we know how to invert that situation should we choose to do so .
We do understand the physics involved and have the technology to manage it .
What most people are unaware of is that there has been some thought devoted to planetary dismantlement .
Freeman Dyson did some ( in discussing in 1960 in Science the dismantlement of Jupiter to create a Dyson shell ) [ 1 ] ) .
David Criswell [ 3 ] thought of some more/better paths to dismantlement .
So the answer is very clear -- we dismantle the sun at a rate which slows its aging -- so the 5 Billion years number becomes ENTIRELY fictional -- we can not predict what a technological civilization would do .
But there are significant odds that it might dismantle the sun to the point where its lifetime is on the order of that of a red dwarf ( several hundred billion years or more with no red giant phase ) .
Ample time to decide when and how to move to a new star with a new lease on life .
1. In a molecular nanotechnology enabled world , there is n't really a " global warming " perspective to worry about .
It is too simple to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in some inert form .
People who are in the hard-core " global warming " camp should ask themselves why when I wrote the paper " Sapphire Mansions " in 2001 , did I not instead call them " Diamond Mansions " ?
[ 4 ] It was because I did not wish to encourage the sucking of CO2 out of the atmosphere to the extent that all plants would DIE !
2. Molecular scale Nanotechnology has been defined and reviewed since 1992 ( Drexler , Nanosystems ) -- over 15 ago ! .
During that period nobody has said it is " incorrect " , nobody has said it violates " laws of physics " , at the most people may have said it is " hard " .
But if I can point out 4 + paths to get there -- so one has to wonder if it is simply not a lack of technological imagination that keeps us from already being there ( and as a species having such methods in our technology toolbox ) .
3. David R. Criswell from Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience , Eds .
: Ben R. Finney and Eric M. Jones , University of California Press , 1985 , Chapter 4 , pp 50-87 .
4. It may be worth noting that the " Sapphire Mansions " phase of human development I consider to probably be limited to a few decades -- while the " Matrioshka Brains " phase lasts the life of our engineered sun ( or longer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The problem with the /.
lead-in and the SD article quoting an astronomer is that THEY ARE BOTH PROBABLY WRONG!
I have this problem all the time when I see shows on the Discovery Channel or the Science Channel where they explain how the sun *will* die in 5 billion years (The implicit assumption is that the current natural laws of physics will apply for that period -- and within an intelligent species framework that may be completely false.
What they SHOULD be saying is "The sun, if allowed to continue on its natural evolutionary course, will die in 5 billion years.
"  But qualified it, of course, sounds less dramatic.
IMO, the probability of that occurring, is nearly zero.
Why?  Because our solar system is inhabited by an intelligent technological species and if we could stop talking about the next great iPhone app or global warming [1] for just a minute we might begin a discussion about how to develop real molecular scale nanotechnology [2] and the best way to approach dismantling the sun so it never becomes a red giant.
For the unaware, we are "dismantling" planets *now* -- what do you think launching satellites to explore foreign bodies (that don't return to earth) or crashing them into foreign bodies (where some of the material ejected may reach escape velocity for said body) is???
Now given the influx in asteroid/comet/solar ion debris I suspect the Earth is still in a net mass gaining state -- but we know how to invert that situation should we choose to do so.
We do understand the physics involved and have the technology to manage it.
What most people are unaware of is that there has been some thought devoted to planetary dismantlement.
Freeman Dyson did some (in discussing in 1960 in Science the dismantlement of Jupiter to create a Dyson shell) [1]).
David Criswell [3] thought of some more/better paths to dismantlement.
So the answer is very clear -- we dismantle the sun at a rate which slows its aging -- so the 5 Billion years number becomes ENTIRELY fictional -- we cannot predict what a technological civilization would do.
But there are significant odds that it might dismantle the sun to the point where its lifetime is on the order of that of a red dwarf (several hundred billion years or more with no red giant phase).
Ample time to decide when and how to move to a new star with a new lease on life.
1. In a molecular nanotechnology enabled world, there isn't really a "global warming" perspective to worry about.
It is too simple to take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in some inert form.
People who are in the hard-core "global warming" camp should ask themselves why when I wrote the paper "Sapphire Mansions" in 2001, did I not instead call them "Diamond Mansions"?
[4]  It was because I did not wish to encourage the sucking of CO2 out of the atmosphere to the extent that all plants would DIE!
2. Molecular scale Nanotechnology has been defined and reviewed since 1992 (Drexler, Nanosystems) -- over 15 ago!.
During that period nobody has said it is "incorrect", nobody has said it violates "laws of physics", at the most people may have said it is "hard".
But if I can point out 4+ paths to get there -- so one has to wonder if it is simply not a lack of technological imagination that keeps us from already being there (and as a species having such methods in our technology toolbox).
3. David R. Criswell from Interstellar Migration and the Human Experience, Eds.
: Ben R. Finney and Eric M. Jones, University of California Press, 1985, Chapter 4, pp 50-87.
4. It may be worth noting that the "Sapphire Mansions" phase of human development I consider to probably be limited to a few decades -- while the "Matrioshka Brains" phase lasts the life of our engineered sun (or longer).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457758</id>
	<title>Re:Older than dirt</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1259683620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Could you imagine a smelly European coming up with technology to rival Windows 7</p></div></blockquote><p>No, thankfully.</p><p>[Exit, whistling Beethoven's 9th]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you imagine a smelly European coming up with technology to rival Windows 7No , thankfully .
[ Exit , whistling Beethoven 's 9th ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you imagine a smelly European coming up with technology to rival Windows 7No, thankfully.
[Exit, whistling Beethoven's 9th]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459344</id>
	<title>Re:global warming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So in about 5 billion years we won't hear all that global warming talk anymore?<br>Great!</p></div><p>You wish.</p><p>By that time, a bunch of Freedom of Information requests will have been flushed down a <b>REAL</b> black hole, scientific publications from Sirius that dare be critical of warming will be magically deemed "not serious peer-reviewed journals", and Al Gore will be blaming humans for the heat death of the universe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So in about 5 billion years we wo n't hear all that global warming talk anymore ? Great ! You wish.By that time , a bunch of Freedom of Information requests will have been flushed down a REAL black hole , scientific publications from Sirius that dare be critical of warming will be magically deemed " not serious peer-reviewed journals " , and Al Gore will be blaming humans for the heat death of the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in about 5 billion years we won't hear all that global warming talk anymore?Great!You wish.By that time, a bunch of Freedom of Information requests will have been flushed down a REAL black hole, scientific publications from Sirius that dare be critical of warming will be magically deemed "not serious peer-reviewed journals", and Al Gore will be blaming humans for the heat death of the universe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457388</id>
	<title>Re:Weird video...?</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1259682120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NERD!</htmltext>
<tokenext>NERD !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NERD!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458546</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1259686500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everything Dies Rose, Everything Dies.....</p><p>Sadly the only Humans around to witness the death of earth will be a bitchy trampoline and temporally displaced young girl who is the traveling companion of a rather creepy 900 year old man....</p><p>But they will play "I want to get away" by softcell and "Toxic" by Britney Spears and the sun expands and burns earth to a crisp....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything Dies Rose , Everything Dies.....Sadly the only Humans around to witness the death of earth will be a bitchy trampoline and temporally displaced young girl who is the traveling companion of a rather creepy 900 year old man....But they will play " I want to get away " by softcell and " Toxic " by Britney Spears and the sun expands and burns earth to a crisp... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything Dies Rose, Everything Dies.....Sadly the only Humans around to witness the death of earth will be a bitchy trampoline and temporally displaced young girl who is the traveling companion of a rather creepy 900 year old man....But they will play "I want to get away" by softcell and "Toxic" by Britney Spears and the sun expands and burns earth to a crisp....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455812</id>
	<title>Electric Universe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259670660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the Electric Universe model this is actually a young unstable star! The reason why it can expand and contract, in a way that seems completely at odds with the broken fusion model, is that it's reacting to the local(galactic) electrical conditions trying to maintain electrical stability by expanding and contracting the surface area of the anode (the photoshphere as we would know it). Our sun is mature and stable and reacts in a more modest way.<br>A lot of the editorial the goes with images like this mentions plasma, magnetic fields etc, all clues.<br>Supernovae are when it goes horribly wrong...<br>It's an interesting theory anyhow, makes our universe a lot less exotic and mysterious but it's still really beautiful!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the Electric Universe model this is actually a young unstable star !
The reason why it can expand and contract , in a way that seems completely at odds with the broken fusion model , is that it 's reacting to the local ( galactic ) electrical conditions trying to maintain electrical stability by expanding and contracting the surface area of the anode ( the photoshphere as we would know it ) .
Our sun is mature and stable and reacts in a more modest way.A lot of the editorial the goes with images like this mentions plasma , magnetic fields etc , all clues.Supernovae are when it goes horribly wrong...It 's an interesting theory anyhow , makes our universe a lot less exotic and mysterious but it 's still really beautiful !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the Electric Universe model this is actually a young unstable star!
The reason why it can expand and contract, in a way that seems completely at odds with the broken fusion model, is that it's reacting to the local(galactic) electrical conditions trying to maintain electrical stability by expanding and contracting the surface area of the anode (the photoshphere as we would know it).
Our sun is mature and stable and reacts in a more modest way.A lot of the editorial the goes with images like this mentions plasma, magnetic fields etc, all clues.Supernovae are when it goes horribly wrong...It's an interesting theory anyhow, makes our universe a lot less exotic and mysterious but it's still really beautiful!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455006</id>
	<title>Weird video...?</title>
	<author>qinjuehang</author>
	<datestamp>1259660100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It really really looks like a elliptical eclipsing binary, with one dim red giant, and a bright smaller white star. Note: The video is false color.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really really looks like a elliptical eclipsing binary , with one dim red giant , and a bright smaller white star .
Note : The video is false color .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really really looks like a elliptical eclipsing binary, with one dim red giant, and a bright smaller white star.
Note: The video is false color.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455102</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1259662500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we know whether we should care? With what certainty?</p><p>Not studying that which is far can be dangerous, as ignorance of the reality can bring ignorance about the very distance that made us disregard that knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we know whether we should care ?
With what certainty ? Not studying that which is far can be dangerous , as ignorance of the reality can bring ignorance about the very distance that made us disregard that knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we know whether we should care?
With what certainty?Not studying that which is far can be dangerous, as ignorance of the reality can bring ignorance about the very distance that made us disregard that knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455378</id>
	<title>Re:global warming</title>
	<author>rhook</author>
	<datestamp>1259666460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone will be talking about solar warming by then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone will be talking about solar warming by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone will be talking about solar warming by then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455056</id>
	<title>Re:Older than dirt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259661240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What up you sorry European pieces of shit?  Yeah, you know what you
are you maggot fuckers.  You rat bastards are crawling out of your
third world caves right about now to go defecate on the train on the
way to the fucking gulag shit job you work at you socialist pricks.
Why don't you fucks invent something instead of trying to take credit
for other peoples' work?  Fucking Linux is just a rip off of Unix and
you fucking know it.  Euro-tards can't even come up with one legitimate
operating system.  And don't give me that Symbian shit and make me laugh
even harder.  Could you imagine a smelly European coming up with technology
to rival Windows 7 or BSD or OSX?  Hahahahahah!!  Yeah, I know, tell you another
one right?  You people are pathetic.  Where are the European Googles?
The Microsofts?  The Apples?  The Oracles?  The IBM's?  They don't
exist do they?  Because Europeans are complete fucking idiots.  </p><p>
Fucking sorry motherfuckers.  I hope you all just reach in your pants,
pinch your butt cheeks off and die a horrible blood filled death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What up you sorry European pieces of shit ?
Yeah , you know what you are you maggot fuckers .
You rat bastards are crawling out of your third world caves right about now to go defecate on the train on the way to the fucking gulag shit job you work at you socialist pricks .
Why do n't you fucks invent something instead of trying to take credit for other peoples ' work ?
Fucking Linux is just a rip off of Unix and you fucking know it .
Euro-tards ca n't even come up with one legitimate operating system .
And do n't give me that Symbian shit and make me laugh even harder .
Could you imagine a smelly European coming up with technology to rival Windows 7 or BSD or OSX ?
Hahahahahah ! ! Yeah , I know , tell you another one right ?
You people are pathetic .
Where are the European Googles ?
The Microsofts ?
The Apples ?
The Oracles ?
The IBM 's ?
They do n't exist do they ?
Because Europeans are complete fucking idiots .
Fucking sorry motherfuckers .
I hope you all just reach in your pants , pinch your butt cheeks off and die a horrible blood filled death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What up you sorry European pieces of shit?
Yeah, you know what you
are you maggot fuckers.
You rat bastards are crawling out of your
third world caves right about now to go defecate on the train on the
way to the fucking gulag shit job you work at you socialist pricks.
Why don't you fucks invent something instead of trying to take credit
for other peoples' work?
Fucking Linux is just a rip off of Unix and
you fucking know it.
Euro-tards can't even come up with one legitimate
operating system.
And don't give me that Symbian shit and make me laugh
even harder.
Could you imagine a smelly European coming up with technology
to rival Windows 7 or BSD or OSX?
Hahahahahah!!  Yeah, I know, tell you another
one right?
You people are pathetic.
Where are the European Googles?
The Microsofts?
The Apples?
The Oracles?
The IBM's?
They don't
exist do they?
Because Europeans are complete fucking idiots.
Fucking sorry motherfuckers.
I hope you all just reach in your pants,
pinch your butt cheeks off and die a horrible blood filled death.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454932</id>
	<title>Don't Panic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259658900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We humans will destroy earth and Life much before this Star Life process gets its chance to do so.
I wished to die the star way...</htmltext>
<tokenext>We humans will destroy earth and Life much before this Star Life process gets its chance to do so .
I wished to die the star way.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We humans will destroy earth and Life much before this Star Life process gets its chance to do so.
I wished to die the star way...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457076</id>
	<title>Not very long baseline interferometry</title>
	<author>ogre7299</author>
	<datestamp>1259680200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a minor correction. the scientists did use interferometry but it was not "very long baseline interferometry". The "very long" term applies to the telescopes being separated by extreme distances, say over the entire United States as is the case of the VLBA. Also, the VLBA can only function in radio wavelengths because the data can be taken at the individual telescopes an recombined later. With near-infrared interferometry, what the authors of this study were using, requires that the light from each telescope be sent down an optical tube with mirrors and recombined at a central location which constrains the IOTA telescopes to be close together.</p><p>IOTA was dismantled a few years ago, geiven that a new optical/near-infrared interferometry was coming online, CHARA <a href="http://www.chara.gsu.edu/CHARA/" title="gsu.edu">http://www.chara.gsu.edu/CHARA/</a> [gsu.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a minor correction .
the scientists did use interferometry but it was not " very long baseline interferometry " .
The " very long " term applies to the telescopes being separated by extreme distances , say over the entire United States as is the case of the VLBA .
Also , the VLBA can only function in radio wavelengths because the data can be taken at the individual telescopes an recombined later .
With near-infrared interferometry , what the authors of this study were using , requires that the light from each telescope be sent down an optical tube with mirrors and recombined at a central location which constrains the IOTA telescopes to be close together.IOTA was dismantled a few years ago , geiven that a new optical/near-infrared interferometry was coming online , CHARA http : //www.chara.gsu.edu/CHARA/ [ gsu.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a minor correction.
the scientists did use interferometry but it was not "very long baseline interferometry".
The "very long" term applies to the telescopes being separated by extreme distances, say over the entire United States as is the case of the VLBA.
Also, the VLBA can only function in radio wavelengths because the data can be taken at the individual telescopes an recombined later.
With near-infrared interferometry, what the authors of this study were using, requires that the light from each telescope be sent down an optical tube with mirrors and recombined at a central location which constrains the IOTA telescopes to be close together.IOTA was dismantled a few years ago, geiven that a new optical/near-infrared interferometry was coming online, CHARA http://www.chara.gsu.edu/CHARA/ [gsu.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454990</id>
	<title>Tour de force</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259659920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn, that's beautiful.   Just thinking about the image processing and telescopes behind this gives me goose pimples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn , that 's beautiful .
Just thinking about the image processing and telescopes behind this gives me goose pimples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn, that's beautiful.
Just thinking about the image processing and telescopes behind this gives me goose pimples.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456614</id>
	<title>From TFS</title>
	<author>electricbern</author>
	<datestamp>1259677560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>beating like a giant heart with a period</p></div><p>What a bloody mess.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>beating like a giant heart with a periodWhat a bloody mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>beating like a giant heart with a periodWhat a bloody mess.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457742</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>druuna</author>
	<datestamp>1259683560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>I beg to differ....<br><br>If humans destroy the ozone layer, everything living dies and a bare rock going approximately 107278.87 km/h is all that is left.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>I beg to differ....If humans destroy the ozone layer , everything living dies and a bare rock going approximately 107278.87 km/h is all that is left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I beg to differ....If humans destroy the ozone layer, everything living dies and a bare rock going approximately 107278.87 km/h is all that is left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30461542</id>
	<title>Unsustainable?</title>
	<author>DeadPixels</author>
	<datestamp>1259697540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's something I don't get about the universe - maybe someone more well versed in astronomy or physics could educate me. The universe itself seems to be a fundamentally unsustainable system, dying from the moment it was 'born'. So far, I don't believe we've found any star that has been around "forever" and hasn't burned itself out yet, and I don't think we've seen any new ones created recently either (correct me if I'm wrong on either count). <br> <br>
Granted, 5 billion years is a long time when compared to the human lifespan (or even the existence of the entire species), but it seems interesting that a universe that has existed for 13 billion years seems to have stars blowing themselves up well before then. With the number of stars we've seen die (and counting black holes, as well), it seems as if they've been dying for a very long time, considering how far some of them are away from earth.<br> <br>

Just a thought, I guess, but it seems kind of depressing to think that someday the universe might just be nothing but black holes, dead stars, and rocks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's something I do n't get about the universe - maybe someone more well versed in astronomy or physics could educate me .
The universe itself seems to be a fundamentally unsustainable system , dying from the moment it was 'born' .
So far , I do n't believe we 've found any star that has been around " forever " and has n't burned itself out yet , and I do n't think we 've seen any new ones created recently either ( correct me if I 'm wrong on either count ) .
Granted , 5 billion years is a long time when compared to the human lifespan ( or even the existence of the entire species ) , but it seems interesting that a universe that has existed for 13 billion years seems to have stars blowing themselves up well before then .
With the number of stars we 've seen die ( and counting black holes , as well ) , it seems as if they 've been dying for a very long time , considering how far some of them are away from earth .
Just a thought , I guess , but it seems kind of depressing to think that someday the universe might just be nothing but black holes , dead stars , and rocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's something I don't get about the universe - maybe someone more well versed in astronomy or physics could educate me.
The universe itself seems to be a fundamentally unsustainable system, dying from the moment it was 'born'.
So far, I don't believe we've found any star that has been around "forever" and hasn't burned itself out yet, and I don't think we've seen any new ones created recently either (correct me if I'm wrong on either count).
Granted, 5 billion years is a long time when compared to the human lifespan (or even the existence of the entire species), but it seems interesting that a universe that has existed for 13 billion years seems to have stars blowing themselves up well before then.
With the number of stars we've seen die (and counting black holes, as well), it seems as if they've been dying for a very long time, considering how far some of them are away from earth.
Just a thought, I guess, but it seems kind of depressing to think that someday the universe might just be nothing but black holes, dead stars, and rocks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457450</id>
	<title>No, that's Betelgeuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259682360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2009/07/bet\_on\_america\_1.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">Isn't it?</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it ?
[ washingtonpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it?
[washingtonpost.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458678</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>SBrach</author>
	<datestamp>1259687040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for doing your part to save the planet by posting to slashdot with a typewriter instead of a power wasting computer.  Your sacrifices are appreciated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for doing your part to save the planet by posting to slashdot with a typewriter instead of a power wasting computer .
Your sacrifices are appreciated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for doing your part to save the planet by posting to slashdot with a typewriter instead of a power wasting computer.
Your sacrifices are appreciated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892</id>
	<title>Do we care?</title>
	<author>iamacat</author>
	<datestamp>1259658300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'll be long gone - either in spacial or temporal sense - in a tiny fraction of that time. Even if there are no asteroid impact, killer viruses and so on, we will eventually deplete all natural resources - including ones need to make solar cells and wind turbines - and release enough long-lasting pollutants to make life unsustainable. So, an interesting astronomical curiosity, but no impact on our distant descendants. Now lets go work on being gone spacialy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll be long gone - either in spacial or temporal sense - in a tiny fraction of that time .
Even if there are no asteroid impact , killer viruses and so on , we will eventually deplete all natural resources - including ones need to make solar cells and wind turbines - and release enough long-lasting pollutants to make life unsustainable .
So , an interesting astronomical curiosity , but no impact on our distant descendants .
Now lets go work on being gone spacialy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll be long gone - either in spacial or temporal sense - in a tiny fraction of that time.
Even if there are no asteroid impact, killer viruses and so on, we will eventually deplete all natural resources - including ones need to make solar cells and wind turbines - and release enough long-lasting pollutants to make life unsustainable.
So, an interesting astronomical curiosity, but no impact on our distant descendants.
Now lets go work on being gone spacialy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455110</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259662620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see why we would be gone. Even after our sun goes boom, provided we manage to get some of ourselves off this rock on a permanent basis, parts of our solar system will still be livable, such as some of the moons of the gas giants, floating cities in the atmosphere of the gas giants at an elevation where the air pressure is one atmosphere (Jupiters surface gravity is 2 1/2 times ours which would be a problem for normal humans, but for Saturn and Uranus the surface gravity is actually slightly less than that of Earth and Neptunes is about 10\% more than Earth, so there's not much of a problem there), any of the hundreds or thousands of dwarf planets and other massive objects past Neptune, not to mention any of the millions or billions of artificial human habitats humans could construct in the given time frame, even with current technology if we stopped dithering and got around to it. As for depletion of natural resources, there are plenty out there, the only really important resource is energy, and we'll still be getting lots of that from the sun even after it turns into a red giant. For cases where that isn't true and there's some rare element that we need for some vital purpose, we will probably eventually be able to just make more (at high energy cost) if the need is urgent enough. We've achieved part of the goal of the alchemists and been able to make gold from lead (easier to make gold from platinum though, or lead from gold) for decades now, the costs just aren't worth the returns. To my knowledge, there's no natural barrier to making any element we want even with current technology, it just has to be valuable enough to warrant the massive expenditure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why we would be gone .
Even after our sun goes boom , provided we manage to get some of ourselves off this rock on a permanent basis , parts of our solar system will still be livable , such as some of the moons of the gas giants , floating cities in the atmosphere of the gas giants at an elevation where the air pressure is one atmosphere ( Jupiters surface gravity is 2 1/2 times ours which would be a problem for normal humans , but for Saturn and Uranus the surface gravity is actually slightly less than that of Earth and Neptunes is about 10 \ % more than Earth , so there 's not much of a problem there ) , any of the hundreds or thousands of dwarf planets and other massive objects past Neptune , not to mention any of the millions or billions of artificial human habitats humans could construct in the given time frame , even with current technology if we stopped dithering and got around to it .
As for depletion of natural resources , there are plenty out there , the only really important resource is energy , and we 'll still be getting lots of that from the sun even after it turns into a red giant .
For cases where that is n't true and there 's some rare element that we need for some vital purpose , we will probably eventually be able to just make more ( at high energy cost ) if the need is urgent enough .
We 've achieved part of the goal of the alchemists and been able to make gold from lead ( easier to make gold from platinum though , or lead from gold ) for decades now , the costs just are n't worth the returns .
To my knowledge , there 's no natural barrier to making any element we want even with current technology , it just has to be valuable enough to warrant the massive expenditure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why we would be gone.
Even after our sun goes boom, provided we manage to get some of ourselves off this rock on a permanent basis, parts of our solar system will still be livable, such as some of the moons of the gas giants, floating cities in the atmosphere of the gas giants at an elevation where the air pressure is one atmosphere (Jupiters surface gravity is 2 1/2 times ours which would be a problem for normal humans, but for Saturn and Uranus the surface gravity is actually slightly less than that of Earth and Neptunes is about 10\% more than Earth, so there's not much of a problem there), any of the hundreds or thousands of dwarf planets and other massive objects past Neptune, not to mention any of the millions or billions of artificial human habitats humans could construct in the given time frame, even with current technology if we stopped dithering and got around to it.
As for depletion of natural resources, there are plenty out there, the only really important resource is energy, and we'll still be getting lots of that from the sun even after it turns into a red giant.
For cases where that isn't true and there's some rare element that we need for some vital purpose, we will probably eventually be able to just make more (at high energy cost) if the need is urgent enough.
We've achieved part of the goal of the alchemists and been able to make gold from lead (easier to make gold from platinum though, or lead from gold) for decades now, the costs just aren't worth the returns.
To my knowledge, there's no natural barrier to making any element we want even with current technology, it just has to be valuable enough to warrant the massive expenditure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30471442</id>
	<title>Re:Do we care?</title>
	<author>vtstarin</author>
	<datestamp>1261049400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every thing has to be end one day. Birth of our sun is to die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every thing has to be end one day .
Birth of our sun is to die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every thing has to be end one day.
Birth of our sun is to die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455064</id>
	<title>solar cookery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259661300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asterid belt... is that a fish dish? Sounds Norwegian...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asterid belt... is that a fish dish ?
Sounds Norwegian.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asterid belt... is that a fish dish?
Sounds Norwegian...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456230</id>
	<title>Baited with title... And no pictures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Articles like this piss me off.  They bait you with a really juicy title like, "Close-Up Photos of Dying Star Show Our Sun's Fate"...  And then not only don't have any of these close-up pictures for me to check out, but there's not even a link or sentence that tells me if there's a website I can go to look at them.</p><p>Of course, Science Daily is notorious for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Articles like this piss me off .
They bait you with a really juicy title like , " Close-Up Photos of Dying Star Show Our Sun 's Fate " ... And then not only do n't have any of these close-up pictures for me to check out , but there 's not even a link or sentence that tells me if there 's a website I can go to look at them.Of course , Science Daily is notorious for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Articles like this piss me off.
They bait you with a really juicy title like, "Close-Up Photos of Dying Star Show Our Sun's Fate"...  And then not only don't have any of these close-up pictures for me to check out, but there's not even a link or sentence that tells me if there's a website I can go to look at them.Of course, Science Daily is notorious for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30471442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_0323209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456724
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455928
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30471442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457742
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458678
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30461542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30458748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30454878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30459086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30456958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30457820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_0323209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_0323209.30455094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
