<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_16_1452209</id>
	<title>Herschel's First Science Results, Eagle Nebula</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1260976860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>davecl writes <i>"Over the next three days, many new science results will come out from Herschel. The first of these, a view deep inside the stellar nursery of the <a href="http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMT0T9K73G\_index\_0.html">Eagle Nebula</a>, finds a huge amount of activity, revealing new stars and filaments of dust that could not have been detected by previous telescopes. Also open today is <a href="http://oshi.esa.int/#detail=image.html?id=14">OSHI</a>, the online showcase of Herschel images where all the new science images will be found. Herschel news also available on the <a href="http://herschelmission.wordpress.com/">Herschel Mission Blog</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>davecl writes " Over the next three days , many new science results will come out from Herschel .
The first of these , a view deep inside the stellar nursery of the Eagle Nebula , finds a huge amount of activity , revealing new stars and filaments of dust that could not have been detected by previous telescopes .
Also open today is OSHI , the online showcase of Herschel images where all the new science images will be found .
Herschel news also available on the Herschel Mission Blog .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>davecl writes "Over the next three days, many new science results will come out from Herschel.
The first of these, a view deep inside the stellar nursery of the Eagle Nebula, finds a huge amount of activity, revealing new stars and filaments of dust that could not have been detected by previous telescopes.
Also open today is OSHI, the online showcase of Herschel images where all the new science images will be found.
Herschel news also available on the Herschel Mission Blog.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458662</id>
	<title>"Scientific rights"? WTF?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259686980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><blockquote><div><p>The scientific rights of these Herschel observations are owned by the consortium of the Gould Belt Key Programme</p></div></blockquote><p>I knew about "moral rights", but "scientific rights"?  "Owned"?  Is this meant to imply that I can be sued in Europe for studying these observations without the permission of the "Progamme"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : The scientific rights of these Herschel observations are owned by the consortium of the Gould Belt Key ProgrammeI knew about " moral rights " , but " scientific rights " ?
" Owned " ? Is this meant to imply that I can be sued in Europe for studying these observations without the permission of the " Progamme " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:The scientific rights of these Herschel observations are owned by the consortium of the Gould Belt Key ProgrammeI knew about "moral rights", but "scientific rights"?
"Owned"?  Is this meant to imply that I can be sued in Europe for studying these observations without the permission of the "Progamme"?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460012</id>
	<title>Conventional images</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1259691720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish the web site would show conventional images and contrast that with what Hershel see's. Being a laymen, it's hard to gauge exactly how exciting this type of news is when you don't have a basis to compare with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish the web site would show conventional images and contrast that with what Hershel see 's .
Being a laymen , it 's hard to gauge exactly how exciting this type of news is when you do n't have a basis to compare with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish the web site would show conventional images and contrast that with what Hershel see's.
Being a laymen, it's hard to gauge exactly how exciting this type of news is when you don't have a basis to compare with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459588</id>
	<title>The real story...</title>
	<author>Cookie3</author>
	<datestamp>1259690520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real story is the massive STFC spending cuts that impact their group. Those spending cuts were announced the same day, and are being blogged about by the same folks:</p><p><a href="http://herschelmission.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/so-here-it-is-physics-doomsday/" title="wordpress.com">http://herschelmission.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/so-here-it-is-physics-doomsday/</a> [wordpress.com]<br><a href="http://herschelmission.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/blood-on-the-floor-for-uk-physicists/" title="wordpress.com">http://herschelmission.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/blood-on-the-floor-for-uk-physicists/</a> [wordpress.com]</p><p>20\% cuts here, 15\% cuts there, and soon enough you won't have enough money to fund anything at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real story is the massive STFC spending cuts that impact their group .
Those spending cuts were announced the same day , and are being blogged about by the same folks : http : //herschelmission.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/so-here-it-is-physics-doomsday/ [ wordpress.com ] http : //herschelmission.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/blood-on-the-floor-for-uk-physicists/ [ wordpress.com ] 20 \ % cuts here , 15 \ % cuts there , and soon enough you wo n't have enough money to fund anything at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real story is the massive STFC spending cuts that impact their group.
Those spending cuts were announced the same day, and are being blogged about by the same folks:http://herschelmission.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/so-here-it-is-physics-doomsday/ [wordpress.com]http://herschelmission.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/blood-on-the-floor-for-uk-physicists/ [wordpress.com]20\% cuts here, 15\% cuts there, and soon enough you won't have enough money to fund anything at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458732</id>
	<title>Re:Can this be used to avoid dark matter?</title>
	<author>rho</author>
	<datestamp>1259687220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once they sort through all the science images, that might happen.

</p><p>Those science images, is there nothing they can't do?

</p><p>I bet they've got a science pole, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once they sort through all the science images , that might happen .
Those science images , is there nothing they ca n't do ?
I bet they 've got a science pole , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once they sort through all the science images, that might happen.
Those science images, is there nothing they can't do?
I bet they've got a science pole, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458868</id>
	<title>Herschel *Telescope*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259687820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, how hard would it have been to say
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William\_Herschel\_Telescope" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Herschel *Telescope*</a> [wikipedia.org] instead of just "Herschel"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , how hard would it have been to say Herschel * Telescope * [ wikipedia.org ] instead of just " Herschel " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, how hard would it have been to say
Herschel *Telescope* [wikipedia.org] instead of just "Herschel"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122</id>
	<title>Can this be used to avoid dark matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Herschel can can find matter previously unseen with other telescopes, can this be used to avoid the dark matter theory?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Herschel can can find matter previously unseen with other telescopes , can this be used to avoid the dark matter theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Herschel can can find matter previously unseen with other telescopes, can this be used to avoid the dark matter theory?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458308</id>
	<title>Re:Can this be used to avoid dark matter?</title>
	<author>qinjuehang</author>
	<datestamp>1259685720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No. It has unprecedented resolution for far-infared, but definitely not the first IR space telescope. Enough matter to account for dark matter would form huge structures due to gravity (assuming nebulosity), and thus if they are detectable at Herschel frequencies, they would haven been detected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
It has unprecedented resolution for far-infared , but definitely not the first IR space telescope .
Enough matter to account for dark matter would form huge structures due to gravity ( assuming nebulosity ) , and thus if they are detectable at Herschel frequencies , they would haven been detected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
It has unprecedented resolution for far-infared, but definitely not the first IR space telescope.
Enough matter to account for dark matter would form huge structures due to gravity (assuming nebulosity), and thus if they are detectable at Herschel frequencies, they would haven been detected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460538</id>
	<title>Re:Can this be used to avoid dark matter?</title>
	<author>Gogogoch</author>
	<datestamp>1259693760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"unseen" in TFA = obscured by dust, that's all</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" unseen " in TFA = obscured by dust , that 's all</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"unseen" in TFA = obscured by dust, that's all</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459538</id>
	<title>Not the Eagle nebula</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259690340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The image is not the famous Eagle nebula, but another area inside the constellation Aquila that is utterly boring in visible images. Compare dec. of M16:-13 50, dec. of Herschel image: -02 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The image is not the famous Eagle nebula , but another area inside the constellation Aquila that is utterly boring in visible images .
Compare dec. of M16 : -13 50 , dec. of Herschel image : -02 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The image is not the famous Eagle nebula, but another area inside the constellation Aquila that is utterly boring in visible images.
Compare dec. of M16:-13 50, dec. of Herschel image: -02 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458528</id>
	<title>Re:Dark matter?</title>
	<author>chris mazuc</author>
	<datestamp>1259686500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Current theories suggest that dark matter does not interact with baryonic matter except through gravity, which is why we can see its effects on other matter but can't actually see it. Personally I think the theory is crap, but its the best we have right now.</p><p>As a side note, I really hope Einstein was horribly horribly wrong; what kind of sick joke would it be to be given this mind bogglingly gigantic and beautiful universe, destined never to venture further than a few light years from the star that gave us life, lest we condemn ourselves to never seeing our home again. We know he was wrong, just not in the ways he needs to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Current theories suggest that dark matter does not interact with baryonic matter except through gravity , which is why we can see its effects on other matter but ca n't actually see it .
Personally I think the theory is crap , but its the best we have right now.As a side note , I really hope Einstein was horribly horribly wrong ; what kind of sick joke would it be to be given this mind bogglingly gigantic and beautiful universe , destined never to venture further than a few light years from the star that gave us life , lest we condemn ourselves to never seeing our home again .
We know he was wrong , just not in the ways he needs to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Current theories suggest that dark matter does not interact with baryonic matter except through gravity, which is why we can see its effects on other matter but can't actually see it.
Personally I think the theory is crap, but its the best we have right now.As a side note, I really hope Einstein was horribly horribly wrong; what kind of sick joke would it be to be given this mind bogglingly gigantic and beautiful universe, destined never to venture further than a few light years from the star that gave us life, lest we condemn ourselves to never seeing our home again.
We know he was wrong, just not in the ways he needs to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458876</id>
	<title>Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>JLDohm</author>
	<datestamp>1259687880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I absolutely have to second the Pleiades.  They look absolutely spectacular at low magnification.  Most any open star cluster will be pretty impressive.  The same goes for planets and the moon.</p><p>Unfortunately, to kids desensitized by pictures from Hubble, galaxies and nebulae seen through a telescope are pretty disappointing.  In my mind, the best part about finding some of the dimmer objects is actually finding them.  Learning your way around the sky is truly a challenge.  I think that kids that young would have a hard time appreciating the significance of viewing another galaxy, so you should stick to things that are visually stimulating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely have to second the Pleiades .
They look absolutely spectacular at low magnification .
Most any open star cluster will be pretty impressive .
The same goes for planets and the moon.Unfortunately , to kids desensitized by pictures from Hubble , galaxies and nebulae seen through a telescope are pretty disappointing .
In my mind , the best part about finding some of the dimmer objects is actually finding them .
Learning your way around the sky is truly a challenge .
I think that kids that young would have a hard time appreciating the significance of viewing another galaxy , so you should stick to things that are visually stimulating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely have to second the Pleiades.
They look absolutely spectacular at low magnification.
Most any open star cluster will be pretty impressive.
The same goes for planets and the moon.Unfortunately, to kids desensitized by pictures from Hubble, galaxies and nebulae seen through a telescope are pretty disappointing.
In my mind, the best part about finding some of the dimmer objects is actually finding them.
Learning your way around the sky is truly a challenge.
I think that kids that young would have a hard time appreciating the significance of viewing another galaxy, so you should stick to things that are visually stimulating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458552</id>
	<title>Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1259686560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depending on what the scope is you might just be best off with the normal jazz; the moon, planets, galaxies in the local group.<br> <br>6, 4 and 3 are kind of young but if you're interested in this as well you might want to consider joining your local amateur astronomy association. You'd get a lot more input as to what's good to find for the backyard astronomer, some access to better scopes and you'd probably learn a great deal about astronomy with it. <a href="http://www.space.com/nightsky/" title="space.com">Space.com's NightSky</a> [space.com] is also a good resource for things that people can see without hardcore equipment and it's kept up to date. I also recommend people with a basic interest in astronomy to subscribe to the <a href="http://www.astronomycast.com/" title="astronomycast.com">AstronomyCast</a> [astronomycast.com] podcast. It's highly informative and a step above any of the crap you find on Discovery or The Science Channel.<br> <br>The nice thing about astronomy is that there are a ton of resources for all levels of interest, resources and abilities. It's probably the cheapest science you can learn on your own because of the vast number of resources available. Not to mention that it touches on so many other areas of science. It's really a great intersection of scientific disciplines that just about everyone can appreciate. There aren't many other fields of science you can say that for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending on what the scope is you might just be best off with the normal jazz ; the moon , planets , galaxies in the local group .
6 , 4 and 3 are kind of young but if you 're interested in this as well you might want to consider joining your local amateur astronomy association .
You 'd get a lot more input as to what 's good to find for the backyard astronomer , some access to better scopes and you 'd probably learn a great deal about astronomy with it .
Space.com 's NightSky [ space.com ] is also a good resource for things that people can see without hardcore equipment and it 's kept up to date .
I also recommend people with a basic interest in astronomy to subscribe to the AstronomyCast [ astronomycast.com ] podcast .
It 's highly informative and a step above any of the crap you find on Discovery or The Science Channel .
The nice thing about astronomy is that there are a ton of resources for all levels of interest , resources and abilities .
It 's probably the cheapest science you can learn on your own because of the vast number of resources available .
Not to mention that it touches on so many other areas of science .
It 's really a great intersection of scientific disciplines that just about everyone can appreciate .
There are n't many other fields of science you can say that for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending on what the scope is you might just be best off with the normal jazz; the moon, planets, galaxies in the local group.
6, 4 and 3 are kind of young but if you're interested in this as well you might want to consider joining your local amateur astronomy association.
You'd get a lot more input as to what's good to find for the backyard astronomer, some access to better scopes and you'd probably learn a great deal about astronomy with it.
Space.com's NightSky [space.com] is also a good resource for things that people can see without hardcore equipment and it's kept up to date.
I also recommend people with a basic interest in astronomy to subscribe to the AstronomyCast [astronomycast.com] podcast.
It's highly informative and a step above any of the crap you find on Discovery or The Science Channel.
The nice thing about astronomy is that there are a ton of resources for all levels of interest, resources and abilities.
It's probably the cheapest science you can learn on your own because of the vast number of resources available.
Not to mention that it touches on so many other areas of science.
It's really a great intersection of scientific disciplines that just about everyone can appreciate.
There aren't many other fields of science you can say that for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459264</id>
	<title>Re:Dark matter?</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1259689320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, it's invisible but leaves foot prints. Can likely also peek in to the women's showers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , it 's invisible but leaves foot prints .
Can likely also peek in to the women 's showers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, it's invisible but leaves foot prints.
Can likely also peek in to the women's showers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459376</id>
	<title>Re:Dark matter?</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1259689680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a couple ways to work with Einstein constraints.</p><p>Generation ships are the easiest to engineer, as the tech is nearly there.</p><p>Another way would be figuring out a way to backup people, ship their records and a genetic engineering factory ship to another star, and then download people in to some kind of life form once there. Not sure if we'll ever be able to really scan a person in to some kind of storage buffer, though.</p><p>I guess one could also ship viable sperm/egg and try to run some kind of automated test tube process, followed by machine raising children and such. That one would make an interesting story. How well could machines raise a basic crew of a gene ship, who would then be charged with raising wave after wave of colonists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a couple ways to work with Einstein constraints.Generation ships are the easiest to engineer , as the tech is nearly there.Another way would be figuring out a way to backup people , ship their records and a genetic engineering factory ship to another star , and then download people in to some kind of life form once there .
Not sure if we 'll ever be able to really scan a person in to some kind of storage buffer , though.I guess one could also ship viable sperm/egg and try to run some kind of automated test tube process , followed by machine raising children and such .
That one would make an interesting story .
How well could machines raise a basic crew of a gene ship , who would then be charged with raising wave after wave of colonists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a couple ways to work with Einstein constraints.Generation ships are the easiest to engineer, as the tech is nearly there.Another way would be figuring out a way to backup people, ship their records and a genetic engineering factory ship to another star, and then download people in to some kind of life form once there.
Not sure if we'll ever be able to really scan a person in to some kind of storage buffer, though.I guess one could also ship viable sperm/egg and try to run some kind of automated test tube process, followed by machine raising children and such.
That one would make an interesting story.
How well could machines raise a basic crew of a gene ship, who would then be charged with raising wave after wave of colonists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458780</id>
	<title>Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1259687460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without the use of a telescope you could show your kids the surface of the sun by creating your own pinhole box.</p><p>Get as large a rectangular box as you can manage which has its ends as large as possible.  Affix a large piece of white paper on the inside of one end, close the box then tape all the seams so light can't enter.  Take a pin and punch a hole in the end opposite of the one you put the paper on.</p><p>Finally, cut a hole in the side of the box near the end where the paper is.  When you look into this hole, you should be looking at an angle down towards the white sheet of paper.  Start with a smaller hole and keep making larger until you have the size you need.</p><p>Finally, point the end with the pinhole towards the sun then look in the hole in the side of the box.  When you align the box correctly, you should see an image of the sun projected onto the white sheet of paper which is perfectly safe for your kids to look at.  If you're really lucky, you might see a sunspot or two.</p><p>Keep this box so when there is a solar eclipse viewable in your area, your kids can have a great view without having to stare at the sun with funky glasses on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without the use of a telescope you could show your kids the surface of the sun by creating your own pinhole box.Get as large a rectangular box as you can manage which has its ends as large as possible .
Affix a large piece of white paper on the inside of one end , close the box then tape all the seams so light ca n't enter .
Take a pin and punch a hole in the end opposite of the one you put the paper on.Finally , cut a hole in the side of the box near the end where the paper is .
When you look into this hole , you should be looking at an angle down towards the white sheet of paper .
Start with a smaller hole and keep making larger until you have the size you need.Finally , point the end with the pinhole towards the sun then look in the hole in the side of the box .
When you align the box correctly , you should see an image of the sun projected onto the white sheet of paper which is perfectly safe for your kids to look at .
If you 're really lucky , you might see a sunspot or two.Keep this box so when there is a solar eclipse viewable in your area , your kids can have a great view without having to stare at the sun with funky glasses on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without the use of a telescope you could show your kids the surface of the sun by creating your own pinhole box.Get as large a rectangular box as you can manage which has its ends as large as possible.
Affix a large piece of white paper on the inside of one end, close the box then tape all the seams so light can't enter.
Take a pin and punch a hole in the end opposite of the one you put the paper on.Finally, cut a hole in the side of the box near the end where the paper is.
When you look into this hole, you should be looking at an angle down towards the white sheet of paper.
Start with a smaller hole and keep making larger until you have the size you need.Finally, point the end with the pinhole towards the sun then look in the hole in the side of the box.
When you align the box correctly, you should see an image of the sun projected onto the white sheet of paper which is perfectly safe for your kids to look at.
If you're really lucky, you might see a sunspot or two.Keep this box so when there is a solar eclipse viewable in your area, your kids can have a great view without having to stare at the sun with funky glasses on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460400</id>
	<title>Re:Can this be used to avoid dark matter?</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1259693220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If Herschel can can find matter previously unseen with other telescopes, can this be used to avoid the dark matter theory?</i></p><p>Short answer: no.</p><p>Long answer: there are multiple dark matter problems on multiple scales.  Galactic dark matter, which is the only kind Hershel might be able to see, may be baryonic (made up of the same sorts of elementary particles as everything else we know about.)  Even that is doubtful, based on dynamical analysis of galactic collisions, which strongly favour a non-baryonic component even on galactic scales.  And the thing about non-baryonic dark matter is that whatever it is, it doesn't interact electro-magnetically, at least not to a significant degree.  If it did, it would be scattered off ordinary matter and be detectable and visible and have pretty much the same spacial distribution as ordinary matter, which it observably does not in the case of galactic collisions.</p><p>On larger scales, we know with as much certainty as we know anything that dark matter must be non-baryonic, and therefore almost certainly won't be visible.  The reason we know it must be non-baryonic is because the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the early universe, which we can calculate quite precisely based on the universe we see today, puts a strict limit on the amount of baryonic matter, and the extra-galactic dark matter exceeds that limit by a factor of ten or more.</p><p>Finally, "avoiding the dark matter theory" is a funny way of putting things, as if somehow dark matter was bad and it would be a good thing to avoid it.  Dark matter is a perfectly sensible explanation some peculiar phenomena, and although it is not the only one, it has proven consistent with the experimental and observational tests that have been used to investigate it, particularly the galactic collision analysis mentioned above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Herschel can can find matter previously unseen with other telescopes , can this be used to avoid the dark matter theory ? Short answer : no.Long answer : there are multiple dark matter problems on multiple scales .
Galactic dark matter , which is the only kind Hershel might be able to see , may be baryonic ( made up of the same sorts of elementary particles as everything else we know about .
) Even that is doubtful , based on dynamical analysis of galactic collisions , which strongly favour a non-baryonic component even on galactic scales .
And the thing about non-baryonic dark matter is that whatever it is , it does n't interact electro-magnetically , at least not to a significant degree .
If it did , it would be scattered off ordinary matter and be detectable and visible and have pretty much the same spacial distribution as ordinary matter , which it observably does not in the case of galactic collisions.On larger scales , we know with as much certainty as we know anything that dark matter must be non-baryonic , and therefore almost certainly wo n't be visible .
The reason we know it must be non-baryonic is because the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the early universe , which we can calculate quite precisely based on the universe we see today , puts a strict limit on the amount of baryonic matter , and the extra-galactic dark matter exceeds that limit by a factor of ten or more.Finally , " avoiding the dark matter theory " is a funny way of putting things , as if somehow dark matter was bad and it would be a good thing to avoid it .
Dark matter is a perfectly sensible explanation some peculiar phenomena , and although it is not the only one , it has proven consistent with the experimental and observational tests that have been used to investigate it , particularly the galactic collision analysis mentioned above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Herschel can can find matter previously unseen with other telescopes, can this be used to avoid the dark matter theory?Short answer: no.Long answer: there are multiple dark matter problems on multiple scales.
Galactic dark matter, which is the only kind Hershel might be able to see, may be baryonic (made up of the same sorts of elementary particles as everything else we know about.
)  Even that is doubtful, based on dynamical analysis of galactic collisions, which strongly favour a non-baryonic component even on galactic scales.
And the thing about non-baryonic dark matter is that whatever it is, it doesn't interact electro-magnetically, at least not to a significant degree.
If it did, it would be scattered off ordinary matter and be detectable and visible and have pretty much the same spacial distribution as ordinary matter, which it observably does not in the case of galactic collisions.On larger scales, we know with as much certainty as we know anything that dark matter must be non-baryonic, and therefore almost certainly won't be visible.
The reason we know it must be non-baryonic is because the ratio of hydrogen to helium in the early universe, which we can calculate quite precisely based on the universe we see today, puts a strict limit on the amount of baryonic matter, and the extra-galactic dark matter exceeds that limit by a factor of ten or more.Finally, "avoiding the dark matter theory" is a funny way of putting things, as if somehow dark matter was bad and it would be a good thing to avoid it.
Dark matter is a perfectly sensible explanation some peculiar phenomena, and although it is not the only one, it has proven consistent with the experimental and observational tests that have been used to investigate it, particularly the galactic collision analysis mentioned above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458560</id>
	<title>Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259686560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a small telescope - say 1.5 to 2 inches and 10 to 100x magnification. The double cluster in Perseus - its below Cassiopeia the W thing and looks like two balls of stars, very pretty at low magnification. The Orion nebula - often called the Sword of Orion, its below the three stars of his belt and is a ghostly greenish mist that you need to zoom a bit more in to see. Dont forget to look at the moon, especially when you can see less than the full moon because the mountains and craters along the line of the shadow look really three dimensional, you can crank the magnification up as far as you like on these, bearing in mind that you have to follow the thing across the sky. Take a look at the website of magazines like Sky and Telescope or Astronomy for more info on what to look at and what it is you are seeing. The Orion Nebula for example is the nearest stellar nursery where new stars are being born. If you want to see pictures of the quality that Herschel produces then download the APOD or Astronomy Picture Of the Day application for a new one each day on your desk top - or go staight to the APOD website which google will find for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a small telescope - say 1.5 to 2 inches and 10 to 100x magnification .
The double cluster in Perseus - its below Cassiopeia the W thing and looks like two balls of stars , very pretty at low magnification .
The Orion nebula - often called the Sword of Orion , its below the three stars of his belt and is a ghostly greenish mist that you need to zoom a bit more in to see .
Dont forget to look at the moon , especially when you can see less than the full moon because the mountains and craters along the line of the shadow look really three dimensional , you can crank the magnification up as far as you like on these , bearing in mind that you have to follow the thing across the sky .
Take a look at the website of magazines like Sky and Telescope or Astronomy for more info on what to look at and what it is you are seeing .
The Orion Nebula for example is the nearest stellar nursery where new stars are being born .
If you want to see pictures of the quality that Herschel produces then download the APOD or Astronomy Picture Of the Day application for a new one each day on your desk top - or go staight to the APOD website which google will find for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a small telescope - say 1.5 to 2 inches and 10 to 100x magnification.
The double cluster in Perseus - its below Cassiopeia the W thing and looks like two balls of stars, very pretty at low magnification.
The Orion nebula - often called the Sword of Orion, its below the three stars of his belt and is a ghostly greenish mist that you need to zoom a bit more in to see.
Dont forget to look at the moon, especially when you can see less than the full moon because the mountains and craters along the line of the shadow look really three dimensional, you can crank the magnification up as far as you like on these, bearing in mind that you have to follow the thing across the sky.
Take a look at the website of magazines like Sky and Telescope or Astronomy for more info on what to look at and what it is you are seeing.
The Orion Nebula for example is the nearest stellar nursery where new stars are being born.
If you want to see pictures of the quality that Herschel produces then download the APOD or Astronomy Picture Of the Day application for a new one each day on your desk top - or go staight to the APOD website which google will find for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458838</id>
	<title>Note to self.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259687700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Herschel doesn't sound like Hershey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Herschel does n't sound like Hershey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Herschel doesn't sound like Hershey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458574</id>
	<title>Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259686620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Constellation Goatse is pretty big.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Constellation Goatse is pretty big .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Constellation Goatse is pretty big.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458864</id>
	<title>Re:Dark matter?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259687820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a side note, I really hope Einstein was horribly horribly wrong; what kind of sick joke would it be to be given this mind bogglingly gigantic and beautiful universe, destined never to venture further than a few light years from the star that gave us life, lest we condemn ourselves to never seeing our home again. We know he was wrong, just not in the ways he needs to be.</p></div><p>No offense, but we'd probably already know if he were horribly, horribly wrong. And we already know that if we go a few billion years in the future, the Sun won't be there any more (unless there's some sort of fancy solar-scale engineering you can do to spruce up the Sun like somehow replenish the hydrogen in the Sun).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a side note , I really hope Einstein was horribly horribly wrong ; what kind of sick joke would it be to be given this mind bogglingly gigantic and beautiful universe , destined never to venture further than a few light years from the star that gave us life , lest we condemn ourselves to never seeing our home again .
We know he was wrong , just not in the ways he needs to be.No offense , but we 'd probably already know if he were horribly , horribly wrong .
And we already know that if we go a few billion years in the future , the Sun wo n't be there any more ( unless there 's some sort of fancy solar-scale engineering you can do to spruce up the Sun like somehow replenish the hydrogen in the Sun ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a side note, I really hope Einstein was horribly horribly wrong; what kind of sick joke would it be to be given this mind bogglingly gigantic and beautiful universe, destined never to venture further than a few light years from the star that gave us life, lest we condemn ourselves to never seeing our home again.
We know he was wrong, just not in the ways he needs to be.No offense, but we'd probably already know if he were horribly, horribly wrong.
And we already know that if we go a few billion years in the future, the Sun won't be there any more (unless there's some sort of fancy solar-scale engineering you can do to spruce up the Sun like somehow replenish the hydrogen in the Sun).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458346</id>
	<title>Exciting indeed</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1259685840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Us astrophysicists have a saying, "if it's a nebula, look out for deformations of the Einsinian constant due to gravity waves!" And now we are seeing beautiful visual proof of this (especially look at picture 23 where the ionized gas jets are interpellating).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Us astrophysicists have a saying , " if it 's a nebula , look out for deformations of the Einsinian constant due to gravity waves !
" And now we are seeing beautiful visual proof of this ( especially look at picture 23 where the ionized gas jets are interpellating ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Us astrophysicists have a saying, "if it's a nebula, look out for deformations of the Einsinian constant due to gravity waves!
" And now we are seeing beautiful visual proof of this (especially look at picture 23 where the ionized gas jets are interpellating).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30461942</id>
	<title>It's not the Eagle Nebula</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259699040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The new Herschel image shows part of the constellation of Aquila, meaning the Eagle. However, this is not the Eagle Nebula or M16: that is in the constellation of Serpens which is, coincidentally, nearby.

To make matters more confusing, perhaps, the two blue parts of the image are star-forming regions, similar in principle to the Eagle Nebula. I believe that the left-hand one is Westerhout 40 and the right-hand one is Sharpless 62.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The new Herschel image shows part of the constellation of Aquila , meaning the Eagle .
However , this is not the Eagle Nebula or M16 : that is in the constellation of Serpens which is , coincidentally , nearby .
To make matters more confusing , perhaps , the two blue parts of the image are star-forming regions , similar in principle to the Eagle Nebula .
I believe that the left-hand one is Westerhout 40 and the right-hand one is Sharpless 62 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new Herschel image shows part of the constellation of Aquila, meaning the Eagle.
However, this is not the Eagle Nebula or M16: that is in the constellation of Serpens which is, coincidentally, nearby.
To make matters more confusing, perhaps, the two blue parts of the image are star-forming regions, similar in principle to the Eagle Nebula.
I believe that the left-hand one is Westerhout 40 and the right-hand one is Sharpless 62.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458582</id>
	<title>Re:Can this be used to avoid dark matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259686680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello dances with kokgobblers!</p><p>It can be used to avoid gobble gobble gobble!</p><p>Gobble gobble gobble!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello dances with kokgobblers ! It can be used to avoid gobble gobble gobble ! Gobble gobble gobble ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello dances with kokgobblers!It can be used to avoid gobble gobble gobble!Gobble gobble gobble!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460664</id>
	<title>Re:Can this be used to avoid dark matter?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259694180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My last information is, that the dark matter theory&rsquo;s problems are already explained with conventional models, for at least a year.</p><p>And about dark energy: There is a very simple solution for it:<br>If you theory predicts a value, and measurements in nature show a different one, then...</p><p>FIX YOUR DAMN THEORY!</p><p>Seriously, I have never seen a bigger epic fail in all of science. It&rsquo;s pulling us all in the same dirt where stuff like the &ldquo;electric universe&rdquo;, &ldquo;creationism&rdquo; and &ldquo;cube time&rdquo; reside in:</p><p>The ignorance of standing by one&rsquo;s own beliefs, even in the face of utterly crushing facts, blatantly ignoring them or calling nature &ldquo;wrong&rdquo;.</p><p>In a way, it&rsquo;s like saying that gravity doesn&rsquo;t exist, because you choose to believe otherwise.</p><p>In psychology, such thought patterns are known as the start of what could become a schizophrenia. (Modern psychology can also see groups of people as some kind of &ldquo;individual&rdquo;/&ldquo;lifeform&rdquo;, as the same behaviors and properties can be seen in them (and partially higher or lower sets of the fractal that is the universe).)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My last information is , that the dark matter theory    s problems are already explained with conventional models , for at least a year.And about dark energy : There is a very simple solution for it : If you theory predicts a value , and measurements in nature show a different one , then...FIX YOUR DAMN THEORY ! Seriously , I have never seen a bigger epic fail in all of science .
It    s pulling us all in the same dirt where stuff like the    electric universe    ,    creationism    and    cube time    reside in : The ignorance of standing by one    s own beliefs , even in the face of utterly crushing facts , blatantly ignoring them or calling nature    wrong    .In a way , it    s like saying that gravity doesn    t exist , because you choose to believe otherwise.In psychology , such thought patterns are known as the start of what could become a schizophrenia .
( Modern psychology can also see groups of people as some kind of    individual    /    lifeform    , as the same behaviors and properties can be seen in them ( and partially higher or lower sets of the fractal that is the universe ) .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My last information is, that the dark matter theory’s problems are already explained with conventional models, for at least a year.And about dark energy: There is a very simple solution for it:If you theory predicts a value, and measurements in nature show a different one, then...FIX YOUR DAMN THEORY!Seriously, I have never seen a bigger epic fail in all of science.
It’s pulling us all in the same dirt where stuff like the “electric universe”, “creationism” and “cube time” reside in:The ignorance of standing by one’s own beliefs, even in the face of utterly crushing facts, blatantly ignoring them or calling nature “wrong”.In a way, it’s like saying that gravity doesn’t exist, because you choose to believe otherwise.In psychology, such thought patterns are known as the start of what could become a schizophrenia.
(Modern psychology can also see groups of people as some kind of “individual”/“lifeform”, as the same behaviors and properties can be seen in them (and partially higher or lower sets of the fractal that is the universe).
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30461198</id>
	<title>mod 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">the aacounting Hand...don't</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>the aacounting Hand...do n't [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the aacounting Hand...don't [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459856</id>
	<title>Re:Dark matter?</title>
	<author>chris mazuc</author>
	<datestamp>1259691300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No offense, but we'd probably already know if he were horribly, horribly wrong.</p></div><p>I'm confused by this. Are you saying we already know everything about physics? Please elaborate.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And we already know that if we go a few billion years in the future, the Sun won't be there any more</p></div><p>I'm not saying it is pointless to leave, and I sincerely hope we make it out of our solar system without killing ourselves first. It just saddens me that all those colonies of humanity (or whatever we are at that point) will never be able to communicate with each other on a reasonable time scale. Who cares if there is life out there besides our own if we can never see it, or if we do see it, we wouldn't have anyone like us to tell about it by the time we got back.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No offense , but we 'd probably already know if he were horribly , horribly wrong.I 'm confused by this .
Are you saying we already know everything about physics ?
Please elaborate.And we already know that if we go a few billion years in the future , the Sun wo n't be there any moreI 'm not saying it is pointless to leave , and I sincerely hope we make it out of our solar system without killing ourselves first .
It just saddens me that all those colonies of humanity ( or whatever we are at that point ) will never be able to communicate with each other on a reasonable time scale .
Who cares if there is life out there besides our own if we can never see it , or if we do see it , we would n't have anyone like us to tell about it by the time we got back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No offense, but we'd probably already know if he were horribly, horribly wrong.I'm confused by this.
Are you saying we already know everything about physics?
Please elaborate.And we already know that if we go a few billion years in the future, the Sun won't be there any moreI'm not saying it is pointless to leave, and I sincerely hope we make it out of our solar system without killing ourselves first.
It just saddens me that all those colonies of humanity (or whatever we are at that point) will never be able to communicate with each other on a reasonable time scale.
Who cares if there is life out there besides our own if we can never see it, or if we do see it, we wouldn't have anyone like us to tell about it by the time we got back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460202</id>
	<title>Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>z4ns4stu</author>
	<datestamp>1259692500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still remember going to Yosemite as a kid and my uncle dragging out his telescope.  We set it up in what is probably one of the darkest spots in the US and he showed my cousin and me the moon, the rings of Saturn, and the moons of Jupiter. We also looked at Venus and could see its phases, and at Mars and could see great detail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still remember going to Yosemite as a kid and my uncle dragging out his telescope .
We set it up in what is probably one of the darkest spots in the US and he showed my cousin and me the moon , the rings of Saturn , and the moons of Jupiter .
We also looked at Venus and could see its phases , and at Mars and could see great detail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still remember going to Yosemite as a kid and my uncle dragging out his telescope.
We set it up in what is probably one of the darkest spots in the US and he showed my cousin and me the moon, the rings of Saturn, and the moons of Jupiter.
We also looked at Venus and could see its phases, and at Mars and could see great detail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458580</id>
	<title>Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259686680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends on your skies, more location, how late you are willing to stay until, and of course your scope. For starters, try Pleiads and Orion nebula. If my guess of your position is close enough, you should be able to see both just after the sun sets completely, together with Jupiter. Mars and Saturn should come up much later. If you are feeling adventurous, try Double Cluster, M44 (Beehive), and Andromeda. Those objects I mentioned are typically visible in Binoculars, so should pose no problem for a telescope. The last 3, however, may or may not be naked-eye visible (again, depending on various factors, such like light pollution), and even if they are, might require experienced observers to pick out, so might be hard to find.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on your skies , more location , how late you are willing to stay until , and of course your scope .
For starters , try Pleiads and Orion nebula .
If my guess of your position is close enough , you should be able to see both just after the sun sets completely , together with Jupiter .
Mars and Saturn should come up much later .
If you are feeling adventurous , try Double Cluster , M44 ( Beehive ) , and Andromeda .
Those objects I mentioned are typically visible in Binoculars , so should pose no problem for a telescope .
The last 3 , however , may or may not be naked-eye visible ( again , depending on various factors , such like light pollution ) , and even if they are , might require experienced observers to pick out , so might be hard to find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on your skies, more location, how late you are willing to stay until, and of course your scope.
For starters, try Pleiads and Orion nebula.
If my guess of your position is close enough, you should be able to see both just after the sun sets completely, together with Jupiter.
Mars and Saturn should come up much later.
If you are feeling adventurous, try Double Cluster, M44 (Beehive), and Andromeda.
Those objects I mentioned are typically visible in Binoculars, so should pose no problem for a telescope.
The last 3, however, may or may not be naked-eye visible (again, depending on various factors, such like light pollution), and even if they are, might require experienced observers to pick out, so might be hard to find.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30465156</id>
	<title>Re:Dark matter?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1259666280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm confused by this. Are you saying we already know everything about physics? Please elaborate.</p></div><p>No, we don't know everything. But his theory has been validated to a considerable degree. My view is that FTL is almost surely not possible. There are several experiments that have measured the speed of propagation of various events (particle accelerators, astronomy observations, and quantum information experiments). So far, we have not found a way for information to travel faster than the speed of light. I think it's pretty good coverage of the possibilities too.<br> <br>

FTL is not the only way to skin the cat however. Wormholes are another way. If you can build a vastly shorter path between A and B, then you're golden even with speed of light as the restriction.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not saying it is pointless to leave, and I sincerely hope we make it out of our solar system without killing ourselves first. It just saddens me that all those colonies of humanity (or whatever we are at that point) will never be able to communicate with each other on a reasonable time scale. Who cares if there is life out there besides our own if we can never see it, or if we do see it, we wouldn't have anyone like us to tell about it by the time we got back.</p></div><p>You'll just have to live longer. Then the time scales will become more reasonable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused by this .
Are you saying we already know everything about physics ?
Please elaborate.No , we do n't know everything .
But his theory has been validated to a considerable degree .
My view is that FTL is almost surely not possible .
There are several experiments that have measured the speed of propagation of various events ( particle accelerators , astronomy observations , and quantum information experiments ) .
So far , we have not found a way for information to travel faster than the speed of light .
I think it 's pretty good coverage of the possibilities too .
FTL is not the only way to skin the cat however .
Wormholes are another way .
If you can build a vastly shorter path between A and B , then you 're golden even with speed of light as the restriction.I 'm not saying it is pointless to leave , and I sincerely hope we make it out of our solar system without killing ourselves first .
It just saddens me that all those colonies of humanity ( or whatever we are at that point ) will never be able to communicate with each other on a reasonable time scale .
Who cares if there is life out there besides our own if we can never see it , or if we do see it , we would n't have anyone like us to tell about it by the time we got back.You 'll just have to live longer .
Then the time scales will become more reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused by this.
Are you saying we already know everything about physics?
Please elaborate.No, we don't know everything.
But his theory has been validated to a considerable degree.
My view is that FTL is almost surely not possible.
There are several experiments that have measured the speed of propagation of various events (particle accelerators, astronomy observations, and quantum information experiments).
So far, we have not found a way for information to travel faster than the speed of light.
I think it's pretty good coverage of the possibilities too.
FTL is not the only way to skin the cat however.
Wormholes are another way.
If you can build a vastly shorter path between A and B, then you're golden even with speed of light as the restriction.I'm not saying it is pointless to leave, and I sincerely hope we make it out of our solar system without killing ourselves first.
It just saddens me that all those colonies of humanity (or whatever we are at that point) will never be able to communicate with each other on a reasonable time scale.
Who cares if there is life out there besides our own if we can never see it, or if we do see it, we wouldn't have anyone like us to tell about it by the time we got back.You'll just have to live longer.
Then the time scales will become more reasonable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458454</id>
	<title>Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259686200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on how dark is your sky. If your sky is awfully polluted by light, then you're limited to planets, separating binary stars and the moon. Of course it's also not a problem to observe the sun but you'll need a special aperture filter (and don't forget to remove the seeker or to filter it to) for that. Anyway, I wouldn't let child that young observe the sun: I'd be afraid they'd remove the filter.</p><p>If your sky is dark, then you can try to observe fainter objects such as galaxies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on how dark is your sky .
If your sky is awfully polluted by light , then you 're limited to planets , separating binary stars and the moon .
Of course it 's also not a problem to observe the sun but you 'll need a special aperture filter ( and do n't forget to remove the seeker or to filter it to ) for that .
Anyway , I would n't let child that young observe the sun : I 'd be afraid they 'd remove the filter.If your sky is dark , then you can try to observe fainter objects such as galaxies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on how dark is your sky.
If your sky is awfully polluted by light, then you're limited to planets, separating binary stars and the moon.
Of course it's also not a problem to observe the sun but you'll need a special aperture filter (and don't forget to remove the seeker or to filter it to) for that.
Anyway, I wouldn't let child that young observe the sun: I'd be afraid they'd remove the filter.If your sky is dark, then you can try to observe fainter objects such as galaxies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458154</id>
	<title>Dark matter?</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259685120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found this statement very interesting:</p><blockquote><div><p>Such dark nebulae were once thought to be 'holes in the sky', empty areas of space where there are no stars and so our view was out into the void beyond. We now know that this is not the case and the dark nebulae are dense, dusty clouds that obscure our view of the stars beyond.</p></div></blockquote><p>If what we think is a vast expanse of nothing is actually full of dust and other "real" matter, I wonder if this could account for the gravitational effects of so-called "dark matter".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found this statement very interesting : Such dark nebulae were once thought to be 'holes in the sky ' , empty areas of space where there are no stars and so our view was out into the void beyond .
We now know that this is not the case and the dark nebulae are dense , dusty clouds that obscure our view of the stars beyond.If what we think is a vast expanse of nothing is actually full of dust and other " real " matter , I wonder if this could account for the gravitational effects of so-called " dark matter " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found this statement very interesting:Such dark nebulae were once thought to be 'holes in the sky', empty areas of space where there are no stars and so our view was out into the void beyond.
We now know that this is not the case and the dark nebulae are dense, dusty clouds that obscure our view of the stars beyond.If what we think is a vast expanse of nothing is actually full of dust and other "real" matter, I wonder if this could account for the gravitational effects of so-called "dark matter".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458050</id>
	<title>I'm excited</title>
	<author>Kingrames</author>
	<datestamp>1259684760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever since I saw the pictures of the w5 star forming region in the soul nebula, I've found myself eager to learn more about the birth of stars.
<br>
Also, let me be the first to say this thread is useless without pics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since I saw the pictures of the w5 star forming region in the soul nebula , I 've found myself eager to learn more about the birth of stars .
Also , let me be the first to say this thread is useless without pics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since I saw the pictures of the w5 star forming region in the soul nebula, I've found myself eager to learn more about the birth of stars.
Also, let me be the first to say this thread is useless without pics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458640</id>
	<title>Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1259686860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Some pro tips for noobs:
</p><p>
1.  Remove the cap from the lenses.<br>
2.  Usually, you point the the fat end out.<br>
3.  When seeing something interesting, verify first by wiping clean the cheetos debris from the lenses.
</p><p>
Have fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some pro tips for noobs : 1 .
Remove the cap from the lenses .
2. Usually , you point the the fat end out .
3. When seeing something interesting , verify first by wiping clean the cheetos debris from the lenses .
Have fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Some pro tips for noobs:

1.
Remove the cap from the lenses.
2.  Usually, you point the the fat end out.
3.  When seeing something interesting, verify first by wiping clean the cheetos debris from the lenses.
Have fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458508</id>
	<title>Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259686380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone have any recommendations for what I ought to show my 6, 4, and 3 year old in the night sky?</p></div><p>Jupiter is visible in the early evening in the southern sky, and is pretty easy to find. Turn the telescope in that direction. The four moons of Jupiter are pretty easy to see, even in the most humble telescope. Jupiter should also appear as a disc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone have any recommendations for what I ought to show my 6 , 4 , and 3 year old in the night sky ? Jupiter is visible in the early evening in the southern sky , and is pretty easy to find .
Turn the telescope in that direction .
The four moons of Jupiter are pretty easy to see , even in the most humble telescope .
Jupiter should also appear as a disc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone have any recommendations for what I ought to show my 6, 4, and 3 year old in the night sky?Jupiter is visible in the early evening in the southern sky, and is pretty easy to find.
Turn the telescope in that direction.
The four moons of Jupiter are pretty easy to see, even in the most humble telescope.
Jupiter should also appear as a disc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459430</id>
	<title>Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1259689920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The middle star of Orion's sword is the Orion nebula. It might resolve to a reddish smudge or might actually look nebulish.</p><p>The Pleides, in the shoulder of Taurus looks very pretty in a small scope as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The middle star of Orion 's sword is the Orion nebula .
It might resolve to a reddish smudge or might actually look nebulish.The Pleides , in the shoulder of Taurus looks very pretty in a small scope as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The middle star of Orion's sword is the Orion nebula.
It might resolve to a reddish smudge or might actually look nebulish.The Pleides, in the shoulder of Taurus looks very pretty in a small scope as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458436</id>
	<title>Eagles are cool and all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259686140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I prefer the falcon punch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I prefer the falcon punch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I prefer the falcon punch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30464902</id>
	<title>Re:It's not the Eagle Nebula</title>
	<author>coastwalker</author>
	<datestamp>1259665440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats the great thing about science, its not just the soundbite, its an onion with layer upon layer of history and undersanding that changes only slowly over a lifetime. So we see the sky with our eyes, we learn that radio waves are like light and we look at the sky with different wavelengths or frequencies of light and it looks different at different wavelengths, we see things near the Eagle nebula that we see with light at much longer infrared wavelengths through the Herschel telescope that we could never see with our own eyes because the dust hides the visible light. Its like a playstation, press the button and you play games, but tool up with the right software and you have the guts exposed through a command prompt. Beneath the simple view that the casual observer sees are layers of complication that are there for you to play with once you have understood what lies beneath the visible exterior. Herschel is no different to hacking your favourite appliance, inside a computing device and nearbye what we can see with our eyes are hidden depths which we can explore that are just as real as what we see at first glance but have the fascination of the hidden. Unlike science there are no hackers guides to politics philosophy and religion, if you could come up with one that lasted more than a momment it would be pretty handy, meanwhile hacking through science is deeply satifsying by comparison because it makes you feel like you are understanding the world. Try asking an Economist if they feel that they have a useful understanding of their field at the moment! Herschel is great because it encourages us to think that we might develop enough understanding to do stuff, something that is sadly lacking in some other learned disciplines. I say thats why even if we never go to the stars its worth learning about them - the process gives us hope that we can make things better closer to home. We have four years to learn how the solar system formed by looking at proto planetary systems in the Eagle nebula or the Orion nebula before the liquid helium runs out. Hurrah! for all the wonderful things we will discover.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats the great thing about science , its not just the soundbite , its an onion with layer upon layer of history and undersanding that changes only slowly over a lifetime .
So we see the sky with our eyes , we learn that radio waves are like light and we look at the sky with different wavelengths or frequencies of light and it looks different at different wavelengths , we see things near the Eagle nebula that we see with light at much longer infrared wavelengths through the Herschel telescope that we could never see with our own eyes because the dust hides the visible light .
Its like a playstation , press the button and you play games , but tool up with the right software and you have the guts exposed through a command prompt .
Beneath the simple view that the casual observer sees are layers of complication that are there for you to play with once you have understood what lies beneath the visible exterior .
Herschel is no different to hacking your favourite appliance , inside a computing device and nearbye what we can see with our eyes are hidden depths which we can explore that are just as real as what we see at first glance but have the fascination of the hidden .
Unlike science there are no hackers guides to politics philosophy and religion , if you could come up with one that lasted more than a momment it would be pretty handy , meanwhile hacking through science is deeply satifsying by comparison because it makes you feel like you are understanding the world .
Try asking an Economist if they feel that they have a useful understanding of their field at the moment !
Herschel is great because it encourages us to think that we might develop enough understanding to do stuff , something that is sadly lacking in some other learned disciplines .
I say thats why even if we never go to the stars its worth learning about them - the process gives us hope that we can make things better closer to home .
We have four years to learn how the solar system formed by looking at proto planetary systems in the Eagle nebula or the Orion nebula before the liquid helium runs out .
Hurrah ! for all the wonderful things we will discover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats the great thing about science, its not just the soundbite, its an onion with layer upon layer of history and undersanding that changes only slowly over a lifetime.
So we see the sky with our eyes, we learn that radio waves are like light and we look at the sky with different wavelengths or frequencies of light and it looks different at different wavelengths, we see things near the Eagle nebula that we see with light at much longer infrared wavelengths through the Herschel telescope that we could never see with our own eyes because the dust hides the visible light.
Its like a playstation, press the button and you play games, but tool up with the right software and you have the guts exposed through a command prompt.
Beneath the simple view that the casual observer sees are layers of complication that are there for you to play with once you have understood what lies beneath the visible exterior.
Herschel is no different to hacking your favourite appliance, inside a computing device and nearbye what we can see with our eyes are hidden depths which we can explore that are just as real as what we see at first glance but have the fascination of the hidden.
Unlike science there are no hackers guides to politics philosophy and religion, if you could come up with one that lasted more than a momment it would be pretty handy, meanwhile hacking through science is deeply satifsying by comparison because it makes you feel like you are understanding the world.
Try asking an Economist if they feel that they have a useful understanding of their field at the moment!
Herschel is great because it encourages us to think that we might develop enough understanding to do stuff, something that is sadly lacking in some other learned disciplines.
I say thats why even if we never go to the stars its worth learning about them - the process gives us hope that we can make things better closer to home.
We have four years to learn how the solar system formed by looking at proto planetary systems in the Eagle nebula or the Orion nebula before the liquid helium runs out.
Hurrah! for all the wonderful things we will discover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30461942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312</id>
	<title>Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>quangdog</author>
	<datestamp>1259685720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not much of an astronomy geek, but I bought a telescope for my kids for Christmas - and can't wait to haul it out into the backyard and see the wonder in their eyes when they first get to see what is really out there.  I also think it's great that we have such easy and ready access to the images produced by Herschel.
<br> <br>
Anyone have any recommendations for what I ought to show my 6, 4, and 3 year old in the night sky?  We're in the pacific northwest of the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not much of an astronomy geek , but I bought a telescope for my kids for Christmas - and ca n't wait to haul it out into the backyard and see the wonder in their eyes when they first get to see what is really out there .
I also think it 's great that we have such easy and ready access to the images produced by Herschel .
Anyone have any recommendations for what I ought to show my 6 , 4 , and 3 year old in the night sky ?
We 're in the pacific northwest of the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not much of an astronomy geek, but I bought a telescope for my kids for Christmas - and can't wait to haul it out into the backyard and see the wonder in their eyes when they first get to see what is really out there.
I also think it's great that we have such easy and ready access to the images produced by Herschel.
Anyone have any recommendations for what I ought to show my 6, 4, and 3 year old in the night sky?
We're in the pacific northwest of the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458656</id>
	<title>Re:Bought My Kids A Telescope For Christmas</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259686920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Anyone have any recommendations for what I ought to show my 6, 4, and 3 year old</i></p><p>Yes. Show them this post in about 15 years. Think back about how much wonderment you expected them to have when you unwrapped that expensive laundry rack and took them outside in the bitter cold to fight with each other over control of the eyepiece only to have it break off in the 3 year old's greasy hands. Then regale them with the story of how you tried to fix it right there in the snow while they shivered and whined and tried to go back inside the house but you wouldn't let them because, dammit, there is so much cool stuff to see and just wait a damned minute while you put that goddamn eyepiece back on the.. Oh fuck, now you've cut yourself on the plastic shards of the broken socket. And everyone can laugh as you all remember together the Christmas daddy spent in the hospital getting stitches and treatment for frostbite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone have any recommendations for what I ought to show my 6 , 4 , and 3 year oldYes .
Show them this post in about 15 years .
Think back about how much wonderment you expected them to have when you unwrapped that expensive laundry rack and took them outside in the bitter cold to fight with each other over control of the eyepiece only to have it break off in the 3 year old 's greasy hands .
Then regale them with the story of how you tried to fix it right there in the snow while they shivered and whined and tried to go back inside the house but you would n't let them because , dammit , there is so much cool stuff to see and just wait a damned minute while you put that goddamn eyepiece back on the.. Oh fuck , now you 've cut yourself on the plastic shards of the broken socket .
And everyone can laugh as you all remember together the Christmas daddy spent in the hospital getting stitches and treatment for frostbite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone have any recommendations for what I ought to show my 6, 4, and 3 year oldYes.
Show them this post in about 15 years.
Think back about how much wonderment you expected them to have when you unwrapped that expensive laundry rack and took them outside in the bitter cold to fight with each other over control of the eyepiece only to have it break off in the 3 year old's greasy hands.
Then regale them with the story of how you tried to fix it right there in the snow while they shivered and whined and tried to go back inside the house but you wouldn't let them because, dammit, there is so much cool stuff to see and just wait a damned minute while you put that goddamn eyepiece back on the.. Oh fuck, now you've cut yourself on the plastic shards of the broken socket.
And everyone can laugh as you all remember together the Christmas daddy spent in the hospital getting stitches and treatment for frostbite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458370</id>
	<title>anyone in SE England fancy a shag?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just left my girlfriend and want some easy, no-strings-attached sex. Women or particularly handsome guys welcome - tell me what would make the perfect weekend for you and I'll tell you whether I can make it happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just left my girlfriend and want some easy , no-strings-attached sex .
Women or particularly handsome guys welcome - tell me what would make the perfect weekend for you and I 'll tell you whether I can make it happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just left my girlfriend and want some easy, no-strings-attached sex.
Women or particularly handsome guys welcome - tell me what would make the perfect weekend for you and I'll tell you whether I can make it happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30464902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30461942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30465156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_1452209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1452209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1452209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458864
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459376
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459856
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30465156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1452209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1452209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1452209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30461942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30464902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1452209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_1452209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30460202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30459430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_1452209.30458656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
