<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_21_1514230</id>
	<title>Music By Natural Selection</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1261425420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>maccallr writes <i>"The DarwinTunes experiment needs you!  Using an evolutionary algorithm and the ears of you the general public, <a href="http://darwintunes.org/evolve-music">we've been evolving a four bar loop</a> that started out as <a href="http://darwintunes.org/experiment-1-has-started">pretty dismal primordial auditory soup</a> and now after &gt;27k ratings and 200 generations is <a href="http://darwintunes.org/27k-ratings">sounding pretty good</a>.  Given that the only ingredients are sine waves, we're impressed.  We got some coverage in the New Scientist CultureLab blog but now things have gone quiet and we'd really appreciate <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2009/12/amanda-gefter-books-arts.php">some Slashdotter idle time</a>.  We recently upped the maximum 'genome size' and we think that the music is already benefiting from the change."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>maccallr writes " The DarwinTunes experiment needs you !
Using an evolutionary algorithm and the ears of you the general public , we 've been evolving a four bar loop that started out as pretty dismal primordial auditory soup and now after &gt; 27k ratings and 200 generations is sounding pretty good .
Given that the only ingredients are sine waves , we 're impressed .
We got some coverage in the New Scientist CultureLab blog but now things have gone quiet and we 'd really appreciate some Slashdotter idle time .
We recently upped the maximum 'genome size ' and we think that the music is already benefiting from the change .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maccallr writes "The DarwinTunes experiment needs you!
Using an evolutionary algorithm and the ears of you the general public, we've been evolving a four bar loop that started out as pretty dismal primordial auditory soup and now after &gt;27k ratings and 200 generations is sounding pretty good.
Given that the only ingredients are sine waves, we're impressed.
We got some coverage in the New Scientist CultureLab blog but now things have gone quiet and we'd really appreciate some Slashdotter idle time.
We recently upped the maximum 'genome size' and we think that the music is already benefiting from the change.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519476</id>
	<title>Re:It just sounds like....</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1261408080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So this proves it: electronic music is the most primitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So this proves it : electronic music is the most primitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this proves it: electronic music is the most primitive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516332</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING: AntivirusXP</title>
	<author>BabaChazz</author>
	<datestamp>1261387500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, abuse me... just because I use FF on Linux to be safe, I assume everyone else does too. Yeah, any browser on any Linux distro will be safe, as will any browser on Windows with scripting disabled (good luck with that if you insist on using MSIE), and any OSX-based system... though it'll still hammer your browser on any OS if you have scripting enabled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , abuse me... just because I use FF on Linux to be safe , I assume everyone else does too .
Yeah , any browser on any Linux distro will be safe , as will any browser on Windows with scripting disabled ( good luck with that if you insist on using MSIE ) , and any OSX-based system... though it 'll still hammer your browser on any OS if you have scripting enabled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, abuse me... just because I use FF on Linux to be safe, I assume everyone else does too.
Yeah, any browser on any Linux distro will be safe, as will any browser on Windows with scripting disabled (good luck with that if you insist on using MSIE), and any OSX-based system... though it'll still hammer your browser on any OS if you have scripting enabled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517130</id>
	<title>Slashdotted...</title>
	<author>skeenan</author>
	<datestamp>1261391460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, they got the exposure they wanted...  if only their site could handle it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , they got the exposure they wanted... if only their site could handle it : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, they got the exposure they wanted...  if only their site could handle it :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517108</id>
	<title>Re:copyright?</title>
	<author>Beardo the Bearded</author>
	<datestamp>1261391400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>composers <b>accidentally</b> do this all the time.</p></div><p>John Williams and his enourmous pile of money would like to have a word with you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>composers accidentally do this all the time.John Williams and his enourmous pile of money would like to have a word with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>composers accidentally do this all the time.John Williams and his enourmous pile of money would like to have a word with you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516562</id>
	<title>Careful what you ask for!</title>
	<author>FlyByPC</author>
	<datestamp>1261388700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;...but now things have gone quiet and we'd really appreciate some Slashdotter idle time.<br>
<br>
Your wish is our Slashdotting! That's a name-brand CPU cooling solution you're running, right? Gooood.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...but now things have gone quiet and we 'd really appreciate some Slashdotter idle time .
Your wish is our Slashdotting !
That 's a name-brand CPU cooling solution you 're running , right ?
Gooood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;...but now things have gone quiet and we'd really appreciate some Slashdotter idle time.
Your wish is our Slashdotting!
That's a name-brand CPU cooling solution you're running, right?
Gooood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30520542</id>
	<title>plus or minus?</title>
	<author>Darth Cider</author>
	<datestamp>1261417980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The phase space of this experiment is too large to explore with the simple rating system. No wonder the "survivors" all sound hyper-sequenced and repetitive, and nothing like Beethoven. What's happening is a bifurcation of the binary number space, because a music sequence is just a binary value occurring on a binary timeline, and each vote of plus or minus is a bifurcation of that space. An "i love it" vote is no less a simple plus, just a plus with extra survival chances.</p><p>The problem is that within the regions of binary space that are voted down, there could be much Beethoven, or even all of Beethoven - who could never be mistaken for OMD or The Magnetic Fields (sans lyrics).</p><p>The "evolutionary pressure" here is not astute, not deep. The "survivors" might have a glittering sonic quality, enough to get drive-by votes, but the set-up of the experiment could never teach us anything about music aesthetics. I suggest that this algorithm be re-purposed to selecting blinking patterns for Christmas light displays. Same thing, really - but it has nothing to teach us about music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The phase space of this experiment is too large to explore with the simple rating system .
No wonder the " survivors " all sound hyper-sequenced and repetitive , and nothing like Beethoven .
What 's happening is a bifurcation of the binary number space , because a music sequence is just a binary value occurring on a binary timeline , and each vote of plus or minus is a bifurcation of that space .
An " i love it " vote is no less a simple plus , just a plus with extra survival chances.The problem is that within the regions of binary space that are voted down , there could be much Beethoven , or even all of Beethoven - who could never be mistaken for OMD or The Magnetic Fields ( sans lyrics ) .The " evolutionary pressure " here is not astute , not deep .
The " survivors " might have a glittering sonic quality , enough to get drive-by votes , but the set-up of the experiment could never teach us anything about music aesthetics .
I suggest that this algorithm be re-purposed to selecting blinking patterns for Christmas light displays .
Same thing , really - but it has nothing to teach us about music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The phase space of this experiment is too large to explore with the simple rating system.
No wonder the "survivors" all sound hyper-sequenced and repetitive, and nothing like Beethoven.
What's happening is a bifurcation of the binary number space, because a music sequence is just a binary value occurring on a binary timeline, and each vote of plus or minus is a bifurcation of that space.
An "i love it" vote is no less a simple plus, just a plus with extra survival chances.The problem is that within the regions of binary space that are voted down, there could be much Beethoven, or even all of Beethoven - who could never be mistaken for OMD or The Magnetic Fields (sans lyrics).The "evolutionary pressure" here is not astute, not deep.
The "survivors" might have a glittering sonic quality, enough to get drive-by votes, but the set-up of the experiment could never teach us anything about music aesthetics.
I suggest that this algorithm be re-purposed to selecting blinking patterns for Christmas light displays.
Same thing, really - but it has nothing to teach us about music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516506</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this the opposite of evolution?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1261388400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the gods compete, maybe it's both, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the gods compete , maybe it 's both , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the gods compete, maybe it's both, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516894</id>
	<title>Re:Already slashdotted ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261390380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm the site admin.  Sorry for the inability to withstand slashdotting.  This was supposed to only go in "Idle"...</p><p>You can get to the actual evolving music bit<br><a href="http://ec2-79-125-31-151.eu-west-1.compute.amazonaws.com/public/" title="amazonaws.com">via this ugly EC2 URL</a> [amazonaws.com]</p><p>That link will not work in a few days from now (when I let go of the machine).  Too stingy to pay for an elastic IP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>cheers,<br>Bob.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the site admin .
Sorry for the inability to withstand slashdotting .
This was supposed to only go in " Idle " ...You can get to the actual evolving music bitvia this ugly EC2 URL [ amazonaws.com ] That link will not work in a few days from now ( when I let go of the machine ) .
Too stingy to pay for an elastic IP ; - ) cheers,Bob .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the site admin.
Sorry for the inability to withstand slashdotting.
This was supposed to only go in "Idle"...You can get to the actual evolving music bitvia this ugly EC2 URL [amazonaws.com]That link will not work in a few days from now (when I let go of the machine).
Too stingy to pay for an elastic IP ;-)cheers,Bob.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30522296</id>
	<title>Re:Sine waves</title>
	<author>Nursie</author>
	<datestamp>1261485060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are made with instruments. This is made by fourier series. Different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are made with instruments .
This is made by fourier series .
Different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are made with instruments.
This is made by fourier series.
Different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516548</id>
	<title>copyright?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1261388580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What keeps people from herding it toward an existing copyrighted tune? Even composers accidentally do this all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What keeps people from herding it toward an existing copyrighted tune ?
Even composers accidentally do this all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What keeps people from herding it toward an existing copyrighted tune?
Even composers accidentally do this all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517576</id>
	<title>Re:Music by "intelligent design"</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1261393800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really.  Instead of thinking of it as music you like versus music you don't like, think of it as music that succedes and music that doesn't.  By analogy, imagine the listeners are hunters and the music the prey, better music is equivilent to prey that is better at evading preditors.</p><p>Maybe a more interesting experiment would be to have a baseline of human generated music which the computer generated music would have to hide in.  Play it as a loop with computer generated music randomly interspersed with human generated and have the listener push a button as soon as they are sure the music is artificial.  Of course, this would require large database of human generated electronic music, and would probably take more generations to produce a good result but it would be closer to natural selection in the survival quality is the ability to 'hide' inside human composed music, rather than an arbitrary 'goodness' rating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Instead of thinking of it as music you like versus music you do n't like , think of it as music that succedes and music that does n't .
By analogy , imagine the listeners are hunters and the music the prey , better music is equivilent to prey that is better at evading preditors.Maybe a more interesting experiment would be to have a baseline of human generated music which the computer generated music would have to hide in .
Play it as a loop with computer generated music randomly interspersed with human generated and have the listener push a button as soon as they are sure the music is artificial .
Of course , this would require large database of human generated electronic music , and would probably take more generations to produce a good result but it would be closer to natural selection in the survival quality is the ability to 'hide ' inside human composed music , rather than an arbitrary 'goodness ' rating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Instead of thinking of it as music you like versus music you don't like, think of it as music that succedes and music that doesn't.
By analogy, imagine the listeners are hunters and the music the prey, better music is equivilent to prey that is better at evading preditors.Maybe a more interesting experiment would be to have a baseline of human generated music which the computer generated music would have to hide in.
Play it as a loop with computer generated music randomly interspersed with human generated and have the listener push a button as soon as they are sure the music is artificial.
Of course, this would require large database of human generated electronic music, and would probably take more generations to produce a good result but it would be closer to natural selection in the survival quality is the ability to 'hide' inside human composed music, rather than an arbitrary 'goodness' rating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517430</id>
	<title>A good idea in theory</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1261393200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was able to do some rating for a while, and I think the results are fairly cool, but it may not produce anything very interesting for a couple reasons.<br> <br>

The first is that there isn't strong enough evolutionary pressure.  There are too many people rating with very different opinions of what sounds good.  I think it would be much more interesting to create different channels.  Classical, jazz, ambient, electronica, whatever.  It's still a very broad definition but not so much that our ratings aren't just noise.<br> <br>

Secondly, the algorithms used to generate the music are really important.  I couldn't find any information on it, but the way the notes are put together seems fairly random.  I think it's important to stick to what we do know sounds good... to an extent.  For example, the gene could contain information on which way to move the current note, rather than the specific note.  That way you could limit it to 2 or 3 steps and lay it over a scale or mode.  The willy nillyness of it will guarantee that we pick 'safe' consonant sounding harmonies.  5ths and 4ths with beep boop melodies.<br> <br>

Very interesting though, I can't wait to see what happens with this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was able to do some rating for a while , and I think the results are fairly cool , but it may not produce anything very interesting for a couple reasons .
The first is that there is n't strong enough evolutionary pressure .
There are too many people rating with very different opinions of what sounds good .
I think it would be much more interesting to create different channels .
Classical , jazz , ambient , electronica , whatever .
It 's still a very broad definition but not so much that our ratings are n't just noise .
Secondly , the algorithms used to generate the music are really important .
I could n't find any information on it , but the way the notes are put together seems fairly random .
I think it 's important to stick to what we do know sounds good... to an extent .
For example , the gene could contain information on which way to move the current note , rather than the specific note .
That way you could limit it to 2 or 3 steps and lay it over a scale or mode .
The willy nillyness of it will guarantee that we pick 'safe ' consonant sounding harmonies .
5ths and 4ths with beep boop melodies .
Very interesting though , I ca n't wait to see what happens with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was able to do some rating for a while, and I think the results are fairly cool, but it may not produce anything very interesting for a couple reasons.
The first is that there isn't strong enough evolutionary pressure.
There are too many people rating with very different opinions of what sounds good.
I think it would be much more interesting to create different channels.
Classical, jazz, ambient, electronica, whatever.
It's still a very broad definition but not so much that our ratings aren't just noise.
Secondly, the algorithms used to generate the music are really important.
I couldn't find any information on it, but the way the notes are put together seems fairly random.
I think it's important to stick to what we do know sounds good... to an extent.
For example, the gene could contain information on which way to move the current note, rather than the specific note.
That way you could limit it to 2 or 3 steps and lay it over a scale or mode.
The willy nillyness of it will guarantee that we pick 'safe' consonant sounding harmonies.
5ths and 4ths with beep boop melodies.
Very interesting though, I can't wait to see what happens with this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516144</id>
	<title>Isn't this the opposite of evolution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261386720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fact, isn't this playing God?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , is n't this playing God ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, isn't this playing God?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30552088</id>
	<title>Re:Sine waves</title>
	<author>brunnegd</author>
	<datestamp>1261772040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has anyone considered wavelets?  Using sine waves to approximate a function assume the function is periodic, not truncated.  Which allows Fourier Series to represent the function.  Fourier transforms avoid some, but not all of this issue, it has been too many years since college for me to fully state the differences!  But wavelets have a finite life. They might do a better job of representing music.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone considered wavelets ?
Using sine waves to approximate a function assume the function is periodic , not truncated .
Which allows Fourier Series to represent the function .
Fourier transforms avoid some , but not all of this issue , it has been too many years since college for me to fully state the differences !
But wavelets have a finite life .
They might do a better job of representing music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone considered wavelets?
Using sine waves to approximate a function assume the function is periodic, not truncated.
Which allows Fourier Series to represent the function.
Fourier transforms avoid some, but not all of this issue, it has been too many years since college for me to fully state the differences!
But wavelets have a finite life.
They might do a better job of representing music.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516298</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this the opposite of evolution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261387320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you not understand the word-symbols you're putting into your computer-box or do you just like being contrarian?

God 'designs' things the way he wants them the first time.  This music is generated randomly, then subjected to fitness tests in the form of listener reviews.  The fittest members survive and provide the input material  which is then randomly mutated again for the next generation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you not understand the word-symbols you 're putting into your computer-box or do you just like being contrarian ?
God 'designs ' things the way he wants them the first time .
This music is generated randomly , then subjected to fitness tests in the form of listener reviews .
The fittest members survive and provide the input material which is then randomly mutated again for the next generation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you not understand the word-symbols you're putting into your computer-box or do you just like being contrarian?
God 'designs' things the way he wants them the first time.
This music is generated randomly, then subjected to fitness tests in the form of listener reviews.
The fittest members survive and provide the input material  which is then randomly mutated again for the next generation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516910</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING: AntivirusXP</title>
	<author>ultramk</author>
	<datestamp>1261390440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or a Mac and any browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or a Mac and any browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or a Mac and any browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30530134</id>
	<title>Re:Music by "intelligent design"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261481340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ratings are probably used for the fitness function.  Which can be a simple step function, but you can also weight the merge function.  Read up on Genetic Algorithms sometime, it's a really neat subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ratings are probably used for the fitness function .
Which can be a simple step function , but you can also weight the merge function .
Read up on Genetic Algorithms sometime , it 's a really neat subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ratings are probably used for the fitness function.
Which can be a simple step function, but you can also weight the merge function.
Read up on Genetic Algorithms sometime, it's a really neat subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30520372</id>
	<title>Malware?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261415940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this tagged malware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this tagged malware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this tagged malware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517402</id>
	<title>Re:Ok wait a minuet</title>
	<author>prograde</author>
	<datestamp>1261392960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really.  In this experiment, the music is evolving in an environment where "fitness" equates with "what people say they like".  The people voting can't make changes to the music, they only get to say how much they like it (on a 5-point scale).

</p><p>
It's not even selective breeding, where a breeder has a trait that they are looking to improve and forces mating among individuals which exhibit that trait.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
In this experiment , the music is evolving in an environment where " fitness " equates with " what people say they like " .
The people voting ca n't make changes to the music , they only get to say how much they like it ( on a 5-point scale ) .
It 's not even selective breeding , where a breeder has a trait that they are looking to improve and forces mating among individuals which exhibit that trait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
In this experiment, the music is evolving in an environment where "fitness" equates with "what people say they like".
The people voting can't make changes to the music, they only get to say how much they like it (on a 5-point scale).
It's not even selective breeding, where a breeder has a trait that they are looking to improve and forces mating among individuals which exhibit that trait.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518798</id>
	<title>Re:copyright?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1261402980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, nothing in particular. But this experiment is about evolving <i>electronic</i> music, as opposed to mainstream music. I suppose it would be possible to "steer" the song towards a familiar tune, but it would be pretty difficult given that all of the loops I heard were comprised of elements of the electronic genre, and also because the individually-rated loops are so short.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , nothing in particular .
But this experiment is about evolving electronic music , as opposed to mainstream music .
I suppose it would be possible to " steer " the song towards a familiar tune , but it would be pretty difficult given that all of the loops I heard were comprised of elements of the electronic genre , and also because the individually-rated loops are so short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, nothing in particular.
But this experiment is about evolving electronic music, as opposed to mainstream music.
I suppose it would be possible to "steer" the song towards a familiar tune, but it would be pretty difficult given that all of the loops I heard were comprised of elements of the electronic genre, and also because the individually-rated loops are so short.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518914</id>
	<title>Different, how?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261403880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regular music cannot put a trojan in your brain...</p><p>Not that anyone infected could believe there's a trojan, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regular music can not put a trojan in your brain...Not that anyone infected could believe there 's a trojan , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regular music cannot put a trojan in your brain...Not that anyone infected could believe there's a trojan, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518466</id>
	<title>Re:A good idea in theory</title>
	<author>frogzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1261399740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The selection pressure is what it is.  There is no goal, only response to the pressure.  I agree that the algorithm used to generate the music matters and will, I'm guessing, create some bounds for the music outside of which it cannot stray.  I assume this is analagous to biological evolution where things like embroyology limit what can change while providing a sort of tool set for the growth of an organism (as I understand it).  If the tone generation scheme is rich enough this should create something interesting to a large enough fraction of the listeners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The selection pressure is what it is .
There is no goal , only response to the pressure .
I agree that the algorithm used to generate the music matters and will , I 'm guessing , create some bounds for the music outside of which it can not stray .
I assume this is analagous to biological evolution where things like embroyology limit what can change while providing a sort of tool set for the growth of an organism ( as I understand it ) .
If the tone generation scheme is rich enough this should create something interesting to a large enough fraction of the listeners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The selection pressure is what it is.
There is no goal, only response to the pressure.
I agree that the algorithm used to generate the music matters and will, I'm guessing, create some bounds for the music outside of which it cannot stray.
I assume this is analagous to biological evolution where things like embroyology limit what can change while providing a sort of tool set for the growth of an organism (as I understand it).
If the tone generation scheme is rich enough this should create something interesting to a large enough fraction of the listeners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30521982</id>
	<title>Re:Not a novel idea</title>
	<author>maccallr</author>
	<datestamp>1261479960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not completely novel, no.  Google weren't the first to do web search either<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>An incomplete list of related work is at<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary\_music" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary\_music</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Our goal here is to look in detail at the evolutionary dynamics and mechanisms, as well as just answering the basic question "does it still work if loads of people provide the fitness ratings?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not completely novel , no .
Google were n't the first to do web search either ; - ) An incomplete list of related work is athttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary \ _music [ wikipedia.org ] Our goal here is to look in detail at the evolutionary dynamics and mechanisms , as well as just answering the basic question " does it still work if loads of people provide the fitness ratings ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not completely novel, no.
Google weren't the first to do web search either ;-)An incomplete list of related work is athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary\_music [wikipedia.org]Our goal here is to look in detail at the evolutionary dynamics and mechanisms, as well as just answering the basic question "does it still work if loads of people provide the fitness ratings?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516020</id>
	<title>Already slashdotted ?</title>
	<author>PIBM</author>
	<datestamp>1261386120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No reply yet and the website can't even load.. now I understand why we don't RTFA!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No reply yet and the website ca n't even load.. now I understand why we do n't RTFA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No reply yet and the website can't even load.. now I understand why we don't RTFA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516156</id>
	<title>slashdotted already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261386720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should probably make sure your servers can handle the traffic before asking slashdot to come help out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should probably make sure your servers can handle the traffic before asking slashdot to come help out : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should probably make sure your servers can handle the traffic before asking slashdot to come help out :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517092</id>
	<title>Music by "intelligent design"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261391340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That "27K ratings" sort of changes things, don't you think?  Certainly, a "rating" sounds more rigorous than traditional, Darwinian, "useful mutations live longer/reproduce more".</htmltext>
<tokenext>That " 27K ratings " sort of changes things , do n't you think ?
Certainly , a " rating " sounds more rigorous than traditional , Darwinian , " useful mutations live longer/reproduce more " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That "27K ratings" sort of changes things, don't you think?
Certainly, a "rating" sounds more rigorous than traditional, Darwinian, "useful mutations live longer/reproduce more".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517694</id>
	<title>No paid ads</title>
	<author>maccallr</author>
	<datestamp>1261394580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an academic site and there are no paid ads.  It hasn't been compromised either, as far as I can tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an academic site and there are no paid ads .
It has n't been compromised either , as far as I can tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an academic site and there are no paid ads.
It hasn't been compromised either, as far as I can tell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519066</id>
	<title>my thoughts</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1261405260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Found myself with some time to kill, so I had a go at this. Here are my thoughts:</p><p>1. The original loop (linked to in the summary) has a recognizable beat, even if many of the accompanying tones sound dreadful together. I'll put it this way: generation 0 sounded way better than a lot of the stuff I've seen try to pass for "electronic music" on YouTube. The original loop already had a fair amount of complexity to start with. I'd be more impressed if they began with a loop that had several sine waves with completely random attributes and <i>then</i> evolved that into something resembling music, and then evolved <i>that</i> into something resembling good music.</p><p>2. Note that they're only generating four-bar loops, not an entire song. My guess is that after they consider the experiment finished, they'll take the best ones and paste them into a song. Which won't be difficult, as this music fits into the electronic genre after all, and there is not that much variation amongst the loops that I heard.</p><p>3. I'd be curious to know what the constraints on the evolution algorithm are. For example, in the loops that I heard, a mis-matched set of notes was extremely rare so I wonder if they have chords or progressions that the algorithm can select from when generating a new loop.</p><p>4. On the front page, there's a video where a professor argues that evolution drives all of human music. I strongly disagree with this on just about every level. Music styles are based on culture, individual expression, and the power of suggestion. Yes, there is a kind of selection at work, but it only occurs within genres and cultures, and very little about it is natural. On top of that, the power of persuasion is immense. People can be <i>told</i> what to like. Today, it's commercially engineered pop music. Two centuries ago, it was religious hymns. Stephen Colbert could screw up this entire experiment just by taking pity on the horrid-sounding loop 76 and giving it his famous "Colbert Bump."</p><p>5. The loops really sound like they were made with a Tenori-On, so maybe these "researchers" are just fucking with us about the whole "evolved music" thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Found myself with some time to kill , so I had a go at this .
Here are my thoughts : 1 .
The original loop ( linked to in the summary ) has a recognizable beat , even if many of the accompanying tones sound dreadful together .
I 'll put it this way : generation 0 sounded way better than a lot of the stuff I 've seen try to pass for " electronic music " on YouTube .
The original loop already had a fair amount of complexity to start with .
I 'd be more impressed if they began with a loop that had several sine waves with completely random attributes and then evolved that into something resembling music , and then evolved that into something resembling good music.2 .
Note that they 're only generating four-bar loops , not an entire song .
My guess is that after they consider the experiment finished , they 'll take the best ones and paste them into a song .
Which wo n't be difficult , as this music fits into the electronic genre after all , and there is not that much variation amongst the loops that I heard.3 .
I 'd be curious to know what the constraints on the evolution algorithm are .
For example , in the loops that I heard , a mis-matched set of notes was extremely rare so I wonder if they have chords or progressions that the algorithm can select from when generating a new loop.4 .
On the front page , there 's a video where a professor argues that evolution drives all of human music .
I strongly disagree with this on just about every level .
Music styles are based on culture , individual expression , and the power of suggestion .
Yes , there is a kind of selection at work , but it only occurs within genres and cultures , and very little about it is natural .
On top of that , the power of persuasion is immense .
People can be told what to like .
Today , it 's commercially engineered pop music .
Two centuries ago , it was religious hymns .
Stephen Colbert could screw up this entire experiment just by taking pity on the horrid-sounding loop 76 and giving it his famous " Colbert Bump. " 5 .
The loops really sound like they were made with a Tenori-On , so maybe these " researchers " are just fucking with us about the whole " evolved music " thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Found myself with some time to kill, so I had a go at this.
Here are my thoughts:1.
The original loop (linked to in the summary) has a recognizable beat, even if many of the accompanying tones sound dreadful together.
I'll put it this way: generation 0 sounded way better than a lot of the stuff I've seen try to pass for "electronic music" on YouTube.
The original loop already had a fair amount of complexity to start with.
I'd be more impressed if they began with a loop that had several sine waves with completely random attributes and then evolved that into something resembling music, and then evolved that into something resembling good music.2.
Note that they're only generating four-bar loops, not an entire song.
My guess is that after they consider the experiment finished, they'll take the best ones and paste them into a song.
Which won't be difficult, as this music fits into the electronic genre after all, and there is not that much variation amongst the loops that I heard.3.
I'd be curious to know what the constraints on the evolution algorithm are.
For example, in the loops that I heard, a mis-matched set of notes was extremely rare so I wonder if they have chords or progressions that the algorithm can select from when generating a new loop.4.
On the front page, there's a video where a professor argues that evolution drives all of human music.
I strongly disagree with this on just about every level.
Music styles are based on culture, individual expression, and the power of suggestion.
Yes, there is a kind of selection at work, but it only occurs within genres and cultures, and very little about it is natural.
On top of that, the power of persuasion is immense.
People can be told what to like.
Today, it's commercially engineered pop music.
Two centuries ago, it was religious hymns.
Stephen Colbert could screw up this entire experiment just by taking pity on the horrid-sounding loop 76 and giving it his famous "Colbert Bump."5.
The loops really sound like they were made with a Tenori-On, so maybe these "researchers" are just fucking with us about the whole "evolved music" thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516454</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING: AntivirusXP</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1261388160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the virus evolving too? I certainly hope no~ &amp;6, {,\% v#k<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;` ~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the virus evolving too ?
I certainly hope no ~ &amp;6 , { , \ % v # k ; ` ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the virus evolving too?
I certainly hope no~ &amp;6, {,\% v#k ;` ~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516838</id>
	<title>Re:Sine waves?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261390200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd have to prove the Riemann Hypothesis first!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd have to prove the Riemann Hypothesis first !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd have to prove the Riemann Hypothesis first!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519286</id>
	<title>Re:Sine waves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261406880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could also approximate a square waves using infinite sawtooth waves of varying tooth period and and associated amplitude and phase.</p><p>I'll call it the NOMNOM Transform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could also approximate a square waves using infinite sawtooth waves of varying tooth period and and associated amplitude and phase.I 'll call it the NOMNOM Transform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could also approximate a square waves using infinite sawtooth waves of varying tooth period and and associated amplitude and phase.I'll call it the NOMNOM Transform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517288</id>
	<title>Sawtooth? Square?</title>
	<author>SammyIAm</author>
	<datestamp>1261392360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends to what level of detail you want to look at, but there are some other waveforms that at least have their own names.  I mean, to some extent these can still technically be represented by sine waves, but generally seem to have their own characteristics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends to what level of detail you want to look at , but there are some other waveforms that at least have their own names .
I mean , to some extent these can still technically be represented by sine waves , but generally seem to have their own characteristics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends to what level of detail you want to look at, but there are some other waveforms that at least have their own names.
I mean, to some extent these can still technically be represented by sine waves, but generally seem to have their own characteristics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980</id>
	<title>Sine waves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261429140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Given that the only ingredients are sine waves, we're impressed."</p><p>This is different from all other sounds, including regular music, how?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Given that the only ingredients are sine waves , we 're impressed .
" This is different from all other sounds , including regular music , how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Given that the only ingredients are sine waves, we're impressed.
"This is different from all other sounds, including regular music, how?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518062</id>
	<title>wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261396980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can 'evolve' music, but they can't use the decades of historical weather data we have and the massive computing power we have developed to 'evolve' a weather forecasting program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can 'evolve ' music , but they ca n't use the decades of historical weather data we have and the massive computing power we have developed to 'evolve ' a weather forecasting program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can 'evolve' music, but they can't use the decades of historical weather data we have and the massive computing power we have developed to 'evolve' a weather forecasting program.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519222</id>
	<title>Re:Sine waves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261406400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People tend to think that since we can take the Fourier Transform of a signal, the most basic building block of sound must be sine waves. Sine  and cosines waves are just one set of basis functions to express a signal in, which just so happens to be called a Fourier Transform.</p><p>You could express a signal using any infinite number of bases, and one could not be considered any more of a fundamental building block than another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People tend to think that since we can take the Fourier Transform of a signal , the most basic building block of sound must be sine waves .
Sine and cosines waves are just one set of basis functions to express a signal in , which just so happens to be called a Fourier Transform.You could express a signal using any infinite number of bases , and one could not be considered any more of a fundamental building block than another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People tend to think that since we can take the Fourier Transform of a signal, the most basic building block of sound must be sine waves.
Sine  and cosines waves are just one set of basis functions to express a signal in, which just so happens to be called a Fourier Transform.You could express a signal using any infinite number of bases, and one could not be considered any more of a fundamental building block than another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516178</id>
	<title>If You're Looking for an Introduction to This</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1261386840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A long time ago when I was learning lisp, I worked through <a href="http://home.comcast.net/~rpmohn/download/nm.pdf" title="comcast.net">an interesting book</a> [comcast.net] by Heinrich Taube called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Notes-Metalevel-Introduction-Computer-Composition/dp/9026519753" title="amazon.com">Notes from the Metalevel</a> [amazon.com].  A very enlightening and interesting work for people interested in both music theory and computer science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A long time ago when I was learning lisp , I worked through an interesting book [ comcast.net ] by Heinrich Taube called Notes from the Metalevel [ amazon.com ] .
A very enlightening and interesting work for people interested in both music theory and computer science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A long time ago when I was learning lisp, I worked through an interesting book [comcast.net] by Heinrich Taube called Notes from the Metalevel [amazon.com].
A very enlightening and interesting work for people interested in both music theory and computer science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518898</id>
	<title>Interesting....</title>
	<author>Jkasd</author>
	<datestamp>1261403820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although the loops sound repetitive and annoying, if you listen to some of the earlier loops, you can tell they've made a lot of progress.
I'm hoping something resembling a human voice turns up but I don't think this is possible unless they increase the amount of complexity allowed.
They already had to increase the allowed complexity once, I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes the primary limiting factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although the loops sound repetitive and annoying , if you listen to some of the earlier loops , you can tell they 've made a lot of progress .
I 'm hoping something resembling a human voice turns up but I do n't think this is possible unless they increase the amount of complexity allowed .
They already had to increase the allowed complexity once , I would n't be surprised if this becomes the primary limiting factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although the loops sound repetitive and annoying, if you listen to some of the earlier loops, you can tell they've made a lot of progress.
I'm hoping something resembling a human voice turns up but I don't think this is possible unless they increase the amount of complexity allowed.
They already had to increase the allowed complexity once, I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes the primary limiting factor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516154</id>
	<title>Not particularly original</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261386720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Paragraph 7" by Cornelius Cardew, among other works, explored similar ground decades earlier. (Citation to my friend's book on Brian Eno's Another Green World.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Paragraph 7 " by Cornelius Cardew , among other works , explored similar ground decades earlier .
( Citation to my friend 's book on Brian Eno 's Another Green World .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Paragraph 7" by Cornelius Cardew, among other works, explored similar ground decades earlier.
(Citation to my friend's book on Brian Eno's Another Green World.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516430</id>
	<title>Re:Sine waves?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261388040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about an infinite piece of non-repeating music, consisting of say, a beep at every prime second and silence otherwise?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about an infinite piece of non-repeating music , consisting of say , a beep at every prime second and silence otherwise ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about an infinite piece of non-repeating music, consisting of say, a beep at every prime second and silence otherwise?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516038</id>
	<title>Sine waves?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1261386180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Given that the only ingredients are sine waves, we're impressed.</p></div></blockquote><p>All signals can be represented with a set of sine waves.  That's what makes Fourier transforms so useful.</p><p>What would be <i>really</i> impressive is if they had music that <i>can't</i> be represented as a set of sine waves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the only ingredients are sine waves , we 're impressed.All signals can be represented with a set of sine waves .
That 's what makes Fourier transforms so useful.What would be really impressive is if they had music that ca n't be represented as a set of sine waves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the only ingredients are sine waves, we're impressed.All signals can be represented with a set of sine waves.
That's what makes Fourier transforms so useful.What would be really impressive is if they had music that can't be represented as a set of sine waves.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518514</id>
	<title>Re:copyright?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1261400100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it starts to get fairly close to an existing tune, then people may start consciously or unconsciously "pushing" it ever closer to an existing tune because their brain may half-recognize it as a match and "load" the actual tune in their head, biasing them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it starts to get fairly close to an existing tune , then people may start consciously or unconsciously " pushing " it ever closer to an existing tune because their brain may half-recognize it as a match and " load " the actual tune in their head , biasing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it starts to get fairly close to an existing tune, then people may start consciously or unconsciously "pushing" it ever closer to an existing tune because their brain may half-recognize it as a match and "load" the actual tune in their head, biasing them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518108</id>
	<title>Creative Commons license</title>
	<author>GoNINzo</author>
	<datestamp>1261397280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see their individual loops are covered by the creative commons license for non-commercial use with attribution, but I'm search of new On Hold music, so I'm hoping we can come up with some sort of solution.  It's a problem when you have zero budget though. heh<br>
<br>
I'm looking forward to future generations when they start to do good transitions between different loops, that will be interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see their individual loops are covered by the creative commons license for non-commercial use with attribution , but I 'm search of new On Hold music , so I 'm hoping we can come up with some sort of solution .
It 's a problem when you have zero budget though .
heh I 'm looking forward to future generations when they start to do good transitions between different loops , that will be interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see their individual loops are covered by the creative commons license for non-commercial use with attribution, but I'm search of new On Hold music, so I'm hoping we can come up with some sort of solution.
It's a problem when you have zero budget though.
heh

I'm looking forward to future generations when they start to do good transitions between different loops, that will be interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516074</id>
	<title>OMG??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261386420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did I just get Rick-rolled?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did I just get Rick-rolled ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did I just get Rick-rolled?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30522462</id>
	<title>Nostalgic</title>
	<author>jejones</author>
	<datestamp>1261487880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone remember Terry Riley's <i>In C</i>? This reminds me of it; now if they just had several sources going through the fragments at different rates...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone remember Terry Riley 's In C ?
This reminds me of it ; now if they just had several sources going through the fragments at different rates.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone remember Terry Riley's In C?
This reminds me of it; now if they just had several sources going through the fragments at different rates...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516260</id>
	<title>It just sounds like....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261387140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...minimalistic electronic music.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...minimalistic electronic music .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...minimalistic electronic music.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518354</id>
	<title>Sim City</title>
	<author>Xaduurv</author>
	<datestamp>1261398840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For some reason I'm reminded of the Sim City soundtracks when I listen to this...</htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason I 'm reminded of the Sim City soundtracks when I listen to this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason I'm reminded of the Sim City soundtracks when I listen to this...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516186</id>
	<title>Ok wait a minuet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261386840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gradual modification of something based on choosing which random change sounds best is not "natural selection", since the changes are being rated by intelligent minds.  I would call it "intelligent selection".  Darwinism groupthink rears its ugly head again.</p><p>*The title of this reply is a deliberate pun, not a randomly-evolved one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gradual modification of something based on choosing which random change sounds best is not " natural selection " , since the changes are being rated by intelligent minds .
I would call it " intelligent selection " .
Darwinism groupthink rears its ugly head again .
* The title of this reply is a deliberate pun , not a randomly-evolved one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gradual modification of something based on choosing which random change sounds best is not "natural selection", since the changes are being rated by intelligent minds.
I would call it "intelligent selection".
Darwinism groupthink rears its ugly head again.
*The title of this reply is a deliberate pun, not a randomly-evolved one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162</id>
	<title>WARNING: AntivirusXP</title>
	<author>BabaChazz</author>
	<datestamp>1261386780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The site has paid ads, one of which apparently has been taken over by the XPAntiVirus people. If you visit the site, it will install malware, unless you are using Firefox and Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The site has paid ads , one of which apparently has been taken over by the XPAntiVirus people .
If you visit the site , it will install malware , unless you are using Firefox and Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The site has paid ads, one of which apparently has been taken over by the XPAntiVirus people.
If you visit the site, it will install malware, unless you are using Firefox and Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518426</id>
	<title>Re:OMG??</title>
	<author>tehniobium</author>
	<datestamp>1261399380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you implying that the server automatically generated "Never Gonna Give You Up"? Because if you are, that is pretty damn amazing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br><br>Also, that would be infringing upon mr. Ashleys copyright oO</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you implying that the server automatically generated " Never Gon na Give You Up " ?
Because if you are , that is pretty damn amazing ; ) Also , that would be infringing upon mr. Ashleys copyright oO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you implying that the server automatically generated "Never Gonna Give You Up"?
Because if you are, that is pretty damn amazing ;)Also, that would be infringing upon mr. Ashleys copyright oO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30521010</id>
	<title>Site hacked?</title>
	<author>AardvarkCelery</author>
	<datestamp>1261423560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first time I clicked the link...<br>
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2009/12/amanda-gefter-books-arts.php" title="newscientist.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2009/12/amanda-gefter-books-arts.php</a> [newscientist.com] <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I got a bogus system scan web page and then it tried to get me to run an EXE file.  I tried the link a few minutes later and it seemed okay.  I'm perplexed as to what happened.  From my browser history, the bad link was...<br>
h t t p : / / n i s s a n - r e n t . c n / g o . p h p ? i d = 2 0 0 6 - 5 1 &amp; k e y = 0 5 2 2 c 7 0 6 6 &amp; d = 1<br>
<br>
I'm using Opera 10.10 (latest) and haven't been anywhere other than major news sites today.  Just thought I'd mention it in case anyone else sees the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first time I clicked the link.. . http : //www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2009/12/amanda-gefter-books-arts.php [ newscientist.com ] ... I got a bogus system scan web page and then it tried to get me to run an EXE file .
I tried the link a few minutes later and it seemed okay .
I 'm perplexed as to what happened .
From my browser history , the bad link was.. . h t t p : / / n i s s a n - r e n t .
c n / g o .
p h p ?
i d = 2 0 0 6 - 5 1 &amp; k e y = 0 5 2 2 c 7 0 6 6 &amp; d = 1 I 'm using Opera 10.10 ( latest ) and have n't been anywhere other than major news sites today .
Just thought I 'd mention it in case anyone else sees the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first time I clicked the link...
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2009/12/amanda-gefter-books-arts.php [newscientist.com]  ... I got a bogus system scan web page and then it tried to get me to run an EXE file.
I tried the link a few minutes later and it seemed okay.
I'm perplexed as to what happened.
From my browser history, the bad link was...
h t t p : / / n i s s a n - r e n t .
c n / g o .
p h p ?
i d = 2 0 0 6 - 5 1 &amp; k e y = 0 5 2 2 c 7 0 6 6 &amp; d = 1

I'm using Opera 10.10 (latest) and haven't been anywhere other than major news sites today.
Just thought I'd mention it in case anyone else sees the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517328</id>
	<title>grammidity</title>
	<author>jefu</author>
	<datestamp>1261392600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I've written a few genetic algorithm/programming things for "music" over the years.    However, not being a musician, I approached it only from an algorithmic perspective.   The last of these, called "grammidity" can attempt to evolve sequences of midi events based on a kind of grammar that evolves (loosely based on the ideas behind L-systems).   I had it online for a couple of years, but it never evolved much of anything interesting.   The source code (java) is on <a href="http://grammidity.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">sourceforge</a> [sourceforge.net] and includes ways to evolve "plants" and a fuzzer that generates html and which worked quite nicely to break browsers a couple of years back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've written a few genetic algorithm/programming things for " music " over the years .
However , not being a musician , I approached it only from an algorithmic perspective .
The last of these , called " grammidity " can attempt to evolve sequences of midi events based on a kind of grammar that evolves ( loosely based on the ideas behind L-systems ) .
I had it online for a couple of years , but it never evolved much of anything interesting .
The source code ( java ) is on sourceforge [ sourceforge.net ] and includes ways to evolve " plants " and a fuzzer that generates html and which worked quite nicely to break browsers a couple of years back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I've written a few genetic algorithm/programming things for "music" over the years.
However, not being a musician, I approached it only from an algorithmic perspective.
The last of these, called "grammidity" can attempt to evolve sequences of midi events based on a kind of grammar that evolves (loosely based on the ideas behind L-systems).
I had it online for a couple of years, but it never evolved much of anything interesting.
The source code (java) is on sourceforge [sourceforge.net] and includes ways to evolve "plants" and a fuzzer that generates html and which worked quite nicely to break browsers a couple of years back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517640</id>
	<title>Re:Sine waves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261394220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, maybe so, but those waves aren't ALIVE!  THEY ARE LIES!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , maybe so , but those waves are n't ALIVE !
THEY ARE LIES !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, maybe so, but those waves aren't ALIVE!
THEY ARE LIES!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516218</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING: AntivirusXP</title>
	<author>cl0s</author>
	<datestamp>1261387020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for the warning.. I was trying to install it using Wine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the warning.. I was trying to install it using Wine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the warning.. I was trying to install it using Wine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517032</id>
	<title>Re:copyright?</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1261391040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would you get enough people to agree on the tune?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you get enough people to agree on the tune ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you get enough people to agree on the tune?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519062</id>
	<title>Re:Sine waves</title>
	<author>fbjon</author>
	<datestamp>1261405260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Music does not decompose into sine waves, unless we're talking brain waves. This is because music is a perception, unlike <em>sound</em>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Music does not decompose into sine waves , unless we 're talking brain waves .
This is because music is a perception , unlike sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Music does not decompose into sine waves, unless we're talking brain waves.
This is because music is a perception, unlike sound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516504</id>
	<title>Not a novel idea</title>
	<author>lalena</author>
	<datestamp>1261388400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember reading papers on this during my AI classes in the mid 90's. I don't see how this is impressive nearly 15 years later.
<br> <br>
Here's the first link I found on G.P. Music from '98 which actually had the computer rate some of the music.
<br>
<a href="http://graphics.stanford.edu/~bjohanso/papers/gp98/johanson98gpmusic.pdf" title="stanford.edu">http://graphics.stanford.edu/~bjohanso/papers/gp98/johanson98gpmusic.pdf</a> [stanford.edu]
<br>
If you look at his references, people were doing this in the '80's.
<br>
<br>
No, I didn't RTFA. I didn't even read the article I linked in this post, so don't get upset if they aren't completely related.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading papers on this during my AI classes in the mid 90 's .
I do n't see how this is impressive nearly 15 years later .
Here 's the first link I found on G.P .
Music from '98 which actually had the computer rate some of the music .
http : //graphics.stanford.edu/ ~ bjohanso/papers/gp98/johanson98gpmusic.pdf [ stanford.edu ] If you look at his references , people were doing this in the '80 's .
No , I did n't RTFA .
I did n't even read the article I linked in this post , so do n't get upset if they are n't completely related .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading papers on this during my AI classes in the mid 90's.
I don't see how this is impressive nearly 15 years later.
Here's the first link I found on G.P.
Music from '98 which actually had the computer rate some of the music.
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~bjohanso/papers/gp98/johanson98gpmusic.pdf [stanford.edu]

If you look at his references, people were doing this in the '80's.
No, I didn't RTFA.
I didn't even read the article I linked in this post, so don't get upset if they aren't completely related.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518056</id>
	<title>Re:A good idea in theory</title>
	<author>maccallr</author>
	<datestamp>1261396980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was able to do some rating for a while, and I think the results are fairly cool, but it may not produce anything very interesting for a couple reasons.</p><p>The first is that there isn't strong enough evolutionary pressure.  There are too many people rating with very different opinions of what sounds good.  I think it would be much more interesting to create different channels.  Classical, jazz, ambient, electronica, whatever.  It's still a very broad definition but not so much that our ratings aren't just noise.</p></div><p>You're right, and this is why we wanted to do the experiment.  Nearly a month ago we had 120 Imperial College students do 250 ratings each for us over a week.  We replicated the experiment 3 times (40 students per population) and assumed that these students would have a mix of musical and cultural backgrounds.  We got 75 generations out of it, and the <a href="http://darwintunes.org/preliminary-results" title="darwintunes.org">results were much more musical than the random material we started with</a> [darwintunes.org], but now we realise that 200+ generations is where it's at!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Secondly, the algorithms used to generate the music are really important.  I couldn't find any information on it, but the way the notes are put together seems fairly random.  I think it's important to stick to what we do know sounds good... to an extent.  For example, the gene could contain information on which way to move the current note, rather than the specific note.  That way you could limit it to 2 or 3 steps and lay it over a scale or mode.  The willy nillyness of it will guarantee that we pick 'safe' consonant sounding harmonies.  5ths and 4ths with beep boop melodies.</p><p>Very interesting though, I can't wait to see what happens with this.</p></div><p>Absolutely, the choice of 4/4 time signature, 12 note scale, tempo etc all have a big effect.  As do the types of synths, effects (there's reverb but no delay), quantisation (there's no way to get triplets, for example), no glissando, the list goes on.<br>We tried to boil it down to the simplest and least arbitrary implementation possible, but that was an infinite task!</p><p>And yes, a lot of it does seem to be picking the "non-rubbish" loops, although recently (post-slashdot) I've been hearing some quite adventurous stuff.</p><p>Your thoughts are welcome on the Facebook Group<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was able to do some rating for a while , and I think the results are fairly cool , but it may not produce anything very interesting for a couple reasons.The first is that there is n't strong enough evolutionary pressure .
There are too many people rating with very different opinions of what sounds good .
I think it would be much more interesting to create different channels .
Classical , jazz , ambient , electronica , whatever .
It 's still a very broad definition but not so much that our ratings are n't just noise.You 're right , and this is why we wanted to do the experiment .
Nearly a month ago we had 120 Imperial College students do 250 ratings each for us over a week .
We replicated the experiment 3 times ( 40 students per population ) and assumed that these students would have a mix of musical and cultural backgrounds .
We got 75 generations out of it , and the results were much more musical than the random material we started with [ darwintunes.org ] , but now we realise that 200 + generations is where it 's at ! Secondly , the algorithms used to generate the music are really important .
I could n't find any information on it , but the way the notes are put together seems fairly random .
I think it 's important to stick to what we do know sounds good... to an extent .
For example , the gene could contain information on which way to move the current note , rather than the specific note .
That way you could limit it to 2 or 3 steps and lay it over a scale or mode .
The willy nillyness of it will guarantee that we pick 'safe ' consonant sounding harmonies .
5ths and 4ths with beep boop melodies.Very interesting though , I ca n't wait to see what happens with this.Absolutely , the choice of 4/4 time signature , 12 note scale , tempo etc all have a big effect .
As do the types of synths , effects ( there 's reverb but no delay ) , quantisation ( there 's no way to get triplets , for example ) , no glissando , the list goes on.We tried to boil it down to the simplest and least arbitrary implementation possible , but that was an infinite task ! And yes , a lot of it does seem to be picking the " non-rubbish " loops , although recently ( post-slashdot ) I 've been hearing some quite adventurous stuff.Your thoughts are welcome on the Facebook Group : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was able to do some rating for a while, and I think the results are fairly cool, but it may not produce anything very interesting for a couple reasons.The first is that there isn't strong enough evolutionary pressure.
There are too many people rating with very different opinions of what sounds good.
I think it would be much more interesting to create different channels.
Classical, jazz, ambient, electronica, whatever.
It's still a very broad definition but not so much that our ratings aren't just noise.You're right, and this is why we wanted to do the experiment.
Nearly a month ago we had 120 Imperial College students do 250 ratings each for us over a week.
We replicated the experiment 3 times (40 students per population) and assumed that these students would have a mix of musical and cultural backgrounds.
We got 75 generations out of it, and the results were much more musical than the random material we started with [darwintunes.org], but now we realise that 200+ generations is where it's at!Secondly, the algorithms used to generate the music are really important.
I couldn't find any information on it, but the way the notes are put together seems fairly random.
I think it's important to stick to what we do know sounds good... to an extent.
For example, the gene could contain information on which way to move the current note, rather than the specific note.
That way you could limit it to 2 or 3 steps and lay it over a scale or mode.
The willy nillyness of it will guarantee that we pick 'safe' consonant sounding harmonies.
5ths and 4ths with beep boop melodies.Very interesting though, I can't wait to see what happens with this.Absolutely, the choice of 4/4 time signature, 12 note scale, tempo etc all have a big effect.
As do the types of synths, effects (there's reverb but no delay), quantisation (there's no way to get triplets, for example), no glissando, the list goes on.We tried to boil it down to the simplest and least arbitrary implementation possible, but that was an infinite task!And yes, a lot of it does seem to be picking the "non-rubbish" loops, although recently (post-slashdot) I've been hearing some quite adventurous stuff.Your thoughts are welcome on the Facebook Group :-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518974</id>
	<title>I had the idea once</title>
	<author>poached</author>
	<datestamp>1261404480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having been both an EE and a CS major I had an idea exactly like this.  Alas I didn't do anything about it.  Hopefully this project will go somewhere and end up creating really complex music.</p><p>So far the tunes sound meh...</p><p>I wonder if voice can be generated too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having been both an EE and a CS major I had an idea exactly like this .
Alas I did n't do anything about it .
Hopefully this project will go somewhere and end up creating really complex music.So far the tunes sound meh...I wonder if voice can be generated too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having been both an EE and a CS major I had an idea exactly like this.
Alas I didn't do anything about it.
Hopefully this project will go somewhere and end up creating really complex music.So far the tunes sound meh...I wonder if voice can be generated too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516464</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING: AntivirusXP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261388160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FF on windows is vulnerable?  Current versions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FF on windows is vulnerable ?
Current versions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FF on windows is vulnerable?
Current versions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30521436</id>
	<title>My approach to evolutionary music</title>
	<author>juures</author>
	<datestamp>1261472880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did a similar thing earlier this year. However, I took a top-down approach: I picked a music style, did a several simple preset musical patterns, and defined a set of rules how to mutate them to something different. There's no system to pick the good mutations though, so it's not really evolutionary, but at least it sounds somewhat musical. The app is already available as online applet: <a href="http://www.rinki.net/pekka/acid/" title="rinki.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.rinki.net/pekka/acid/</a> [rinki.net]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did a similar thing earlier this year .
However , I took a top-down approach : I picked a music style , did a several simple preset musical patterns , and defined a set of rules how to mutate them to something different .
There 's no system to pick the good mutations though , so it 's not really evolutionary , but at least it sounds somewhat musical .
The app is already available as online applet : http : //www.rinki.net/pekka/acid/ [ rinki.net ] .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did a similar thing earlier this year.
However, I took a top-down approach: I picked a music style, did a several simple preset musical patterns, and defined a set of rules how to mutate them to something different.
There's no system to pick the good mutations though, so it's not really evolutionary, but at least it sounds somewhat musical.
The app is already available as online applet: http://www.rinki.net/pekka/acid/ [rinki.net] ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516184</id>
	<title>Re:Sine waves?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261386840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+ Cosine</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ Cosine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+ Cosine</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517910</id>
	<title>Re:copyright?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1261395960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True.  I don't think our copyright system accomodates for covergent evolution in user-generated content.</p><p>The RIAA on the other hand is staunchly opposed to evolution of any type, as it's what's threatening their buisiness model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True .
I do n't think our copyright system accomodates for covergent evolution in user-generated content.The RIAA on the other hand is staunchly opposed to evolution of any type , as it 's what 's threatening their buisiness model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.
I don't think our copyright system accomodates for covergent evolution in user-generated content.The RIAA on the other hand is staunchly opposed to evolution of any type, as it's what's threatening their buisiness model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516634</id>
	<title>Re:Sine waves?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261389120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about an infinite piece of non-repeating music, consisting of say, a beep at every prime second and silence otherwise?</p></div><p>I think that's doable, provided you employ a <i>continuous</i> (not discrete) Fourier transform.  I'm not certain, though.  It has been awhile since my undergrad classes on the subject.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about an infinite piece of non-repeating music , consisting of say , a beep at every prime second and silence otherwise ? I think that 's doable , provided you employ a continuous ( not discrete ) Fourier transform .
I 'm not certain , though .
It has been awhile since my undergrad classes on the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about an infinite piece of non-repeating music, consisting of say, a beep at every prime second and silence otherwise?I think that's doable, provided you employ a continuous (not discrete) Fourier transform.
I'm not certain, though.
It has been awhile since my undergrad classes on the subject.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516342</id>
	<title>Re:Sine waves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261387560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is different from all other sounds, including regular music, how?</i></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square\_wave" title="wikipedia.org">Square waves</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle\_wave" title="wikipedia.org">triangle waves</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawtooth\_wave" title="wikipedia.org">sawtooth waves</a> [wikipedia.org], and the ever popular noise (play with a SID chip someday). Sure, they're approximated by putting together sine waves, and they might even just happen to "evolve" from selected sine wave combinations, but the meaning came across just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is different from all other sounds , including regular music , how ? Square waves [ wikipedia.org ] , triangle waves [ wikipedia.org ] , sawtooth waves [ wikipedia.org ] , and the ever popular noise ( play with a SID chip someday ) .
Sure , they 're approximated by putting together sine waves , and they might even just happen to " evolve " from selected sine wave combinations , but the meaning came across just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is different from all other sounds, including regular music, how?Square waves [wikipedia.org], triangle waves [wikipedia.org], sawtooth waves [wikipedia.org], and the ever popular noise (play with a SID chip someday).
Sure, they're approximated by putting together sine waves, and they might even just happen to "evolve" from selected sine wave combinations, but the meaning came across just fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30520472</id>
	<title>Re:Ok wait a minuet</title>
	<author>mhelander</author>
	<datestamp>1261417080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is called "artificial selection". Darwin started out by pointing at the example of humans who breed - evolve - animals and plants using artificial selection and then went on to show that a similar process takes place in nature, causing animals and plants to evolve on their own, only that nature does the selection rather than humans, thus the term "natural selection" to be contrasted to "artificial selection".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is called " artificial selection " .
Darwin started out by pointing at the example of humans who breed - evolve - animals and plants using artificial selection and then went on to show that a similar process takes place in nature , causing animals and plants to evolve on their own , only that nature does the selection rather than humans , thus the term " natural selection " to be contrasted to " artificial selection " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is called "artificial selection".
Darwin started out by pointing at the example of humans who breed - evolve - animals and plants using artificial selection and then went on to show that a similar process takes place in nature, causing animals and plants to evolve on their own, only that nature does the selection rather than humans, thus the term "natural selection" to be contrasted to "artificial selection".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518226</id>
	<title>Re:Sine waves?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261398000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, you geeks who think you know everything, but don't understand the discussion here about sine waves!</p><p>OF COURSE all waveforms can be analyzed in terms of sine waves. But if you've ever actually listened to a sine wave (or a square wave), it's quite boring. No, composers of music (from Classical to Death Metal) generally work with more complex waveforms - whether they be from acoustic instruments or synthesizers or a blend of both. These more-complex waveforms can also of course be analyzed in terms of sine waves, but the point is that the composer rarely STARTS WITH sine waves and definitely does not think in terms of sine waves.</p><p>What this project seems to involve is evolving a complex waveform via mutations that only involve the manipulation of simple sine wave impulses. But yes, I thought the comment about cosine waves was clever.</p><p>But here's the main reason I posted this comment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Distorted electric guitars (and I should know, since I've played one for over 35 years) generally do NOT produce square waves. Overdriving a guitar's signal involves non-linear amplification, which introduces harmonic distortion. However, the non-linear amplification rarely involves hard clipping -- which would only produce an APPROXIMATE square wave anyway -- because that, too, sounds very crappy no matter how hardcore your musical tastes might run. Besides, an undistorted guitar signal is already very complex, so hard-clipping it doesn't produce regular squarewaves. All it does is obscure and obliterate the harmonic richness that was already in the undistorted signal.</p><p>With very few exceptions, the myriad flavors of distortion that guitarists use only introduce a variety of subtle (or not-so-subtle) non-linearity, producing complex waveforms that definitely do NOT have flat sides or tops. Check it out in your favorite waveform editing software. A distorted signal merely ANALYZES TO sine waves that include harmonics of the sine waves to which the original, undistorted signal analyzes. And even THAT wouldn't sound very musical if the high frequencies weren't heavily rolled off (usually by playing through guitar speakers, which don't have tweeters).</p><p>"When someone says they know how to PLAY a guitar, they usually mean they know how to WORK a guitar. Playing a guitar is something else entirely." -- Christopher Campbell</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , you geeks who think you know everything , but do n't understand the discussion here about sine waves ! OF COURSE all waveforms can be analyzed in terms of sine waves .
But if you 've ever actually listened to a sine wave ( or a square wave ) , it 's quite boring .
No , composers of music ( from Classical to Death Metal ) generally work with more complex waveforms - whether they be from acoustic instruments or synthesizers or a blend of both .
These more-complex waveforms can also of course be analyzed in terms of sine waves , but the point is that the composer rarely STARTS WITH sine waves and definitely does not think in terms of sine waves.What this project seems to involve is evolving a complex waveform via mutations that only involve the manipulation of simple sine wave impulses .
But yes , I thought the comment about cosine waves was clever.But here 's the main reason I posted this comment ... Distorted electric guitars ( and I should know , since I 've played one for over 35 years ) generally do NOT produce square waves .
Overdriving a guitar 's signal involves non-linear amplification , which introduces harmonic distortion .
However , the non-linear amplification rarely involves hard clipping -- which would only produce an APPROXIMATE square wave anyway -- because that , too , sounds very crappy no matter how hardcore your musical tastes might run .
Besides , an undistorted guitar signal is already very complex , so hard-clipping it does n't produce regular squarewaves .
All it does is obscure and obliterate the harmonic richness that was already in the undistorted signal.With very few exceptions , the myriad flavors of distortion that guitarists use only introduce a variety of subtle ( or not-so-subtle ) non-linearity , producing complex waveforms that definitely do NOT have flat sides or tops .
Check it out in your favorite waveform editing software .
A distorted signal merely ANALYZES TO sine waves that include harmonics of the sine waves to which the original , undistorted signal analyzes .
And even THAT would n't sound very musical if the high frequencies were n't heavily rolled off ( usually by playing through guitar speakers , which do n't have tweeters ) .
" When someone says they know how to PLAY a guitar , they usually mean they know how to WORK a guitar .
Playing a guitar is something else entirely .
" -- Christopher Campbell</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, you geeks who think you know everything, but don't understand the discussion here about sine waves!OF COURSE all waveforms can be analyzed in terms of sine waves.
But if you've ever actually listened to a sine wave (or a square wave), it's quite boring.
No, composers of music (from Classical to Death Metal) generally work with more complex waveforms - whether they be from acoustic instruments or synthesizers or a blend of both.
These more-complex waveforms can also of course be analyzed in terms of sine waves, but the point is that the composer rarely STARTS WITH sine waves and definitely does not think in terms of sine waves.What this project seems to involve is evolving a complex waveform via mutations that only involve the manipulation of simple sine wave impulses.
But yes, I thought the comment about cosine waves was clever.But here's the main reason I posted this comment ... Distorted electric guitars (and I should know, since I've played one for over 35 years) generally do NOT produce square waves.
Overdriving a guitar's signal involves non-linear amplification, which introduces harmonic distortion.
However, the non-linear amplification rarely involves hard clipping -- which would only produce an APPROXIMATE square wave anyway -- because that, too, sounds very crappy no matter how hardcore your musical tastes might run.
Besides, an undistorted guitar signal is already very complex, so hard-clipping it doesn't produce regular squarewaves.
All it does is obscure and obliterate the harmonic richness that was already in the undistorted signal.With very few exceptions, the myriad flavors of distortion that guitarists use only introduce a variety of subtle (or not-so-subtle) non-linearity, producing complex waveforms that definitely do NOT have flat sides or tops.
Check it out in your favorite waveform editing software.
A distorted signal merely ANALYZES TO sine waves that include harmonics of the sine waves to which the original, undistorted signal analyzes.
And even THAT wouldn't sound very musical if the high frequencies weren't heavily rolled off (usually by playing through guitar speakers, which don't have tweeters).
"When someone says they know how to PLAY a guitar, they usually mean they know how to WORK a guitar.
Playing a guitar is something else entirely.
" -- Christopher Campbell</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516038</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30521982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30530134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30522296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30552088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30520472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1514230_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30521982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30515980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30522296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30552088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30520472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30520372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30530134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30517694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30519476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1514230.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30516074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1514230.30518426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
