<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_30_0237209</id>
	<title>OnLive One Step Closer</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262200200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>hysma writes <i>"It looks like OnLive, the remote gaming system that streams HD video over the Internet, is <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/106162">one step closer to becoming reality</a>, according to an article on DSL Reports in response to <a href="http://www.viddler.com/explore/gamertagradio/videos/160/169.707/">a lengthy video presentation by founder &amp; CEO Steve Perlman</a> at Columbia University. Perlman demonstrated the UI, spectating, using the service on an iPhone, and other features."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>hysma writes " It looks like OnLive , the remote gaming system that streams HD video over the Internet , is one step closer to becoming reality , according to an article on DSL Reports in response to a lengthy video presentation by founder &amp; CEO Steve Perlman at Columbia University .
Perlman demonstrated the UI , spectating , using the service on an iPhone , and other features .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hysma writes "It looks like OnLive, the remote gaming system that streams HD video over the Internet, is one step closer to becoming reality, according to an article on DSL Reports in response to a lengthy video presentation by founder &amp; CEO Steve Perlman at Columbia University.
Perlman demonstrated the UI, spectating, using the service on an iPhone, and other features.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30593270</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud Gaming?</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1259855160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. You buy a game. Or time on a game, depending on the tariff.</p><p>OnLive ensures that the game is running on a server that's got enough power for the game you've chosen. If it's Crysis, you might be the only player on a machine. If it's Peggle you might be sharing a machine with dozens of people.</p><p>You don't (conceptually) own/rent a "gaming rig". You buy the game, and the gaming rig is supplied whenever you play the game.</p><p>Analogy: you buy a meal at a restaurant. The provide the appropriate table, chairs, crockery, cutlery etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
You buy a game .
Or time on a game , depending on the tariff.OnLive ensures that the game is running on a server that 's got enough power for the game you 've chosen .
If it 's Crysis , you might be the only player on a machine .
If it 's Peggle you might be sharing a machine with dozens of people.You do n't ( conceptually ) own/rent a " gaming rig " .
You buy the game , and the gaming rig is supplied whenever you play the game.Analogy : you buy a meal at a restaurant .
The provide the appropriate table , chairs , crockery , cutlery etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
You buy a game.
Or time on a game, depending on the tariff.OnLive ensures that the game is running on a server that's got enough power for the game you've chosen.
If it's Crysis, you might be the only player on a machine.
If it's Peggle you might be sharing a machine with dozens of people.You don't (conceptually) own/rent a "gaming rig".
You buy the game, and the gaming rig is supplied whenever you play the game.Analogy: you buy a meal at a restaurant.
The provide the appropriate table, chairs, crockery, cutlery etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30630114</id>
	<title>try it, it's in beta</title>
	<author>lie2me</author>
	<datestamp>1231014240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty horrible in 720p HD, sluggish feel, blurry visuals until you're still etc... and we were not able to get to extensive MP gameplay. Our office is less than 10 miles away, ping 20ms.</p><p>Not to worry, basic laws still hold, reading recent WIRED - failure is just as solid as success!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty horrible in 720p HD , sluggish feel , blurry visuals until you 're still etc... and we were not able to get to extensive MP gameplay .
Our office is less than 10 miles away , ping 20ms.Not to worry , basic laws still hold , reading recent WIRED - failure is just as solid as success !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty horrible in 720p HD, sluggish feel, blurry visuals until you're still etc... and we were not able to get to extensive MP gameplay.
Our office is less than 10 miles away, ping 20ms.Not to worry, basic laws still hold, reading recent WIRED - failure is just as solid as success!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30597208</id>
	<title>Re:So, their business model...</title>
	<author>LiquidFire\_HK</author>
	<datestamp>1259868180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What they're selling is the ability to play the latest games on maximum settings without ever having to upgrade your computer (or even have one - did you miss the very cheap hardware version they have for TVs?). You can even e.g. play Crysis from your netbook (or iPhone, as shown). It sounds like it might be worth it, depending on the price.</p><p>That said, I'm still very sceptical about the technical feasibility of the whole thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they 're selling is the ability to play the latest games on maximum settings without ever having to upgrade your computer ( or even have one - did you miss the very cheap hardware version they have for TVs ? ) .
You can even e.g .
play Crysis from your netbook ( or iPhone , as shown ) .
It sounds like it might be worth it , depending on the price.That said , I 'm still very sceptical about the technical feasibility of the whole thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they're selling is the ability to play the latest games on maximum settings without ever having to upgrade your computer (or even have one - did you miss the very cheap hardware version they have for TVs?).
You can even e.g.
play Crysis from your netbook (or iPhone, as shown).
It sounds like it might be worth it, depending on the price.That said, I'm still very sceptical about the technical feasibility of the whole thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30597112</id>
	<title>Re:Windows and Mac only</title>
	<author>LOLLinux</author>
	<datestamp>1259867880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Onlive could have knocked out one of the major reasons why many people stay with Windows.</p></div><p>Except they aren't Linux evangelists and as such don't give a shit about your fight against Microsoft?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Onlive could have knocked out one of the major reasons why many people stay with Windows.Except they are n't Linux evangelists and as such do n't give a shit about your fight against Microsoft ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Onlive could have knocked out one of the major reasons why many people stay with Windows.Except they aren't Linux evangelists and as such don't give a shit about your fight against Microsoft?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30597542</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a giant scam?</title>
	<author>TrippTDF</author>
	<datestamp>1259869620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you watch the video?  The first 5 minutes are all about overcoming latency issues and the architecture involved in that.  <br> <br>

Do you know who Steve Pearlman is?  He pretty much gave us QuickTime.  He's got a history of incredibly forward thinking ideas, some took off, some didn't.  This isn't like the Phantom console, where some MBA morons tried to do something.  I don't think Pearlman would be out there showing this off unless there was some real meat going on here.<br> <br>

Remember- an optimized server farm processes data much differently than your home computer does.  Sure, no single computer could index the entire internet and point you to web pages based on a query in under 1 second, but Google can with a large range of servers all doing part of the work.  You can't say something is impossible just because you can't do it at home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you watch the video ?
The first 5 minutes are all about overcoming latency issues and the architecture involved in that .
Do you know who Steve Pearlman is ?
He pretty much gave us QuickTime .
He 's got a history of incredibly forward thinking ideas , some took off , some did n't .
This is n't like the Phantom console , where some MBA morons tried to do something .
I do n't think Pearlman would be out there showing this off unless there was some real meat going on here .
Remember- an optimized server farm processes data much differently than your home computer does .
Sure , no single computer could index the entire internet and point you to web pages based on a query in under 1 second , but Google can with a large range of servers all doing part of the work .
You ca n't say something is impossible just because you ca n't do it at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you watch the video?
The first 5 minutes are all about overcoming latency issues and the architecture involved in that.
Do you know who Steve Pearlman is?
He pretty much gave us QuickTime.
He's got a history of incredibly forward thinking ideas, some took off, some didn't.
This isn't like the Phantom console, where some MBA morons tried to do something.
I don't think Pearlman would be out there showing this off unless there was some real meat going on here.
Remember- an optimized server farm processes data much differently than your home computer does.
Sure, no single computer could index the entire internet and point you to web pages based on a query in under 1 second, but Google can with a large range of servers all doing part of the work.
You can't say something is impossible just because you can't do it at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591316</id>
	<title>Re:Latency sensitive people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259830860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tell ya, does OnLive have to make their case every single Slashdot article or what?</p><p>Game engines have latency in them... OnLive runs those engines at faster than realtime, so when the packet from your controller gets to the engine 300ms later than it normally would the engine has plenty of time to do its thing.</p><p>All this was explained months ago when the technical questions were asked.  This article is about the business question:  when are you going to ship?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tell ya , does OnLive have to make their case every single Slashdot article or what ? Game engines have latency in them... OnLive runs those engines at faster than realtime , so when the packet from your controller gets to the engine 300ms later than it normally would the engine has plenty of time to do its thing.All this was explained months ago when the technical questions were asked .
This article is about the business question : when are you going to ship ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tell ya, does OnLive have to make their case every single Slashdot article or what?Game engines have latency in them... OnLive runs those engines at faster than realtime, so when the packet from your controller gets to the engine 300ms later than it normally would the engine has plenty of time to do its thing.All this was explained months ago when the technical questions were asked.
This article is about the business question:  when are you going to ship?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592140</id>
	<title>Re:Enough speculation!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259846040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, because a small company with no products is going to be able to get large companies ot bend over backwards to make them a profit.  Good luck with that.</p><p>Besides, unless they can change the network so that it doesn't have to follow the laws of physics, such as limiting the speed of electrons to the speed of light, this is more than just vaporware-  its a fraud.  And its our duty, as people technically capable of judging it, to point it out so that people aren't fooled into investing time or money on it.</p><p>Also, these stories are boring.  Anyone with any technical knowledge knows it isn't possible.  Stop giving them free publicity until the collapse comes for us to laugh over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , because a small company with no products is going to be able to get large companies ot bend over backwards to make them a profit .
Good luck with that.Besides , unless they can change the network so that it does n't have to follow the laws of physics , such as limiting the speed of electrons to the speed of light , this is more than just vaporware- its a fraud .
And its our duty , as people technically capable of judging it , to point it out so that people are n't fooled into investing time or money on it.Also , these stories are boring .
Anyone with any technical knowledge knows it is n't possible .
Stop giving them free publicity until the collapse comes for us to laugh over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, because a small company with no products is going to be able to get large companies ot bend over backwards to make them a profit.
Good luck with that.Besides, unless they can change the network so that it doesn't have to follow the laws of physics, such as limiting the speed of electrons to the speed of light, this is more than just vaporware-  its a fraud.
And its our duty, as people technically capable of judging it, to point it out so that people aren't fooled into investing time or money on it.Also, these stories are boring.
Anyone with any technical knowledge knows it isn't possible.
Stop giving them free publicity until the collapse comes for us to laugh over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591368</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>should\_be\_linear</author>
	<datestamp>1259832240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OnLive is probably expecting to become acquired by likes of Google or Yahoo that have servers everywhere and are able to cut latency to acceptable levels. They only need to prove their system is OK when server is few miles around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OnLive is probably expecting to become acquired by likes of Google or Yahoo that have servers everywhere and are able to cut latency to acceptable levels .
They only need to prove their system is OK when server is few miles around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OnLive is probably expecting to become acquired by likes of Google or Yahoo that have servers everywhere and are able to cut latency to acceptable levels.
They only need to prove their system is OK when server is few miles around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596406</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a giant scam?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1259865240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, really! It's made by the same company that made this revolutionary new locomotive design:<br><a href="http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/holman/holman.htm" title="pipex.com">http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/holman/holman.htm</a> [pipex.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , really !
It 's made by the same company that made this revolutionary new locomotive design : http : //www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/holman/holman.htm [ pipex.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, really!
It's made by the same company that made this revolutionary new locomotive design:http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/holman/holman.htm [pipex.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592294</id>
	<title>parent is a troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259848200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>parent is a troll</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>parent is a troll</tokentext>
<sentencetext>parent is a troll</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30604188</id>
	<title>Re:network log:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262263560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wrong. try this:<br>0 ms: Image on user's monitor appears, he is to press B right NOW, to duck,<br>25 ms: User press "B" to duck. [Reason for 25ms delay: human perception/reaction time(physical movement of thumb hitting button and it registering on the PC)]<br>25.2 ms: OnLive processes the "B" button press and forms the necessary packet, sends the message to the server.<br>25.3 ms: The packet leaves the NIC of PC and hits home router<br>26.0 ms: The packet hits home router, NAT translation does its thing, router sends it to public IP address of OnLive closest-server.<br>34.2 ms: Packet hits ISP's gateway [Delay: 8.2 ms]<br>52.6 ms: Packet finishes its routing at OnLive's server in Seattle (theoretical from Vancouver -&gt; Seattle) [Delay: 18.4ms]<br>52.8 ms: Packet finishes internal routing to server where live-stream (for player) and media-stream (for playback) is being rendered.<br>53.8 ms: Input is processed and rendering finishes [Delay: 1 ms, as advertised in video from TFA]<br>53.9 ms: Packet sent to player.<br>80.8 ms: Packet arrives at PC and is decoded and sent to OnLive to render on-screen  [Delay: 26.9 ms (18.4 ms + 8.2 ms + 0.3ms) to get packet back to player's PC]<br>80.9 ms: Pre-rendered video is sent to PC, decoded/rendered, outputted to monitor.<br>95.9 ms: User fully perceives new frame. [Reason for 15ms delay: human perception]</p><p>this is more realistic than your 482 ms which is ridiculous.</p><p>still, 95.8 ms round-trip-time isn't great and useless for FPSs where you need to react to something in under 50-70ms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wrong .
try this : 0 ms : Image on user 's monitor appears , he is to press B right NOW , to duck,25 ms : User press " B " to duck .
[ Reason for 25ms delay : human perception/reaction time ( physical movement of thumb hitting button and it registering on the PC ) ] 25.2 ms : OnLive processes the " B " button press and forms the necessary packet , sends the message to the server.25.3 ms : The packet leaves the NIC of PC and hits home router26.0 ms : The packet hits home router , NAT translation does its thing , router sends it to public IP address of OnLive closest-server.34.2 ms : Packet hits ISP 's gateway [ Delay : 8.2 ms ] 52.6 ms : Packet finishes its routing at OnLive 's server in Seattle ( theoretical from Vancouver - &gt; Seattle ) [ Delay : 18.4ms ] 52.8 ms : Packet finishes internal routing to server where live-stream ( for player ) and media-stream ( for playback ) is being rendered.53.8 ms : Input is processed and rendering finishes [ Delay : 1 ms , as advertised in video from TFA ] 53.9 ms : Packet sent to player.80.8 ms : Packet arrives at PC and is decoded and sent to OnLive to render on-screen [ Delay : 26.9 ms ( 18.4 ms + 8.2 ms + 0.3ms ) to get packet back to player 's PC ] 80.9 ms : Pre-rendered video is sent to PC , decoded/rendered , outputted to monitor.95.9 ms : User fully perceives new frame .
[ Reason for 15ms delay : human perception ] this is more realistic than your 482 ms which is ridiculous.still , 95.8 ms round-trip-time is n't great and useless for FPSs where you need to react to something in under 50-70ms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wrong.
try this:0 ms: Image on user's monitor appears, he is to press B right NOW, to duck,25 ms: User press "B" to duck.
[Reason for 25ms delay: human perception/reaction time(physical movement of thumb hitting button and it registering on the PC)]25.2 ms: OnLive processes the "B" button press and forms the necessary packet, sends the message to the server.25.3 ms: The packet leaves the NIC of PC and hits home router26.0 ms: The packet hits home router, NAT translation does its thing, router sends it to public IP address of OnLive closest-server.34.2 ms: Packet hits ISP's gateway [Delay: 8.2 ms]52.6 ms: Packet finishes its routing at OnLive's server in Seattle (theoretical from Vancouver -&gt; Seattle) [Delay: 18.4ms]52.8 ms: Packet finishes internal routing to server where live-stream (for player) and media-stream (for playback) is being rendered.53.8 ms: Input is processed and rendering finishes [Delay: 1 ms, as advertised in video from TFA]53.9 ms: Packet sent to player.80.8 ms: Packet arrives at PC and is decoded and sent to OnLive to render on-screen  [Delay: 26.9 ms (18.4 ms + 8.2 ms + 0.3ms) to get packet back to player's PC]80.9 ms: Pre-rendered video is sent to PC, decoded/rendered, outputted to monitor.95.9 ms: User fully perceives new frame.
[Reason for 15ms delay: human perception]this is more realistic than your 482 ms which is ridiculous.still, 95.8 ms round-trip-time isn't great and useless for FPSs where you need to react to something in under 50-70ms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592580</id>
	<title>What about ISP limits?</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1259851440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if this purple unicorn was possible, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they can pull off everything they claim on server-side, as packets trickle from conglomerate to backbone and up and down the tiers of ISP's, JohnDoeNet Inc. will not appreciate such a surge in traffic if this became popular. Facebook is one thing, but streaming 'HD' video alongside a bunch of gaming data, good luck. I have had multiple ISPs (local and national) enforce a cap on my bandwidth because of comparitively lightweight PC games. I call VaporWare. <br>
<br>
I thought the days of using buzzword dot-commyness for the sake of luring investors died ten years ago. Some folks never learn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if this purple unicorn was possible , giving them the benefit of the doubt that they can pull off everything they claim on server-side , as packets trickle from conglomerate to backbone and up and down the tiers of ISP 's , JohnDoeNet Inc. will not appreciate such a surge in traffic if this became popular .
Facebook is one thing , but streaming 'HD ' video alongside a bunch of gaming data , good luck .
I have had multiple ISPs ( local and national ) enforce a cap on my bandwidth because of comparitively lightweight PC games .
I call VaporWare .
I thought the days of using buzzword dot-commyness for the sake of luring investors died ten years ago .
Some folks never learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if this purple unicorn was possible, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they can pull off everything they claim on server-side, as packets trickle from conglomerate to backbone and up and down the tiers of ISP's, JohnDoeNet Inc. will not appreciate such a surge in traffic if this became popular.
Facebook is one thing, but streaming 'HD' video alongside a bunch of gaming data, good luck.
I have had multiple ISPs (local and national) enforce a cap on my bandwidth because of comparitively lightweight PC games.
I call VaporWare.
I thought the days of using buzzword dot-commyness for the sake of luring investors died ten years ago.
Some folks never learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591616</id>
	<title>Re:"steams HD video over the Internet:</title>
	<author>itwerx</author>
	<datestamp>1259835960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, it's only compatible with <a href="http://www.steampowered.com/" title="steampowered.com">Valve</a> [steampowered.com] products?!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , it 's only compatible with Valve [ steampowered.com ] products ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, it's only compatible with Valve [steampowered.com] products?!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30598998</id>
	<title>Re:Latency sensitive people</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259832180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that&rsquo;s bullshit anyways.</p><p>Yes, they have latency. But on multiple levels. Most of those are not very relevant or unbearable.<br>Maybe you don&rsquo;t know how modern engines work.<br>They use elaborate prediction algorithms, to have e.g. the enemy an the right position when you shoot, even when the whole game lags some frames behind. Or else you would never hit anyone.<br>If the prediction was wrong, that&rsquo;s when those weird things happen, like you think you hit him, but the engine tells you you missed.<br>Try tweaking the prediction in Quake 3. You stop hitting anything.</p><p>So yes, there is lag, but there is no <em>visible</em> lag.<br>But is this case here, there will be visible lag. Lag you can&rsquo;t hide, because the local device can&rsquo;t do predictions. And that is the problem that will never go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that    s bullshit anyways.Yes , they have latency .
But on multiple levels .
Most of those are not very relevant or unbearable.Maybe you don    t know how modern engines work.They use elaborate prediction algorithms , to have e.g .
the enemy an the right position when you shoot , even when the whole game lags some frames behind .
Or else you would never hit anyone.If the prediction was wrong , that    s when those weird things happen , like you think you hit him , but the engine tells you you missed.Try tweaking the prediction in Quake 3 .
You stop hitting anything.So yes , there is lag , but there is no visible lag.But is this case here , there will be visible lag .
Lag you can    t hide , because the local device can    t do predictions .
And that is the problem that will never go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that’s bullshit anyways.Yes, they have latency.
But on multiple levels.
Most of those are not very relevant or unbearable.Maybe you don’t know how modern engines work.They use elaborate prediction algorithms, to have e.g.
the enemy an the right position when you shoot, even when the whole game lags some frames behind.
Or else you would never hit anyone.If the prediction was wrong, that’s when those weird things happen, like you think you hit him, but the engine tells you you missed.Try tweaking the prediction in Quake 3.
You stop hitting anything.So yes, there is lag, but there is no visible lag.But is this case here, there will be visible lag.
Lag you can’t hide, because the local device can’t do predictions.
And that is the problem that will never go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30594314</id>
	<title>Re:Compression?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Furthermore, I was under the impression that ATSC streams at 720p consume 19 Mbits of bandwidth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , I was under the impression that ATSC streams at 720p consume 19 Mbits of bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore, I was under the impression that ATSC streams at 720p consume 19 Mbits of bandwidth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596902</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1259867100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'm sorry, but nobody here has any reflexes fast enough to make anything less than 50ms perceptible. Or even 80.</i> <br> <br>

I'm all for calling out people that have ridiculous and unverifiable standards, like the audiophiles that think they can detect MP3s compressed at a high bitrate.<br> <br>

However, that isn't the case here.  A 50 ms lag can add substantially to the difficulty of a game.  It's not purely reflexes; it's the timing of those reflexes.  Let me put it this way... a thrown baseball travels a substantial distance in 50ms, and yet a human can still catch one.  Precision of well under 50ms is necessary for that feat; a <b>10ms</b> lag would probably make it impossible.<br> <br>

Plus... OnLive's lag will be substantially higher than 50ms.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but nobody here has any reflexes fast enough to make anything less than 50ms perceptible .
Or even 80 .
I 'm all for calling out people that have ridiculous and unverifiable standards , like the audiophiles that think they can detect MP3s compressed at a high bitrate .
However , that is n't the case here .
A 50 ms lag can add substantially to the difficulty of a game .
It 's not purely reflexes ; it 's the timing of those reflexes .
Let me put it this way... a thrown baseball travels a substantial distance in 50ms , and yet a human can still catch one .
Precision of well under 50ms is necessary for that feat ; a 10ms lag would probably make it impossible .
Plus... OnLive 's lag will be substantially higher than 50ms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but nobody here has any reflexes fast enough to make anything less than 50ms perceptible.
Or even 80.
I'm all for calling out people that have ridiculous and unverifiable standards, like the audiophiles that think they can detect MP3s compressed at a high bitrate.
However, that isn't the case here.
A 50 ms lag can add substantially to the difficulty of a game.
It's not purely reflexes; it's the timing of those reflexes.
Let me put it this way... a thrown baseball travels a substantial distance in 50ms, and yet a human can still catch one.
Precision of well under 50ms is necessary for that feat; a 10ms lag would probably make it impossible.
Plus... OnLive's lag will be substantially higher than 50ms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591764</id>
	<title>Compression?</title>
	<author>Rufus211</author>
	<datestamp>1259838960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the most interesting part was the (lack of) answer about how the compression works.</p><p>They claim 80ms round-trip latency from button push to image display.  Running a game on a server and screen-scraping in ~20ms is fairly easy.  With proper datacenter placement and peering agreements ~50ms round-trip ping times are reasonable (if somewhat optimistic).  The issue is how do you compress the 720p image and send it back in 10ms with reasonable bandwidth.</p><p>They're claiming 1ms compression, 8ms decompression (125hz), and 5mbit 720p streams.  The compression is using a custom ASIC, so that's completely believable.  Decompressing at 120hz on any generic hardware (they specifically said no GPU help) means it has to be an extremely simple protocol.  The biggest question is how do you reach "HD-quality" at only 5mbit when you are not doing group-of-pictures compression (keyframes and diffs from the keyframe).  Mind you that a standard DVD is 10mbit, so they're claiming higher resolution with half the bitrate and no keyframing.  Obviously H264 gets better quality/bit than DVDs, but it does so by using even more complex keyframing and diffs and is far too CPU intensive for their target platforms (it's hard to watch 30fps H264 trailers on many machines, let alone a 60fps stream).  The only hint he gave was some mumbling about visual perception, and the statement that their compression only looks good in motion (if you paused the stream it would look terrible).</p><p>Any ideas as to how the compression works?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the most interesting part was the ( lack of ) answer about how the compression works.They claim 80ms round-trip latency from button push to image display .
Running a game on a server and screen-scraping in ~ 20ms is fairly easy .
With proper datacenter placement and peering agreements ~ 50ms round-trip ping times are reasonable ( if somewhat optimistic ) .
The issue is how do you compress the 720p image and send it back in 10ms with reasonable bandwidth.They 're claiming 1ms compression , 8ms decompression ( 125hz ) , and 5mbit 720p streams .
The compression is using a custom ASIC , so that 's completely believable .
Decompressing at 120hz on any generic hardware ( they specifically said no GPU help ) means it has to be an extremely simple protocol .
The biggest question is how do you reach " HD-quality " at only 5mbit when you are not doing group-of-pictures compression ( keyframes and diffs from the keyframe ) .
Mind you that a standard DVD is 10mbit , so they 're claiming higher resolution with half the bitrate and no keyframing .
Obviously H264 gets better quality/bit than DVDs , but it does so by using even more complex keyframing and diffs and is far too CPU intensive for their target platforms ( it 's hard to watch 30fps H264 trailers on many machines , let alone a 60fps stream ) .
The only hint he gave was some mumbling about visual perception , and the statement that their compression only looks good in motion ( if you paused the stream it would look terrible ) .Any ideas as to how the compression works ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the most interesting part was the (lack of) answer about how the compression works.They claim 80ms round-trip latency from button push to image display.
Running a game on a server and screen-scraping in ~20ms is fairly easy.
With proper datacenter placement and peering agreements ~50ms round-trip ping times are reasonable (if somewhat optimistic).
The issue is how do you compress the 720p image and send it back in 10ms with reasonable bandwidth.They're claiming 1ms compression, 8ms decompression (125hz), and 5mbit 720p streams.
The compression is using a custom ASIC, so that's completely believable.
Decompressing at 120hz on any generic hardware (they specifically said no GPU help) means it has to be an extremely simple protocol.
The biggest question is how do you reach "HD-quality" at only 5mbit when you are not doing group-of-pictures compression (keyframes and diffs from the keyframe).
Mind you that a standard DVD is 10mbit, so they're claiming higher resolution with half the bitrate and no keyframing.
Obviously H264 gets better quality/bit than DVDs, but it does so by using even more complex keyframing and diffs and is far too CPU intensive for their target platforms (it's hard to watch 30fps H264 trailers on many machines, let alone a 60fps stream).
The only hint he gave was some mumbling about visual perception, and the statement that their compression only looks good in motion (if you paused the stream it would look terrible).Any ideas as to how the compression works?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591650</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1259836680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found the presentation interesting and it certainly does sound possible and in many ways exciting, however as a gamer... there are some specific issues. Latency being a huge issue, but also video quality. For example, I play work and play on a 30inch monitor at 2560x1600. The native resolution of my monitor exceeds their services capability. Now many people have different native monitor resolutions, and everyone wants, and should be playing at that native resolution (if they're lcd etc).</p><p>So my 2560x1600 native res would increase my latency on their service... and thats even IF they provide such a resolution.</p><p>It sounds as if currently, they offer 4:3 SD 720x486 and "HD" 16:9... but he didnt specify which HD resolution that was specifically. I'm going to guess that 1280x720 is the resolution they consider "HD" because of obvious latency issues.</p><p>So, how would 1080p effect their latency numbers? How would 2560x1600 effect those latency numbers?</p><p>How about dual display users?</p><p>The other issue is Image quality...</p><p>The Asian student in the video asked about if the service was "lossy" and i think the speaker misunderstood the question because he answered with information about the packet loss mostly... but its clear that this compression scheme is lossy... but how much so? That would be a factor to many users who want the absolute best visuals they can get. In other words, sure some server could be running Crysis at 4xAA but hows it look in their codec? I mean it could negate the benefits of 4xaa and all of that processing power used to render crysis at 4xaa. Again this needs to be seen to understood. I'm sure they have worked very hard at figuring out this problem. It doesnt mean they have the perfect answer to it yet, but i'm sure they have balanced and made tradeoffs as much as they can to provide image quality etc...</p><p>BUT... how does it compare to my local system running the game. Thats the big question.</p><p>I think resolution is an interesting problem. I dont want to run a game thats "comprsesed video" thats now being scaled up to fill my 30inch screen. I would rather play at a native resolution. Scaling up compressed video isnt ideal in any situation... and my experience working in games and post production leads me to believe that scaling up a compressed video stream just cant look better than my local machine. Then factor in the latency issues. I can get a lower ping easily on my fiber... soooooo a lot of this will all come down to "trying it out"</p><p>I'm positive about it though. I find it technically challenging and fascinating that these folks are trying something new, and navigating the hurdles as they come. The service does look to have some very interesting benefits. I think the spectating thing is a great feature. Perhaps someday we will see their codec chip become a standard feature on our local hardware, such as an nvidia chip etc... so we can stream our games to others ourselves.</p><p>I like what they're doing but i'm reserved in that i like to own my stuff. I find that we're losing a part of gaming when we go to a server client relationship. We will kill the future classic gaming scene when the server software isnt available to us the gamer, or the enthusiast who enjoys classic gaming.</p><p>Destroying the used gaming market... I'm not to thrilled with either. There is something to be said for owning what you buy, or at least the physical copy. I dont think many people are thrilled with the idea of buying something they may not be able to use in the future due to being locked out by some service's disinterest in supporting that old game.</p><p>There are still people to thsi day that play counter strike, and they can only do so thanks to the ability to run their own server. The Call of Duty Modern Warfare2 fans are generally pissed off that their "scene" is effectively destroyed by the inability to run their own servers... SO much that they've figured out how to hack the software into a server mode...</p><p>I clearly see benefits in this service, but there will be</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found the presentation interesting and it certainly does sound possible and in many ways exciting , however as a gamer... there are some specific issues .
Latency being a huge issue , but also video quality .
For example , I play work and play on a 30inch monitor at 2560x1600 .
The native resolution of my monitor exceeds their services capability .
Now many people have different native monitor resolutions , and everyone wants , and should be playing at that native resolution ( if they 're lcd etc ) .So my 2560x1600 native res would increase my latency on their service... and thats even IF they provide such a resolution.It sounds as if currently , they offer 4 : 3 SD 720x486 and " HD " 16 : 9... but he didnt specify which HD resolution that was specifically .
I 'm going to guess that 1280x720 is the resolution they consider " HD " because of obvious latency issues.So , how would 1080p effect their latency numbers ?
How would 2560x1600 effect those latency numbers ? How about dual display users ? The other issue is Image quality...The Asian student in the video asked about if the service was " lossy " and i think the speaker misunderstood the question because he answered with information about the packet loss mostly... but its clear that this compression scheme is lossy... but how much so ?
That would be a factor to many users who want the absolute best visuals they can get .
In other words , sure some server could be running Crysis at 4xAA but hows it look in their codec ?
I mean it could negate the benefits of 4xaa and all of that processing power used to render crysis at 4xaa .
Again this needs to be seen to understood .
I 'm sure they have worked very hard at figuring out this problem .
It doesnt mean they have the perfect answer to it yet , but i 'm sure they have balanced and made tradeoffs as much as they can to provide image quality etc...BUT... how does it compare to my local system running the game .
Thats the big question.I think resolution is an interesting problem .
I dont want to run a game thats " comprsesed video " thats now being scaled up to fill my 30inch screen .
I would rather play at a native resolution .
Scaling up compressed video isnt ideal in any situation... and my experience working in games and post production leads me to believe that scaling up a compressed video stream just cant look better than my local machine .
Then factor in the latency issues .
I can get a lower ping easily on my fiber... soooooo a lot of this will all come down to " trying it out " I 'm positive about it though .
I find it technically challenging and fascinating that these folks are trying something new , and navigating the hurdles as they come .
The service does look to have some very interesting benefits .
I think the spectating thing is a great feature .
Perhaps someday we will see their codec chip become a standard feature on our local hardware , such as an nvidia chip etc... so we can stream our games to others ourselves.I like what they 're doing but i 'm reserved in that i like to own my stuff .
I find that we 're losing a part of gaming when we go to a server client relationship .
We will kill the future classic gaming scene when the server software isnt available to us the gamer , or the enthusiast who enjoys classic gaming.Destroying the used gaming market... I 'm not to thrilled with either .
There is something to be said for owning what you buy , or at least the physical copy .
I dont think many people are thrilled with the idea of buying something they may not be able to use in the future due to being locked out by some service 's disinterest in supporting that old game.There are still people to thsi day that play counter strike , and they can only do so thanks to the ability to run their own server .
The Call of Duty Modern Warfare2 fans are generally pissed off that their " scene " is effectively destroyed by the inability to run their own servers... SO much that they 've figured out how to hack the software into a server mode...I clearly see benefits in this service , but there will be</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found the presentation interesting and it certainly does sound possible and in many ways exciting, however as a gamer... there are some specific issues.
Latency being a huge issue, but also video quality.
For example, I play work and play on a 30inch monitor at 2560x1600.
The native resolution of my monitor exceeds their services capability.
Now many people have different native monitor resolutions, and everyone wants, and should be playing at that native resolution (if they're lcd etc).So my 2560x1600 native res would increase my latency on their service... and thats even IF they provide such a resolution.It sounds as if currently, they offer 4:3 SD 720x486 and "HD" 16:9... but he didnt specify which HD resolution that was specifically.
I'm going to guess that 1280x720 is the resolution they consider "HD" because of obvious latency issues.So, how would 1080p effect their latency numbers?
How would 2560x1600 effect those latency numbers?How about dual display users?The other issue is Image quality...The Asian student in the video asked about if the service was "lossy" and i think the speaker misunderstood the question because he answered with information about the packet loss mostly... but its clear that this compression scheme is lossy... but how much so?
That would be a factor to many users who want the absolute best visuals they can get.
In other words, sure some server could be running Crysis at 4xAA but hows it look in their codec?
I mean it could negate the benefits of 4xaa and all of that processing power used to render crysis at 4xaa.
Again this needs to be seen to understood.
I'm sure they have worked very hard at figuring out this problem.
It doesnt mean they have the perfect answer to it yet, but i'm sure they have balanced and made tradeoffs as much as they can to provide image quality etc...BUT... how does it compare to my local system running the game.
Thats the big question.I think resolution is an interesting problem.
I dont want to run a game thats "comprsesed video" thats now being scaled up to fill my 30inch screen.
I would rather play at a native resolution.
Scaling up compressed video isnt ideal in any situation... and my experience working in games and post production leads me to believe that scaling up a compressed video stream just cant look better than my local machine.
Then factor in the latency issues.
I can get a lower ping easily on my fiber... soooooo a lot of this will all come down to "trying it out"I'm positive about it though.
I find it technically challenging and fascinating that these folks are trying something new, and navigating the hurdles as they come.
The service does look to have some very interesting benefits.
I think the spectating thing is a great feature.
Perhaps someday we will see their codec chip become a standard feature on our local hardware, such as an nvidia chip etc... so we can stream our games to others ourselves.I like what they're doing but i'm reserved in that i like to own my stuff.
I find that we're losing a part of gaming when we go to a server client relationship.
We will kill the future classic gaming scene when the server software isnt available to us the gamer, or the enthusiast who enjoys classic gaming.Destroying the used gaming market... I'm not to thrilled with either.
There is something to be said for owning what you buy, or at least the physical copy.
I dont think many people are thrilled with the idea of buying something they may not be able to use in the future due to being locked out by some service's disinterest in supporting that old game.There are still people to thsi day that play counter strike, and they can only do so thanks to the ability to run their own server.
The Call of Duty Modern Warfare2 fans are generally pissed off that their "scene" is effectively destroyed by the inability to run their own servers... SO much that they've figured out how to hack the software into a server mode...I clearly see benefits in this service, but there will be</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591288</id>
	<title>Latency sensitive people</title>
	<author>xororand</author>
	<datestamp>1259873460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also strongly doubt that any kind of game on this platform can be enjoyed by people who are sensitive to input latency. For example my old high quality PVA TFT panel used an overdrive circuit to reduce ghosting. The overdrive logic in TFT panels usually buffers about 1 or 2 full frames to analyze and optimize the pixel voltages which leads to about 20-50ms input latency. I for one already notice it when I just work to the point where it annoys me when the desktop or terminal sessions somehow always feel sluggish, let alone fast 3D games.</p><p>I can't imagine that the complete round-trip time for sending my input over the internet, waiting for a frame to be rendered and encoded remotely, sent back over the internet, decoded and displayed locally would be less than 20ms and then you'd still have the latency of your display. It might be bearable with a very fast internet connection and a CRT display which has 0ms input latency.</p><p>Maybe others aren't that sensitive to latency and can enjoy at least slower games like turn-based strategy with this service. Good for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also strongly doubt that any kind of game on this platform can be enjoyed by people who are sensitive to input latency .
For example my old high quality PVA TFT panel used an overdrive circuit to reduce ghosting .
The overdrive logic in TFT panels usually buffers about 1 or 2 full frames to analyze and optimize the pixel voltages which leads to about 20-50ms input latency .
I for one already notice it when I just work to the point where it annoys me when the desktop or terminal sessions somehow always feel sluggish , let alone fast 3D games.I ca n't imagine that the complete round-trip time for sending my input over the internet , waiting for a frame to be rendered and encoded remotely , sent back over the internet , decoded and displayed locally would be less than 20ms and then you 'd still have the latency of your display .
It might be bearable with a very fast internet connection and a CRT display which has 0ms input latency.Maybe others are n't that sensitive to latency and can enjoy at least slower games like turn-based strategy with this service .
Good for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also strongly doubt that any kind of game on this platform can be enjoyed by people who are sensitive to input latency.
For example my old high quality PVA TFT panel used an overdrive circuit to reduce ghosting.
The overdrive logic in TFT panels usually buffers about 1 or 2 full frames to analyze and optimize the pixel voltages which leads to about 20-50ms input latency.
I for one already notice it when I just work to the point where it annoys me when the desktop or terminal sessions somehow always feel sluggish, let alone fast 3D games.I can't imagine that the complete round-trip time for sending my input over the internet, waiting for a frame to be rendered and encoded remotely, sent back over the internet, decoded and displayed locally would be less than 20ms and then you'd still have the latency of your display.
It might be bearable with a very fast internet connection and a CRT display which has 0ms input latency.Maybe others aren't that sensitive to latency and can enjoy at least slower games like turn-based strategy with this service.
Good for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591418</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>Traa</author>
	<datestamp>1259832780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have been pretty open about latency issues. The server needs to be reasonably close (max 1000 miles) to keep round trip time below 80ms.</p><p>I am currently still a believer in this service. OnLive is not for the tiny hardcore gamers market who already have the best (expensive) equipment. I believe that OnLive might be able to get the casual gaming crowd introduced to high end gaming. Think Nintendo Wii target market, with PS3/XBOX360/High-end-PC gaming graphics. This market, not sensitive to the differences between OnLive and running the games native on your $5K gaming rig, could change the adoption rate of next gen games.</p><p>I sure hope it all works out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have been pretty open about latency issues .
The server needs to be reasonably close ( max 1000 miles ) to keep round trip time below 80ms.I am currently still a believer in this service .
OnLive is not for the tiny hardcore gamers market who already have the best ( expensive ) equipment .
I believe that OnLive might be able to get the casual gaming crowd introduced to high end gaming .
Think Nintendo Wii target market , with PS3/XBOX360/High-end-PC gaming graphics .
This market , not sensitive to the differences between OnLive and running the games native on your $ 5K gaming rig , could change the adoption rate of next gen games.I sure hope it all works out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have been pretty open about latency issues.
The server needs to be reasonably close (max 1000 miles) to keep round trip time below 80ms.I am currently still a believer in this service.
OnLive is not for the tiny hardcore gamers market who already have the best (expensive) equipment.
I believe that OnLive might be able to get the casual gaming crowd introduced to high end gaming.
Think Nintendo Wii target market, with PS3/XBOX360/High-end-PC gaming graphics.
This market, not sensitive to the differences between OnLive and running the games native on your $5K gaming rig, could change the adoption rate of next gen games.I sure hope it all works out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592106</id>
	<title>Ya I'm having a real hard time believing this</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1259845560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The latency problem is of course the most apparent and thus the most discussed but there are others.</p><p>One I wonder about is what kind of servers they are supposedly using. The problem is that modern games demand a modern GPU to look good. The kind of processing needed cannot be done on any sort of reasonable processor in realtime. Also, GPUs aren't really set up to work in parallel these days. What I mean is if you try to have a system with multiple GPUs and running multiple 3D games on them, you are going to find that doesn't really work. That sort of thing is coming, DX11 generation hardware is much better at multi-tasking and such, but it requires apps to be rewritten for it and still isn't there.</p><p>So what it comes down to is that to run a modern 3D game, well you have to have a desktop system more or less. You need to have a system running Windows with a powerful GPU at its disposal, and it needs to be tasked to running that one game.</p><p>Well that isn't a situation I'm seeing as working real well for a hosted business model. You have a whole bunch of individual desktop machines set up that then load up the software and whatever handles the encoding.</p><p>If they are claiming they are doing it with "virtualization" then I'm saying they are "lying." As it happens, doing virtualization related things is a big part of my job, so I'm fairly up on the tech. When it comes to 3D with VMs there are two things that are true of every technology that supports it:</p><p>1) It doesn't work real well. It is on the slow side, and there are bugs of various sorts. It is for sure usable, but nobody is going to confuse it for being 100\% good to go, and newer games are the thing it has the most trouble with.</p><p>2) It requires a 3D card on the host. All of the virtualizaiton solutions do 3D by processing the guest 3D calls and translating them in to 3D calls to the host. 3D hardware is then needed to do the actual rendering.</p><p>I'm afraid I don't buy that these random guys have a more advanced technology than VMWare, Sun, Microsoft, and so on. If you could easily virtualize a system and emulate full modern 3D in software, well they'd be doing it. Hell, MS would be interested in doing it non-virtualized. Be a cool selling point of a new Windows if you didn't need a GPU anymore.</p><p>So the only way I see this working is lots and lots of systems with big graphics cards in them. This I do not see as a profitable proposition, even assuming all the rest of it works flawlessly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The latency problem is of course the most apparent and thus the most discussed but there are others.One I wonder about is what kind of servers they are supposedly using .
The problem is that modern games demand a modern GPU to look good .
The kind of processing needed can not be done on any sort of reasonable processor in realtime .
Also , GPUs are n't really set up to work in parallel these days .
What I mean is if you try to have a system with multiple GPUs and running multiple 3D games on them , you are going to find that does n't really work .
That sort of thing is coming , DX11 generation hardware is much better at multi-tasking and such , but it requires apps to be rewritten for it and still is n't there.So what it comes down to is that to run a modern 3D game , well you have to have a desktop system more or less .
You need to have a system running Windows with a powerful GPU at its disposal , and it needs to be tasked to running that one game.Well that is n't a situation I 'm seeing as working real well for a hosted business model .
You have a whole bunch of individual desktop machines set up that then load up the software and whatever handles the encoding.If they are claiming they are doing it with " virtualization " then I 'm saying they are " lying .
" As it happens , doing virtualization related things is a big part of my job , so I 'm fairly up on the tech .
When it comes to 3D with VMs there are two things that are true of every technology that supports it : 1 ) It does n't work real well .
It is on the slow side , and there are bugs of various sorts .
It is for sure usable , but nobody is going to confuse it for being 100 \ % good to go , and newer games are the thing it has the most trouble with.2 ) It requires a 3D card on the host .
All of the virtualizaiton solutions do 3D by processing the guest 3D calls and translating them in to 3D calls to the host .
3D hardware is then needed to do the actual rendering.I 'm afraid I do n't buy that these random guys have a more advanced technology than VMWare , Sun , Microsoft , and so on .
If you could easily virtualize a system and emulate full modern 3D in software , well they 'd be doing it .
Hell , MS would be interested in doing it non-virtualized .
Be a cool selling point of a new Windows if you did n't need a GPU anymore.So the only way I see this working is lots and lots of systems with big graphics cards in them .
This I do not see as a profitable proposition , even assuming all the rest of it works flawlessly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The latency problem is of course the most apparent and thus the most discussed but there are others.One I wonder about is what kind of servers they are supposedly using.
The problem is that modern games demand a modern GPU to look good.
The kind of processing needed cannot be done on any sort of reasonable processor in realtime.
Also, GPUs aren't really set up to work in parallel these days.
What I mean is if you try to have a system with multiple GPUs and running multiple 3D games on them, you are going to find that doesn't really work.
That sort of thing is coming, DX11 generation hardware is much better at multi-tasking and such, but it requires apps to be rewritten for it and still isn't there.So what it comes down to is that to run a modern 3D game, well you have to have a desktop system more or less.
You need to have a system running Windows with a powerful GPU at its disposal, and it needs to be tasked to running that one game.Well that isn't a situation I'm seeing as working real well for a hosted business model.
You have a whole bunch of individual desktop machines set up that then load up the software and whatever handles the encoding.If they are claiming they are doing it with "virtualization" then I'm saying they are "lying.
" As it happens, doing virtualization related things is a big part of my job, so I'm fairly up on the tech.
When it comes to 3D with VMs there are two things that are true of every technology that supports it:1) It doesn't work real well.
It is on the slow side, and there are bugs of various sorts.
It is for sure usable, but nobody is going to confuse it for being 100\% good to go, and newer games are the thing it has the most trouble with.2) It requires a 3D card on the host.
All of the virtualizaiton solutions do 3D by processing the guest 3D calls and translating them in to 3D calls to the host.
3D hardware is then needed to do the actual rendering.I'm afraid I don't buy that these random guys have a more advanced technology than VMWare, Sun, Microsoft, and so on.
If you could easily virtualize a system and emulate full modern 3D in software, well they'd be doing it.
Hell, MS would be interested in doing it non-virtualized.
Be a cool selling point of a new Windows if you didn't need a GPU anymore.So the only way I see this working is lots and lots of systems with big graphics cards in them.
This I do not see as a profitable proposition, even assuming all the rest of it works flawlessly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592256</id>
	<title>Re:Compression?</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1259847720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya. A universal truth with new perceptually compressed formats seems to be that the more quality you want in a given size, the most you pay for it in terms of power needed to compress and decompress the data. You get trickier with the math and it gets you more for less, but at the cost of calculations.</p><p>In fact, you find that some seemingly "inferior" compressions were invented for just that reason. DV is a good example. It came around in 1995 for use in digital video cameras. However, when you look at it by the numbers, it is inferior to MPEG-1, which was already out (came out in 1992) and to MPEG-2 which was nearly finalized. Why then would you want a new standard if it was worse? Well because while it may have offered lower compression, it offered two very important advantages:</p><p>1) Better recompressing. DV handles multiple uncompress recompress cycles much better than MPEG in terms of degradation.</p><p>2) Simpler hardware implementation. DV is extremely simple to encode and decode, and as such requires little in the way of processing electronics to make it happen.</p><p>The second one was really important. Back in the 90s, a hardware MPEG encoder was a rather pricey unit, the kind of thing that you wouldn't be able to put in a low priced camera. So instead a format was invented that used more bandwidth for a given picture, but didn't take as much processing power.</p><p>So I know full well you can do HD video in less bandwidth than DVD. I've done it myself. I also know you pay the price in terms of computation time. Takes an amazing amount of power to encode, and not a trivial amount to decode.</p><p>Also the whole "only looks good in motion" thing? Ya that would be a recipe for disaster. Games spend plenty of time in low motion. In addition to areas to the screen that have less motion (like status displays) there are plenty of times where a player looks at one thing. In terms of strategy games this happens all the time, but even in FPSes. You are guarding something so you look at one place, etc. If the image goes to shit when that happens, well people are not going to be happy.</p><p>I'm afraid games are just brutally difficult when it comes to compression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya .
A universal truth with new perceptually compressed formats seems to be that the more quality you want in a given size , the most you pay for it in terms of power needed to compress and decompress the data .
You get trickier with the math and it gets you more for less , but at the cost of calculations.In fact , you find that some seemingly " inferior " compressions were invented for just that reason .
DV is a good example .
It came around in 1995 for use in digital video cameras .
However , when you look at it by the numbers , it is inferior to MPEG-1 , which was already out ( came out in 1992 ) and to MPEG-2 which was nearly finalized .
Why then would you want a new standard if it was worse ?
Well because while it may have offered lower compression , it offered two very important advantages : 1 ) Better recompressing .
DV handles multiple uncompress recompress cycles much better than MPEG in terms of degradation.2 ) Simpler hardware implementation .
DV is extremely simple to encode and decode , and as such requires little in the way of processing electronics to make it happen.The second one was really important .
Back in the 90s , a hardware MPEG encoder was a rather pricey unit , the kind of thing that you would n't be able to put in a low priced camera .
So instead a format was invented that used more bandwidth for a given picture , but did n't take as much processing power.So I know full well you can do HD video in less bandwidth than DVD .
I 've done it myself .
I also know you pay the price in terms of computation time .
Takes an amazing amount of power to encode , and not a trivial amount to decode.Also the whole " only looks good in motion " thing ?
Ya that would be a recipe for disaster .
Games spend plenty of time in low motion .
In addition to areas to the screen that have less motion ( like status displays ) there are plenty of times where a player looks at one thing .
In terms of strategy games this happens all the time , but even in FPSes .
You are guarding something so you look at one place , etc .
If the image goes to shit when that happens , well people are not going to be happy.I 'm afraid games are just brutally difficult when it comes to compression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya.
A universal truth with new perceptually compressed formats seems to be that the more quality you want in a given size, the most you pay for it in terms of power needed to compress and decompress the data.
You get trickier with the math and it gets you more for less, but at the cost of calculations.In fact, you find that some seemingly "inferior" compressions were invented for just that reason.
DV is a good example.
It came around in 1995 for use in digital video cameras.
However, when you look at it by the numbers, it is inferior to MPEG-1, which was already out (came out in 1992) and to MPEG-2 which was nearly finalized.
Why then would you want a new standard if it was worse?
Well because while it may have offered lower compression, it offered two very important advantages:1) Better recompressing.
DV handles multiple uncompress recompress cycles much better than MPEG in terms of degradation.2) Simpler hardware implementation.
DV is extremely simple to encode and decode, and as such requires little in the way of processing electronics to make it happen.The second one was really important.
Back in the 90s, a hardware MPEG encoder was a rather pricey unit, the kind of thing that you wouldn't be able to put in a low priced camera.
So instead a format was invented that used more bandwidth for a given picture, but didn't take as much processing power.So I know full well you can do HD video in less bandwidth than DVD.
I've done it myself.
I also know you pay the price in terms of computation time.
Takes an amazing amount of power to encode, and not a trivial amount to decode.Also the whole "only looks good in motion" thing?
Ya that would be a recipe for disaster.
Games spend plenty of time in low motion.
In addition to areas to the screen that have less motion (like status displays) there are plenty of times where a player looks at one thing.
In terms of strategy games this happens all the time, but even in FPSes.
You are guarding something so you look at one place, etc.
If the image goes to shit when that happens, well people are not going to be happy.I'm afraid games are just brutally difficult when it comes to compression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596262</id>
	<title>Re:Have you tried it?</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1259864820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>PS: They're aiming at iPhones, not your $10,000 nitrogen-cooled neon-lit gaming rig.</i> <br> <br>

An attempt at rewriting reality.  They were aiming at providing cutting-edge, high-requirement, high-definition action games to people with low-spec pcs.  That's obviously ridiculous.<br> <br>

Setting their targets lower, to iPhones and such devices, may be a simple recognition on their part of the laws of physics.  Good for them; they've gone from a service that's ludicrous to one that's simply niche.  That's a new development, though.  Streaming 480 x 320 video, or whatever they're doing, is far more feasible than the HD they originally claimed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PS : They 're aiming at iPhones , not your $ 10,000 nitrogen-cooled neon-lit gaming rig .
An attempt at rewriting reality .
They were aiming at providing cutting-edge , high-requirement , high-definition action games to people with low-spec pcs .
That 's obviously ridiculous .
Setting their targets lower , to iPhones and such devices , may be a simple recognition on their part of the laws of physics .
Good for them ; they 've gone from a service that 's ludicrous to one that 's simply niche .
That 's a new development , though .
Streaming 480 x 320 video , or whatever they 're doing , is far more feasible than the HD they originally claimed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PS: They're aiming at iPhones, not your $10,000 nitrogen-cooled neon-lit gaming rig.
An attempt at rewriting reality.
They were aiming at providing cutting-edge, high-requirement, high-definition action games to people with low-spec pcs.
That's obviously ridiculous.
Setting their targets lower, to iPhones and such devices, may be a simple recognition on their part of the laws of physics.
Good for them; they've gone from a service that's ludicrous to one that's simply niche.
That's a new development, though.
Streaming 480 x 320 video, or whatever they're doing, is far more feasible than the HD they originally claimed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592050</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a giant scam?</title>
	<author>Kakao</author>
	<datestamp>1259844780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apart from video frame rendering a modern PC can run multiple instances of a modern game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apart from video frame rendering a modern PC can run multiple instances of a modern game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apart from video frame rendering a modern PC can run multiple instances of a modern game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592036</id>
	<title>Re:Compression?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259844540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the most interesting part was the (lack of) answer about how the compression works.</p><p>They claim 80ms round-trip latency from button push to image display.  Running a game on a server and screen-scraping in ~20ms is fairly easy.  With proper datacenter placement and peering agreements ~50ms round-trip ping times are reasonable (if somewhat optimistic).  The issue is how do you compress the 720p image and send it back in 10ms with reasonable bandwidth.</p><p>They're claiming 1ms compression, 8ms decompression (125hz), and 5mbit 720p streams.  The compression is using a custom ASIC, so that's completely believable.  Decompressing at 120hz on any generic hardware (they specifically said no GPU help) means it has to be an extremely simple protocol.  The biggest question is how do you reach "HD-quality" at only 5mbit when you are not doing group-of-pictures compression (keyframes and diffs from the keyframe).  Mind you that a standard DVD is 10mbit, so they're claiming higher resolution with half the bitrate and no keyframing.  Obviously H264 gets better quality/bit than DVDs, but it does so by using even more complex keyframing and diffs and is far too CPU intensive for their target platforms (it's hard to watch 30fps H264 trailers on many machines, let alone a 60fps stream).  The only hint he gave was some mumbling about visual perception, and the statement that their compression only looks good in motion (if you paused the stream it would look terrible).</p><p>Any ideas as to how the compression works?</p></div><p>Its not compression as you know it. He mentioned 2 streams, 1 hd stream, and another lower res stream. Both of these are used to provide the result. Also a round trip.... looks like the performance is sent back to optimise the results.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the most interesting part was the ( lack of ) answer about how the compression works.They claim 80ms round-trip latency from button push to image display .
Running a game on a server and screen-scraping in ~ 20ms is fairly easy .
With proper datacenter placement and peering agreements ~ 50ms round-trip ping times are reasonable ( if somewhat optimistic ) .
The issue is how do you compress the 720p image and send it back in 10ms with reasonable bandwidth.They 're claiming 1ms compression , 8ms decompression ( 125hz ) , and 5mbit 720p streams .
The compression is using a custom ASIC , so that 's completely believable .
Decompressing at 120hz on any generic hardware ( they specifically said no GPU help ) means it has to be an extremely simple protocol .
The biggest question is how do you reach " HD-quality " at only 5mbit when you are not doing group-of-pictures compression ( keyframes and diffs from the keyframe ) .
Mind you that a standard DVD is 10mbit , so they 're claiming higher resolution with half the bitrate and no keyframing .
Obviously H264 gets better quality/bit than DVDs , but it does so by using even more complex keyframing and diffs and is far too CPU intensive for their target platforms ( it 's hard to watch 30fps H264 trailers on many machines , let alone a 60fps stream ) .
The only hint he gave was some mumbling about visual perception , and the statement that their compression only looks good in motion ( if you paused the stream it would look terrible ) .Any ideas as to how the compression works ? Its not compression as you know it .
He mentioned 2 streams , 1 hd stream , and another lower res stream .
Both of these are used to provide the result .
Also a round trip.... looks like the performance is sent back to optimise the results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the most interesting part was the (lack of) answer about how the compression works.They claim 80ms round-trip latency from button push to image display.
Running a game on a server and screen-scraping in ~20ms is fairly easy.
With proper datacenter placement and peering agreements ~50ms round-trip ping times are reasonable (if somewhat optimistic).
The issue is how do you compress the 720p image and send it back in 10ms with reasonable bandwidth.They're claiming 1ms compression, 8ms decompression (125hz), and 5mbit 720p streams.
The compression is using a custom ASIC, so that's completely believable.
Decompressing at 120hz on any generic hardware (they specifically said no GPU help) means it has to be an extremely simple protocol.
The biggest question is how do you reach "HD-quality" at only 5mbit when you are not doing group-of-pictures compression (keyframes and diffs from the keyframe).
Mind you that a standard DVD is 10mbit, so they're claiming higher resolution with half the bitrate and no keyframing.
Obviously H264 gets better quality/bit than DVDs, but it does so by using even more complex keyframing and diffs and is far too CPU intensive for their target platforms (it's hard to watch 30fps H264 trailers on many machines, let alone a 60fps stream).
The only hint he gave was some mumbling about visual perception, and the statement that their compression only looks good in motion (if you paused the stream it would look terrible).Any ideas as to how the compression works?Its not compression as you know it.
He mentioned 2 streams, 1 hd stream, and another lower res stream.
Both of these are used to provide the result.
Also a round trip.... looks like the performance is sent back to optimise the results.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596574</id>
	<title>Re:Enough speculation!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259865780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn`t even watch the friggin` video.  They have a giant slide that they spend 5 minutes on explaining how they convinced the big publishers to sign on with them.  You`re a tool for commenting without even watching the friggin` video.  God, what a fracking idiot you are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You didn ` t even watch the friggin ` video .
They have a giant slide that they spend 5 minutes on explaining how they convinced the big publishers to sign on with them .
You ` re a tool for commenting without even watching the friggin ` video .
God , what a fracking idiot you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn`t even watch the friggin` video.
They have a giant slide that they spend 5 minutes on explaining how they convinced the big publishers to sign on with them.
You`re a tool for commenting without even watching the friggin` video.
God, what a fracking idiot you are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726</id>
	<title>Is this a giant scam?</title>
	<author>syncrotic</author>
	<datestamp>1259837940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still maintain that this simply can't work, and that it's an absolutely braindead money pit of an idea if it's not a total scam.</p><p>Idea: let's take the most latency sensitive, computationally demanding, and visually intensive thing you can do with a modern computer and try to apply the thin client model to it.</p><p>A single instance of the application in question will demand the full resources of the most powerful PC you can throw at it, but we'll just wave our hands and mutter something about virtualization to convince stupid investors that we have magic at our disposal. Because they are morons and because we put on a good show, they'll believe that you can somehow run many instances of a game on the equivalent of a single PC. We'll also be encoding 720p video in realtime at a quality / bandwidth ratio that no codec today can deliver; this will presumably happen on the same computing hardware that's already running multiple instances of cutting edge 3D games.</p><p>Finally, we'll throw in some shit about the iphone, because people can't stop fellating apple lately.</p><p>Anyone who believes this is technically feasible, much less economically viable, is fucking *retarded*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still maintain that this simply ca n't work , and that it 's an absolutely braindead money pit of an idea if it 's not a total scam.Idea : let 's take the most latency sensitive , computationally demanding , and visually intensive thing you can do with a modern computer and try to apply the thin client model to it.A single instance of the application in question will demand the full resources of the most powerful PC you can throw at it , but we 'll just wave our hands and mutter something about virtualization to convince stupid investors that we have magic at our disposal .
Because they are morons and because we put on a good show , they 'll believe that you can somehow run many instances of a game on the equivalent of a single PC .
We 'll also be encoding 720p video in realtime at a quality / bandwidth ratio that no codec today can deliver ; this will presumably happen on the same computing hardware that 's already running multiple instances of cutting edge 3D games.Finally , we 'll throw in some shit about the iphone , because people ca n't stop fellating apple lately.Anyone who believes this is technically feasible , much less economically viable , is fucking * retarded * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still maintain that this simply can't work, and that it's an absolutely braindead money pit of an idea if it's not a total scam.Idea: let's take the most latency sensitive, computationally demanding, and visually intensive thing you can do with a modern computer and try to apply the thin client model to it.A single instance of the application in question will demand the full resources of the most powerful PC you can throw at it, but we'll just wave our hands and mutter something about virtualization to convince stupid investors that we have magic at our disposal.
Because they are morons and because we put on a good show, they'll believe that you can somehow run many instances of a game on the equivalent of a single PC.
We'll also be encoding 720p video in realtime at a quality / bandwidth ratio that no codec today can deliver; this will presumably happen on the same computing hardware that's already running multiple instances of cutting edge 3D games.Finally, we'll throw in some shit about the iphone, because people can't stop fellating apple lately.Anyone who believes this is technically feasible, much less economically viable, is fucking *retarded*.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592974</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>spaceman375</author>
	<datestamp>1259853780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All these whiners claim latency will kill this before it ever starts. Guess what? FPS is not the only game category. I game all the time, but latency means nothing to games like Civ4, Neverwinter, and thousands of others. Sure, lower latency is a great goal to aim for, but this platform is a good step towards moving MMOGs onto lower powered clients. The games are just an excuse to extend their reach to more customers in a "new" way, so they can sell them things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All these whiners claim latency will kill this before it ever starts .
Guess what ?
FPS is not the only game category .
I game all the time , but latency means nothing to games like Civ4 , Neverwinter , and thousands of others .
Sure , lower latency is a great goal to aim for , but this platform is a good step towards moving MMOGs onto lower powered clients .
The games are just an excuse to extend their reach to more customers in a " new " way , so they can sell them things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All these whiners claim latency will kill this before it ever starts.
Guess what?
FPS is not the only game category.
I game all the time, but latency means nothing to games like Civ4, Neverwinter, and thousands of others.
Sure, lower latency is a great goal to aim for, but this platform is a good step towards moving MMOGs onto lower powered clients.
The games are just an excuse to extend their reach to more customers in a "new" way, so they can sell them things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30598818</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a giant scam?</title>
	<author>syncrotic</author>
	<datestamp>1259831280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The executives running those companies are probably MBAs. If they know anything about computer hardware, programming, or tying their own shoelaces, it'd be a goddamn miracle. MBAs are, for the most part, some of the stupidest people you'll ever meet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The executives running those companies are probably MBAs .
If they know anything about computer hardware , programming , or tying their own shoelaces , it 'd be a goddamn miracle .
MBAs are , for the most part , some of the stupidest people you 'll ever meet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The executives running those companies are probably MBAs.
If they know anything about computer hardware, programming, or tying their own shoelaces, it'd be a goddamn miracle.
MBAs are, for the most part, some of the stupidest people you'll ever meet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591190</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259871480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it compatible with The Phantom?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it compatible with The Phantom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it compatible with The Phantom?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591360</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>Edgewize</author>
	<datestamp>1259832180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a pretty big difference between "one second" and "50ms".  And your assumptions about what is noticeable and playable are pretty much wrong when it comes to console controllers.</p><p><a href="http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2009/sep/07/measuring-input-latency-games/" title="eventhubs.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2009/sep/07/measuring-input-latency-games/</a> [eventhubs.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a pretty big difference between " one second " and " 50ms " .
And your assumptions about what is noticeable and playable are pretty much wrong when it comes to console controllers.http : //www.eventhubs.com/news/2009/sep/07/measuring-input-latency-games/ [ eventhubs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a pretty big difference between "one second" and "50ms".
And your assumptions about what is noticeable and playable are pretty much wrong when it comes to console controllers.http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2009/sep/07/measuring-input-latency-games/ [eventhubs.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592114</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a giant scam?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259845620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you even bothered to take a look at the video? Just look at the publishers that collaborate with them: EA, ATARI, Ubisoft, Eidos, T2, Epic, THQ &amp; co.<br>Wild guess: they know something more about the feasibility of this than you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you even bothered to take a look at the video ?
Just look at the publishers that collaborate with them : EA , ATARI , Ubisoft , Eidos , T2 , Epic , THQ &amp; co.Wild guess : they know something more about the feasibility of this than you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you even bothered to take a look at the video?
Just look at the publishers that collaborate with them: EA, ATARI, Ubisoft, Eidos, T2, Epic, THQ &amp; co.Wild guess: they know something more about the feasibility of this than you do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30598620</id>
	<title>Re:Latency sensitive people</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1259873520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has nothing to do with latency sensitivity.</p><p>With bad latency <strong>you just can&rsquo;t win</strong>! That&rsquo;s a straight out fact. It&rsquo;s as simple as that.</p><p>I remember back in the days of playing in the CounterStrike (even pre 1.0) league. I had around 30-40 fps. I changed some settings, got 60 fps, and suddenly ruled the game with a massive improvement!<br>Yeah, that&rsquo;s right: A 8-16 ms improvement in lag changed my whole game.<br>And we don&rsquo;t even talk about Quake 3 CPMA (pro mode) here. ^^</p><p>It can&rsquo;t be my sensitivity, because I did not notice any kind of lag at all beforehand. And from making a bit of music, I know that only at 30-50 ms of lag do I start to notice it.</p><p>Take two equal players. Let one play on this thing. And he will <em>always</em> lose.<br>The ultimate test would be CPMA. The self-rendering one would win 100 to 10 (lucky shots).</p><p>Yes. The only thing where it makes sense, are turn-based, or very slow games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has nothing to do with latency sensitivity.With bad latency you just can    t win !
That    s a straight out fact .
It    s as simple as that.I remember back in the days of playing in the CounterStrike ( even pre 1.0 ) league .
I had around 30-40 fps .
I changed some settings , got 60 fps , and suddenly ruled the game with a massive improvement ! Yeah , that    s right : A 8-16 ms improvement in lag changed my whole game.And we don    t even talk about Quake 3 CPMA ( pro mode ) here .
^ ^ It can    t be my sensitivity , because I did not notice any kind of lag at all beforehand .
And from making a bit of music , I know that only at 30-50 ms of lag do I start to notice it.Take two equal players .
Let one play on this thing .
And he will always lose.The ultimate test would be CPMA .
The self-rendering one would win 100 to 10 ( lucky shots ) .Yes .
The only thing where it makes sense , are turn-based , or very slow games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has nothing to do with latency sensitivity.With bad latency you just can’t win!
That’s a straight out fact.
It’s as simple as that.I remember back in the days of playing in the CounterStrike (even pre 1.0) league.
I had around 30-40 fps.
I changed some settings, got 60 fps, and suddenly ruled the game with a massive improvement!Yeah, that’s right: A 8-16 ms improvement in lag changed my whole game.And we don’t even talk about Quake 3 CPMA (pro mode) here.
^^It can’t be my sensitivity, because I did not notice any kind of lag at all beforehand.
And from making a bit of music, I know that only at 30-50 ms of lag do I start to notice it.Take two equal players.
Let one play on this thing.
And he will always lose.The ultimate test would be CPMA.
The self-rendering one would win 100 to 10 (lucky shots).Yes.
The only thing where it makes sense, are turn-based, or very slow games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592128</id>
	<title>Re:Compression?</title>
	<author>micksam7</author>
	<datestamp>1259845860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Near the end of the video during the Q&amp;A, they answered a bit about it. They actually created their own compression, then had encoding custom chips made for it.</p><p>Basically, video encoding hardware geared exactly to their new compression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Near the end of the video during the Q&amp;A , they answered a bit about it .
They actually created their own compression , then had encoding custom chips made for it.Basically , video encoding hardware geared exactly to their new compression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Near the end of the video during the Q&amp;A, they answered a bit about it.
They actually created their own compression, then had encoding custom chips made for it.Basically, video encoding hardware geared exactly to their new compression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30598390</id>
	<title>Pump and dump</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1259872740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only way this could NOT be a scam is if they have accomplished two or more of the following:</p><p>1. Made incredible leaps in computing power that nobody is aware of yet<br>2. Overcome many laws of physics<br>3. Decided to charge people so much that they might as well have bought a computer/console anyway</p><p>Also, my television has about 100ms of input lag.  Add another 50-150 for Onlive to render, encode video, and stream back, and it won't just be FPS games that are unplayable.  Nobody is even going to want to play Plants vs. Zombies when it feels like you're moving your mouse through hot tar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way this could NOT be a scam is if they have accomplished two or more of the following : 1 .
Made incredible leaps in computing power that nobody is aware of yet2 .
Overcome many laws of physics3 .
Decided to charge people so much that they might as well have bought a computer/console anywayAlso , my television has about 100ms of input lag .
Add another 50-150 for Onlive to render , encode video , and stream back , and it wo n't just be FPS games that are unplayable .
Nobody is even going to want to play Plants vs. Zombies when it feels like you 're moving your mouse through hot tar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way this could NOT be a scam is if they have accomplished two or more of the following:1.
Made incredible leaps in computing power that nobody is aware of yet2.
Overcome many laws of physics3.
Decided to charge people so much that they might as well have bought a computer/console anywayAlso, my television has about 100ms of input lag.
Add another 50-150 for Onlive to render, encode video, and stream back, and it won't just be FPS games that are unplayable.
Nobody is even going to want to play Plants vs. Zombies when it feels like you're moving your mouse through hot tar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591904</id>
	<title>Re:Enough speculation!</title>
	<author>wintermute000</author>
	<datestamp>1259841720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"may be working to change the actual structure of the network itself to support the game"</p><p>sorry, that phrase alone qualifies as a total fail.</p><p>I have a magic network bullet that does not require ripping up all current standards and infrastructure, which I will use to deliver thin client gaming as my first big bang step. riiiiiight</p><p>lets talk about the economics and management aspect of all these game 'servers'.... what a total nightmare... what are all publishers going to fine tune custom versions of their games to run on onlive's platforms? games - apps - that are NOT ABLE TO BE VIRTUALISED with current tech - oh wait, I also have a magic virtualisation bullet which I will use.... to deliver thin client gaming</p><p>I will then also use my magic video compression bullet.... to deliver thin client gaming</p><p>speak for yourself and your linksys mate, I might be an armchair video compression analyst but as for IP networking and enterprise class server infrastructure, I and many on slashdot am far from armchair, and this is so unbelievably difficult/complex that if they did have all their ducks in a row, I would imagine they would have better things to do than do thin client gaming</p><p>like, ooh i dunno, revolutionise bing or yahoo's or amazon's backend in a way that can compete with google, heck get bought out by google, oh wait I'll go for a solution in search of a problem.</p><p>it just doesn't add up</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" may be working to change the actual structure of the network itself to support the game " sorry , that phrase alone qualifies as a total fail.I have a magic network bullet that does not require ripping up all current standards and infrastructure , which I will use to deliver thin client gaming as my first big bang step .
riiiiiightlets talk about the economics and management aspect of all these game 'servers'.... what a total nightmare... what are all publishers going to fine tune custom versions of their games to run on onlive 's platforms ?
games - apps - that are NOT ABLE TO BE VIRTUALISED with current tech - oh wait , I also have a magic virtualisation bullet which I will use.... to deliver thin client gamingI will then also use my magic video compression bullet.... to deliver thin client gamingspeak for yourself and your linksys mate , I might be an armchair video compression analyst but as for IP networking and enterprise class server infrastructure , I and many on slashdot am far from armchair , and this is so unbelievably difficult/complex that if they did have all their ducks in a row , I would imagine they would have better things to do than do thin client gaminglike , ooh i dunno , revolutionise bing or yahoo 's or amazon 's backend in a way that can compete with google , heck get bought out by google , oh wait I 'll go for a solution in search of a problem.it just does n't add up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"may be working to change the actual structure of the network itself to support the game"sorry, that phrase alone qualifies as a total fail.I have a magic network bullet that does not require ripping up all current standards and infrastructure, which I will use to deliver thin client gaming as my first big bang step.
riiiiiightlets talk about the economics and management aspect of all these game 'servers'.... what a total nightmare... what are all publishers going to fine tune custom versions of their games to run on onlive's platforms?
games - apps - that are NOT ABLE TO BE VIRTUALISED with current tech - oh wait, I also have a magic virtualisation bullet which I will use.... to deliver thin client gamingI will then also use my magic video compression bullet.... to deliver thin client gamingspeak for yourself and your linksys mate, I might be an armchair video compression analyst but as for IP networking and enterprise class server infrastructure, I and many on slashdot am far from armchair, and this is so unbelievably difficult/complex that if they did have all their ducks in a row, I would imagine they would have better things to do than do thin client gaminglike, ooh i dunno, revolutionise bing or yahoo's or amazon's backend in a way that can compete with google, heck get bought out by google, oh wait I'll go for a solution in search of a problem.it just doesn't add up</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30597722</id>
	<title>Re:Ya I'm having a real hard time believing this</title>
	<author>TrippTDF</author>
	<datestamp>1259870340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The one thing that isn't addressed here is if there is any software engineering going on to the games... my guess is that they need to do some rewriting to key parts of the software.<br> <br>

The whole point of a GPU is to handle specific, graphic related tasks, and that frees up the main processor to handle everything else. So why not have one set of servers that are tasked with processing data meant for a single GPU, another set that processes physics, and one that does sound, all that feed into another set that compresses and sends each frame, all in under 80ms. <br> <br>

Sure, this sounds impossible if you only have one computer handling it, but you've got an entire farm that is designed from the ground up to do this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one thing that is n't addressed here is if there is any software engineering going on to the games... my guess is that they need to do some rewriting to key parts of the software .
The whole point of a GPU is to handle specific , graphic related tasks , and that frees up the main processor to handle everything else .
So why not have one set of servers that are tasked with processing data meant for a single GPU , another set that processes physics , and one that does sound , all that feed into another set that compresses and sends each frame , all in under 80ms .
Sure , this sounds impossible if you only have one computer handling it , but you 've got an entire farm that is designed from the ground up to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one thing that isn't addressed here is if there is any software engineering going on to the games... my guess is that they need to do some rewriting to key parts of the software.
The whole point of a GPU is to handle specific, graphic related tasks, and that frees up the main processor to handle everything else.
So why not have one set of servers that are tasked with processing data meant for a single GPU, another set that processes physics, and one that does sound, all that feed into another set that compresses and sends each frame, all in under 80ms.
Sure, this sounds impossible if you only have one computer handling it, but you've got an entire farm that is designed from the ground up to do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592034</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a giant scam?</title>
	<author>setien</author>
	<datestamp>1259844540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that on the face of it this looks like it won't work, but I can see many mitigating circumstances that means it just \_might\_ work.<br>I think there's a small chance that they might actually be able to pull it off, and if they do it really is a game-changer.</p><p>A couple of things that makes me hesitant to call everyone "retarded" if they don't dismiss this before it has even seen the light of day:<br>- They are aiming for The Long Tail of gaming, and I think it's easy to underestimate just how gigantic the amount of cash is in this tail<br>- Not ALL games are hyper timing sensitive<br>- Multiplexing hardware means the same computer can serve Stan in Portland and Sanjay in New Delhi at different times a day (but admittedly only if there are good pipes or the game is not super lag sensitive).<br>- Computer power can be spent or sold in other ways when it's not used for the OnLive gaming system (just look at how Amazon has managed to use their knowledge of scalability into a nice side business that doesn't involve books)<br>- For the most timing sensitive games (1st person FPS), you remove the client-to-client lag, which means the server can run a single cohesive view of the world, and pipe that to the players (so you get rid of one type of lag, which might allow for the server-to-client-video lag with no problem)<br>- If this gets big or they have good partner deals from the beginning, games might get engineered specifically for this network topology from the game developers side, which might take steps to minimize lag problems (I can come up with quite a few ideas just off the top of my head)<br>- If the video algorithm is designed for gaming (as it is), they can degrade quality in the video compression in a smart way to keep the lag to a minimum - who cares if the leaves on the trees in your peripheral vision are a bit blocky when you're in a firefight in Crysis)<br>- They have a few pretty strong industry profiles on their company roster</p><p>That said, I am of course also highly sceptical, but I see a sliver of a chance that they might pull it off. And if they do, I really think it will be a game changer (pun intended).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that on the face of it this looks like it wo n't work , but I can see many mitigating circumstances that means it just \ _might \ _ work.I think there 's a small chance that they might actually be able to pull it off , and if they do it really is a game-changer.A couple of things that makes me hesitant to call everyone " retarded " if they do n't dismiss this before it has even seen the light of day : - They are aiming for The Long Tail of gaming , and I think it 's easy to underestimate just how gigantic the amount of cash is in this tail- Not ALL games are hyper timing sensitive- Multiplexing hardware means the same computer can serve Stan in Portland and Sanjay in New Delhi at different times a day ( but admittedly only if there are good pipes or the game is not super lag sensitive ) .- Computer power can be spent or sold in other ways when it 's not used for the OnLive gaming system ( just look at how Amazon has managed to use their knowledge of scalability into a nice side business that does n't involve books ) - For the most timing sensitive games ( 1st person FPS ) , you remove the client-to-client lag , which means the server can run a single cohesive view of the world , and pipe that to the players ( so you get rid of one type of lag , which might allow for the server-to-client-video lag with no problem ) - If this gets big or they have good partner deals from the beginning , games might get engineered specifically for this network topology from the game developers side , which might take steps to minimize lag problems ( I can come up with quite a few ideas just off the top of my head ) - If the video algorithm is designed for gaming ( as it is ) , they can degrade quality in the video compression in a smart way to keep the lag to a minimum - who cares if the leaves on the trees in your peripheral vision are a bit blocky when you 're in a firefight in Crysis ) - They have a few pretty strong industry profiles on their company rosterThat said , I am of course also highly sceptical , but I see a sliver of a chance that they might pull it off .
And if they do , I really think it will be a game changer ( pun intended ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that on the face of it this looks like it won't work, but I can see many mitigating circumstances that means it just \_might\_ work.I think there's a small chance that they might actually be able to pull it off, and if they do it really is a game-changer.A couple of things that makes me hesitant to call everyone "retarded" if they don't dismiss this before it has even seen the light of day:- They are aiming for The Long Tail of gaming, and I think it's easy to underestimate just how gigantic the amount of cash is in this tail- Not ALL games are hyper timing sensitive- Multiplexing hardware means the same computer can serve Stan in Portland and Sanjay in New Delhi at different times a day (but admittedly only if there are good pipes or the game is not super lag sensitive).- Computer power can be spent or sold in other ways when it's not used for the OnLive gaming system (just look at how Amazon has managed to use their knowledge of scalability into a nice side business that doesn't involve books)- For the most timing sensitive games (1st person FPS), you remove the client-to-client lag, which means the server can run a single cohesive view of the world, and pipe that to the players (so you get rid of one type of lag, which might allow for the server-to-client-video lag with no problem)- If this gets big or they have good partner deals from the beginning, games might get engineered specifically for this network topology from the game developers side, which might take steps to minimize lag problems (I can come up with quite a few ideas just off the top of my head)- If the video algorithm is designed for gaming (as it is), they can degrade quality in the video compression in a smart way to keep the lag to a minimum - who cares if the leaves on the trees in your peripheral vision are a bit blocky when you're in a firefight in Crysis)- They have a few pretty strong industry profiles on their company rosterThat said, I am of course also highly sceptical, but I see a sliver of a chance that they might pull it off.
And if they do, I really think it will be a game changer (pun intended).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592366</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>tolan-b</author>
	<datestamp>1259849160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well they seem pretty confident they can manage 80ms. If so then it's got a good chance of working with most games, especially with console controllers. I seriously doubt you'll find anyone playing Quake 3 with mouse and keyboard though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well they seem pretty confident they can manage 80ms .
If so then it 's got a good chance of working with most games , especially with console controllers .
I seriously doubt you 'll find anyone playing Quake 3 with mouse and keyboard though : p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well they seem pretty confident they can manage 80ms.
If so then it's got a good chance of working with most games, especially with console controllers.
I seriously doubt you'll find anyone playing Quake 3 with mouse and keyboard though :p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592334</id>
	<title>Re:Windows and Mac only</title>
	<author>desmogod</author>
	<datestamp>1259848620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact they are supporting Mac is a huge boon to me.
The basic fact is that supporting other OS platforms is going to be a huge PITA for them, OS X and Windows are fairly standardised, trying to offer support for Linux/BSD/Chrome/BeOS or whatever the fuck you run is counterproductive when you consider the percentage that will be using the service over the dramas and added costs it will take to implement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact they are supporting Mac is a huge boon to me .
The basic fact is that supporting other OS platforms is going to be a huge PITA for them , OS X and Windows are fairly standardised , trying to offer support for Linux/BSD/Chrome/BeOS or whatever the fuck you run is counterproductive when you consider the percentage that will be using the service over the dramas and added costs it will take to implement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact they are supporting Mac is a huge boon to me.
The basic fact is that supporting other OS platforms is going to be a huge PITA for them, OS X and Windows are fairly standardised, trying to offer support for Linux/BSD/Chrome/BeOS or whatever the fuck you run is counterproductive when you consider the percentage that will be using the service over the dramas and added costs it will take to implement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30594510</id>
	<title>Re:Windows and Mac only</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259859420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are still no plans to support alternative platforms outside of Windows and Mac which is actually a bit disappointing.</p> </div><p>Why would they support a platform that has never been shown as a viable gaming platform?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Onlive could have knocked out one of the major reasons why many people stay with Windows.</p></div><p>Except OnLive cares little about the neckbeard brigade's crusade against Microsoft and Windows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still no plans to support alternative platforms outside of Windows and Mac which is actually a bit disappointing .
Why would they support a platform that has never been shown as a viable gaming platform ? Onlive could have knocked out one of the major reasons why many people stay with Windows.Except OnLive cares little about the neckbeard brigade 's crusade against Microsoft and Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still no plans to support alternative platforms outside of Windows and Mac which is actually a bit disappointing.
Why would they support a platform that has never been shown as a viable gaming platform?Onlive could have knocked out one of the major reasons why many people stay with Windows.Except OnLive cares little about the neckbeard brigade's crusade against Microsoft and Windows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30593308</id>
	<title>Ready for it to be out...</title>
	<author>mbourgon</author>
	<datestamp>1259855400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then all the people bitching about 5ms here and 15ms there and divide-by-fps-so-see-it-can't-possibly-work will either be vindicated, or look like idiots.</p><p>Though, you never know - it might be playable by 99.999\% of the populace, but not for them.</p><p>Either way, I'd love the chance to see. Doubly so if I can pull off my Longest Yard railgun hits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then all the people bitching about 5ms here and 15ms there and divide-by-fps-so-see-it-ca n't-possibly-work will either be vindicated , or look like idiots.Though , you never know - it might be playable by 99.999 \ % of the populace , but not for them.Either way , I 'd love the chance to see .
Doubly so if I can pull off my Longest Yard railgun hits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then all the people bitching about 5ms here and 15ms there and divide-by-fps-so-see-it-can't-possibly-work will either be vindicated, or look like idiots.Though, you never know - it might be playable by 99.999\% of the populace, but not for them.Either way, I'd love the chance to see.
Doubly so if I can pull off my Longest Yard railgun hits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591738</id>
	<title>Great concept, can't wait to try it</title>
	<author>Francis</author>
	<datestamp>1259838360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great concept, I can't wait to play with it in person<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) A few thoughts:</p><p>I'm a little skeptical about how robustly it will perform, but I am sure they will have a chance to prove their technology soon. I'm sure everyone who's played online has dealt with lag spikes, just due to random congestion, noise, route changes, that sort of thing. It seems that this system will be much more sensitive to those kinds of network delays.</p><p>One thing that they didn't talk about was really how high latency-sensitive games fit into this framework. I'm talking about timing games, such as Guitar Hero, or games that need twitch reactions like Street Fighter. Players of these games frequently complain about latency that happens between the console and the display, nevermind the the latency of a network. (HDMI decoding delay has made playing these games kind of a pain on some HDTVs) Anecdotally, I notice that in these kinds of games, delays around 5-15ms delay can make a huge difference.</p><p>Even still, I think a lot of action games can be very successful on this kind of system. Platformers (like Super Mario, Little Big Planet) and driving games do involve real-time reaction, but the way we play these things, our actions are more predictive, than reactive. ("I'm running towards the edge of the roof, and I'll get these in about half a second, so press jump.... now!")  In these kinds of games, our brains sort of "build in" the latency into our actions, so we're not as sensitive to them.</p><p>One point that I think they should have emphasized is cheat prevention. On many PC games, there's trainer's, aimbots, all sorts of cheats that make playing on public servers very suspect. With this system, they're reducing everything down to just control input and video output, so the opportunity to cheat in a game is significantly harder.</p><p>I have a funny feeling that the monthly subscription fee will be something more than I'll want to pay. They have to deal with the cost of maintaining high-end gaming servers, and what I'm sure will turn out to be an enormous network bill. I'm sure it will be reasonable, because in their model, instead of maintaining my own high-end gaming PC, the burden will be on them to keep the hardware up to date. It will just be more than I want to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great concept , I ca n't wait to play with it in person : ) A few thoughts : I 'm a little skeptical about how robustly it will perform , but I am sure they will have a chance to prove their technology soon .
I 'm sure everyone who 's played online has dealt with lag spikes , just due to random congestion , noise , route changes , that sort of thing .
It seems that this system will be much more sensitive to those kinds of network delays.One thing that they did n't talk about was really how high latency-sensitive games fit into this framework .
I 'm talking about timing games , such as Guitar Hero , or games that need twitch reactions like Street Fighter .
Players of these games frequently complain about latency that happens between the console and the display , nevermind the the latency of a network .
( HDMI decoding delay has made playing these games kind of a pain on some HDTVs ) Anecdotally , I notice that in these kinds of games , delays around 5-15ms delay can make a huge difference.Even still , I think a lot of action games can be very successful on this kind of system .
Platformers ( like Super Mario , Little Big Planet ) and driving games do involve real-time reaction , but the way we play these things , our actions are more predictive , than reactive .
( " I 'm running towards the edge of the roof , and I 'll get these in about half a second , so press jump... .
now ! " ) In these kinds of games , our brains sort of " build in " the latency into our actions , so we 're not as sensitive to them.One point that I think they should have emphasized is cheat prevention .
On many PC games , there 's trainer 's , aimbots , all sorts of cheats that make playing on public servers very suspect .
With this system , they 're reducing everything down to just control input and video output , so the opportunity to cheat in a game is significantly harder.I have a funny feeling that the monthly subscription fee will be something more than I 'll want to pay .
They have to deal with the cost of maintaining high-end gaming servers , and what I 'm sure will turn out to be an enormous network bill .
I 'm sure it will be reasonable , because in their model , instead of maintaining my own high-end gaming PC , the burden will be on them to keep the hardware up to date .
It will just be more than I want to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great concept, I can't wait to play with it in person :) A few thoughts:I'm a little skeptical about how robustly it will perform, but I am sure they will have a chance to prove their technology soon.
I'm sure everyone who's played online has dealt with lag spikes, just due to random congestion, noise, route changes, that sort of thing.
It seems that this system will be much more sensitive to those kinds of network delays.One thing that they didn't talk about was really how high latency-sensitive games fit into this framework.
I'm talking about timing games, such as Guitar Hero, or games that need twitch reactions like Street Fighter.
Players of these games frequently complain about latency that happens between the console and the display, nevermind the the latency of a network.
(HDMI decoding delay has made playing these games kind of a pain on some HDTVs) Anecdotally, I notice that in these kinds of games, delays around 5-15ms delay can make a huge difference.Even still, I think a lot of action games can be very successful on this kind of system.
Platformers (like Super Mario, Little Big Planet) and driving games do involve real-time reaction, but the way we play these things, our actions are more predictive, than reactive.
("I'm running towards the edge of the roof, and I'll get these in about half a second, so press jump....
now!")  In these kinds of games, our brains sort of "build in" the latency into our actions, so we're not as sensitive to them.One point that I think they should have emphasized is cheat prevention.
On many PC games, there's trainer's, aimbots, all sorts of cheats that make playing on public servers very suspect.
With this system, they're reducing everything down to just control input and video output, so the opportunity to cheat in a game is significantly harder.I have a funny feeling that the monthly subscription fee will be something more than I'll want to pay.
They have to deal with the cost of maintaining high-end gaming servers, and what I'm sure will turn out to be an enormous network bill.
I'm sure it will be reasonable, because in their model, instead of maintaining my own high-end gaming PC, the burden will be on them to keep the hardware up to date.
It will just be more than I want to pay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592474</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1259850540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there's an issue with lag, and another issue with lag stability. Lag may or may not be handled depending on the kind of game; Variable lag is even harder to compensate for</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there 's an issue with lag , and another issue with lag stability .
Lag may or may not be handled depending on the kind of game ; Variable lag is even harder to compensate for</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there's an issue with lag, and another issue with lag stability.
Lag may or may not be handled depending on the kind of game; Variable lag is even harder to compensate for</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30601640</id>
	<title>Re:So, their business model...</title>
	<author>PingSpike</author>
	<datestamp>1259849100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wish I had mod points.</p><p>This has been discussed a lot of places, and several times I can remember on slashdot. The vast majority of the discussion centers on whether this is possible at all. But even if we assume that they have found some magical formula that allows it to function, how many people would want it? Ignore the fact that PC gaming hardware isn't actually that expensive anymore. Most big name PC games are (sadly) just console ports anyway these days. After all the networking wizardry, server farms, custom compression, etc all that is really offered to the customer is just a console system where you rent the games. You can already do that with an xbox 360 or a PS3. And it even works without any internet connection at all for single player. You can play multiplayer games on it as well.</p><p>This whole thing, in addition to seeming like impossible vaporware, is the answer to the question nobody asked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wish I had mod points.This has been discussed a lot of places , and several times I can remember on slashdot .
The vast majority of the discussion centers on whether this is possible at all .
But even if we assume that they have found some magical formula that allows it to function , how many people would want it ?
Ignore the fact that PC gaming hardware is n't actually that expensive anymore .
Most big name PC games are ( sadly ) just console ports anyway these days .
After all the networking wizardry , server farms , custom compression , etc all that is really offered to the customer is just a console system where you rent the games .
You can already do that with an xbox 360 or a PS3 .
And it even works without any internet connection at all for single player .
You can play multiplayer games on it as well.This whole thing , in addition to seeming like impossible vaporware , is the answer to the question nobody asked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wish I had mod points.This has been discussed a lot of places, and several times I can remember on slashdot.
The vast majority of the discussion centers on whether this is possible at all.
But even if we assume that they have found some magical formula that allows it to function, how many people would want it?
Ignore the fact that PC gaming hardware isn't actually that expensive anymore.
Most big name PC games are (sadly) just console ports anyway these days.
After all the networking wizardry, server farms, custom compression, etc all that is really offered to the customer is just a console system where you rent the games.
You can already do that with an xbox 360 or a PS3.
And it even works without any internet connection at all for single player.
You can play multiplayer games on it as well.This whole thing, in addition to seeming like impossible vaporware, is the answer to the question nobody asked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591450</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>failedlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1259833320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If my hunch is right, OnLive won't need to be concerned over any TCP/IP stuff. The secret is all in the target market for the service.</p><p>My hunch says OnLive is going for a target demographic of -at minimum- people over the age of 80. They have already beat Halo 1,2 and 3 so for them, it is about enjoying the experience again. Latency and round-trip don't enter into consideration. When you pull that game you beat 2 weeks ago and reinstall it, do you care about how good it looks or plays? No! You just want to bask in the joy of playing it all over again. Same thing here.</p><p>I'll bet that 100\% of Internet users over the age of 80 with an Internet connection can transmit TCP/IP packets. OnLive can confidently target 100\% of this demographic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If my hunch is right , OnLive wo n't need to be concerned over any TCP/IP stuff .
The secret is all in the target market for the service.My hunch says OnLive is going for a target demographic of -at minimum- people over the age of 80 .
They have already beat Halo 1,2 and 3 so for them , it is about enjoying the experience again .
Latency and round-trip do n't enter into consideration .
When you pull that game you beat 2 weeks ago and reinstall it , do you care about how good it looks or plays ?
No ! You just want to bask in the joy of playing it all over again .
Same thing here.I 'll bet that 100 \ % of Internet users over the age of 80 with an Internet connection can transmit TCP/IP packets .
OnLive can confidently target 100 \ % of this demographic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If my hunch is right, OnLive won't need to be concerned over any TCP/IP stuff.
The secret is all in the target market for the service.My hunch says OnLive is going for a target demographic of -at minimum- people over the age of 80.
They have already beat Halo 1,2 and 3 so for them, it is about enjoying the experience again.
Latency and round-trip don't enter into consideration.
When you pull that game you beat 2 weeks ago and reinstall it, do you care about how good it looks or plays?
No! You just want to bask in the joy of playing it all over again.
Same thing here.I'll bet that 100\% of Internet users over the age of 80 with an Internet connection can transmit TCP/IP packets.
OnLive can confidently target 100\% of this demographic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591238</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259872620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see this being relegated out to 'slow' games.  Where a latency of 500+ms does not matter or ones where you can 'tune it in'.  A game like rock band could 'tune it in'.  A game like poker wouldnt even really matter...  Something like a FPS probably wouldnt work worth a damn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see this being relegated out to 'slow ' games .
Where a latency of 500 + ms does not matter or ones where you can 'tune it in' .
A game like rock band could 'tune it in' .
A game like poker wouldnt even really matter... Something like a FPS probably wouldnt work worth a damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see this being relegated out to 'slow' games.
Where a latency of 500+ms does not matter or ones where you can 'tune it in'.
A game like rock band could 'tune it in'.
A game like poker wouldnt even really matter...  Something like a FPS probably wouldnt work worth a damn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30595902</id>
	<title>Another privacy loss</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1259863740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would i want someone spying on my game play?? or even what I'm chatting about with another player.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would i want someone spying on my game play ? ?
or even what I 'm chatting about with another player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would i want someone spying on my game play??
or even what I'm chatting about with another player.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592080</id>
	<title>Re:Games?</title>
	<author>Paradigm\_Complex</author>
	<datestamp>1259845200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the key selling points of this service is directed towards developers and publishers: no piracy, and no used game sales.  Every game played is controlled remotely.  With movies or music, you could still record the media, but with interactive games in this fashion it's not possible.  The key selling point to end users is you don't need the traditionally high-end hardware needed to play games.  For the most part, other media plays fine on low-end hardware (high definition movies being a possible exception, although even that is getting pretty rare).<br> <br>

There are theoretical benefits for games that you just can't get any other way, which don't carry over to music or movies (although I'd be surprised if those aren't also offered on this service). That's why games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the key selling points of this service is directed towards developers and publishers : no piracy , and no used game sales .
Every game played is controlled remotely .
With movies or music , you could still record the media , but with interactive games in this fashion it 's not possible .
The key selling point to end users is you do n't need the traditionally high-end hardware needed to play games .
For the most part , other media plays fine on low-end hardware ( high definition movies being a possible exception , although even that is getting pretty rare ) .
There are theoretical benefits for games that you just ca n't get any other way , which do n't carry over to music or movies ( although I 'd be surprised if those are n't also offered on this service ) .
That 's why games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the key selling points of this service is directed towards developers and publishers: no piracy, and no used game sales.
Every game played is controlled remotely.
With movies or music, you could still record the media, but with interactive games in this fashion it's not possible.
The key selling point to end users is you don't need the traditionally high-end hardware needed to play games.
For the most part, other media plays fine on low-end hardware (high definition movies being a possible exception, although even that is getting pretty rare).
There are theoretical benefits for games that you just can't get any other way, which don't carry over to music or movies (although I'd be surprised if those aren't also offered on this service).
That's why games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30598704</id>
	<title>Same money, different bucket</title>
	<author>billcopc</author>
	<datestamp>1259830860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me get this straight: People with low-end hardware can pay a fee to run the games on OnLive's hardware, and stream the video over the internet ?  How is that better than spending money ONCE on a mid-range GPU and running the game yourself ?  What about bandwidth surcharges ?  High-def video doesn't come light, most people will blow their monthly caps in no time.</p><p>A modest gaming-ready card is $100 or so.  Even if OnLive charged only $9.99 / mo, in less than a year the GPU is a cheaper option.  The other thing is when you cancel your OnLive subscription, you can't play anymore.  That GPU is yours forever until it dies in a fire.  If and when you feel the urge to upgrade, you can sell the old GPU for 20-30\% of the cost of a new one.</p><p>Am I missing something, or is this whole business idea an exercise in futility ?  I get that most people are dumb as dirt, but come on...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me get this straight : People with low-end hardware can pay a fee to run the games on OnLive 's hardware , and stream the video over the internet ?
How is that better than spending money ONCE on a mid-range GPU and running the game yourself ?
What about bandwidth surcharges ?
High-def video does n't come light , most people will blow their monthly caps in no time.A modest gaming-ready card is $ 100 or so .
Even if OnLive charged only $ 9.99 / mo , in less than a year the GPU is a cheaper option .
The other thing is when you cancel your OnLive subscription , you ca n't play anymore .
That GPU is yours forever until it dies in a fire .
If and when you feel the urge to upgrade , you can sell the old GPU for 20-30 \ % of the cost of a new one.Am I missing something , or is this whole business idea an exercise in futility ?
I get that most people are dumb as dirt , but come on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me get this straight: People with low-end hardware can pay a fee to run the games on OnLive's hardware, and stream the video over the internet ?
How is that better than spending money ONCE on a mid-range GPU and running the game yourself ?
What about bandwidth surcharges ?
High-def video doesn't come light, most people will blow their monthly caps in no time.A modest gaming-ready card is $100 or so.
Even if OnLive charged only $9.99 / mo, in less than a year the GPU is a cheaper option.
The other thing is when you cancel your OnLive subscription, you can't play anymore.
That GPU is yours forever until it dies in a fire.
If and when you feel the urge to upgrade, you can sell the old GPU for 20-30\% of the cost of a new one.Am I missing something, or is this whole business idea an exercise in futility ?
I get that most people are dumb as dirt, but come on...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591228</id>
	<title>Games?</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1259872380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why "Games:"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why " Games : " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why "Games:"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30593460</id>
	<title>Re:So, their business model...</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1259855940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>don't want to buy their own console, because it would clearly be too expensive?</p></div><p>Challenge: think of reasons for not buying a console, other than cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>do n't want to buy their own console , because it would clearly be too expensive ? Challenge : think of reasons for not buying a console , other than cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>don't want to buy their own console, because it would clearly be too expensive?Challenge: think of reasons for not buying a console, other than cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30601500</id>
	<title>Re:Enough speculation!</title>
	<author>toriver</author>
	<datestamp>1259847780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personal attacks as substitute for addressing healthy skepticism directed at the latest Infineon/Phantom equivalent? How sad.</p><p>I bet this service will run Duke Nukem Forever real fast like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personal attacks as substitute for addressing healthy skepticism directed at the latest Infineon/Phantom equivalent ?
How sad.I bet this service will run Duke Nukem Forever real fast like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personal attacks as substitute for addressing healthy skepticism directed at the latest Infineon/Phantom equivalent?
How sad.I bet this service will run Duke Nukem Forever real fast like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591516</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud Gaming?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259834400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't call anything "Cloud" anything. It's meaningless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't call anything " Cloud " anything .
It 's meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't call anything "Cloud" anything.
It's meaningless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591352</id>
	<title>Cloud Gaming?</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1259831940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically, this is Cloud Gaming.</p><p>Ok, so in order to improve and maintain a consistent FPS rating (rendered, not just streamed), do you have to purchase "upgrade points". Basically, a virtual hardware upgrade for your virtual gaming rig session?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically , this is Cloud Gaming.Ok , so in order to improve and maintain a consistent FPS rating ( rendered , not just streamed ) , do you have to purchase " upgrade points " .
Basically , a virtual hardware upgrade for your virtual gaming rig session ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically, this is Cloud Gaming.Ok, so in order to improve and maintain a consistent FPS rating (rendered, not just streamed), do you have to purchase "upgrade points".
Basically, a virtual hardware upgrade for your virtual gaming rig session?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30601314</id>
	<title>Name on streaming service that never lags</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1259846400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Name one internet video streaming service that never lags.  Even a pay site.  Go ahead, I'll wait.  <p>.</p><p>.</p><p>
Now think those videos are prerendered, onlive say they are streaming 1080i that is rendered in real time.</p><p>I just
don't see it working for any real time game, FPS, RTS, etc, racing, which is what they seem to be selling it for.  Adventure games would be fine, but we all know how much money there is in those.</p><p>
Who is the market here?  How many people have high bandwidth AND low leniency connections close enough to their servers not to have lag?  99\% of potential customers  will have to deal
with lag between several 3d party network/server hops.
It could work when everyone has much much better internet connections then they do now, but in 2010?  ha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Name one internet video streaming service that never lags .
Even a pay site .
Go ahead , I 'll wait .
. . Now think those videos are prerendered , onlive say they are streaming 1080i that is rendered in real time.I just do n't see it working for any real time game , FPS , RTS , etc , racing , which is what they seem to be selling it for .
Adventure games would be fine , but we all know how much money there is in those .
Who is the market here ?
How many people have high bandwidth AND low leniency connections close enough to their servers not to have lag ?
99 \ % of potential customers will have to deal with lag between several 3d party network/server hops .
It could work when everyone has much much better internet connections then they do now , but in 2010 ?
ha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name one internet video streaming service that never lags.
Even a pay site.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
..
Now think those videos are prerendered, onlive say they are streaming 1080i that is rendered in real time.I just
don't see it working for any real time game, FPS, RTS, etc, racing, which is what they seem to be selling it for.
Adventure games would be fine, but we all know how much money there is in those.
Who is the market here?
How many people have high bandwidth AND low leniency connections close enough to their servers not to have lag?
99\% of potential customers  will have to deal
with lag between several 3d party network/server hops.
It could work when everyone has much much better internet connections then they do now, but in 2010?
ha.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30595168</id>
	<title>OnLive won't work.</title>
	<author>Runefox</author>
	<datestamp>1259861580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least, not in any way, shape or form for people who don't live in close proximity to the servers. For me, I can usually get an average ping of about ~80ms to any given person or site on the internet; Even if the video feed had no additional overhead (and it invariably does), that still takes at least 80ms from when I send input and get to see a response on-screen, at the best of times. People already have issues with some LCD displays and input lag, and that's only on the measure of up to 10-40ms. Add in minimal extra latency for things like wireless controllers, some added latency in-game by console developers trying to squeeze in some extra FPS (sometimes upwards to another 150ms for console games), and you've got some pretty decent lag going on - even more if you've decided to play multiplayer with someone not also on the cloud. In addition, compression artifacts will be present, and requiring a constant 1-2 mbps at minimum for the duration of the session (for "SD"; 5mbps for "HD") is going to make it difficult for most people to play anything with a resolution higher than what consoles were using half a decade ago, or what PC's were using nearly two decades ago.</p><p>If the service actually does ship, I have a hard time believing it's going to "revolutionize" anything. I'm all for letting people in on the gaming experience without having to go out and buy consoles or killer PC's, but this certainly isn't the way of the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least , not in any way , shape or form for people who do n't live in close proximity to the servers .
For me , I can usually get an average ping of about ~ 80ms to any given person or site on the internet ; Even if the video feed had no additional overhead ( and it invariably does ) , that still takes at least 80ms from when I send input and get to see a response on-screen , at the best of times .
People already have issues with some LCD displays and input lag , and that 's only on the measure of up to 10-40ms .
Add in minimal extra latency for things like wireless controllers , some added latency in-game by console developers trying to squeeze in some extra FPS ( sometimes upwards to another 150ms for console games ) , and you 've got some pretty decent lag going on - even more if you 've decided to play multiplayer with someone not also on the cloud .
In addition , compression artifacts will be present , and requiring a constant 1-2 mbps at minimum for the duration of the session ( for " SD " ; 5mbps for " HD " ) is going to make it difficult for most people to play anything with a resolution higher than what consoles were using half a decade ago , or what PC 's were using nearly two decades ago.If the service actually does ship , I have a hard time believing it 's going to " revolutionize " anything .
I 'm all for letting people in on the gaming experience without having to go out and buy consoles or killer PC 's , but this certainly is n't the way of the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least, not in any way, shape or form for people who don't live in close proximity to the servers.
For me, I can usually get an average ping of about ~80ms to any given person or site on the internet; Even if the video feed had no additional overhead (and it invariably does), that still takes at least 80ms from when I send input and get to see a response on-screen, at the best of times.
People already have issues with some LCD displays and input lag, and that's only on the measure of up to 10-40ms.
Add in minimal extra latency for things like wireless controllers, some added latency in-game by console developers trying to squeeze in some extra FPS (sometimes upwards to another 150ms for console games), and you've got some pretty decent lag going on - even more if you've decided to play multiplayer with someone not also on the cloud.
In addition, compression artifacts will be present, and requiring a constant 1-2 mbps at minimum for the duration of the session (for "SD"; 5mbps for "HD") is going to make it difficult for most people to play anything with a resolution higher than what consoles were using half a decade ago, or what PC's were using nearly two decades ago.If the service actually does ship, I have a hard time believing it's going to "revolutionize" anything.
I'm all for letting people in on the gaming experience without having to go out and buy consoles or killer PC's, but this certainly isn't the way of the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30595246</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a giant scam?</title>
	<author>tbradshaw</author>
	<datestamp>1259861820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obviously didn't watch the video at all.   While you're being an asshole about the idea, the guy presenting during the presentation covered all of your strawmen.</p><p>1) "fill instance of the most powerful PC you can throw at it" - Uh, no.  When you move from workstation class hardware to server hardware, the "ceilings" change.  But, for games like Crysis, they do, indeed, use a big GPU per instance.</p><p>2) "720p video in realtime that no codec today can deliver" - Too bad you didn't watch the video.  Turns out, this is the same team that brought us QuickTime before video codecs were even discussed.  He also describes exactly how they pulled it off, started with scrapping the stream-based design paradigm, using a feedback loop based design paradigm, and creating a new encoder that looks great in motion encoded and decoded in real time (as one of the weaknesses, you can't pause it or it looks like shit).</p><p>3) "Presumably happen on the same computing hardware..." - Actually, no.  As the presenter describes, the codec taxed even the dual quad core xeons that it was developed on.  <i>Then they fabbed custom chips that do nothing but implement the encoding algorithm.</i>  It's entirely hardware accelerated encoding, two chips per user on custom boards.</p><p>I also thought the entire process sounded like a big stupid scam, but before I declared the mighty victory of common sense, talking out of my ass, I went ahead and watched the video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously did n't watch the video at all .
While you 're being an asshole about the idea , the guy presenting during the presentation covered all of your strawmen.1 ) " fill instance of the most powerful PC you can throw at it " - Uh , no .
When you move from workstation class hardware to server hardware , the " ceilings " change .
But , for games like Crysis , they do , indeed , use a big GPU per instance.2 ) " 720p video in realtime that no codec today can deliver " - Too bad you did n't watch the video .
Turns out , this is the same team that brought us QuickTime before video codecs were even discussed .
He also describes exactly how they pulled it off , started with scrapping the stream-based design paradigm , using a feedback loop based design paradigm , and creating a new encoder that looks great in motion encoded and decoded in real time ( as one of the weaknesses , you ca n't pause it or it looks like shit ) .3 ) " Presumably happen on the same computing hardware... " - Actually , no .
As the presenter describes , the codec taxed even the dual quad core xeons that it was developed on .
Then they fabbed custom chips that do nothing but implement the encoding algorithm .
It 's entirely hardware accelerated encoding , two chips per user on custom boards.I also thought the entire process sounded like a big stupid scam , but before I declared the mighty victory of common sense , talking out of my ass , I went ahead and watched the video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously didn't watch the video at all.
While you're being an asshole about the idea, the guy presenting during the presentation covered all of your strawmen.1) "fill instance of the most powerful PC you can throw at it" - Uh, no.
When you move from workstation class hardware to server hardware, the "ceilings" change.
But, for games like Crysis, they do, indeed, use a big GPU per instance.2) "720p video in realtime that no codec today can deliver" - Too bad you didn't watch the video.
Turns out, this is the same team that brought us QuickTime before video codecs were even discussed.
He also describes exactly how they pulled it off, started with scrapping the stream-based design paradigm, using a feedback loop based design paradigm, and creating a new encoder that looks great in motion encoded and decoded in real time (as one of the weaknesses, you can't pause it or it looks like shit).3) "Presumably happen on the same computing hardware..." - Actually, no.
As the presenter describes, the codec taxed even the dual quad core xeons that it was developed on.
Then they fabbed custom chips that do nothing but implement the encoding algorithm.
It's entirely hardware accelerated encoding, two chips per user on custom boards.I also thought the entire process sounded like a big stupid scam, but before I declared the mighty victory of common sense, talking out of my ass, I went ahead and watched the video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591198</id>
	<title>Windows and Mac only</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1259871720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are still no plans to support alternative platforms outside of Windows and Mac which is actually a bit disappointing.  Onlive could have knocked out one of the major reasons why many people stay with Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still no plans to support alternative platforms outside of Windows and Mac which is actually a bit disappointing .
Onlive could have knocked out one of the major reasons why many people stay with Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still no plans to support alternative platforms outside of Windows and Mac which is actually a bit disappointing.
Onlive could have knocked out one of the major reasons why many people stay with Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591624</id>
	<title>Enough speculation!</title>
	<author>LS</author>
	<datestamp>1259836080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every damn time there is a story about OnLive or other similar services, you see dozens of messages by people speculating that it's impossible and latency will kill it.   This conversation is get BORING. We get your point, and we got it the 500th time we heard it.  You all sound like people having a heated argument over whether some comic book character can jump over a building or not.  Unless you have tried the system, then STFU.  At this point it's just vaporware!  Maybe you are right; maybe you are wrong - these guys are working with the big boys - major ISP and hardware providers, and may be working to change the actual structure of the network itself to support the game, as opposed to changing the system to work on the current network.  In any case, just wait and see and quit boring us with your armchair network admin speculations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every damn time there is a story about OnLive or other similar services , you see dozens of messages by people speculating that it 's impossible and latency will kill it .
This conversation is get BORING .
We get your point , and we got it the 500th time we heard it .
You all sound like people having a heated argument over whether some comic book character can jump over a building or not .
Unless you have tried the system , then STFU .
At this point it 's just vaporware !
Maybe you are right ; maybe you are wrong - these guys are working with the big boys - major ISP and hardware providers , and may be working to change the actual structure of the network itself to support the game , as opposed to changing the system to work on the current network .
In any case , just wait and see and quit boring us with your armchair network admin speculations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every damn time there is a story about OnLive or other similar services, you see dozens of messages by people speculating that it's impossible and latency will kill it.
This conversation is get BORING.
We get your point, and we got it the 500th time we heard it.
You all sound like people having a heated argument over whether some comic book character can jump over a building or not.
Unless you have tried the system, then STFU.
At this point it's just vaporware!
Maybe you are right; maybe you are wrong - these guys are working with the big boys - major ISP and hardware providers, and may be working to change the actual structure of the network itself to support the game, as opposed to changing the system to work on the current network.
In any case, just wait and see and quit boring us with your armchair network admin speculations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30595634</id>
	<title>one step closer... to being bought</title>
	<author>bigbigbison</author>
	<datestamp>1259862900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless they have figured out how to go faster than the speed of light this simply can't work for action games. Their only hope can be to get bought by a cable company that would offer casual games or non-action games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they have figured out how to go faster than the speed of light this simply ca n't work for action games .
Their only hope can be to get bought by a cable company that would offer casual games or non-action games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they have figured out how to go faster than the speed of light this simply can't work for action games.
Their only hope can be to get bought by a cable company that would offer casual games or non-action games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591956</id>
	<title>I believe in this product</title>
	<author>ferrgle</author>
	<datestamp>1259842680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I for one cant wait until they release Duke Nukem Forever on it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I for one cant wait until they release Duke Nukem Forever on it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I for one cant wait until they release Duke Nukem Forever on it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591436</id>
	<title>Re:Latency sensitive people</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1259833020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>OnLive runs those engines at faster than realtime</p></div></blockquote><p>They've skipped quantum computing and gone straight to tachyon based technology?

</p><p>I actually can't work out if you're trolling or serious, and that disturbs me.  It's either sublime satire, or breathtaking dumbitude.  Either way, I'm calling it <em>art</em>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OnLive runs those engines at faster than realtimeThey 've skipped quantum computing and gone straight to tachyon based technology ?
I actually ca n't work out if you 're trolling or serious , and that disturbs me .
It 's either sublime satire , or breathtaking dumbitude .
Either way , I 'm calling it art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OnLive runs those engines at faster than realtimeThey've skipped quantum computing and gone straight to tachyon based technology?
I actually can't work out if you're trolling or serious, and that disturbs me.
It's either sublime satire, or breathtaking dumbitude.
Either way, I'm calling it art.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596104</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a giant scam?</title>
	<author>streetmedic</author>
	<datestamp>1259864340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I still maintain that this simply can't work, and that it's an absolutely braindead money pit of an idea if it's not a total scam.</p><p>Idea: let's take the most latency sensitive, computationally demanding, and visually intensive thing you can do with a modern computer and try to apply the thin client model to it.</p><p>A single instance of the application in question will demand the full resources of the most powerful PC you can throw at it, but we'll just wave our hands and mutter something about virtualization to convince stupid investors that we have magic at our disposal. Because they are morons and because we put on a good show, they'll believe that you can somehow run many instances of a game on the equivalent of a single PC. We'll also be encoding 720p video in realtime at a quality / bandwidth ratio that no codec today can deliver; this will presumably happen on the same computing hardware that's already running multiple instances of cutting edge 3D games.</p><p>Finally, we'll throw in some shit about the iphone, because people can't stop fellating apple lately.</p><p>Anyone who believes this is technically feasible, much less economically viable, is fucking *retarded*.</p></div><p>ol well if need proof simply for fact watch this
<a href="http://tv.seas.columbia.edu/videos/545/60/79?file=1&amp;autostart=true" title="columbia.edu" rel="nofollow">http://tv.seas.columbia.edu/videos/545/60/79?file=1&amp;autostart=true</a> [columbia.edu]

 he is  and does show To a class of 100 or so all of 40 using iphones to watch his game play at the podium..
LOl u need to wake teh f#^a up</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still maintain that this simply ca n't work , and that it 's an absolutely braindead money pit of an idea if it 's not a total scam.Idea : let 's take the most latency sensitive , computationally demanding , and visually intensive thing you can do with a modern computer and try to apply the thin client model to it.A single instance of the application in question will demand the full resources of the most powerful PC you can throw at it , but we 'll just wave our hands and mutter something about virtualization to convince stupid investors that we have magic at our disposal .
Because they are morons and because we put on a good show , they 'll believe that you can somehow run many instances of a game on the equivalent of a single PC .
We 'll also be encoding 720p video in realtime at a quality / bandwidth ratio that no codec today can deliver ; this will presumably happen on the same computing hardware that 's already running multiple instances of cutting edge 3D games.Finally , we 'll throw in some shit about the iphone , because people ca n't stop fellating apple lately.Anyone who believes this is technically feasible , much less economically viable , is fucking * retarded * .ol well if need proof simply for fact watch this http : //tv.seas.columbia.edu/videos/545/60/79 ? file = 1&amp;autostart = true [ columbia.edu ] he is and does show To a class of 100 or so all of 40 using iphones to watch his game play at the podium. . LOl u need to wake teh f # ^ a up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still maintain that this simply can't work, and that it's an absolutely braindead money pit of an idea if it's not a total scam.Idea: let's take the most latency sensitive, computationally demanding, and visually intensive thing you can do with a modern computer and try to apply the thin client model to it.A single instance of the application in question will demand the full resources of the most powerful PC you can throw at it, but we'll just wave our hands and mutter something about virtualization to convince stupid investors that we have magic at our disposal.
Because they are morons and because we put on a good show, they'll believe that you can somehow run many instances of a game on the equivalent of a single PC.
We'll also be encoding 720p video in realtime at a quality / bandwidth ratio that no codec today can deliver; this will presumably happen on the same computing hardware that's already running multiple instances of cutting edge 3D games.Finally, we'll throw in some shit about the iphone, because people can't stop fellating apple lately.Anyone who believes this is technically feasible, much less economically viable, is fucking *retarded*.ol well if need proof simply for fact watch this
http://tv.seas.columbia.edu/videos/545/60/79?file=1&amp;autostart=true [columbia.edu]

 he is  and does show To a class of 100 or so all of 40 using iphones to watch his game play at the podium..
LOl u need to wake teh f#^a up
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30612710</id>
	<title>April Fools?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262287740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I check around the web for this thing, I see a lot of dates of April 1st.  When was this video actually shot/released?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I check around the web for this thing , I see a lot of dates of April 1st .
When was this video actually shot/released ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I check around the web for this thing, I see a lot of dates of April 1st.
When was this video actually shot/released?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591584</id>
	<title>network log:</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1259835420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>User with 50 ms ping, the optimistic traceroute</p><p>0 ms: User see on the screen his car moving left,<br>200 ms: User press "D" to move his car right.<br>201 ms: OnLive process the "D" and send the message to the server. The message is on the home router.<br>251 ms: OnLive server receive the "D" command.<br>301 ms: OnLive server generate the next frame.<br>321 ms: OnLive server compress the frame, and send it to the client. The data is on the server router (80KB)<br>(322 ms: User press "A" to move his car to the left.)<br>371 ms: Home router receive the data.<br>471 ms: Onlive download the whole 80KB of data.<br>472 ms: Onlive uncompress the 80KB of data has 1024x768x16 bits of video data (??) ( compression: 153.6 \% )<br>482 ms: Data is rendered on the screen on the next retrace.</p><p>What the user see:<br>User see his car to collide, press D to move right, wait 322 ms and nothing occur, press A to move left. 482 ms after the first keystroke, the car move right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>User with 50 ms ping , the optimistic traceroute0 ms : User see on the screen his car moving left,200 ms : User press " D " to move his car right.201 ms : OnLive process the " D " and send the message to the server .
The message is on the home router.251 ms : OnLive server receive the " D " command.301 ms : OnLive server generate the next frame.321 ms : OnLive server compress the frame , and send it to the client .
The data is on the server router ( 80KB ) ( 322 ms : User press " A " to move his car to the left .
) 371 ms : Home router receive the data.471 ms : Onlive download the whole 80KB of data.472 ms : Onlive uncompress the 80KB of data has 1024x768x16 bits of video data ( ? ?
) ( compression : 153.6 \ % ) 482 ms : Data is rendered on the screen on the next retrace.What the user see : User see his car to collide , press D to move right , wait 322 ms and nothing occur , press A to move left .
482 ms after the first keystroke , the car move right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>User with 50 ms ping, the optimistic traceroute0 ms: User see on the screen his car moving left,200 ms: User press "D" to move his car right.201 ms: OnLive process the "D" and send the message to the server.
The message is on the home router.251 ms: OnLive server receive the "D" command.301 ms: OnLive server generate the next frame.321 ms: OnLive server compress the frame, and send it to the client.
The data is on the server router (80KB)(322 ms: User press "A" to move his car to the left.
)371 ms: Home router receive the data.471 ms: Onlive download the whole 80KB of data.472 ms: Onlive uncompress the 80KB of data has 1024x768x16 bits of video data (??
) ( compression: 153.6 \% )482 ms: Data is rendered on the screen on the next retrace.What the user see:User see his car to collide, press D to move right, wait 322 ms and nothing occur, press A to move left.
482 ms after the first keystroke, the car move right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592228</id>
	<title>Re:Is this a giant scam?</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1259847360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I still maintain that this simply can't work, and that it's an absolutely braindead money pit of an idea if it's not a total scam.</i>
<p>
Well it could work, but only for sedentary games where a bit of lag doesn't kill the experience, it might even offer some interesting scenarios for network play such as pitting one street or town against another.
</p><p>
Even so, the tech just seems to be a bit of a white elephant. Latency does limit what it can do, as will the sort of loads the server at the other end can tolerate. I expect it may appeal to cable / optical fibre networks looking to justify renting some piece of crap device to customers, but I'm not sure why actual users would care for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still maintain that this simply ca n't work , and that it 's an absolutely braindead money pit of an idea if it 's not a total scam .
Well it could work , but only for sedentary games where a bit of lag does n't kill the experience , it might even offer some interesting scenarios for network play such as pitting one street or town against another .
Even so , the tech just seems to be a bit of a white elephant .
Latency does limit what it can do , as will the sort of loads the server at the other end can tolerate .
I expect it may appeal to cable / optical fibre networks looking to justify renting some piece of crap device to customers , but I 'm not sure why actual users would care for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still maintain that this simply can't work, and that it's an absolutely braindead money pit of an idea if it's not a total scam.
Well it could work, but only for sedentary games where a bit of lag doesn't kill the experience, it might even offer some interesting scenarios for network play such as pitting one street or town against another.
Even so, the tech just seems to be a bit of a white elephant.
Latency does limit what it can do, as will the sort of loads the server at the other end can tolerate.
I expect it may appeal to cable / optical fibre networks looking to justify renting some piece of crap device to customers, but I'm not sure why actual users would care for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592004</id>
	<title>So, their business model...</title>
	<author>Xugumad</author>
	<datestamp>1259843820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is to rent console time over the Internet, to people with enough money to have a PC that will run this stuff, and a fast Internet connection...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or an iPhone, a platform known for its cost-effective pricing model...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but don't want to buy their own console, because it would clearly be too expensive?</p><p>Of course, people don't want to all play computer games at the same time, so I can see they'll be balancing load throughout the day... erm... or not (and certainly, they're not going to be running connections internationally with latency that's anything less than abominable for this).</p><p>In summary: WTF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is to rent console time over the Internet , to people with enough money to have a PC that will run this stuff , and a fast Internet connection... ...or an iPhone , a platform known for its cost-effective pricing model... ...but do n't want to buy their own console , because it would clearly be too expensive ? Of course , people do n't want to all play computer games at the same time , so I can see they 'll be balancing load throughout the day... erm... or not ( and certainly , they 're not going to be running connections internationally with latency that 's anything less than abominable for this ) .In summary : WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is to rent console time over the Internet, to people with enough money to have a PC that will run this stuff, and a fast Internet connection... ...or an iPhone, a platform known for its cost-effective pricing model... ...but don't want to buy their own console, because it would clearly be too expensive?Of course, people don't want to all play computer games at the same time, so I can see they'll be balancing load throughout the day... erm... or not (and certainly, they're not going to be running connections internationally with latency that's anything less than abominable for this).In summary: WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592750</id>
	<title>Have you tried it?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1259852640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far this thread is all "Well, I'm sitting here in my armchair and <b> <i>I</i> </b> believe..."</p><p>History will judge them, not self-important speculation.</p><p>PS: They're aiming at iPhones, not your $10,000 nitrogen-cooled neon-lit gaming rig.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far this thread is all " Well , I 'm sitting here in my armchair and I believe... " History will judge them , not self-important speculation.PS : They 're aiming at iPhones , not your $ 10,000 nitrogen-cooled neon-lit gaming rig .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far this thread is all "Well, I'm sitting here in my armchair and  I  believe..."History will judge them, not self-important speculation.PS: They're aiming at iPhones, not your $10,000 nitrogen-cooled neon-lit gaming rig.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591514</id>
	<title>Ohy not again</title>
	<author>Fotograf</author>
	<datestamp>1259834340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i know that for investors they need to show some virtual activity, but in the world where 800kB youtube video loads few seconds it is not gonna work for a long time...
Even video-conferences almost perfected at this moment have to be crippled in peak times in most of the world, so at least we dont need more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. posts on it</htmltext>
<tokenext>i know that for investors they need to show some virtual activity , but in the world where 800kB youtube video loads few seconds it is not gon na work for a long time.. . Even video-conferences almost perfected at this moment have to be crippled in peak times in most of the world , so at least we dont need more / .
posts on it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i know that for investors they need to show some virtual activity, but in the world where 800kB youtube video loads few seconds it is not gonna work for a long time...
Even video-conferences almost perfected at this moment have to be crippled in peak times in most of the world, so at least we dont need more /.
posts on it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196</id>
	<title>I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259871660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until round trips between the server and client are guaranteed to be under 50ms, the lag will feel unbearable. If someone is playing a racing game and has to deal with a second between the time they begin turning and the time they actually see it turn this service will be dead before it begins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until round trips between the server and client are guaranteed to be under 50ms , the lag will feel unbearable .
If someone is playing a racing game and has to deal with a second between the time they begin turning and the time they actually see it turn this service will be dead before it begins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until round trips between the server and client are guaranteed to be under 50ms, the lag will feel unbearable.
If someone is playing a racing game and has to deal with a second between the time they begin turning and the time they actually see it turn this service will be dead before it begins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591804</id>
	<title>Re:"steams HD video over the Internet:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that's just plain unhealthy man.<br>You don't want all the health-freaks giving them another reason to bash TV for being unhealthy, do you?</p><p>Steamed HD is like the Holy Grail of HD, finally i can get healthy while watching TV!  Thank you Santa!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that 's just plain unhealthy man.You do n't want all the health-freaks giving them another reason to bash TV for being unhealthy , do you ? Steamed HD is like the Holy Grail of HD , finally i can get healthy while watching TV !
Thank you Santa !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that's just plain unhealthy man.You don't want all the health-freaks giving them another reason to bash TV for being unhealthy, do you?Steamed HD is like the Holy Grail of HD, finally i can get healthy while watching TV!
Thank you Santa!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592520</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259850840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but nobody here has any reflexes fast enough to make anything less than 50ms perceptible. Or even 80.</p><p>I still don't get why neckbeards continually think they have reaction times faster than 1/10th of a second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but nobody here has any reflexes fast enough to make anything less than 50ms perceptible .
Or even 80.I still do n't get why neckbeards continually think they have reaction times faster than 1/10th of a second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but nobody here has any reflexes fast enough to make anything less than 50ms perceptible.
Or even 80.I still don't get why neckbeards continually think they have reaction times faster than 1/10th of a second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596676</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I see it</title>
	<author>Yamata no Orochi</author>
	<datestamp>1259866140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a matter of reflexes, it's a matter of timing. Reacting to things isn't the ONLY thing you do in videogames.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a matter of reflexes , it 's a matter of timing .
Reacting to things is n't the ONLY thing you do in videogames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a matter of reflexes, it's a matter of timing.
Reacting to things isn't the ONLY thing you do in videogames.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591248</id>
	<title>"steams HD video over the Internet:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259872740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wake me up when it can be deep-fried over the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wake me up when it can be deep-fried over the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wake me up when it can be deep-fried over the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30593460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30597542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30598998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30593270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30594314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30598620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30597112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30601640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30594510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30604188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30597722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30598818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30601500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30597208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_30_0237209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30595246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0237209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30593270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0237209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30594510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30597112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0237209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30597542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30598818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30597722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30595246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0237209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591316
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30598998
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30598620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592750
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0237209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0237209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0237209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30601640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30597208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30593460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0237209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30594314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0237209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30604188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0237209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30592140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30596574
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30601500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_30_0237209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_30_0237209.30591616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
