<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_01_1611239</id>
	<title>The Key To Astronomy Has Often Been Serendipity</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262365500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Ars Technica has a great look at just how often <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/how-astronomy-is-surprisingly-a-science-of-serendipity.ars">serendipity plays a part in major astronomy advances</a>.  From Galileo to the accidental discovery of cosmic microwaves, it seems that it is still better to be lucky than good.  <i>"But what's stunning is a catalog of just how common this sort of event has been. Herschell was looking for faint stars when he happened across the planet Uranus, while Piazi was simply creating a star catalog when he observed the object that turned out to be the first asteroid to ever be described, Ceres I."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ars Technica has a great look at just how often serendipity plays a part in major astronomy advances .
From Galileo to the accidental discovery of cosmic microwaves , it seems that it is still better to be lucky than good .
" But what 's stunning is a catalog of just how common this sort of event has been .
Herschell was looking for faint stars when he happened across the planet Uranus , while Piazi was simply creating a star catalog when he observed the object that turned out to be the first asteroid to ever be described , Ceres I .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ars Technica has a great look at just how often serendipity plays a part in major astronomy advances.
From Galileo to the accidental discovery of cosmic microwaves, it seems that it is still better to be lucky than good.
"But what's stunning is a catalog of just how common this sort of event has been.
Herschell was looking for faint stars when he happened across the planet Uranus, while Piazi was simply creating a star catalog when he observed the object that turned out to be the first asteroid to ever be described, Ceres I.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614932</id>
	<title>the surprise is what defines a "breakthrough"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262370840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe important findings get publicity and "breakthrough!" status only if they're somewhat surprising?  If folks chip away at a problem for 20 years, even if the result is the same as waiting 19 years and then having a eureka discovery, is it still called a breakthrough?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe important findings get publicity and " breakthrough !
" status only if they 're somewhat surprising ?
If folks chip away at a problem for 20 years , even if the result is the same as waiting 19 years and then having a eureka discovery , is it still called a breakthrough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe important findings get publicity and "breakthrough!
" status only if they're somewhat surprising?
If folks chip away at a problem for 20 years, even if the result is the same as waiting 19 years and then having a eureka discovery, is it still called a breakthrough?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615218</id>
	<title>He happened across the planet Uranus?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262374320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Herschell was looking for faint stars when <b>he happened</b> across the planet Uranus</p></div><p>Wow, I didn't know Herschell was from another planet!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Herschell was looking for faint stars when he happened across the planet UranusWow , I did n't know Herschell was from another planet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Herschell was looking for faint stars when he happened across the planet UranusWow, I didn't know Herschell was from another planet!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615022</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Futile Rhetoric</author>
	<datestamp>1262371920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are so many things going on out there that you are likely to stumble upon something that in hindsight appears serendipitous. You may have won a lottery, but since you have tickets to million different ones, it's not that amazing really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are so many things going on out there that you are likely to stumble upon something that in hindsight appears serendipitous .
You may have won a lottery , but since you have tickets to million different ones , it 's not that amazing really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are so many things going on out there that you are likely to stumble upon something that in hindsight appears serendipitous.
You may have won a lottery, but since you have tickets to million different ones, it's not that amazing really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615352</id>
	<title>Great Excuse</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1262375760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the first instrument wasn't actually intended to be [an astronomic] telescope at all; instead, it was a spyglass that was expected to find use as an instrument of war.</p></div></blockquote><p>War, yeah right. More likely Galileo wanted to peep at the neighbor's bosomy daughter. Porn drove new tech back then also.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the first instrument was n't actually intended to be [ an astronomic ] telescope at all ; instead , it was a spyglass that was expected to find use as an instrument of war.War , yeah right .
More likely Galileo wanted to peep at the neighbor 's bosomy daughter .
Porn drove new tech back then also .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>the first instrument wasn't actually intended to be [an astronomic] telescope at all; instead, it was a spyglass that was expected to find use as an instrument of war.War, yeah right.
More likely Galileo wanted to peep at the neighbor's bosomy daughter.
Porn drove new tech back then also.
     
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614912</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262370540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So basically science is a macro manifestation of the quantum uncertainty principle? Either you're lucky and make a discovery or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically science is a macro manifestation of the quantum uncertainty principle ?
Either you 're lucky and make a discovery or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically science is a macro manifestation of the quantum uncertainty principle?
Either you're lucky and make a discovery or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615400</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising?</title>
	<author>DurendalMac</author>
	<datestamp>1262376180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget dark matter. If I remember correctly, the dark matter kick got started when some astronomers decided to screw around with a huge telescope and just take random pictures of the sky. They saw some unexpected gravitational lensing and went from there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget dark matter .
If I remember correctly , the dark matter kick got started when some astronomers decided to screw around with a huge telescope and just take random pictures of the sky .
They saw some unexpected gravitational lensing and went from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget dark matter.
If I remember correctly, the dark matter kick got started when some astronomers decided to screw around with a huge telescope and just take random pictures of the sky.
They saw some unexpected gravitational lensing and went from there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30619308</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising?</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1262365080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not surprising at all. Astronomy is still a field where there is a lot of "discovery" going on. In many other sciences, we basically know what everything does, and we are trying to find out how those things happen, whereas in astronomy, we're still trying to discover what's out there. When you don't know what you're looking for, the only way that you can find it is luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not surprising at all .
Astronomy is still a field where there is a lot of " discovery " going on .
In many other sciences , we basically know what everything does , and we are trying to find out how those things happen , whereas in astronomy , we 're still trying to discover what 's out there .
When you do n't know what you 're looking for , the only way that you can find it is luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not surprising at all.
Astronomy is still a field where there is a lot of "discovery" going on.
In many other sciences, we basically know what everything does, and we are trying to find out how those things happen, whereas in astronomy, we're still trying to discover what's out there.
When you don't know what you're looking for, the only way that you can find it is luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614954</id>
	<title>Serendipity's Guide to the Galaxy</title>
	<author>Espen</author>
	<datestamp>1262371080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prof. Andy Fabian's (of the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge and president of the Royal Astronomical Society) entertaining lecture on this very topic, entitled <i>Serendipity's Guide to the Galaxy</i> is <a href="http://sms.csx.cam.ac.uk/media/1510" title="cam.ac.uk">available on-line in a range of formats.</a> [cam.ac.uk]. Enjoy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prof. Andy Fabian 's ( of the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge and president of the Royal Astronomical Society ) entertaining lecture on this very topic , entitled Serendipity 's Guide to the Galaxy is available on-line in a range of formats .
[ cam.ac.uk ] . Enjoy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prof. Andy Fabian's (of the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge and president of the Royal Astronomical Society) entertaining lecture on this very topic, entitled Serendipity's Guide to the Galaxy is available on-line in a range of formats.
[cam.ac.uk]. Enjoy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30616206</id>
	<title>KEY!? OFTEN!? SENSATIONALISM IN /. ??</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1262340660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uranus and a Asteroid does not sound to me like KEY or OFTEN...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uranus and a Asteroid does not sound to me like KEY or OFTEN.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uranus and a Asteroid does not sound to me like KEY or OFTEN...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30620302</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262464320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not "luck" that contributes to such breakthroughs - it's the capacity to recognise the significance of the unexpected. Millions of us bump into the potentially amazing every day and fail to notice. The ability to see a bit further is what makes a real scientist stand out from the mass. It's a rare talent, and mostly unpopular in the research community, particularly when exhibited by juniors in the hierarchy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not " luck " that contributes to such breakthroughs - it 's the capacity to recognise the significance of the unexpected .
Millions of us bump into the potentially amazing every day and fail to notice .
The ability to see a bit further is what makes a real scientist stand out from the mass .
It 's a rare talent , and mostly unpopular in the research community , particularly when exhibited by juniors in the hierarchy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not "luck" that contributes to such breakthroughs - it's the capacity to recognise the significance of the unexpected.
Millions of us bump into the potentially amazing every day and fail to notice.
The ability to see a bit further is what makes a real scientist stand out from the mass.
It's a rare talent, and mostly unpopular in the research community, particularly when exhibited by juniors in the hierarchy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615272</id>
	<title>But, to be lucky...</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1262374860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you must be good first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you must be good first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you must be good first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614886</id>
	<title>fVrist ps0t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262370240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">similarly grisly user. 'Now that yes, I work for may do, may not Are allowed to play Result of a quarrel Need your help! rival distribution, won't be shouting However I don't else up their asses Kreskin just yet, but I'm Share. *BSD is Raadt's stuuborn [mit.edu] found themselves to be a on my Pentium Pro become an unwanted indecision and show that FreeBSD and sling or t4ble Raadt's stubborn The fruitless do, and with any are just way over is wiped off and JOIN THE GNAA!! to say there have are having trouble simple solution Come on baby...and who are intersted already dead. It is you can. When the</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>similarly grisly user .
'Now that yes , I work for may do , may not Are allowed to play Result of a quarrel Need your help !
rival distribution , wo n't be shouting However I do n't else up their asses Kreskin just yet , but I 'm Share .
* BSD is Raadt 's stuuborn [ mit.edu ] found themselves to be a on my Pentium Pro become an unwanted indecision and show that FreeBSD and sling or t4ble Raadt 's stubborn The fruitless do , and with any are just way over is wiped off and JOIN THE GNAA ! !
to say there have are having trouble simple solution Come on baby...and who are intersted already dead .
It is you can .
When the [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>similarly grisly user.
'Now that yes, I work for may do, may not Are allowed to play Result of a quarrel Need your help!
rival distribution, won't be shouting However I don't else up their asses Kreskin just yet, but I'm Share.
*BSD is Raadt's stuuborn [mit.edu] found themselves to be a on my Pentium Pro become an unwanted indecision and show that FreeBSD and sling or t4ble Raadt's stubborn The fruitless do, and with any are just way over is wiped off and JOIN THE GNAA!!
to say there have are having trouble simple solution Come on baby...and who are intersted already dead.
It is you can.
When the [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615710</id>
	<title>A Million Monkeys</title>
	<author>servognome</author>
	<datestamp>1262379060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... on a million telescopes will eventually catalog all the observable wonders of the universe</htmltext>
<tokenext>... on a million telescopes will eventually catalog all the observable wonders of the universe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... on a million telescopes will eventually catalog all the observable wonders of the universe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614808</id>
	<title>Liquid metallic hydrogen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262369580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I read about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic\_hydrogen" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this stuff</a> [wikipedia.org] in an astronomy magazine recently. Had never heard of it. I couldn't get google to feed me the answer to the question the magazine left me with, though. How much of the universe's hydrogen is liquid metallic? Does it occur in stars? If so, which types? Or is it just in gas giants?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I read about this stuff [ wikipedia.org ] in an astronomy magazine recently .
Had never heard of it .
I could n't get google to feed me the answer to the question the magazine left me with , though .
How much of the universe 's hydrogen is liquid metallic ?
Does it occur in stars ?
If so , which types ?
Or is it just in gas giants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I read about this stuff [wikipedia.org] in an astronomy magazine recently.
Had never heard of it.
I couldn't get google to feed me the answer to the question the magazine left me with, though.
How much of the universe's hydrogen is liquid metallic?
Does it occur in stars?
If so, which types?
Or is it just in gas giants?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615006</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262371800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition to luck you must also have a flexible mind. This to be able to interpret the unexpected data. Otherwise you can only dismiss it as magic.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to luck you must also have a flexible mind .
This to be able to interpret the unexpected data .
Otherwise you can only dismiss it as magic.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic .
        Arthur C. Clarke , " Profiles of The Future " , 1961 ( Clarke 's third law )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to luck you must also have a flexible mind.
This to be able to interpret the unexpected data.
Otherwise you can only dismiss it as magic.Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
        Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615150</id>
	<title>A dozen lucky breaks in 400 years?</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1262373600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not my definition of "often"
<p>
This sort of pop-sci is really insulting to the huge number of dedicated scientists and technicians who spend their whole lives carefully taking measurements, building and proving (or disproving) theories, based on painstaking work. Even worse is that it makes it harder for people to get grants if the bodies holding the purse strings (or the public who's money it eventually is) thinks it's basically a lottery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not my definition of " often " This sort of pop-sci is really insulting to the huge number of dedicated scientists and technicians who spend their whole lives carefully taking measurements , building and proving ( or disproving ) theories , based on painstaking work .
Even worse is that it makes it harder for people to get grants if the bodies holding the purse strings ( or the public who 's money it eventually is ) thinks it 's basically a lottery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not my definition of "often"

This sort of pop-sci is really insulting to the huge number of dedicated scientists and technicians who spend their whole lives carefully taking measurements, building and proving (or disproving) theories, based on painstaking work.
Even worse is that it makes it harder for people to get grants if the bodies holding the purse strings (or the public who's money it eventually is) thinks it's basically a lottery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30617724</id>
	<title>Or Serendipity AND Omnipotence combined....</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1262353440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Omnipitidipity</b>, to coin a fnord.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Omnipitidipity , to coin a fnord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Omnipitidipity, to coin a fnord.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615396</id>
	<title>isn't discovery surprising...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262376120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... by definition? (scientific or not)</p><p>Now give it some more emphasis by saying "accidental" instead of "surprising"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... by definition ?
( scientific or not ) Now give it some more emphasis by saying " accidental " instead of " surprising "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... by definition?
(scientific or not)Now give it some more emphasis by saying "accidental" instead of "surprising"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614884</id>
	<title>The Sky is Big</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1262370240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Odds are if an astronomer is going to be looking around for evidence to support one hypothesis, they'll come across lots of other stuff while they're at it.
</p><p>Its not the same as staring at the sludge in the bottom of a test tube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Odds are if an astronomer is going to be looking around for evidence to support one hypothesis , they 'll come across lots of other stuff while they 're at it .
Its not the same as staring at the sludge in the bottom of a test tube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Odds are if an astronomer is going to be looking around for evidence to support one hypothesis, they'll come across lots of other stuff while they're at it.
Its not the same as staring at the sludge in the bottom of a test tube.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615028</id>
	<title>serendipity- such a  nice word ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262371980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>while there are exceptions, luck is mostly<br>a biproduct of being "good".   Everyone technical<br>knows this: the posted nes item was written<br>as much as an "attention-getter"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while there are exceptions , luck is mostlya biproduct of being " good " .
Everyone technicalknows this : the posted nes item was writtenas much as an " attention-getter "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while there are exceptions, luck is mostlya biproduct of being "good".
Everyone technicalknows this: the posted nes item was writtenas much as an "attention-getter"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30619196</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising?</title>
	<author>Foobar of Borg</author>
	<datestamp>1262363940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's funny how "lucky" things often happen to those striving to do new and interesting things in various pursuits. In order for luck to cause anything to happen you have to be set up to take advantage of the lucky situation. The more you do the "luckier" you'll get. (As long as you keep your eyes open while you do it.)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>"Chance favors the prepared mind" - Loius Pasteur</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny how " lucky " things often happen to those striving to do new and interesting things in various pursuits .
In order for luck to cause anything to happen you have to be set up to take advantage of the lucky situation .
The more you do the " luckier " you 'll get .
( As long as you keep your eyes open while you do it .
) " Chance favors the prepared mind " - Loius Pasteur</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny how "lucky" things often happen to those striving to do new and interesting things in various pursuits.
In order for luck to cause anything to happen you have to be set up to take advantage of the lucky situation.
The more you do the "luckier" you'll get.
(As long as you keep your eyes open while you do it.
)
"Chance favors the prepared mind" - Loius Pasteur
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30616824</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262346660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In addition to luck you must also have a flexible mind. This to be able to interpret the unexpected data.</p></div><p>This.  There's a growing trend in astronomy to separate the astronomers who analyse the data from the engineers who build the telescope.  This is more efficient, because it means that an astronomer can use information from any telescope with equal ease - but my supervisor is fond of pointing out that many historical discoveries were made only because an astronomer was familiar enough with their telescope to tell the difference between some noise caused by some quirk of the instrument, and a startling new discovery.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to luck you must also have a flexible mind .
This to be able to interpret the unexpected data.This .
There 's a growing trend in astronomy to separate the astronomers who analyse the data from the engineers who build the telescope .
This is more efficient , because it means that an astronomer can use information from any telescope with equal ease - but my supervisor is fond of pointing out that many historical discoveries were made only because an astronomer was familiar enough with their telescope to tell the difference between some noise caused by some quirk of the instrument , and a startling new discovery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to luck you must also have a flexible mind.
This to be able to interpret the unexpected data.This.
There's a growing trend in astronomy to separate the astronomers who analyse the data from the engineers who build the telescope.
This is more efficient, because it means that an astronomer can use information from any telescope with equal ease - but my supervisor is fond of pointing out that many historical discoveries were made only because an astronomer was familiar enough with their telescope to tell the difference between some noise caused by some quirk of the instrument, and a startling new discovery.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30616324</id>
	<title>Serendipity != Luck</title>
	<author>Mutatis Mutandis</author>
	<datestamp>1262342040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is more to scientific serendipity than just luck. A degree of luck is certainly involved, as by definition the process involves observing something one did not plan to see. However, that is why scientists do research: If we only ever saw what we expected to see, then why bother?</p><p>But there is an important additional ingredient to it, and that is being able to actually absorb the unexpected <em>and</em> to be able to think of a reasonable explanation for it. The ability to give unexpected data a rational interpretation is crucial, because this is what protects good scientists from the cognitive dissonance that makes other close their eyes for the unexpected. Without interpretation, a surprising observation is just that; it may be a coincidence or an experimental error, and is often thrown out. </p><p>The most famous example is Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift. Mainstream science has been criticised a lot for its scepticism about Wegener's ideas, but Wegener failed to propose a credible mechanism for the motion of the continents -- the concept of plate tectonics arrived fifty years later. Without an explanation, the observation didn't convince, and Wegener was long dead when it was recognized that his intuitive idea had been right.</p><p>The reverse is also true, there is a real danger in theory without experimental observation. This is illustrated by the case of the mysterious "N-Rays" of a patriotic French scientist, who "discovered" them as a counterweight to the German Roentgen's discovery of X-Rays. The N-rays did not exist, but an otherwise very capable scientist also proved highly capable of seeing just what he wanted to see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is more to scientific serendipity than just luck .
A degree of luck is certainly involved , as by definition the process involves observing something one did not plan to see .
However , that is why scientists do research : If we only ever saw what we expected to see , then why bother ? But there is an important additional ingredient to it , and that is being able to actually absorb the unexpected and to be able to think of a reasonable explanation for it .
The ability to give unexpected data a rational interpretation is crucial , because this is what protects good scientists from the cognitive dissonance that makes other close their eyes for the unexpected .
Without interpretation , a surprising observation is just that ; it may be a coincidence or an experimental error , and is often thrown out .
The most famous example is Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift .
Mainstream science has been criticised a lot for its scepticism about Wegener 's ideas , but Wegener failed to propose a credible mechanism for the motion of the continents -- the concept of plate tectonics arrived fifty years later .
Without an explanation , the observation did n't convince , and Wegener was long dead when it was recognized that his intuitive idea had been right.The reverse is also true , there is a real danger in theory without experimental observation .
This is illustrated by the case of the mysterious " N-Rays " of a patriotic French scientist , who " discovered " them as a counterweight to the German Roentgen 's discovery of X-Rays .
The N-rays did not exist , but an otherwise very capable scientist also proved highly capable of seeing just what he wanted to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is more to scientific serendipity than just luck.
A degree of luck is certainly involved, as by definition the process involves observing something one did not plan to see.
However, that is why scientists do research: If we only ever saw what we expected to see, then why bother?But there is an important additional ingredient to it, and that is being able to actually absorb the unexpected and to be able to think of a reasonable explanation for it.
The ability to give unexpected data a rational interpretation is crucial, because this is what protects good scientists from the cognitive dissonance that makes other close their eyes for the unexpected.
Without interpretation, a surprising observation is just that; it may be a coincidence or an experimental error, and is often thrown out.
The most famous example is Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift.
Mainstream science has been criticised a lot for its scepticism about Wegener's ideas, but Wegener failed to propose a credible mechanism for the motion of the continents -- the concept of plate tectonics arrived fifty years later.
Without an explanation, the observation didn't convince, and Wegener was long dead when it was recognized that his intuitive idea had been right.The reverse is also true, there is a real danger in theory without experimental observation.
This is illustrated by the case of the mysterious "N-Rays" of a patriotic French scientist, who "discovered" them as a counterweight to the German Roentgen's discovery of X-Rays.
The N-rays did not exist, but an otherwise very capable scientist also proved highly capable of seeing just what he wanted to see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615616</id>
	<title>Re:In the fields of observation</title>
	<author>strangedays</author>
	<datestamp>1262378220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I beg to differ.<br>How can chance, any truly random event, favor anyone ?<br>I have always wondered how odd little quote was ascribed to Loius Pasteur, I doubt that he meant it as it was translated.</p><p>Successful discovery, may indeed favor a knowledgeable and persistent observer.</p><p>Those ready, willing and able to say "That's Odd" because their preparedness allows them to know why some event seems anomalous...<br>Whereas other other, perhaps less knowledgable or persistent (or both), may fail to see an anomaly in the data and ignore the result.</p><p>It's human nature to ascribe the success of others to chance, especially when it reflects poorly on our own lack of knowledge and efforts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I beg to differ.How can chance , any truly random event , favor anyone ? I have always wondered how odd little quote was ascribed to Loius Pasteur , I doubt that he meant it as it was translated.Successful discovery , may indeed favor a knowledgeable and persistent observer.Those ready , willing and able to say " That 's Odd " because their preparedness allows them to know why some event seems anomalous...Whereas other other , perhaps less knowledgable or persistent ( or both ) , may fail to see an anomaly in the data and ignore the result.It 's human nature to ascribe the success of others to chance , especially when it reflects poorly on our own lack of knowledge and efforts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I beg to differ.How can chance, any truly random event, favor anyone ?I have always wondered how odd little quote was ascribed to Loius Pasteur, I doubt that he meant it as it was translated.Successful discovery, may indeed favor a knowledgeable and persistent observer.Those ready, willing and able to say "That's Odd" because their preparedness allows them to know why some event seems anomalous...Whereas other other, perhaps less knowledgable or persistent (or both), may fail to see an anomaly in the data and ignore the result.It's human nature to ascribe the success of others to chance, especially when it reflects poorly on our own lack of knowledge and efforts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614810</id>
	<title>Someone has to say it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262369580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Herschell was looking for faint stars when he happened across...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Uranus"</p><p>That was lucky! On the contrary...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Herschell was looking for faint stars when he happened across... ...Uranus " That was lucky !
On the contrary.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Herschell was looking for faint stars when he happened across... ...Uranus"That was lucky!
On the contrary...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832</id>
	<title>This is surprising?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1262369760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Luck has always and probably always will play a strong role in science. The fact that the first blood transfusion happened to work was mostly luck, had it not worked out well it would've probably been quite some time before somebody tried again. Watson and Crick getting to the double helix first required a bit of luck as they probably wouldn't've gotten there first if they weren't lucky enough to be able to get x-ray crystallography from a different research institution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Luck has always and probably always will play a strong role in science .
The fact that the first blood transfusion happened to work was mostly luck , had it not worked out well it would 've probably been quite some time before somebody tried again .
Watson and Crick getting to the double helix first required a bit of luck as they probably would n't've gotten there first if they were n't lucky enough to be able to get x-ray crystallography from a different research institution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luck has always and probably always will play a strong role in science.
The fact that the first blood transfusion happened to work was mostly luck, had it not worked out well it would've probably been quite some time before somebody tried again.
Watson and Crick getting to the double helix first required a bit of luck as they probably wouldn't've gotten there first if they weren't lucky enough to be able to get x-ray crystallography from a different research institution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615332</id>
	<title>Re:In the fields of observation</title>
	<author>jschen</author>
	<datestamp>1262375520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. It's not that those guys got lucky. It's that they followed up on what exactly was interesting about what they observed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
It 's not that those guys got lucky .
It 's that they followed up on what exactly was interesting about what they observed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
It's not that those guys got lucky.
It's that they followed up on what exactly was interesting about what they observed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614920</id>
	<title>In the fields of observation</title>
	<author>mgrivich</author>
	<datestamp>1262370720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chance favors the prepared mind .
-- Louis Pasteur</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chance favors the prepared mind.
-- Louis Pasteur</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614880</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262370240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even more: astronomy is mainly an observational science. If something does not happen (or more preciselly, the information of the event arrives) right when you are looking out, you will never discover it. You cannot set up an experiment to test your ideas you always need to be lucky enough to see things happen.</p><p>Ok. So that theory about the big bang is nice. Let's make another big bang so we can test it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more : astronomy is mainly an observational science .
If something does not happen ( or more preciselly , the information of the event arrives ) right when you are looking out , you will never discover it .
You can not set up an experiment to test your ideas you always need to be lucky enough to see things happen.Ok .
So that theory about the big bang is nice .
Let 's make another big bang so we can test it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more: astronomy is mainly an observational science.
If something does not happen (or more preciselly, the information of the event arrives) right when you are looking out, you will never discover it.
You cannot set up an experiment to test your ideas you always need to be lucky enough to see things happen.Ok.
So that theory about the big bang is nice.
Let's make another big bang so we can test it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614924</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising?</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1262370780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny how "lucky" things often happen to those striving to do new and interesting things in various pursuits.  In order for luck to cause anything to happen you have to be set up to take advantage of the lucky situation.  The more you do the "luckier" you'll get.  (As long as you keep your eyes open while you do it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny how " lucky " things often happen to those striving to do new and interesting things in various pursuits .
In order for luck to cause anything to happen you have to be set up to take advantage of the lucky situation .
The more you do the " luckier " you 'll get .
( As long as you keep your eyes open while you do it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny how "lucky" things often happen to those striving to do new and interesting things in various pursuits.
In order for luck to cause anything to happen you have to be set up to take advantage of the lucky situation.
The more you do the "luckier" you'll get.
(As long as you keep your eyes open while you do it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615308</id>
	<title>"better to be lucky than good"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262375220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got to be good to see that it's not a star but a planet.</p><p>No-one is so good that he can predict exactly where the next as-of-yet-unknown thing will be found.</p><p>Also, the discovery of yet another planet (Uranus) is of whole different class than the discovery of something that no-one had any idea was there (cosmic background radiation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got to be good to see that it 's not a star but a planet.No-one is so good that he can predict exactly where the next as-of-yet-unknown thing will be found.Also , the discovery of yet another planet ( Uranus ) is of whole different class than the discovery of something that no-one had any idea was there ( cosmic background radiation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got to be good to see that it's not a star but a planet.No-one is so good that he can predict exactly where the next as-of-yet-unknown thing will be found.Also, the discovery of yet another planet (Uranus) is of whole different class than the discovery of something that no-one had any idea was there (cosmic background radiation).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615136</id>
	<title>Herschel writing in 1809:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262373360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It has generally been supposed that it was a lucky accident which brought this star [Uranus] into my view; this is an evident mistake. In the regular manner I examined every star of the heavens, not only of that magnitude but many far inferior, it was that night its turn to be discovered.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Had business prevented me that evening, I must have found it the next."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It has generally been supposed that it was a lucky accident which brought this star [ Uranus ] into my view ; this is an evident mistake .
In the regular manner I examined every star of the heavens , not only of that magnitude but many far inferior , it was that night its turn to be discovered .
... Had business prevented me that evening , I must have found it the next .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It has generally been supposed that it was a lucky accident which brought this star [Uranus] into my view; this is an evident mistake.
In the regular manner I examined every star of the heavens, not only of that magnitude but many far inferior, it was that night its turn to be discovered.
... Had business prevented me that evening, I must have found it the next.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30618158</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising?</title>
	<author>shipbrick</author>
	<datestamp>1262355720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it." - Thomas Jefferson</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm a great believer in luck , and I find the harder I work , the more I have of it .
" - Thomas Jefferson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it.
" - Thomas Jefferson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615980</id>
	<title>Re:This is surprising?</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262338440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The fact that the first blood transfusion happened to work was mostly luck, had it not worked out well it would've probably been quite some time before somebody tried again.</p></div><p>You're thinking of the <i>successful</i> blood transfusions in the 19th century. Nobody remembers the <i>first</i> blood transfusions in 1667, which did not work out well at all. Jean-Baptiste Denys gave four people blood transfusions from sheep. (It was thought that lamb's blood would quiet the spirit of a tempestuous person, while the shy would be made more outgoing by blood from more sociable creatures.) Surprisingly most of his patients recovered and felt great. Except for one guy who felt so good he went to a tavern to celebrate. He dropped dead and France banned the procedure in 1670 followed by Britain and the Vatican, and it was quite some time before somebody tried again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that the first blood transfusion happened to work was mostly luck , had it not worked out well it would 've probably been quite some time before somebody tried again.You 're thinking of the successful blood transfusions in the 19th century .
Nobody remembers the first blood transfusions in 1667 , which did not work out well at all .
Jean-Baptiste Denys gave four people blood transfusions from sheep .
( It was thought that lamb 's blood would quiet the spirit of a tempestuous person , while the shy would be made more outgoing by blood from more sociable creatures .
) Surprisingly most of his patients recovered and felt great .
Except for one guy who felt so good he went to a tavern to celebrate .
He dropped dead and France banned the procedure in 1670 followed by Britain and the Vatican , and it was quite some time before somebody tried again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that the first blood transfusion happened to work was mostly luck, had it not worked out well it would've probably been quite some time before somebody tried again.You're thinking of the successful blood transfusions in the 19th century.
Nobody remembers the first blood transfusions in 1667, which did not work out well at all.
Jean-Baptiste Denys gave four people blood transfusions from sheep.
(It was thought that lamb's blood would quiet the spirit of a tempestuous person, while the shy would be made more outgoing by blood from more sociable creatures.
) Surprisingly most of his patients recovered and felt great.
Except for one guy who felt so good he went to a tavern to celebrate.
He dropped dead and France banned the procedure in 1670 followed by Britain and the Vatican, and it was quite some time before somebody tried again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30616132</id>
	<title>Similarly...</title>
	<author>MSittig</author>
	<datestamp>1262339700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The harder I work, the luckier I get. --Samuel Goldwyn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The harder I work , the luckier I get .
--Samuel Goldwyn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The harder I work, the luckier I get.
--Samuel Goldwyn</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614788</id>
	<title>Famous Herschell Quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262369280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Shit Happens"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Shit Happens "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Shit Happens"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30616824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30616132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30618158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30619308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30620302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30619196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_01_1611239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30616324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_1611239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_1611239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_1611239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_1611239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_1611239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_1611239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30616324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30618158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30619196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30616824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30620302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30619308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_1611239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30614920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30616132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_01_1611239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_01_1611239.30615710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
