<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_04_2223223</id>
	<title>Kepler Finds Five More Exoplanets</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1262610360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Arvisp was one of several readers to send news of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010401366.html?hpid=moreheadlines">five new exoplanets discovered by the Kepler space telescope</a>. In addition to the new "hot Jupiters" &mdash; the easiest targets to find &mdash; Kepler's early data has turned up some oddities, including something that is too hot to be a planet and too small to be a star. And one of the exoplanets is so fluffy that "it has the density of Styrofoam." The real news is that Kepler works as designed, and the scientists running it are fully confident that it will find Earth-like planets in some star's habitable zone, if they are out there to be found. Here is <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2010/10-01AR.html">NASA's press release</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Arvisp was one of several readers to send news of five new exoplanets discovered by the Kepler space telescope .
In addition to the new " hot Jupiters "    the easiest targets to find    Kepler 's early data has turned up some oddities , including something that is too hot to be a planet and too small to be a star .
And one of the exoplanets is so fluffy that " it has the density of Styrofoam .
" The real news is that Kepler works as designed , and the scientists running it are fully confident that it will find Earth-like planets in some star 's habitable zone , if they are out there to be found .
Here is NASA 's press release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arvisp was one of several readers to send news of five new exoplanets discovered by the Kepler space telescope.
In addition to the new "hot Jupiters" — the easiest targets to find — Kepler's early data has turned up some oddities, including something that is too hot to be a planet and too small to be a star.
And one of the exoplanets is so fluffy that "it has the density of Styrofoam.
" The real news is that Kepler works as designed, and the scientists running it are fully confident that it will find Earth-like planets in some star's habitable zone, if they are out there to be found.
Here is NASA's press release.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30670834</id>
	<title>Re:Conservative Approach</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262798340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May I take this opportunity to recommend Richard Pogge's Collection of lectures on astrobiology. Search 'pogge' at iTunes and get 141. There are a number of ways to detect planets around a star (gravity microlensing, wobbles in position, etc.), and the intensity dip is but one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May I take this opportunity to recommend Richard Pogge 's Collection of lectures on astrobiology .
Search 'pogge ' at iTunes and get 141 .
There are a number of ways to detect planets around a star ( gravity microlensing , wobbles in position , etc .
) , and the intensity dip is but one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May I take this opportunity to recommend Richard Pogge's Collection of lectures on astrobiology.
Search 'pogge' at iTunes and get 141.
There are a number of ways to detect planets around a star (gravity microlensing, wobbles in position, etc.
), and the intensity dip is but one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649812</id>
	<title>Pretty good for a dead european white male</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262616360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kepler?  I thought he died back in the 1600s.  He's still around, and still looking through telescopes? </p><p>Oh, I get it, this must be some new science thing.  It was just poorly explained in the summary, which is usual for Slashdot.  If they discover more planets, it's really going to screw up astrology (which Kepler studied intensively).  Did NASA take these considerations into account?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kepler ?
I thought he died back in the 1600s .
He 's still around , and still looking through telescopes ?
Oh , I get it , this must be some new science thing .
It was just poorly explained in the summary , which is usual for Slashdot .
If they discover more planets , it 's really going to screw up astrology ( which Kepler studied intensively ) .
Did NASA take these considerations into account ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kepler?
I thought he died back in the 1600s.
He's still around, and still looking through telescopes?
Oh, I get it, this must be some new science thing.
It was just poorly explained in the summary, which is usual for Slashdot.
If they discover more planets, it's really going to screw up astrology (which Kepler studied intensively).
Did NASA take these considerations into account?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650640</id>
	<title>Known Earth-Like planets</title>
	<author>ilyag</author>
	<datestamp>1262621820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to throw this out there: there are already some known reasonably Earth-like planets <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-like\_planet#Extrasolar\_terrestrial\_planets" title="wikipedia.org">out there</a> [wikipedia.org]. Here's the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese\_581\_d" title="wikipedia.org">best one</a> [wikipedia.org]. Of course, so far there aren't that many...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to throw this out there : there are already some known reasonably Earth-like planets out there [ wikipedia.org ] .
Here 's the best one [ wikipedia.org ] .
Of course , so far there are n't that many.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to throw this out there: there are already some known reasonably Earth-like planets out there [wikipedia.org].
Here's the best one [wikipedia.org].
Of course, so far there aren't that many...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30652610</id>
	<title>Density of styrofoam?</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1262685060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the future could we mine this planet for packing material?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the future could we mine this planet for packing material ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the future could we mine this planet for packing material?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30651970</id>
	<title>Re:Conservative Approach</title>
	<author>dryeo</author>
	<datestamp>1262634660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the fine NASA press release, they want to see 3 transit events so more like 3 years for a planet in the habitable zone around a Sun like star.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the fine NASA press release , they want to see 3 transit events so more like 3 years for a planet in the habitable zone around a Sun like star .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the fine NASA press release, they want to see 3 transit events so more like 3 years for a planet in the habitable zone around a Sun like star.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649688</id>
	<title>Yeah,uh...</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1262615460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one with the density of styrofoam actually is styrofoam. Thats the one I worked so hard on my sophomore year for Mr. Nixs earth science class.<br>It turned up missing and I got a D for the quarter. I actually don't need it anymore so you're welcome to use it as a planet or whatever.<br>I doubt it will sustain life, but it will hold a hatpin, which I suspended it from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one with the density of styrofoam actually is styrofoam .
Thats the one I worked so hard on my sophomore year for Mr. Nixs earth science class.It turned up missing and I got a D for the quarter .
I actually do n't need it anymore so you 're welcome to use it as a planet or whatever.I doubt it will sustain life , but it will hold a hatpin , which I suspended it from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one with the density of styrofoam actually is styrofoam.
Thats the one I worked so hard on my sophomore year for Mr. Nixs earth science class.It turned up missing and I got a D for the quarter.
I actually don't need it anymore so you're welcome to use it as a planet or whatever.I doubt it will sustain life, but it will hold a hatpin, which I suspended it from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650364</id>
	<title>Re:But Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262619780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, for one thing perhaps we could stop hearing the same tired lines from the population control Nazis (a.k.a. "Progressives).  Question for "progressives": Why is it that your answers to society's problems always amount to killing or sterilizing part of the population, then strangling the rest with onerous regulations?  Why do you hate individual liberty and self-determination so much?  Why can't you dream of a humanity that is capable of reaching and expanding into the stars?  You constantly praise yourselves for being so open-minded, but you are some of the most closed-minded fucks I've ever met.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , for one thing perhaps we could stop hearing the same tired lines from the population control Nazis ( a.k.a .
" Progressives ) . Question for " progressives " : Why is it that your answers to society 's problems always amount to killing or sterilizing part of the population , then strangling the rest with onerous regulations ?
Why do you hate individual liberty and self-determination so much ?
Why ca n't you dream of a humanity that is capable of reaching and expanding into the stars ?
You constantly praise yourselves for being so open-minded , but you are some of the most closed-minded fucks I 've ever met .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, for one thing perhaps we could stop hearing the same tired lines from the population control Nazis (a.k.a.
"Progressives).  Question for "progressives": Why is it that your answers to society's problems always amount to killing or sterilizing part of the population, then strangling the rest with onerous regulations?
Why do you hate individual liberty and self-determination so much?
Why can't you dream of a humanity that is capable of reaching and expanding into the stars?
You constantly praise yourselves for being so open-minded, but you are some of the most closed-minded fucks I've ever met.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30651450</id>
	<title>Re:What about what we don't know yet?</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1262628720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the thing... if you start out assuming that life might be radically different, you finish with "and that's why it's impossible to detect life with modern telescopes." On the other hand if you assume at least some life is like our own, you can find an earth sized planet in the habitable zone and then see water and organic molecules and conclude that there's probably life. In the mean time our telescopes will improve, and maybe eventually we'll be capable of taking a broader look with some hope of results.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the thing... if you start out assuming that life might be radically different , you finish with " and that 's why it 's impossible to detect life with modern telescopes .
" On the other hand if you assume at least some life is like our own , you can find an earth sized planet in the habitable zone and then see water and organic molecules and conclude that there 's probably life .
In the mean time our telescopes will improve , and maybe eventually we 'll be capable of taking a broader look with some hope of results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the thing... if you start out assuming that life might be radically different, you finish with "and that's why it's impossible to detect life with modern telescopes.
" On the other hand if you assume at least some life is like our own, you can find an earth sized planet in the habitable zone and then see water and organic molecules and conclude that there's probably life.
In the mean time our telescopes will improve, and maybe eventually we'll be capable of taking a broader look with some hope of results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30653368</id>
	<title>Re:But Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262694420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People like you are the reason humanity will probably destroy itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People like you are the reason humanity will probably destroy itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like you are the reason humanity will probably destroy itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649636</id>
	<title>They've found it!!!</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1262615100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> it has the density of Styrofoam</p></div></blockquote><p>

The <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MMqKgshQCk" title="youtube.com">Clangers home world!</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it has the density of Styrofoam The Clangers home world !
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> it has the density of Styrofoam

The Clangers home world!
[youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649810</id>
	<title>can think of two main reasons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262616360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously the reason it makes headlines is that the question of how many human-habitable planets there are, and what kinds of properties they have, is tied to the question of whether anything vaguely like earth-like life exists elsewhere in the universe.</p><p>However a good deal of astronomers are also just interested in everything about the cosmos: what's out there, how does it work, how does it relate to other things, what kinds of variations are there, etc. From that perspective, this particular kind of thing, "exoplanet", is a class of far-away object we don't have a lot of examples of and can't give particularly confident accounts of (how and how often they form, their distribution, etc.). Even if there was no tie-in to human habitability, there are a number of astronomers interested in collecting more data on and clarifying our understanding of basically <i>any</i> class of "thing we don't yet know everything about".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the reason it makes headlines is that the question of how many human-habitable planets there are , and what kinds of properties they have , is tied to the question of whether anything vaguely like earth-like life exists elsewhere in the universe.However a good deal of astronomers are also just interested in everything about the cosmos : what 's out there , how does it work , how does it relate to other things , what kinds of variations are there , etc .
From that perspective , this particular kind of thing , " exoplanet " , is a class of far-away object we do n't have a lot of examples of and ca n't give particularly confident accounts of ( how and how often they form , their distribution , etc. ) .
Even if there was no tie-in to human habitability , there are a number of astronomers interested in collecting more data on and clarifying our understanding of basically any class of " thing we do n't yet know everything about " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the reason it makes headlines is that the question of how many human-habitable planets there are, and what kinds of properties they have, is tied to the question of whether anything vaguely like earth-like life exists elsewhere in the universe.However a good deal of astronomers are also just interested in everything about the cosmos: what's out there, how does it work, how does it relate to other things, what kinds of variations are there, etc.
From that perspective, this particular kind of thing, "exoplanet", is a class of far-away object we don't have a lot of examples of and can't give particularly confident accounts of (how and how often they form, their distribution, etc.).
Even if there was no tie-in to human habitability, there are a number of astronomers interested in collecting more data on and clarifying our understanding of basically any class of "thing we don't yet know everything about".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650548</id>
	<title>I know what the hot one is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262621040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A galactic nuclear waste dump. Well it was, until an alien race known as the Iraliens reprocessed it into the largest nuclear bomb ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A galactic nuclear waste dump .
Well it was , until an alien race known as the Iraliens reprocessed it into the largest nuclear bomb ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A galactic nuclear waste dump.
Well it was, until an alien race known as the Iraliens reprocessed it into the largest nuclear bomb ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649662</id>
	<title>Re:But Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262615280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>just what are you suggesting here? if it wasn't for projects like kepler we'd have hoards of astrophysicists wandering the streets bothering people with their telescopes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>just what are you suggesting here ?
if it was n't for projects like kepler we 'd have hoards of astrophysicists wandering the streets bothering people with their telescopes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just what are you suggesting here?
if it wasn't for projects like kepler we'd have hoards of astrophysicists wandering the streets bothering people with their telescopes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649892</id>
	<title>density of Styrofoam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262616840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC the density of the planet is not the same throughout. If that is the case, the comparison is pretty misleading. It could very well be a rocy core with a very thick layer of some light gas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC the density of the planet is not the same throughout .
If that is the case , the comparison is pretty misleading .
It could very well be a rocy core with a very thick layer of some light gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC the density of the planet is not the same throughout.
If that is the case, the comparison is pretty misleading.
It could very well be a rocy core with a very thick layer of some light gas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649824</id>
	<title>If You're At All Interested In Not Knowing</title>
	<author>mindbrane</author>
	<datestamp>1262616420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yale uni has <a href="http://oyc.yale.edu/astronomy/frontiers-and-controversies-in-astrophysics" title="yale.edu">astr160</a> [yale.edu] available Online. Professor Bayiln gives hot inner planets and black holes a good going over and folds them in with dark matter and dark energy to suggest whatever is cooking out there possibly ain't like noth'n we've been served before. It's a low maths, freshman course but doesn't shy away from anything. Professor Baylin is interesting, well spoken and easy to listen to. The production values on all the Yale courses are head and shoulders above that offered by mit and Berkeley, and, the Yale stuff comes with full html transcripts and added resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yale uni has astr160 [ yale.edu ] available Online .
Professor Bayiln gives hot inner planets and black holes a good going over and folds them in with dark matter and dark energy to suggest whatever is cooking out there possibly ai n't like noth'n we 've been served before .
It 's a low maths , freshman course but does n't shy away from anything .
Professor Baylin is interesting , well spoken and easy to listen to .
The production values on all the Yale courses are head and shoulders above that offered by mit and Berkeley , and , the Yale stuff comes with full html transcripts and added resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yale uni has astr160 [yale.edu] available Online.
Professor Bayiln gives hot inner planets and black holes a good going over and folds them in with dark matter and dark energy to suggest whatever is cooking out there possibly ain't like noth'n we've been served before.
It's a low maths, freshman course but doesn't shy away from anything.
Professor Baylin is interesting, well spoken and easy to listen to.
The production values on all the Yale courses are head and shoulders above that offered by mit and Berkeley, and, the Yale stuff comes with full html transcripts and added resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650696</id>
	<title>Re:Conservative Approach</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262622300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they need to see two transits to see the complete dip of light and a second for confirmation and orbital period.  As the project has been running for six weeks, they have only results for planets that orbit their star in 3 weeks or less.  Detecting Earth size planets in the habitable zone could take years before they make two transits.  Detecting Earth itself would take 2 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but I think they need to see two transits to see the complete dip of light and a second for confirmation and orbital period .
As the project has been running for six weeks , they have only results for planets that orbit their star in 3 weeks or less .
Detecting Earth size planets in the habitable zone could take years before they make two transits .
Detecting Earth itself would take 2 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they need to see two transits to see the complete dip of light and a second for confirmation and orbital period.
As the project has been running for six weeks, they have only results for planets that orbit their star in 3 weeks or less.
Detecting Earth size planets in the habitable zone could take years before they make two transits.
Detecting Earth itself would take 2 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650710</id>
	<title>Pretty impressive for a guy dead ~400 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262622420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had no idea his telescope was that good, or that zombie Kepler was still doing astronomy after all this time.  Also impressive is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh, wait a sec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had no idea his telescope was that good , or that zombie Kepler was still doing astronomy after all this time .
Also impressive is ... oh , wait a sec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had no idea his telescope was that good, or that zombie Kepler was still doing astronomy after all this time.
Also impressive is ... oh, wait a sec.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649540</id>
	<title>Due diligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262614440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>something that is too hot to be a planet and too small to be a star</p></div><p>And I'm guessing they've already ruled out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firelord\_(comics)" title="wikipedia.org">the obvious</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>something that is too hot to be a planet and too small to be a starAnd I 'm guessing they 've already ruled out the obvious [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>something that is too hot to be a planet and too small to be a starAnd I'm guessing they've already ruled out the obvious [wikipedia.org]?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649518</id>
	<title>yay ! Science :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262614320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay a new planet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay a new planet : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay a new planet :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650546</id>
	<title>Re:Mote Exoplanets will always be found.</title>
	<author>Deltaspectre</author>
	<datestamp>1262621040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good lord, the Moties are real!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good lord , the Moties are real !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good lord, the Moties are real!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649890</id>
	<title>Wait a minute!?!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262616840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't he die on CSI?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't he die on CSI ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't he die on CSI?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30652802</id>
	<title>Re:What about what we don't know yet?</title>
	<author>IrquiM</author>
	<datestamp>1262686860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thing is - you don't know what to look for, so you don't know if you find it or not. So why not concentrate on the things you already know before broadening the horizon when it comes to stuff like this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is - you do n't know what to look for , so you do n't know if you find it or not .
So why not concentrate on the things you already know before broadening the horizon when it comes to stuff like this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is - you don't know what to look for, so you don't know if you find it or not.
So why not concentrate on the things you already know before broadening the horizon when it comes to stuff like this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30651000</id>
	<title>wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262624520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>amazing for a guy who's been dead for 380 years!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>amazing for a guy who 's been dead for 380 years !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>amazing for a guy who's been dead for 380 years!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30659058</id>
	<title>Re:Styrofoam planet a Jupiter brain candidate?</title>
	<author>marcosdumay</author>
	<datestamp>1262723100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there any candidate composition for it already? I mean, Jupter is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter" title="wikipedia.org">slightly more dense than water</a> [wikipedia.org]. I don't know what to make from that description of a brain, it could have all the way from the density of a nebula to a rock. But from power generation/dissipation requirements, I guess it would be composed by rotating layers of satelites. At that format, it would tend to be rocky dense, not gas dense (and cilindrical, instead of spherical).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any candidate composition for it already ?
I mean , Jupter is slightly more dense than water [ wikipedia.org ] .
I do n't know what to make from that description of a brain , it could have all the way from the density of a nebula to a rock .
But from power generation/dissipation requirements , I guess it would be composed by rotating layers of satelites .
At that format , it would tend to be rocky dense , not gas dense ( and cilindrical , instead of spherical ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any candidate composition for it already?
I mean, Jupter is slightly more dense than water [wikipedia.org].
I don't know what to make from that description of a brain, it could have all the way from the density of a nebula to a rock.
But from power generation/dissipation requirements, I guess it would be composed by rotating layers of satelites.
At that format, it would tend to be rocky dense, not gas dense (and cilindrical, instead of spherical).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30652902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650414</id>
	<title>Re:Something I don't understand about the hot one.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1262619960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok.  I see it now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok. I see it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok.  I see it now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650496</id>
	<title>Re:But Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262620560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there are not many planets that show signs of possible life at all, then there are going to be very few where life has even possibly developed our kind of intelligence. There would be even fewer where there might be a technological civilization. Looking for a signal or sending one becomes a real needle in a haystack operation. If we could afford to send just a few signals, say by high powered laser, there would still be no point in funding it, because we would still need to send those signals to literally tens of thousands of near stars just because we haven't narrowed our search. If we could only afford to listen, we might be deciding to commit to a project that would have to run for hundreds of years, and the human race has been pretty reluctant to try such long term feats, and not real good at keeping civilizations going long enough to finish them.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; On the other hand, if planets in vital zones are common, designing instruments to specifically look for signs of life on them makes more sense. If we find evidence of life, we can then look at other, easier to detect factors, such as how old the related stars are, and we end up with a list of places that might have advanced lifeforms with intelligence, and even technology such as radio. There's a fair chance we could work through that list in just a few years. It becomes a small enough project we could tackle it with what resources we have, and the people who start the project would live long enough to see the answers.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The payoff could still be huge! Just as huge as a more scattershot approach, for much less time and money. Imagine if we found ourselves talking with a civilization that had already figured out fusion power, or foolproof ways to keep nuclear war from happening, or some other technology we won't invent by ourselves for a hundred years, a thousand years, or more. That's the potential big payout. The next tier down might be things such as just finding a civilization that has already passed through a long industrial pollution phase and cleaned up its old toxic waste dumps and such. Just knowing that they managed not to kill themselves off with some of the things we worry about is pretty valuable even if we don't know the details. Maybe we find aliens that are really good at physics, but don't know as much about industrial chemistry as we do. They want to trade how to make flying cars for our advanced secrets of how to make paint that weathers well in sunlight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there are not many planets that show signs of possible life at all , then there are going to be very few where life has even possibly developed our kind of intelligence .
There would be even fewer where there might be a technological civilization .
Looking for a signal or sending one becomes a real needle in a haystack operation .
If we could afford to send just a few signals , say by high powered laser , there would still be no point in funding it , because we would still need to send those signals to literally tens of thousands of near stars just because we have n't narrowed our search .
If we could only afford to listen , we might be deciding to commit to a project that would have to run for hundreds of years , and the human race has been pretty reluctant to try such long term feats , and not real good at keeping civilizations going long enough to finish them .
        On the other hand , if planets in vital zones are common , designing instruments to specifically look for signs of life on them makes more sense .
If we find evidence of life , we can then look at other , easier to detect factors , such as how old the related stars are , and we end up with a list of places that might have advanced lifeforms with intelligence , and even technology such as radio .
There 's a fair chance we could work through that list in just a few years .
It becomes a small enough project we could tackle it with what resources we have , and the people who start the project would live long enough to see the answers .
        The payoff could still be huge !
Just as huge as a more scattershot approach , for much less time and money .
Imagine if we found ourselves talking with a civilization that had already figured out fusion power , or foolproof ways to keep nuclear war from happening , or some other technology we wo n't invent by ourselves for a hundred years , a thousand years , or more .
That 's the potential big payout .
The next tier down might be things such as just finding a civilization that has already passed through a long industrial pollution phase and cleaned up its old toxic waste dumps and such .
Just knowing that they managed not to kill themselves off with some of the things we worry about is pretty valuable even if we do n't know the details .
Maybe we find aliens that are really good at physics , but do n't know as much about industrial chemistry as we do .
They want to trade how to make flying cars for our advanced secrets of how to make paint that weathers well in sunlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there are not many planets that show signs of possible life at all, then there are going to be very few where life has even possibly developed our kind of intelligence.
There would be even fewer where there might be a technological civilization.
Looking for a signal or sending one becomes a real needle in a haystack operation.
If we could afford to send just a few signals, say by high powered laser, there would still be no point in funding it, because we would still need to send those signals to literally tens of thousands of near stars just because we haven't narrowed our search.
If we could only afford to listen, we might be deciding to commit to a project that would have to run for hundreds of years, and the human race has been pretty reluctant to try such long term feats, and not real good at keeping civilizations going long enough to finish them.
        On the other hand, if planets in vital zones are common, designing instruments to specifically look for signs of life on them makes more sense.
If we find evidence of life, we can then look at other, easier to detect factors, such as how old the related stars are, and we end up with a list of places that might have advanced lifeforms with intelligence, and even technology such as radio.
There's a fair chance we could work through that list in just a few years.
It becomes a small enough project we could tackle it with what resources we have, and the people who start the project would live long enough to see the answers.
        The payoff could still be huge!
Just as huge as a more scattershot approach, for much less time and money.
Imagine if we found ourselves talking with a civilization that had already figured out fusion power, or foolproof ways to keep nuclear war from happening, or some other technology we won't invent by ourselves for a hundred years, a thousand years, or more.
That's the potential big payout.
The next tier down might be things such as just finding a civilization that has already passed through a long industrial pollution phase and cleaned up its old toxic waste dumps and such.
Just knowing that they managed not to kill themselves off with some of the things we worry about is pretty valuable even if we don't know the details.
Maybe we find aliens that are really good at physics, but don't know as much about industrial chemistry as we do.
They want to trade how to make flying cars for our advanced secrets of how to make paint that weathers well in sunlight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30659692</id>
	<title>Re:can think of two main reasons</title>
	<author>orkysoft</author>
	<datestamp>1262682600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. The people who don't get this should go back to Digg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
The people who do n't get this should go back to Digg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
The people who don't get this should go back to Digg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650814</id>
	<title>Fluffy the Planet...</title>
	<author>number1scatterbrain</author>
	<datestamp>1262623260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somehow, you knew that there was a planet "just for girls"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , you knew that there was a planet " just for girls " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, you knew that there was a planet "just for girls"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30668028</id>
	<title>Re:What about what we don't know yet?</title>
	<author>Linuxmonger</author>
	<datestamp>1262783460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People, or humans, or whatever you want to call us, can't live on a planet outside of our habitable zone. There are enough of us on this rock that it's time to move on to another rock. NASA is looking for that other rock, I wish them well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People , or humans , or whatever you want to call us , ca n't live on a planet outside of our habitable zone .
There are enough of us on this rock that it 's time to move on to another rock .
NASA is looking for that other rock , I wish them well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People, or humans, or whatever you want to call us, can't live on a planet outside of our habitable zone.
There are enough of us on this rock that it's time to move on to another rock.
NASA is looking for that other rock, I wish them well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649586</id>
	<title>Re:But Why?</title>
	<author>mewshi\_nya</author>
	<datestamp>1262614800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can always go to other planets.</p><p>I dunno what else we can do with this stuff, but DAMN it's cool to know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Maybe this will help us better understand earth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can always go to other planets.I dunno what else we can do with this stuff , but DAMN it 's cool to know : ) Maybe this will help us better understand earth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can always go to other planets.I dunno what else we can do with this stuff, but DAMN it's cool to know :)Maybe this will help us better understand earth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650178</id>
	<title>Something I don't understand about the hot one.</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1262618400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They say they know it is hotter than the star because the light curve dips more during occultation than during transit, but how do they know which is which other than by which dips most?</p><p>Wait...  I guess I see how they *might* be doing it.</p><p>But it won't work for an object hotter than the primary.  Hmmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They say they know it is hotter than the star because the light curve dips more during occultation than during transit , but how do they know which is which other than by which dips most ? Wait... I guess I see how they * might * be doing it.But it wo n't work for an object hotter than the primary .
Hmmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They say they know it is hotter than the star because the light curve dips more during occultation than during transit, but how do they know which is which other than by which dips most?Wait...  I guess I see how they *might* be doing it.But it won't work for an object hotter than the primary.
Hmmm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650348</id>
	<title>Extinct?</title>
	<author>Revenger75</author>
	<datestamp>1262619660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We&rsquo;re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We&rsquo;re going away. And we won&rsquo;t leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet&rsquo;ll be here and we&rsquo;ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet&rsquo;ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.</p></div><p>
A long time in the future, from a George Carlin far, far away on the planet Liked-Their-Coffee-Way-Too-Much</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We    re going away .
Pack your shit , folks .
We    re going away .
And we won    t leave much of a trace , either .
Thank God for that .
Maybe a little styrofoam .
Maybe. A little styrofoam .
The planet    ll be here and we    ll be long gone .
Just another failed mutation .
Just another closed-end biological mistake .
An evolutionary cul-de-sac .
The planet    ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas .
A surface nuisance .
A long time in the future , from a George Carlin far , far away on the planet Liked-Their-Coffee-Way-Too-Much</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We’re going away.
Pack your shit, folks.
We’re going away.
And we won’t leave much of a trace, either.
Thank God for that.
Maybe a little styrofoam.
Maybe. A little styrofoam.
The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone.
Just another failed mutation.
Just another closed-end biological mistake.
An evolutionary cul-de-sac.
The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
A surface nuisance.
A long time in the future, from a George Carlin far, far away on the planet Liked-Their-Coffee-Way-Too-Much
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650898</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty good for a dead european white male</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262623740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i hope you enjoy sucking on that troll dick. you bitch ass cunt shit. you suck and you're a fucking retard. every one of your posts are dumb and you just need to go the fuck away for once and for all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i hope you enjoy sucking on that troll dick .
you bitch ass cunt shit .
you suck and you 're a fucking retard .
every one of your posts are dumb and you just need to go the fuck away for once and for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i hope you enjoy sucking on that troll dick.
you bitch ass cunt shit.
you suck and you're a fucking retard.
every one of your posts are dumb and you just need to go the fuck away for once and for all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30653738</id>
	<title>Re:But Why?</title>
	<author>Yoozer</author>
	<datestamp>1262699940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if we find aliens who want <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To\_Serve\_Man" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">To Serve Man</a> [wikipedia.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if we find aliens who want To Serve Man [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if we find aliens who want To Serve Man [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649766</id>
	<title>In the 80"s i was promised</title>
	<author>JoshDD</author>
	<datestamp>1262615880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>aliens and other planets to some day be visited and I want it all now damnit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>aliens and other planets to some day be visited and I want it all now damnit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aliens and other planets to some day be visited and I want it all now damnit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30652902</id>
	<title>Styrofoam planet a Jupiter brain candidate?</title>
	<author>hanschri</author>
	<datestamp>1262688180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quoting wikipedia:<br>Jupiter brain</p><p>A Jupiter brain is a theoretical computing megastructure the size of a planet. Unlike a matrioshka brain, a Jupiter brain is optimized for minimum signal propagation delay, and so has a compact structure. Power generation and heat dissipation are formidable concerns for a Jupiter brain implementation.</p><p>While a rigid solid object the size and mass of a rocky planet or gas giant could not be built using any currently known material, such a structure could be built as a low-density lattice with a mass comparable to a large moon or a small rocky planet but a far larger volume, or as a solid but non-rigid structure with the mass and density of a planet (as long as the internal heat gradient is carefully controlled to prevent convection).</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka\_brain" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka\_brain</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quoting wikipedia : Jupiter brainA Jupiter brain is a theoretical computing megastructure the size of a planet .
Unlike a matrioshka brain , a Jupiter brain is optimized for minimum signal propagation delay , and so has a compact structure .
Power generation and heat dissipation are formidable concerns for a Jupiter brain implementation.While a rigid solid object the size and mass of a rocky planet or gas giant could not be built using any currently known material , such a structure could be built as a low-density lattice with a mass comparable to a large moon or a small rocky planet but a far larger volume , or as a solid but non-rigid structure with the mass and density of a planet ( as long as the internal heat gradient is carefully controlled to prevent convection ) .http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka \ _brain [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quoting wikipedia:Jupiter brainA Jupiter brain is a theoretical computing megastructure the size of a planet.
Unlike a matrioshka brain, a Jupiter brain is optimized for minimum signal propagation delay, and so has a compact structure.
Power generation and heat dissipation are formidable concerns for a Jupiter brain implementation.While a rigid solid object the size and mass of a rocky planet or gas giant could not be built using any currently known material, such a structure could be built as a low-density lattice with a mass comparable to a large moon or a small rocky planet but a far larger volume, or as a solid but non-rigid structure with the mass and density of a planet (as long as the internal heat gradient is carefully controlled to prevent convection).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka\_brain [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649616</id>
	<title>Conservative Approach</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262615040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're being extremely conservative here, double-checking every claimed discovery using grround-based telescopes. That's a very sensible way to begin; they'd hate to announce some planets and then have to retract a few later!
<p>
As they get more verified examples under their belts, I expect they'll get a bit bolder. I certainly hope so, anyway. Earth-sized planets will be hard to double-check (Hubble could do it, but nothing on the ground), and large outer planets can't be double-checked at all, since they just make one pass and the next could be decades away.
</p><p>
--Greg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're being extremely conservative here , double-checking every claimed discovery using grround-based telescopes .
That 's a very sensible way to begin ; they 'd hate to announce some planets and then have to retract a few later !
As they get more verified examples under their belts , I expect they 'll get a bit bolder .
I certainly hope so , anyway .
Earth-sized planets will be hard to double-check ( Hubble could do it , but nothing on the ground ) , and large outer planets ca n't be double-checked at all , since they just make one pass and the next could be decades away .
--Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're being extremely conservative here, double-checking every claimed discovery using grround-based telescopes.
That's a very sensible way to begin; they'd hate to announce some planets and then have to retract a few later!
As they get more verified examples under their belts, I expect they'll get a bit bolder.
I certainly hope so, anyway.
Earth-sized planets will be hard to double-check (Hubble could do it, but nothing on the ground), and large outer planets can't be double-checked at all, since they just make one pass and the next could be decades away.
--Greg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30651160</id>
	<title>Re:density of Styrofoam</title>
	<author>aaron alderman</author>
	<datestamp>1262626080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Starbucks planet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Starbucks planet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starbucks planet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30658444</id>
	<title>Re:What about what we don't know yet?</title>
	<author>gstoddart</author>
	<datestamp>1262720460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Good to see that we're keeping a nice and closed mind about any lifeforms that might be outside the box. Just because we're so stuck on the definition of life that works here on our planet doesn't mean we won't find a lifeform that completely redefines "habitable zone".</p></div></blockquote><p>You know, this particular thing comes up quite often around here when the topic of looking for exoplanets comes up, and it always strikes me as somewhat silly.</p><p>Yes, of course, there could be life forms 'outside of the box' of the habitable zone -- me, I'm betting on it in a vast universe.  But, given that we don't have the vaguest &amp;^\%$*&amp;^ idea of how to search for something so alien as to be unimaginable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... how, exactly, would <em>you</em> design an experiment to look for something we can't even conceive of?  What would your criteria be?</p><p>The fact of the matter is, we can only really spend time looking for things in what we call the habitable zone because there's simply no basis to look for other things.  Sure, we could look at all of the flaming hot, sulphurous worlds, or the icy frozen methane worlds.  But, what exactly would we be looking <em>for</em> and how?</p><p>You either narrow your focus to what you <em>can</em> understand, or you flail about randomly.  It's not so much that we have closed minds about the habitable zone, it's merely that we have no basis to look for anything else.  Once you go outside of the realm of the science you have to work with, you're making shit up as you go, and then it becomes fiction.</p><p>Cheers</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good to see that we 're keeping a nice and closed mind about any lifeforms that might be outside the box .
Just because we 're so stuck on the definition of life that works here on our planet does n't mean we wo n't find a lifeform that completely redefines " habitable zone " .You know , this particular thing comes up quite often around here when the topic of looking for exoplanets comes up , and it always strikes me as somewhat silly.Yes , of course , there could be life forms 'outside of the box ' of the habitable zone -- me , I 'm betting on it in a vast universe .
But , given that we do n't have the vaguest &amp; ^ \ % $ * &amp; ^ idea of how to search for something so alien as to be unimaginable ... how , exactly , would you design an experiment to look for something we ca n't even conceive of ?
What would your criteria be ? The fact of the matter is , we can only really spend time looking for things in what we call the habitable zone because there 's simply no basis to look for other things .
Sure , we could look at all of the flaming hot , sulphurous worlds , or the icy frozen methane worlds .
But , what exactly would we be looking for and how ? You either narrow your focus to what you can understand , or you flail about randomly .
It 's not so much that we have closed minds about the habitable zone , it 's merely that we have no basis to look for anything else .
Once you go outside of the realm of the science you have to work with , you 're making shit up as you go , and then it becomes fiction.Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good to see that we're keeping a nice and closed mind about any lifeforms that might be outside the box.
Just because we're so stuck on the definition of life that works here on our planet doesn't mean we won't find a lifeform that completely redefines "habitable zone".You know, this particular thing comes up quite often around here when the topic of looking for exoplanets comes up, and it always strikes me as somewhat silly.Yes, of course, there could be life forms 'outside of the box' of the habitable zone -- me, I'm betting on it in a vast universe.
But, given that we don't have the vaguest &amp;^\%$*&amp;^ idea of how to search for something so alien as to be unimaginable ... how, exactly, would you design an experiment to look for something we can't even conceive of?
What would your criteria be?The fact of the matter is, we can only really spend time looking for things in what we call the habitable zone because there's simply no basis to look for other things.
Sure, we could look at all of the flaming hot, sulphurous worlds, or the icy frozen methane worlds.
But, what exactly would we be looking for and how?You either narrow your focus to what you can understand, or you flail about randomly.
It's not so much that we have closed minds about the habitable zone, it's merely that we have no basis to look for anything else.
Once you go outside of the realm of the science you have to work with, you're making shit up as you go, and then it becomes fiction.Cheers
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649986</id>
	<title>WooHoo!</title>
	<author>rcamans</author>
	<datestamp>1262617380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now we might actually have a chance of finding intelligent life in the universe!<br>And if we can get them to come to Earth, we could even have intelligent life on Earth!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we might actually have a chance of finding intelligent life in the universe ! And if we can get them to come to Earth , we could even have intelligent life on Earth !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we might actually have a chance of finding intelligent life in the universe!And if we can get them to come to Earth, we could even have intelligent life on Earth!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649886</id>
	<title>What about what we don't know yet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262616780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"...the scientists running it are fully confident that it will find Earth-like planets in some star's habitable zone"</i>

<br>
<br>

Good to see that we're keeping a nice and closed mind about any lifeforms that might be outside the box. Just because we're so stuck on the definition of life that works here on our planet doesn't mean we won't find a lifeform that completely redefines "habitable zone".</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...the scientists running it are fully confident that it will find Earth-like planets in some star 's habitable zone " Good to see that we 're keeping a nice and closed mind about any lifeforms that might be outside the box .
Just because we 're so stuck on the definition of life that works here on our planet does n't mean we wo n't find a lifeform that completely redefines " habitable zone " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...the scientists running it are fully confident that it will find Earth-like planets in some star's habitable zone"




Good to see that we're keeping a nice and closed mind about any lifeforms that might be outside the box.
Just because we're so stuck on the definition of life that works here on our planet doesn't mean we won't find a lifeform that completely redefines "habitable zone".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30651418</id>
	<title>Guaranteed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262628420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The real news is that Kepler works as designed, and the scientists running it are fully confident that it will find Earth-like planets in some star's habitable zone..."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...whether those planets are there or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The real news is that Kepler works as designed , and the scientists running it are fully confident that it will find Earth-like planets in some star 's habitable zone... " ...whether those planets are there or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The real news is that Kepler works as designed, and the scientists running it are fully confident that it will find Earth-like planets in some star's habitable zone..." ...whether those planets are there or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649916</id>
	<title>Mote Exoplanets will always be found.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262616960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"....if they are out there to be found."

They are out there whether we can find them or not. What I find really strange is why just prior to the fist exoplanet being discovered that scientists bothered debating the existence of exoplanets in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ....if they are out there to be found .
" They are out there whether we can find them or not .
What I find really strange is why just prior to the fist exoplanet being discovered that scientists bothered debating the existence of exoplanets in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"....if they are out there to be found.
"

They are out there whether we can find them or not.
What I find really strange is why just prior to the fist exoplanet being discovered that scientists bothered debating the existence of exoplanets in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650812</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262623200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You see...we're all in a big Christmas tree,and...Nobel Laureate,Al Gore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You see...we 're all in a big Christmas tree,and...Nobel Laureate,Al Gore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see...we're all in a big Christmas tree,and...Nobel Laureate,Al Gore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534</id>
	<title>But Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262614440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, finding habitable planets is cool. But what are they going to do once they've found one? Tick a box? Celebrate humanity? It seems like a waste of money to me. Really interesting stuff - but for what?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , finding habitable planets is cool .
But what are they going to do once they 've found one ?
Tick a box ?
Celebrate humanity ?
It seems like a waste of money to me .
Really interesting stuff - but for what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, finding habitable planets is cool.
But what are they going to do once they've found one?
Tick a box?
Celebrate humanity?
It seems like a waste of money to me.
Really interesting stuff - but for what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30668028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30659692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30670834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30653738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30651970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30659058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30652902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30652802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30653368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30651160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30658444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_2223223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30651450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30653738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30659692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30653368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30651450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30652802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30668028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30658444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30651160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30652902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30659058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30650696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30670834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30651970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_2223223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_2223223.30649766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
