<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_05_2032259</id>
	<title>Bringing Free Television To Phones In America</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1262682660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ideonexus writes <i>"South Korea, China, Brazil, parts of Europe, and Japan have been watching television on their phones for free since 2005, but American mobile carriers are struggling to offer clunky streaming video using Qualcomm's proprietary MediaFLO system for an additional monthly fee and excessive bandwidth demands. Now, with America having gone digital in June, if Mobile carriers were to have ATSC M/H (advanced television systems committee &mdash; mobile/handheld) television-tuner chips built into their handsets it sounds like <a href="http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story\_id=15174509">we could enjoy free TV on our cell phones too</a>; however, these companies have already invested a great deal of money adapting their networks to Qualcomm's format and Qualcomm is considering becoming a mobile television distributor itself."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ideonexus writes " South Korea , China , Brazil , parts of Europe , and Japan have been watching television on their phones for free since 2005 , but American mobile carriers are struggling to offer clunky streaming video using Qualcomm 's proprietary MediaFLO system for an additional monthly fee and excessive bandwidth demands .
Now , with America having gone digital in June , if Mobile carriers were to have ATSC M/H ( advanced television systems committee    mobile/handheld ) television-tuner chips built into their handsets it sounds like we could enjoy free TV on our cell phones too ; however , these companies have already invested a great deal of money adapting their networks to Qualcomm 's format and Qualcomm is considering becoming a mobile television distributor itself .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ideonexus writes "South Korea, China, Brazil, parts of Europe, and Japan have been watching television on their phones for free since 2005, but American mobile carriers are struggling to offer clunky streaming video using Qualcomm's proprietary MediaFLO system for an additional monthly fee and excessive bandwidth demands.
Now, with America having gone digital in June, if Mobile carriers were to have ATSC M/H (advanced television systems committee — mobile/handheld) television-tuner chips built into their handsets it sounds like we could enjoy free TV on our cell phones too; however, these companies have already invested a great deal of money adapting their networks to Qualcomm's format and Qualcomm is considering becoming a mobile television distributor itself.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660988</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1262687520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you're saying that a cell phone is like a beer can?</p><p>Maybe that's why I can never get my cell phone to work, and why I always have beer all over myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you 're saying that a cell phone is like a beer can ? Maybe that 's why I can never get my cell phone to work , and why I always have beer all over myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you're saying that a cell phone is like a beer can?Maybe that's why I can never get my cell phone to work, and why I always have beer all over myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662890</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1262696100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree in principle, you're missing the overall cost of service. Since the overall cost of service usually dwarfs the cost of the device, it makes sense that the phone is a throwaway device.</p><p>On the other hand, with a superphone, at least the current generation, the cost of the device is almost 30\% or so the lifetime cost of service, so it makes sense to hold on to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree in principle , you 're missing the overall cost of service .
Since the overall cost of service usually dwarfs the cost of the device , it makes sense that the phone is a throwaway device.On the other hand , with a superphone , at least the current generation , the cost of the device is almost 30 \ % or so the lifetime cost of service , so it makes sense to hold on to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree in principle, you're missing the overall cost of service.
Since the overall cost of service usually dwarfs the cost of the device, it makes sense that the phone is a throwaway device.On the other hand, with a superphone, at least the current generation, the cost of the device is almost 30\% or so the lifetime cost of service, so it makes sense to hold on to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661196</id>
	<title>Canada, eh?</title>
	<author>kirkb</author>
	<datestamp>1262688420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing more saddening about the US being so far behind on this stuff is the fact that here in Canada, we'll be even one or two years behind them.  Probably thanks to CRTC bureaucracy and bilingual nonsense.  And once we get it, there will be nothing on except CBC, because the US programming that we all want to see will be roadblocked by licensing restrictions in Canada.  Just like hulu, pandora, etc...</p><p>Bottom line:  in 4 years we'll be lucky enough to watch low-res, DRM'd "Beachcomber" reruns on our phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing more saddening about the US being so far behind on this stuff is the fact that here in Canada , we 'll be even one or two years behind them .
Probably thanks to CRTC bureaucracy and bilingual nonsense .
And once we get it , there will be nothing on except CBC , because the US programming that we all want to see will be roadblocked by licensing restrictions in Canada .
Just like hulu , pandora , etc...Bottom line : in 4 years we 'll be lucky enough to watch low-res , DRM 'd " Beachcomber " reruns on our phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing more saddening about the US being so far behind on this stuff is the fact that here in Canada, we'll be even one or two years behind them.
Probably thanks to CRTC bureaucracy and bilingual nonsense.
And once we get it, there will be nothing on except CBC, because the US programming that we all want to see will be roadblocked by licensing restrictions in Canada.
Just like hulu, pandora, etc...Bottom line:  in 4 years we'll be lucky enough to watch low-res, DRM'd "Beachcomber" reruns on our phones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660802</id>
	<title>Free TV in Aus</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1262686740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems different providers in Aus just make TV available over 3G. No stress about it here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems different providers in Aus just make TV available over 3G .
No stress about it here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems different providers in Aus just make TV available over 3G.
No stress about it here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661902</id>
	<title>$50 TV</title>
	<author>Rick Richardson</author>
	<datestamp>1262691420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:26:53 +0000 (UTC)</p><p>Thank you for ordering from Target.com.</p><p>The following items were included in this shipment:</p><p>
&nbsp; 1       Digital Labs 7" Portable D $49.99    1    $49.99</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Item Subtotal:  $49.99<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Shipping:  $6.92<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Promotion Applied:  -$5.00<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Free Shipping:  -$6.92<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Sales Tax:  $3.27<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ORDER TOTAL:  $48.26</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Date : Sat , 19 Dec 2009 23 : 26 : 53 + 0000 ( UTC ) Thank you for ordering from Target.com.The following items were included in this shipment :   1 Digital Labs 7 " Portable D $ 49.99 1 $ 49.99                               Item Subtotal : $ 49.99                                         Shipping : $ 6.92                       Promotion Applied : - $ 5.00                               Free Shipping : - $ 6.92                                       Sales Tax : $ 3.27                                   ORDER TOTAL : $ 48.26</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:26:53 +0000 (UTC)Thank you for ordering from Target.com.The following items were included in this shipment:
  1       Digital Labs 7" Portable D $49.99    1    $49.99
                              Item Subtotal:  $49.99
                                        Shipping:  $6.92
                      Promotion Applied:  -$5.00
                              Free Shipping:  -$6.92
                                      Sales Tax:  $3.27
                                  ORDER TOTAL:  $48.26</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664050</id>
	<title>Re:Do we need another distraction?</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1262702160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Never really understood the fascination of browsing the web or watching video on a tiny-ass screen.</p></div></blockquote><p>Fine, it's not for you.  But it amazes me that I can (as a passenger, of course) be in a car going down the freeway and still browse the web to search for something (e.g. find an answer to something we were talking about, etc.).   While you definitely do do a lot of zooming &amp; pinching on the screen, I think such "tiny-ass screens" can be amazingly useful.   (Disclaimer: I have a work provided phone and I personally wouldn't pay the cell phone costs, since I used a prepaid phone before..  but if I could pay a much lower fee for JUST cell phone web access when WiFi wasn't available, I would very seriously consider it.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never really understood the fascination of browsing the web or watching video on a tiny-ass screen.Fine , it 's not for you .
But it amazes me that I can ( as a passenger , of course ) be in a car going down the freeway and still browse the web to search for something ( e.g .
find an answer to something we were talking about , etc. ) .
While you definitely do do a lot of zooming &amp; pinching on the screen , I think such " tiny-ass screens " can be amazingly useful .
( Disclaimer : I have a work provided phone and I personally would n't pay the cell phone costs , since I used a prepaid phone before.. but if I could pay a much lower fee for JUST cell phone web access when WiFi was n't available , I would very seriously consider it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never really understood the fascination of browsing the web or watching video on a tiny-ass screen.Fine, it's not for you.
But it amazes me that I can (as a passenger, of course) be in a car going down the freeway and still browse the web to search for something (e.g.
find an answer to something we were talking about, etc.).
While you definitely do do a lot of zooming &amp; pinching on the screen, I think such "tiny-ass screens" can be amazingly useful.
(Disclaimer: I have a work provided phone and I personally wouldn't pay the cell phone costs, since I used a prepaid phone before..  but if I could pay a much lower fee for JUST cell phone web access when WiFi wasn't available, I would very seriously consider it.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661626</id>
	<title>Do we need another distraction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262690100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>"South Korea, China, Brazil, parts of Europe, and Japan have been watching television on their phones for free since 2005...</i> </p></div><p>Er, I'm wondering how many of those countries have the numbers the US does, using these devices while attempting to steer 2 tons of steel down a freeway at 60MPH with 60,000 of their closest friends riding bumper to bumper?  Somehow, I think the last thing we need is another visual distraction on a cell phone.</p><p>Perhaps this is one of those features that we don't go all Lemming over.  Never really understood the fascination of browsing the web or watching video on a tiny-ass screen.  The "because I can" cool factor usually wears off after about 20 minutes, or when you battery prematurely dies, whichever comes first.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" South Korea , China , Brazil , parts of Europe , and Japan have been watching television on their phones for free since 2005... Er , I 'm wondering how many of those countries have the numbers the US does , using these devices while attempting to steer 2 tons of steel down a freeway at 60MPH with 60,000 of their closest friends riding bumper to bumper ?
Somehow , I think the last thing we need is another visual distraction on a cell phone.Perhaps this is one of those features that we do n't go all Lemming over .
Never really understood the fascination of browsing the web or watching video on a tiny-ass screen .
The " because I can " cool factor usually wears off after about 20 minutes , or when you battery prematurely dies , whichever comes first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "South Korea, China, Brazil, parts of Europe, and Japan have been watching television on their phones for free since 2005... Er, I'm wondering how many of those countries have the numbers the US does, using these devices while attempting to steer 2 tons of steel down a freeway at 60MPH with 60,000 of their closest friends riding bumper to bumper?
Somehow, I think the last thing we need is another visual distraction on a cell phone.Perhaps this is one of those features that we don't go all Lemming over.
Never really understood the fascination of browsing the web or watching video on a tiny-ass screen.
The "because I can" cool factor usually wears off after about 20 minutes, or when you battery prematurely dies, whichever comes first.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662782</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1262695740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So a TV is as cheap as a throwaway cellphone.</p></div><p>I can't say I've ever seen someone throw their iPhone away.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So a TV is as cheap as a throwaway cellphone.I ca n't say I 've ever seen someone throw their iPhone away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a TV is as cheap as a throwaway cellphone.I can't say I've ever seen someone throw their iPhone away.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661924</id>
	<title>Economist fail on TFA. Media FLO not streamed!</title>
	<author>HenryKoren</author>
	<datestamp>1262691540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article says: "the &ldquo;V Cast&rdquo; and &ldquo;Mobile TV&rdquo; television services offered by Verizon and AT&amp;T respectively are streamed jerkily across their cellular networks."</p><p>This is false, This article is very misleading. V-Cast TV and AT&amp;T Mobile TV are Qualcomm's MediaFLO service re-branded. These are broadcast-quality digital signals that come over what previously was the Analog TV channel 55. These are NOT streamed, and are completely separate from the Cellular network. See the MediaFLO entry on Wikipedia for confirmation of this:  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaFLO" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaFLO</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Slashdot mods: you should correct this article summary because it contains utterly false misinformation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article says : " the    V Cast    and    Mobile TV    television services offered by Verizon and AT&amp;T respectively are streamed jerkily across their cellular networks .
" This is false , This article is very misleading .
V-Cast TV and AT&amp;T Mobile TV are Qualcomm 's MediaFLO service re-branded .
These are broadcast-quality digital signals that come over what previously was the Analog TV channel 55 .
These are NOT streamed , and are completely separate from the Cellular network .
See the MediaFLO entry on Wikipedia for confirmation of this : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaFLO [ wikipedia.org ] Slashdot mods : you should correct this article summary because it contains utterly false misinformation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article says: "the “V Cast” and “Mobile TV” television services offered by Verizon and AT&amp;T respectively are streamed jerkily across their cellular networks.
"This is false, This article is very misleading.
V-Cast TV and AT&amp;T Mobile TV are Qualcomm's MediaFLO service re-branded.
These are broadcast-quality digital signals that come over what previously was the Analog TV channel 55.
These are NOT streamed, and are completely separate from the Cellular network.
See the MediaFLO entry on Wikipedia for confirmation of this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaFLO [wikipedia.org]Slashdot mods: you should correct this article summary because it contains utterly false misinformation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660950</id>
	<title>Careful what you ask for</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262687280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>South Korea, China, Brazil, parts of Europe, and Japan have been watching television on their phones for free since 2005</i> which hasn't improved their driving at all!</htmltext>
<tokenext>South Korea , China , Brazil , parts of Europe , and Japan have been watching television on their phones for free since 2005 which has n't improved their driving at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>South Korea, China, Brazil, parts of Europe, and Japan have been watching television on their phones for free since 2005 which hasn't improved their driving at all!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662808</id>
	<title>Re:Dedicated devices do it better.</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1262695800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's hilarious! My wife got a new LG Chocolate Touch for Christmas and IT has an FM radio built into it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's hilarious !
My wife got a new LG Chocolate Touch for Christmas and IT has an FM radio built into it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's hilarious!
My wife got a new LG Chocolate Touch for Christmas and IT has an FM radio built into it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661518</id>
	<title>mobile carriers won't like this</title>
	<author>chipperdog</author>
	<datestamp>1262689620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't be wide spread because Free-TV in cell phones is lost revenue for phone companies. Why would they promote a device with a receiver in it that provides a service they may sell (VCAST style services or extra bandwidth charges)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't be wide spread because Free-TV in cell phones is lost revenue for phone companies .
Why would they promote a device with a receiver in it that provides a service they may sell ( VCAST style services or extra bandwidth charges ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't be wide spread because Free-TV in cell phones is lost revenue for phone companies.
Why would they promote a device with a receiver in it that provides a service they may sell (VCAST style services or extra bandwidth charges)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661240</id>
	<title>Users are not the phone-builder's customers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262688600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Phones in the US are designed to the demands of the Mobile Carriers, not the users. Given the choice of selling the users a television service, or adding a chip to the phones to the users can watch TV for free none of the Carriers is going to choose the chip. It wouldn't make any sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phones in the US are designed to the demands of the Mobile Carriers , not the users .
Given the choice of selling the users a television service , or adding a chip to the phones to the users can watch TV for free none of the Carriers is going to choose the chip .
It would n't make any sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phones in the US are designed to the demands of the Mobile Carriers, not the users.
Given the choice of selling the users a television service, or adding a chip to the phones to the users can watch TV for free none of the Carriers is going to choose the chip.
It wouldn't make any sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662562</id>
	<title>Re:Europe, Japan,.. Use standards,, America</title>
	<author>dakameleon</author>
	<datestamp>1262694660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Americans don't want government "interfering". They claim the market will decide the best approach. It does not. It picks best short term profitability for one company (Qualcom in this case).</p></div><p>The ATSC is not a government organisation - it's a consortium of commercially-interested companies agreeing on a standard. The US government has never mandated a particular standard to be implemented, merely ratified, through the FCC, the most popular one for wide-spread use. This is an example of the market in action - and what the cellphone carriers do with that has also been left up to the market, though this isn't operating at peak efficiency for consumers, it is likely producing fat profits for the cellphone companies and Qualcomm.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans do n't want government " interfering " .
They claim the market will decide the best approach .
It does not .
It picks best short term profitability for one company ( Qualcom in this case ) .The ATSC is not a government organisation - it 's a consortium of commercially-interested companies agreeing on a standard .
The US government has never mandated a particular standard to be implemented , merely ratified , through the FCC , the most popular one for wide-spread use .
This is an example of the market in action - and what the cellphone carriers do with that has also been left up to the market , though this is n't operating at peak efficiency for consumers , it is likely producing fat profits for the cellphone companies and Qualcomm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans don't want government "interfering".
They claim the market will decide the best approach.
It does not.
It picks best short term profitability for one company (Qualcom in this case).The ATSC is not a government organisation - it's a consortium of commercially-interested companies agreeing on a standard.
The US government has never mandated a particular standard to be implemented, merely ratified, through the FCC, the most popular one for wide-spread use.
This is an example of the market in action - and what the cellphone carriers do with that has also been left up to the market, though this isn't operating at peak efficiency for consumers, it is likely producing fat profits for the cellphone companies and Qualcomm.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663898</id>
	<title>Once again Americans take in the chin*</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1262701020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, more like between the cheeks, when it comes to cell phone service.</p><p>*<i>Who got hit in the chin by more balls? Yogi Berra? Or Rock Hudson?</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , more like between the cheeks , when it comes to cell phone service .
* Who got hit in the chin by more balls ?
Yogi Berra ?
Or Rock Hudson ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, more like between the cheeks, when it comes to cell phone service.
*Who got hit in the chin by more balls?
Yogi Berra?
Or Rock Hudson?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661180</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1262688360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funnily, my mobile phone costs as much as a decent sized TV and for good reason.

</p><p>While you may buy cheap mobile phones, more people are opting for expensive smartphones such as the plethora of Android phones out there or an iPhone. Battery life not withstanding, I would have no problems with TV being available on my phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funnily , my mobile phone costs as much as a decent sized TV and for good reason .
While you may buy cheap mobile phones , more people are opting for expensive smartphones such as the plethora of Android phones out there or an iPhone .
Battery life not withstanding , I would have no problems with TV being available on my phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funnily, my mobile phone costs as much as a decent sized TV and for good reason.
While you may buy cheap mobile phones, more people are opting for expensive smartphones such as the plethora of Android phones out there or an iPhone.
Battery life not withstanding, I would have no problems with TV being available on my phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663060</id>
	<title>Re:Dedicated devices do it better.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262696940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't have to put it on the iPhone.  They are talking about FUTURE phones, not YOUR phone.</p><p>We don't all own an iphone.  Matter of fact, my HTC Touch Pro is way better than an iPhone.  If we were hanging out together in person we could compare and I could show you why.</p><p>There are other phones out there, you know.  I really hope the concept of the mobile pc doesn't go the way of the Kleenex --- where everyone calls a face tissue a kleenex --- where everyone calls a mobile pc phone an iphone.... eeeewww.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't have to put it on the iPhone .
They are talking about FUTURE phones , not YOUR phone.We do n't all own an iphone .
Matter of fact , my HTC Touch Pro is way better than an iPhone .
If we were hanging out together in person we could compare and I could show you why.There are other phones out there , you know .
I really hope the concept of the mobile pc does n't go the way of the Kleenex --- where everyone calls a face tissue a kleenex --- where everyone calls a mobile pc phone an iphone.... eeeewww .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't have to put it on the iPhone.
They are talking about FUTURE phones, not YOUR phone.We don't all own an iphone.
Matter of fact, my HTC Touch Pro is way better than an iPhone.
If we were hanging out together in person we could compare and I could show you why.There are other phones out there, you know.
I really hope the concept of the mobile pc doesn't go the way of the Kleenex --- where everyone calls a face tissue a kleenex --- where everyone calls a mobile pc phone an iphone.... eeeewww.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661026</id>
	<title>Amazing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262687640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It never ceases to amaze me how backwards North America has become compared to the rest of the world. And now I find out you can't get TV on your mobos??!!!  Of all the nations I'd expect to be first in line for mobile TV it is America (and Australia who are clearly so addicted to sport that the only time anyone takes a dump is during half time). I mean come on - America put the first man on the moon, and did some other really cool stuff. How else can American consumers find out about the latest gut busting Wendy's burger five minutes before lunch? I'm surprised mobile tv isn't given out with every hormone enhanced pre-school "so milky you'll not beleive it's not milk" milk substitute. It is only a matter of time before these nappy wearing proto-consumers will be desparate to hear about citi-bank credit cards and wifi enabled teethers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It never ceases to amaze me how backwards North America has become compared to the rest of the world .
And now I find out you ca n't get TV on your mobos ? ? ! ! !
Of all the nations I 'd expect to be first in line for mobile TV it is America ( and Australia who are clearly so addicted to sport that the only time anyone takes a dump is during half time ) .
I mean come on - America put the first man on the moon , and did some other really cool stuff .
How else can American consumers find out about the latest gut busting Wendy 's burger five minutes before lunch ?
I 'm surprised mobile tv is n't given out with every hormone enhanced pre-school " so milky you 'll not beleive it 's not milk " milk substitute .
It is only a matter of time before these nappy wearing proto-consumers will be desparate to hear about citi-bank credit cards and wifi enabled teethers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It never ceases to amaze me how backwards North America has become compared to the rest of the world.
And now I find out you can't get TV on your mobos??!!!
Of all the nations I'd expect to be first in line for mobile TV it is America (and Australia who are clearly so addicted to sport that the only time anyone takes a dump is during half time).
I mean come on - America put the first man on the moon, and did some other really cool stuff.
How else can American consumers find out about the latest gut busting Wendy's burger five minutes before lunch?
I'm surprised mobile tv isn't given out with every hormone enhanced pre-school "so milky you'll not beleive it's not milk" milk substitute.
It is only a matter of time before these nappy wearing proto-consumers will be desparate to hear about citi-bank credit cards and wifi enabled teethers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661848</id>
	<title>Darwinism in Action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262691180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in Korea and watching people walking while watching TV on their phones is hilarious. It's like watching Darwinism in action. I've seen people fall off the curb because they weren't watching where their walking. I also saw one woman stumble down the escalator because she was too engrossed in tv on her phone.</p><p>of course people won't turn it off when they have to walk somowhere because it's actually broadcast tv and they might miss something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Korea and watching people walking while watching TV on their phones is hilarious .
It 's like watching Darwinism in action .
I 've seen people fall off the curb because they were n't watching where their walking .
I also saw one woman stumble down the escalator because she was too engrossed in tv on her phone.of course people wo n't turn it off when they have to walk somowhere because it 's actually broadcast tv and they might miss something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Korea and watching people walking while watching TV on their phones is hilarious.
It's like watching Darwinism in action.
I've seen people fall off the curb because they weren't watching where their walking.
I also saw one woman stumble down the escalator because she was too engrossed in tv on her phone.of course people won't turn it off when they have to walk somowhere because it's actually broadcast tv and they might miss something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661436</id>
	<title>Re:Europe, Japan,.. Use standards,, America</title>
	<author>mooingyak</author>
	<datestamp>1262689320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Europe, Japan... Use standards. America thinks it is better without. Americans don't want government "interfering". They claim the market will decide the best approach. It does not. It picks best short term profitability for one company (Qualcom in this case). Europe requires cellphone to be interchangable across networks, America lets cell providers each use their own scheme. You can get better cell phones and features in India then America because they follow a standard and their is a bigger market. For the US and Canada (I am Canadian), push the governments to dictate cell phone providers need to use an open common standard for all cell phone services (copy Europe's standard).</i></p><p>Regulating technology only works if you can keep current, and people are honest.  Otherwise you end up with one of two scenarios:</p><p>1)  No one can innovate because they're stuck with an out of date standard that used to be great but doesn't cover some of the newer things that can be done.<br>2)  The regulating committee is controlled by the industry and ends up setting up regulations that screw the consumer.</p><p>I'm not saying these things are inevitable, just that many Americans are fine with the current situation when the alternative includes those risks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Europe , Japan... Use standards .
America thinks it is better without .
Americans do n't want government " interfering " .
They claim the market will decide the best approach .
It does not .
It picks best short term profitability for one company ( Qualcom in this case ) .
Europe requires cellphone to be interchangable across networks , America lets cell providers each use their own scheme .
You can get better cell phones and features in India then America because they follow a standard and their is a bigger market .
For the US and Canada ( I am Canadian ) , push the governments to dictate cell phone providers need to use an open common standard for all cell phone services ( copy Europe 's standard ) .Regulating technology only works if you can keep current , and people are honest .
Otherwise you end up with one of two scenarios : 1 ) No one can innovate because they 're stuck with an out of date standard that used to be great but does n't cover some of the newer things that can be done.2 ) The regulating committee is controlled by the industry and ends up setting up regulations that screw the consumer.I 'm not saying these things are inevitable , just that many Americans are fine with the current situation when the alternative includes those risks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Europe, Japan... Use standards.
America thinks it is better without.
Americans don't want government "interfering".
They claim the market will decide the best approach.
It does not.
It picks best short term profitability for one company (Qualcom in this case).
Europe requires cellphone to be interchangable across networks, America lets cell providers each use their own scheme.
You can get better cell phones and features in India then America because they follow a standard and their is a bigger market.
For the US and Canada (I am Canadian), push the governments to dictate cell phone providers need to use an open common standard for all cell phone services (copy Europe's standard).Regulating technology only works if you can keep current, and people are honest.
Otherwise you end up with one of two scenarios:1)  No one can innovate because they're stuck with an out of date standard that used to be great but doesn't cover some of the newer things that can be done.2)  The regulating committee is controlled by the industry and ends up setting up regulations that screw the consumer.I'm not saying these things are inevitable, just that many Americans are fine with the current situation when the alternative includes those risks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661982</id>
	<title>Say hello (again) to the retractable antenna.</title>
	<author>chocomilko</author>
	<datestamp>1262691720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I lived in South Korea from 2006 to 2007. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital\_Multimedia\_Broadcasting" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">DMB</a> [wikipedia.org] was prevalent back then; the one thing that I thought was really odd about the whole setup is that the DMB-enabled phones always had HUGE retractable antennae.</p><p>I'm not sure if this is still the case, but it was easy to pretend that the guy sitting across from you was trying to figure out his piece-of-shit cell phone from 10 years ago, rather than watching TV.</p><p>Oh, and for the record, the ONLY way I would get a dropped call is if I stepped into an elevator. In the mountains, in the valleys, hundreds of feet underground on the subway -- perfect reception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I lived in South Korea from 2006 to 2007 .
DMB [ wikipedia.org ] was prevalent back then ; the one thing that I thought was really odd about the whole setup is that the DMB-enabled phones always had HUGE retractable antennae.I 'm not sure if this is still the case , but it was easy to pretend that the guy sitting across from you was trying to figure out his piece-of-shit cell phone from 10 years ago , rather than watching TV.Oh , and for the record , the ONLY way I would get a dropped call is if I stepped into an elevator .
In the mountains , in the valleys , hundreds of feet underground on the subway -- perfect reception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I lived in South Korea from 2006 to 2007.
DMB [wikipedia.org] was prevalent back then; the one thing that I thought was really odd about the whole setup is that the DMB-enabled phones always had HUGE retractable antennae.I'm not sure if this is still the case, but it was easy to pretend that the guy sitting across from you was trying to figure out his piece-of-shit cell phone from 10 years ago, rather than watching TV.Oh, and for the record, the ONLY way I would get a dropped call is if I stepped into an elevator.
In the mountains, in the valleys, hundreds of feet underground on the subway -- perfect reception.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663162</id>
	<title>Re:Dollars and nonsense.nike jordan shoes,handbags</title>
	<author>PUGH1986</author>
	<datestamp>1262697420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.allbyer.com/" title="allbyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.allbyer.com/</a> [allbyer.com] Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,2010 New Year's gift you ready?Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 thanks... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200, both exquisite gift, surprise here, do not miss, welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details, please consult <a href="http://www.allbyer.com/" title="allbyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.allbyer.com/</a> [allbyer.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.allbyer.com/ [ allbyer.com ] Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,2010 New Year 's gift you ready ? Here are the most popular , most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3 ) $ 35HANDBGAS ( COACH,L V , DG , ED HARDY ) $ 35TSHIRTS ( POLO ,ED HARDY , LACOSTE ) $ 16 thanks... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200 , both exquisite gift , surprise here , do not miss , welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details , please consult http : //www.allbyer.com/ [ allbyer.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com] Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,2010 New Year's gift you ready?Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 thanks... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200, both exquisite gift, surprise here, do not miss, welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details, please consult http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661472</id>
	<title>TFA's technical facts are wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262689440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is fine, I mean why do fact checking when being wrong sounds so much more sensational!</p><p>"Unlike elsewhere in the world, though, where mobile television signals are transmitted by broadcasters along with the rest of their over-the-air programming, the &ldquo;V Cast&rdquo; and &ldquo;Mobile TV&rdquo; television services offered by Verizon and AT&amp;T respectively are streamed jerkily across their cellular networks. That gobbles up precious bandwidth, reducing the network capacity for everyone else."</p><p>MediaFLO transmissions don't share any bandwidth with the normal cell data or voice networks.  They are on an entirely different band that was originally for analog TV and bought in the transition.  It makes a better story of course if people are outraged that their mobile internet speeds are being sacrificed because someone wants to watch the game on ESPN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is fine , I mean why do fact checking when being wrong sounds so much more sensational !
" Unlike elsewhere in the world , though , where mobile television signals are transmitted by broadcasters along with the rest of their over-the-air programming , the    V Cast    and    Mobile TV    television services offered by Verizon and AT&amp;T respectively are streamed jerkily across their cellular networks .
That gobbles up precious bandwidth , reducing the network capacity for everyone else .
" MediaFLO transmissions do n't share any bandwidth with the normal cell data or voice networks .
They are on an entirely different band that was originally for analog TV and bought in the transition .
It makes a better story of course if people are outraged that their mobile internet speeds are being sacrificed because someone wants to watch the game on ESPN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is fine, I mean why do fact checking when being wrong sounds so much more sensational!
"Unlike elsewhere in the world, though, where mobile television signals are transmitted by broadcasters along with the rest of their over-the-air programming, the “V Cast” and “Mobile TV” television services offered by Verizon and AT&amp;T respectively are streamed jerkily across their cellular networks.
That gobbles up precious bandwidth, reducing the network capacity for everyone else.
"MediaFLO transmissions don't share any bandwidth with the normal cell data or voice networks.
They are on an entirely different band that was originally for analog TV and bought in the transition.
It makes a better story of course if people are outraged that their mobile internet speeds are being sacrificed because someone wants to watch the game on ESPN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661078</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>MrEricSir</author>
	<datestamp>1262687880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why?  It's a scam to sell more reading glasses, obviously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
It 's a scam to sell more reading glasses , obviously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
It's a scam to sell more reading glasses, obviously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661404</id>
	<title>Re:Free TV in Aus</title>
	<author>VoltageX</author>
	<datestamp>1262689200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not free - Three used to offer the cricket on certain post-paid plans.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not free - Three used to offer the cricket on certain post-paid plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not free - Three used to offer the cricket on certain post-paid plans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664124</id>
	<title>Re:I remember when a cell phone was just a phone.</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1262702760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't use many minutes, you don't need a "plan" at all.  Just get a prepaid phone..</p><p><a href="http://www.cellguru.net/prepaid\_compare.htm" title="cellguru.net">http://www.cellguru.net/prepaid\_compare.htm</a> [cellguru.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't use many minutes , you do n't need a " plan " at all .
Just get a prepaid phone..http : //www.cellguru.net/prepaid \ _compare.htm [ cellguru.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't use many minutes, you don't need a "plan" at all.
Just get a prepaid phone..http://www.cellguru.net/prepaid\_compare.htm [cellguru.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662560</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>alcmaeon</author>
	<datestamp>1262694660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't watch HD TV for free on my 50" LCD, why would I watch crappy quality for a fee (any fee) on a mobile phone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't watch HD TV for free on my 50 " LCD , why would I watch crappy quality for a fee ( any fee ) on a mobile phone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't watch HD TV for free on my 50" LCD, why would I watch crappy quality for a fee (any fee) on a mobile phone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663896</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>pommiekiwifruit</author>
	<datestamp>1262701020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>A mobile phone, bought without a contract, is often upwards of a few hundred dollars here in America. </i>
<p>That is because mobile phones are one of the few things (along with healthcare) where Americans get a raw deal compared to the rest of the world.
</p><p>Most things (rent, food, gadgets) are cheaper in the USA but it seems phones and healthcare are not.
</p><p>The UK normally is an expensive country (gadgets cost twice the US price) but you can get a "pay as you go" phone (no contract) for <a href="http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.206-7149.aspx" title="tesco.com">&pound;8.97</a> [tesco.com] which is $14 - including tax and delivery.
</p><p>So you can see why teenagers just throw one into the river and get a new one without thinking much about it.
</p><p>God knows why phones are more expensive and so lacking in features over there in the USA - the healthcare is less of a mystery (from conversations I have had, USians are happy that their health care is overly expensive as long as that means that immigrants don't get treated).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A mobile phone , bought without a contract , is often upwards of a few hundred dollars here in America .
That is because mobile phones are one of the few things ( along with healthcare ) where Americans get a raw deal compared to the rest of the world .
Most things ( rent , food , gadgets ) are cheaper in the USA but it seems phones and healthcare are not .
The UK normally is an expensive country ( gadgets cost twice the US price ) but you can get a " pay as you go " phone ( no contract ) for   8.97 [ tesco.com ] which is $ 14 - including tax and delivery .
So you can see why teenagers just throw one into the river and get a new one without thinking much about it .
God knows why phones are more expensive and so lacking in features over there in the USA - the healthcare is less of a mystery ( from conversations I have had , USians are happy that their health care is overly expensive as long as that means that immigrants do n't get treated ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mobile phone, bought without a contract, is often upwards of a few hundred dollars here in America.
That is because mobile phones are one of the few things (along with healthcare) where Americans get a raw deal compared to the rest of the world.
Most things (rent, food, gadgets) are cheaper in the USA but it seems phones and healthcare are not.
The UK normally is an expensive country (gadgets cost twice the US price) but you can get a "pay as you go" phone (no contract) for £8.97 [tesco.com] which is $14 - including tax and delivery.
So you can see why teenagers just throw one into the river and get a new one without thinking much about it.
God knows why phones are more expensive and so lacking in features over there in the USA - the healthcare is less of a mystery (from conversations I have had, USians are happy that their health care is overly expensive as long as that means that immigrants don't get treated).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30674962</id>
	<title>Re:Do we need another distraction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262772780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one is fascinated browsing on a tiny screen, obviously.  What people like is being able to browse anywhere.  Recently, I'm at a club my friends booked for a dance party and mention to a friend that the number of people who'd confirmed on Facebook was over 100.  The guy I was talking to pulled out his iPhone and had the list of confirmed people up in less than 5 seconds.  I couldn't have done it that fast on my home computer.  We had no trouble sharing the screen and picking out the people we knew from the list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is fascinated browsing on a tiny screen , obviously .
What people like is being able to browse anywhere .
Recently , I 'm at a club my friends booked for a dance party and mention to a friend that the number of people who 'd confirmed on Facebook was over 100 .
The guy I was talking to pulled out his iPhone and had the list of confirmed people up in less than 5 seconds .
I could n't have done it that fast on my home computer .
We had no trouble sharing the screen and picking out the people we knew from the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is fascinated browsing on a tiny screen, obviously.
What people like is being able to browse anywhere.
Recently, I'm at a club my friends booked for a dance party and mention to a friend that the number of people who'd confirmed on Facebook was over 100.
The guy I was talking to pulled out his iPhone and had the list of confirmed people up in less than 5 seconds.
I couldn't have done it that fast on my home computer.
We had no trouble sharing the screen and picking out the people we knew from the list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664552</id>
	<title>Re:Flash</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1262705580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>thought some have suggested this was a big reason why Flash has been ported to other platforms, but isn't on the iPhone.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

There is no flash on the iphone because Apple cant control what you do with flash. There really is no other reason, it's the same with mulit-tasking, the HW and SW are perfectly capable but are artificially locked in order to gain greater control.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>thought some have suggested this was a big reason why Flash has been ported to other platforms , but is n't on the iPhone .
There is no flash on the iphone because Apple cant control what you do with flash .
There really is no other reason , it 's the same with mulit-tasking , the HW and SW are perfectly capable but are artificially locked in order to gain greater control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thought some have suggested this was a big reason why Flash has been ported to other platforms, but isn't on the iPhone.
There is no flash on the iphone because Apple cant control what you do with flash.
There really is no other reason, it's the same with mulit-tasking, the HW and SW are perfectly capable but are artificially locked in order to gain greater control.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30665712</id>
	<title>zero business model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262713920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rest of the world never made a dime on tv on mobile phones.  The South Korean mobile tv operators are so damn poor that they can't even pay for rent on their transmission gears in Korean subway stations.  National "showcase" on their technology for the World Cup soccer event --- then NOTHING happened afterwards, zero business model.</p><p>http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2009/10/129\_39561.html</p><p>Same thing for Japan --- never made a single dime on their tv on mobile phones.</p><p>Same thing for Europe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of the world never made a dime on tv on mobile phones .
The South Korean mobile tv operators are so damn poor that they ca n't even pay for rent on their transmission gears in Korean subway stations .
National " showcase " on their technology for the World Cup soccer event --- then NOTHING happened afterwards , zero business model.http : //www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2009/10/129 \ _39561.htmlSame thing for Japan --- never made a single dime on their tv on mobile phones.Same thing for Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of the world never made a dime on tv on mobile phones.
The South Korean mobile tv operators are so damn poor that they can't even pay for rent on their transmission gears in Korean subway stations.
National "showcase" on their technology for the World Cup soccer event --- then NOTHING happened afterwards, zero business model.http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2009/10/129\_39561.htmlSame thing for Japan --- never made a single dime on their tv on mobile phones.Same thing for Europe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662304</id>
	<title>No, ATSC won't cut it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262693220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA mentions ATSC M/H because the actual ATSC specification performs relatively poorly in the face of doppler and dynamic multipath. ATSC works just fine if you put up a proper outdoor antenna, but if you just use the whip antenna built into a portable TV, it sucks.</p><p>P.s. I am one of the only<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers who owns and operates his own <a href="http://www.n6qqq.org/" title="n6qqq.org">ATSC transmitter</a> [n6qqq.org]. It should be installed and operational sometime this month (yes, it's a bit late).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA mentions ATSC M/H because the actual ATSC specification performs relatively poorly in the face of doppler and dynamic multipath .
ATSC works just fine if you put up a proper outdoor antenna , but if you just use the whip antenna built into a portable TV , it sucks.P.s .
I am one of the only /.ers who owns and operates his own ATSC transmitter [ n6qqq.org ] .
It should be installed and operational sometime this month ( yes , it 's a bit late ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA mentions ATSC M/H because the actual ATSC specification performs relatively poorly in the face of doppler and dynamic multipath.
ATSC works just fine if you put up a proper outdoor antenna, but if you just use the whip antenna built into a portable TV, it sucks.P.s.
I am one of the only /.ers who owns and operates his own ATSC transmitter [n6qqq.org].
It should be installed and operational sometime this month (yes, it's a bit late).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30665100</id>
	<title>Re:Do we need another distraction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262709000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It probably wouldn't work out very well in the US.  It works great in South Korea, where public transit is one of the more popular forms of travelling; I see people watching TV on their cell phones all the time, especially on buses or subways.  Everyone always has their cell phone, and this way, you don't even need to carry a book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It probably would n't work out very well in the US .
It works great in South Korea , where public transit is one of the more popular forms of travelling ; I see people watching TV on their cell phones all the time , especially on buses or subways .
Everyone always has their cell phone , and this way , you do n't even need to carry a book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It probably wouldn't work out very well in the US.
It works great in South Korea, where public transit is one of the more popular forms of travelling; I see people watching TV on their cell phones all the time, especially on buses or subways.
Everyone always has their cell phone, and this way, you don't even need to carry a book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661846</id>
	<title>Do we really need MORE TV? And in public?</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1262691180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now we get to overhear 'lowest-common-denominator-TV' addicted assholes actually watching their shows, like "The Hills," and "Jersey Shore," in public, on the train, at the grocery store? Kill me now.</p><p>Sports fans foaming at the mouth and screaming over some perfect or missed play...</p><p>Idiots trying to watch TV and drive (I was kidding a bit before, but this is the one that really scares me).</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I love technology and can see certain times where this might be interesting, and I am all for personal freedom - but I am not enjoying the thought of some of the practicalities of life with widespread adoption of such a system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now we get to overhear 'lowest-common-denominator-TV ' addicted assholes actually watching their shows , like " The Hills , " and " Jersey Shore , " in public , on the train , at the grocery store ?
Kill me now.Sports fans foaming at the mouth and screaming over some perfect or missed play...Idiots trying to watch TV and drive ( I was kidding a bit before , but this is the one that really scares me ) .Do n't get me wrong , I love technology and can see certain times where this might be interesting , and I am all for personal freedom - but I am not enjoying the thought of some of the practicalities of life with widespread adoption of such a system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now we get to overhear 'lowest-common-denominator-TV' addicted assholes actually watching their shows, like "The Hills," and "Jersey Shore," in public, on the train, at the grocery store?
Kill me now.Sports fans foaming at the mouth and screaming over some perfect or missed play...Idiots trying to watch TV and drive (I was kidding a bit before, but this is the one that really scares me).Don't get me wrong, I love technology and can see certain times where this might be interesting, and I am all for personal freedom - but I am not enjoying the thought of some of the practicalities of life with widespread adoption of such a system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661108</id>
	<title>Just because it's Qualcomm...</title>
	<author>Zigurd</author>
	<datestamp>1262688120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MediaFLO isn't "clunky." The FLO part stands for "Forward Link Only." That means it uses a broadcast channel downstream, so it is bandwidth-efficient for one-way content delivery. It is a Qualcomm proprietary technology, but it is not inherently less good than other DTV technologies applicable to mobile devices. MediaFLO was designed for mobile devices, so it might have advantages over some DTV standards that were not designed with mobile devices in mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MediaFLO is n't " clunky .
" The FLO part stands for " Forward Link Only .
" That means it uses a broadcast channel downstream , so it is bandwidth-efficient for one-way content delivery .
It is a Qualcomm proprietary technology , but it is not inherently less good than other DTV technologies applicable to mobile devices .
MediaFLO was designed for mobile devices , so it might have advantages over some DTV standards that were not designed with mobile devices in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MediaFLO isn't "clunky.
" The FLO part stands for "Forward Link Only.
" That means it uses a broadcast channel downstream, so it is bandwidth-efficient for one-way content delivery.
It is a Qualcomm proprietary technology, but it is not inherently less good than other DTV technologies applicable to mobile devices.
MediaFLO was designed for mobile devices, so it might have advantages over some DTV standards that were not designed with mobile devices in mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30680406</id>
	<title>Re:I see...</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1262861580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know you're kidding, but a 1080p episode of anime in x264 is around 300-400MB, which is roughly twice the size of live action content in SD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you 're kidding , but a 1080p episode of anime in x264 is around 300-400MB , which is roughly twice the size of live action content in SD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you're kidding, but a 1080p episode of anime in x264 is around 300-400MB, which is roughly twice the size of live action content in SD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660970</id>
	<title>Europe, Japan,.. Use standards,, America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262687400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thinks it is better without. Americans don't want government "interfering". They claim the market will decide the best approach. It does not. It picks best short term profitability for one company (Qualcom in this case). Europe requires cellphone to be interchangable across networks, America lets cell providers each use their own scheme. You can get better cell phones and features in India then America because they follow a standard and their is a bigger market.  For the US and Canada (I am Canadian), push the governments to dictate cell phone providers need to use an open common standard for all cell phone services (copy Europe's standard).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thinks it is better without .
Americans do n't want government " interfering " .
They claim the market will decide the best approach .
It does not .
It picks best short term profitability for one company ( Qualcom in this case ) .
Europe requires cellphone to be interchangable across networks , America lets cell providers each use their own scheme .
You can get better cell phones and features in India then America because they follow a standard and their is a bigger market .
For the US and Canada ( I am Canadian ) , push the governments to dictate cell phone providers need to use an open common standard for all cell phone services ( copy Europe 's standard ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thinks it is better without.
Americans don't want government "interfering".
They claim the market will decide the best approach.
It does not.
It picks best short term profitability for one company (Qualcom in this case).
Europe requires cellphone to be interchangable across networks, America lets cell providers each use their own scheme.
You can get better cell phones and features in India then America because they follow a standard and their is a bigger market.
For the US and Canada (I am Canadian), push the governments to dictate cell phone providers need to use an open common standard for all cell phone services (copy Europe's standard).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30665650</id>
	<title>Non-idiot here...</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1262712900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard enough from the peanut gallery now...  The non-stop bickering about trivialities is getting pretty damn old, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.  Here's a lolipop, go away little children, and let the adults talk.</p><p>Is Europe, DVB-H had been promoted for literally decades as the thing that was going to change the world...  EVERYTHING was going to have a TV on it, cell phones most of all.</p><p>Fast forward to the modern day, with cell phone manufacturers having disputes with broadcasters over DVB-H fees, one just went ahead and built a full DVB-T receiver into their cell phones.  It was a stunning development.  Sure, it used a bit more power, but now you could watch REAL TV programs, not just the niche "mobile" broadcasts that you were supposed to want to watch on your cell phone.  Of course broadcasters were put in their place by this move, and DVB-H fees have become more reasonable, and there's an effort to get real content out there.  But either way, the proverbial cat is out of the bag, and people now want "real TV" on their cell phones, and a large number of them get just that these days, for a fairly small premium...</p><p>Of course ATSC in the US is much more complex than DVB-T in Europe, but never the less, you certainly can still find a handheld TV for under $100 <a href="http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/541548/Digital-Prism-ATSC-300-3-5/" title="officedepot.com">http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/541548/Digital-Prism-ATSC-300-3-5/</a> [officedepot.com]</p><p>So, it's only a question of time.  Give it another year, and your smart phones will receive OTA broadcasts, for free.  Sure, they might also support the premium in-network TV-like data system, but nobody will want it, and the niche audience won't be large enough to support the effort.  And it'll go the way of the MPEG-1 D-Frames, and the "PDA Internet", as do all poorly thought-out kludges that are only stop-gaps for temporarily resource-starved platforms that can't yet play with the big boys.</p><p>That is all.  You may now return to your endless and pointless bickering about whether or not it's worthwhile to buy a subsidized cell phone...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard enough from the peanut gallery now... The non-stop bickering about trivialities is getting pretty damn old , and it does n't make a damn bit of difference .
Here 's a lolipop , go away little children , and let the adults talk.Is Europe , DVB-H had been promoted for literally decades as the thing that was going to change the world... EVERYTHING was going to have a TV on it , cell phones most of all.Fast forward to the modern day , with cell phone manufacturers having disputes with broadcasters over DVB-H fees , one just went ahead and built a full DVB-T receiver into their cell phones .
It was a stunning development .
Sure , it used a bit more power , but now you could watch REAL TV programs , not just the niche " mobile " broadcasts that you were supposed to want to watch on your cell phone .
Of course broadcasters were put in their place by this move , and DVB-H fees have become more reasonable , and there 's an effort to get real content out there .
But either way , the proverbial cat is out of the bag , and people now want " real TV " on their cell phones , and a large number of them get just that these days , for a fairly small premium...Of course ATSC in the US is much more complex than DVB-T in Europe , but never the less , you certainly can still find a handheld TV for under $ 100 http : //www.officedepot.com/a/products/541548/Digital-Prism-ATSC-300-3-5/ [ officedepot.com ] So , it 's only a question of time .
Give it another year , and your smart phones will receive OTA broadcasts , for free .
Sure , they might also support the premium in-network TV-like data system , but nobody will want it , and the niche audience wo n't be large enough to support the effort .
And it 'll go the way of the MPEG-1 D-Frames , and the " PDA Internet " , as do all poorly thought-out kludges that are only stop-gaps for temporarily resource-starved platforms that ca n't yet play with the big boys.That is all .
You may now return to your endless and pointless bickering about whether or not it 's worthwhile to buy a subsidized cell phone.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard enough from the peanut gallery now...  The non-stop bickering about trivialities is getting pretty damn old, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
Here's a lolipop, go away little children, and let the adults talk.Is Europe, DVB-H had been promoted for literally decades as the thing that was going to change the world...  EVERYTHING was going to have a TV on it, cell phones most of all.Fast forward to the modern day, with cell phone manufacturers having disputes with broadcasters over DVB-H fees, one just went ahead and built a full DVB-T receiver into their cell phones.
It was a stunning development.
Sure, it used a bit more power, but now you could watch REAL TV programs, not just the niche "mobile" broadcasts that you were supposed to want to watch on your cell phone.
Of course broadcasters were put in their place by this move, and DVB-H fees have become more reasonable, and there's an effort to get real content out there.
But either way, the proverbial cat is out of the bag, and people now want "real TV" on their cell phones, and a large number of them get just that these days, for a fairly small premium...Of course ATSC in the US is much more complex than DVB-T in Europe, but never the less, you certainly can still find a handheld TV for under $100 http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/541548/Digital-Prism-ATSC-300-3-5/ [officedepot.com]So, it's only a question of time.
Give it another year, and your smart phones will receive OTA broadcasts, for free.
Sure, they might also support the premium in-network TV-like data system, but nobody will want it, and the niche audience won't be large enough to support the effort.
And it'll go the way of the MPEG-1 D-Frames, and the "PDA Internet", as do all poorly thought-out kludges that are only stop-gaps for temporarily resource-starved platforms that can't yet play with the big boys.That is all.
You may now return to your endless and pointless bickering about whether or not it's worthwhile to buy a subsidized cell phone...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662874</id>
	<title>Re:Just because it's Qualcomm...</title>
	<author>Kizeh</author>
	<datestamp>1262696040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever happened to IP multicast? Quite well suited for TV streaming across any number of platforms, and as a transport layer it doesn't get much more universally standardized and accepted than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened to IP multicast ?
Quite well suited for TV streaming across any number of platforms , and as a transport layer it does n't get much more universally standardized and accepted than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened to IP multicast?
Quite well suited for TV streaming across any number of platforms, and as a transport layer it doesn't get much more universally standardized and accepted than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662172</id>
	<title>Re:Dollars and nonsense.</title>
	<author>Grizzley9</author>
	<datestamp>1262692680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, I already get live TV on my iPhone, any channel I get on my PC at home.  OrbLive app allows me to stream it from my home PC over wifi (and earlier versions over 3G/Edge).  Course you can stream other things as well but Live TV works rather well, cable or broadcast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , I already get live TV on my iPhone , any channel I get on my PC at home .
OrbLive app allows me to stream it from my home PC over wifi ( and earlier versions over 3G/Edge ) .
Course you can stream other things as well but Live TV works rather well , cable or broadcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, I already get live TV on my iPhone, any channel I get on my PC at home.
OrbLive app allows me to stream it from my home PC over wifi (and earlier versions over 3G/Edge).
Course you can stream other things as well but Live TV works rather well, cable or broadcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661514</id>
	<title>Re:Why not?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1262689560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The over-the-air digital signal looks great even at full resolution (1920x1080), so it's maximum overkill for a cellphone screen.  For that matter, decoding the broadcast ATSC signal takes a rather beefy CPU, so I wonder if decoding it (even in hardware) might not consume a lot of power for a cellphone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The over-the-air digital signal looks great even at full resolution ( 1920x1080 ) , so it 's maximum overkill for a cellphone screen .
For that matter , decoding the broadcast ATSC signal takes a rather beefy CPU , so I wonder if decoding it ( even in hardware ) might not consume a lot of power for a cellphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The over-the-air digital signal looks great even at full resolution (1920x1080), so it's maximum overkill for a cellphone screen.
For that matter, decoding the broadcast ATSC signal takes a rather beefy CPU, so I wonder if decoding it (even in hardware) might not consume a lot of power for a cellphone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661874</id>
	<title>Re:Dedicated devices do it better.</title>
	<author>E IS mC(Square)</author>
	<datestamp>1262691360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt; Seeing it's taking forever to get FM radio added to the iPhone
<br> <br>
WTF? That's because ipod and iphone are shitty devices (yeah, mod me troll for that), and there are a LOT of other devices out there with built-in FM receivers for years. Way to go creating a standard out of an inferior device and extrapolating it for everything else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Seeing it 's taking forever to get FM radio added to the iPhone WTF ?
That 's because ipod and iphone are shitty devices ( yeah , mod me troll for that ) , and there are a LOT of other devices out there with built-in FM receivers for years .
Way to go creating a standard out of an inferior device and extrapolating it for everything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Seeing it's taking forever to get FM radio added to the iPhone
 
WTF?
That's because ipod and iphone are shitty devices (yeah, mod me troll for that), and there are a LOT of other devices out there with built-in FM receivers for years.
Way to go creating a standard out of an inferior device and extrapolating it for everything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664006</id>
	<title>Re:Europe, Japan,.. Use standards,, America</title>
	<author>pommiekiwifruit</author>
	<datestamp>1262701740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But here you have the situation where all the existing innovation (let alone future innovation) is disabled for the American market because the carriers don't like the consumers having more features unless they get a cut.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But here you have the situation where all the existing innovation ( let alone future innovation ) is disabled for the American market because the carriers do n't like the consumers having more features unless they get a cut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But here you have the situation where all the existing innovation (let alone future innovation) is disabled for the American market because the carriers don't like the consumers having more features unless they get a cut.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662312</id>
	<title>I remember when a cell phone was just a phone.</title>
	<author>hamburgler007</author>
	<datestamp>1262693280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mind you, I'm not knocking all smartphones, I myself own an iphone (which I have mixed feelings towards).  But the unfortunate trend for the last couple of years in the US has been to focus on feature rich phones while doing little to improve the call quality, which is the primary function of the device.  Worse yet, all the basic cell phone plans are more expensive now just to subsidize the smart phones sold under contract now.

I am an iphone owner, but I am considering just getting a basic cell phone that offers good battery life and call quality.  I can live without mobile email and applications I will never use (I do realize email is a requirement for a lot of folks).

PS can anyone recommend a gsm phone that meets the above description?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mind you , I 'm not knocking all smartphones , I myself own an iphone ( which I have mixed feelings towards ) .
But the unfortunate trend for the last couple of years in the US has been to focus on feature rich phones while doing little to improve the call quality , which is the primary function of the device .
Worse yet , all the basic cell phone plans are more expensive now just to subsidize the smart phones sold under contract now .
I am an iphone owner , but I am considering just getting a basic cell phone that offers good battery life and call quality .
I can live without mobile email and applications I will never use ( I do realize email is a requirement for a lot of folks ) .
PS can anyone recommend a gsm phone that meets the above description ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mind you, I'm not knocking all smartphones, I myself own an iphone (which I have mixed feelings towards).
But the unfortunate trend for the last couple of years in the US has been to focus on feature rich phones while doing little to improve the call quality, which is the primary function of the device.
Worse yet, all the basic cell phone plans are more expensive now just to subsidize the smart phones sold under contract now.
I am an iphone owner, but I am considering just getting a basic cell phone that offers good battery life and call quality.
I can live without mobile email and applications I will never use (I do realize email is a requirement for a lot of folks).
PS can anyone recommend a gsm phone that meets the above description?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660904</id>
	<title>I see...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262687040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>South Korea, China, [...] and Japan</p><p>So all the countries that have excess Anime... Makes sense! Smaller file size and faster streaming after compressing the video to use only an 8 bit colour-stream, which hardly ruins the cartoon!</p><p>I'm kidding. Of course. Calm down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>South Korea , China , [ ... ] and JapanSo all the countries that have excess Anime... Makes sense !
Smaller file size and faster streaming after compressing the video to use only an 8 bit colour-stream , which hardly ruins the cartoon ! I 'm kidding .
Of course .
Calm down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>South Korea, China, [...] and JapanSo all the countries that have excess Anime... Makes sense!
Smaller file size and faster streaming after compressing the video to use only an 8 bit colour-stream, which hardly ruins the cartoon!I'm kidding.
Of course.
Calm down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660786</id>
	<title>It will be a long time...</title>
	<author>Xeno man</author>
	<datestamp>1262686680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't happen until a manufacture decides it needs a bigger edge in the market and offers it in their most expensive phone. Only then will other phone makers device to add it in their most expensive devices. Then finally another manufacturer will start adding it in their cheaper phones just to flood the market with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't happen until a manufacture decides it needs a bigger edge in the market and offers it in their most expensive phone .
Only then will other phone makers device to add it in their most expensive devices .
Then finally another manufacturer will start adding it in their cheaper phones just to flood the market with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't happen until a manufacture decides it needs a bigger edge in the market and offers it in their most expensive phone.
Only then will other phone makers device to add it in their most expensive devices.
Then finally another manufacturer will start adding it in their cheaper phones just to flood the market with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661868</id>
	<title>Tagged usedvbhinstead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262691300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The story is currently tagged "use DVB-H instead". Carriers in Europe, where the DVB family of protocols is in widespread use, have tried establishing subscription based DVB-H service. They mostly failed because nobody wanted to pay for TV programs that they could otherwise get for free over the air. Although DVB-H is a better match for mobile devices, it has been replaced by DVB-T (Digital Video Broadcast - Terrestrial). TV-enabled mobile phones can now receive the same over the air signal that is used for normal TVs. DVB-H is optimized for mobile use: The signal is bursty, so that the receiver can be turned off intermittently, and the size of the video is smaller to better match mobile device screens and avoid unnecessary decoding overhead. Nevertheless, DVB-T is the de-facto mobile TV standard because it's free and it's already installed. No subscriptions, no waiting for channels becoming available. Mobile-optimized protocol versions have been obsoleted by technological progress. The technical penalty for using existing protocols is so low that the additional costs for a separate infrastructure kill special mobile protocols left and right. In conclusion, no, don't use DVB-H instead. Use DVB-T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story is currently tagged " use DVB-H instead " .
Carriers in Europe , where the DVB family of protocols is in widespread use , have tried establishing subscription based DVB-H service .
They mostly failed because nobody wanted to pay for TV programs that they could otherwise get for free over the air .
Although DVB-H is a better match for mobile devices , it has been replaced by DVB-T ( Digital Video Broadcast - Terrestrial ) .
TV-enabled mobile phones can now receive the same over the air signal that is used for normal TVs .
DVB-H is optimized for mobile use : The signal is bursty , so that the receiver can be turned off intermittently , and the size of the video is smaller to better match mobile device screens and avoid unnecessary decoding overhead .
Nevertheless , DVB-T is the de-facto mobile TV standard because it 's free and it 's already installed .
No subscriptions , no waiting for channels becoming available .
Mobile-optimized protocol versions have been obsoleted by technological progress .
The technical penalty for using existing protocols is so low that the additional costs for a separate infrastructure kill special mobile protocols left and right .
In conclusion , no , do n't use DVB-H instead .
Use DVB-T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story is currently tagged "use DVB-H instead".
Carriers in Europe, where the DVB family of protocols is in widespread use, have tried establishing subscription based DVB-H service.
They mostly failed because nobody wanted to pay for TV programs that they could otherwise get for free over the air.
Although DVB-H is a better match for mobile devices, it has been replaced by DVB-T (Digital Video Broadcast - Terrestrial).
TV-enabled mobile phones can now receive the same over the air signal that is used for normal TVs.
DVB-H is optimized for mobile use: The signal is bursty, so that the receiver can be turned off intermittently, and the size of the video is smaller to better match mobile device screens and avoid unnecessary decoding overhead.
Nevertheless, DVB-T is the de-facto mobile TV standard because it's free and it's already installed.
No subscriptions, no waiting for channels becoming available.
Mobile-optimized protocol versions have been obsoleted by technological progress.
The technical penalty for using existing protocols is so low that the additional costs for a separate infrastructure kill special mobile protocols left and right.
In conclusion, no, don't use DVB-H instead.
Use DVB-T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661546</id>
	<title>Not the American way</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1262689680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In America, boradband providers only offer additional services if they can charge you for it. This "free" word you speak of will not be recognized by the American cell providers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In America , boradband providers only offer additional services if they can charge you for it .
This " free " word you speak of will not be recognized by the American cell providers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In America, boradband providers only offer additional services if they can charge you for it.
This "free" word you speak of will not be recognized by the American cell providers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30665134</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>szilagyi</author>
	<datestamp>1262709180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to think like you.  I used mobile phones until I moved somewhere without coverage or Verizon decided I needed an upgrade and started dropping calls randomly.  I replaced their batteries when they wore out after three years.</p><p>But, it turns out that, once you have kids, every device is a throwaway device!  I'm on my third PS2 and had to replace a laptop this year.</p><p>So it turns out the electronics manufacturers are just supporting family values, and we are agreeing by buying their products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to think like you .
I used mobile phones until I moved somewhere without coverage or Verizon decided I needed an upgrade and started dropping calls randomly .
I replaced their batteries when they wore out after three years.But , it turns out that , once you have kids , every device is a throwaway device !
I 'm on my third PS2 and had to replace a laptop this year.So it turns out the electronics manufacturers are just supporting family values , and we are agreeing by buying their products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to think like you.
I used mobile phones until I moved somewhere without coverage or Verizon decided I needed an upgrade and started dropping calls randomly.
I replaced their batteries when they wore out after three years.But, it turns out that, once you have kids, every device is a throwaway device!
I'm on my third PS2 and had to replace a laptop this year.So it turns out the electronics manufacturers are just supporting family values, and we are agreeing by buying their products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30666320</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262719680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My dirt cheap Samsung phone cost 30 bucks or so (250 SEK) without a contract. Still not a throw-away device, but not several hundred dollars either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My dirt cheap Samsung phone cost 30 bucks or so ( 250 SEK ) without a contract .
Still not a throw-away device , but not several hundred dollars either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My dirt cheap Samsung phone cost 30 bucks or so (250 SEK) without a contract.
Still not a throw-away device, but not several hundred dollars either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661536</id>
	<title>antenna strength? in some area you need good signa</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262689620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>antenna strength? in some area you need good signal to get tv and channel 2 HD use to be real bad with that in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>antenna strength ?
in some area you need good signal to get tv and channel 2 HD use to be real bad with that in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>antenna strength?
in some area you need good signal to get tv and channel 2 HD use to be real bad with that in the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30666594</id>
	<title>Re:Dollars and nonsense.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262809440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pirate satellite tv is all i'm waiting for n3 encryption to be cracked in no time...any minute now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pirate satellite tv is all i 'm waiting for n3 encryption to be cracked in no time...any minute now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pirate satellite tv is all i'm waiting for n3 encryption to be cracked in no time...any minute now</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662160</id>
	<title>Re:Please, Plebes</title>
	<author>HenryKoren</author>
	<datestamp>1262692560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See this:</p><p><a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1498728&amp;cid=30661924" title="slashdot.org">http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1498728&amp;cid=30661924</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>The whole article is horribly wrong.  The TV service they're speaking about does NOT use up cellular network bandwidth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See this : http : //mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1498728&amp;cid = 30661924 [ slashdot.org ] The whole article is horribly wrong .
The TV service they 're speaking about does NOT use up cellular network bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See this:http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1498728&amp;cid=30661924 [slashdot.org]The whole article is horribly wrong.
The TV service they're speaking about does NOT use up cellular network bandwidth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663946</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1262701380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It all depends on your phone, and what you use it for. My phone is a cheap, throw-away device. It cost $15. I have a list of family and friends on it, it makes calls, and it receives them. I average about 2 texts a month, so it has a normal keypad. <br>
&nbsp; <br>In short, it's the mobile version of my land-line with the important numbers scrawled on a sheet of paper and tacked to the wall above it. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Cost? About the same as my old land-line. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Not everyone wants a camera-tablet-netbook-gps-phone. I have good versions of all of those already. When one goes bad, or I want to upgrade one of them, I do. <br>
&nbsp; <br>I feel as you do that the crap hardware that's being put out is a travesty. But the god-damn rip-offs that are cell phone plans are far more onerous. I went pre-paid 8 months ago, and I'm in no way sorry I did. Every 6 months or so I drop $100 on my account. Yes, that's about $200 a year for cell service, for how much I use it. Pick a phone with a data plan, and you're looking at triple that, minimum.<br>
&nbsp; <br>I have good quality, well researched hardware for everything but one piece of equipment: My phone. It 's the most likely to get crushed, lost, dropped in water, etc. Since I'm working with an account with a balance, it doesn't matter what phone I have - when this one dies, I'll hit the mall and have a new one with the same number in a half hour, for all of $15-$20. <br>
&nbsp; <br>It's even BETTER than a land line!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It all depends on your phone , and what you use it for .
My phone is a cheap , throw-away device .
It cost $ 15 .
I have a list of family and friends on it , it makes calls , and it receives them .
I average about 2 texts a month , so it has a normal keypad .
  In short , it 's the mobile version of my land-line with the important numbers scrawled on a sheet of paper and tacked to the wall above it .
  Cost ?
About the same as my old land-line .
  Not everyone wants a camera-tablet-netbook-gps-phone .
I have good versions of all of those already .
When one goes bad , or I want to upgrade one of them , I do .
  I feel as you do that the crap hardware that 's being put out is a travesty .
But the god-damn rip-offs that are cell phone plans are far more onerous .
I went pre-paid 8 months ago , and I 'm in no way sorry I did .
Every 6 months or so I drop $ 100 on my account .
Yes , that 's about $ 200 a year for cell service , for how much I use it .
Pick a phone with a data plan , and you 're looking at triple that , minimum .
  I have good quality , well researched hardware for everything but one piece of equipment : My phone .
It 's the most likely to get crushed , lost , dropped in water , etc .
Since I 'm working with an account with a balance , it does n't matter what phone I have - when this one dies , I 'll hit the mall and have a new one with the same number in a half hour , for all of $ 15- $ 20 .
  It 's even BETTER than a land line !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all depends on your phone, and what you use it for.
My phone is a cheap, throw-away device.
It cost $15.
I have a list of family and friends on it, it makes calls, and it receives them.
I average about 2 texts a month, so it has a normal keypad.
  In short, it's the mobile version of my land-line with the important numbers scrawled on a sheet of paper and tacked to the wall above it.
  Cost?
About the same as my old land-line.
  Not everyone wants a camera-tablet-netbook-gps-phone.
I have good versions of all of those already.
When one goes bad, or I want to upgrade one of them, I do.
  I feel as you do that the crap hardware that's being put out is a travesty.
But the god-damn rip-offs that are cell phone plans are far more onerous.
I went pre-paid 8 months ago, and I'm in no way sorry I did.
Every 6 months or so I drop $100 on my account.
Yes, that's about $200 a year for cell service, for how much I use it.
Pick a phone with a data plan, and you're looking at triple that, minimum.
  I have good quality, well researched hardware for everything but one piece of equipment: My phone.
It 's the most likely to get crushed, lost, dropped in water, etc.
Since I'm working with an account with a balance, it doesn't matter what phone I have - when this one dies, I'll hit the mall and have a new one with the same number in a half hour, for all of $15-$20.
  It's even BETTER than a land line!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661008</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1262687520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A mobile phone is a throw away cheap device</p></div><p>
I still don't understand this mindset. A mobile phone, bought without a contract, is often upwards of a few hundred dollars here in America. Purchased with a contract, it comes at the price of about $50 with two years worth of monthly payments that you can't get out of without paying, you guessed it, a few hundred dollars. Nowhere in my book does that price put mobile phones in the range of cheap throw away devices. Cheap throw away devices are things like paper towels and flashlights that run under the $20 mark and are trivial to find and purchase just about anywhere. Something as expensive as a mobile phone seems to me like a long term investment. I put a lot of thought into what kind of phone I am going to purchase, what kind of capability it should have, and how much I am willing to pay for that capability. Mobile phone purchases require research and awareness and sometimes even a bit of silver-tongued bartering on the buyer's part. That doesn't seem like a throw away device to me.
<br> <br>
I really wish this idea and similar ideas regarding things like computers and video game consoles would cease already. I am sick of having to save up for new multiple hundred dollar purchases every two or three new years because designers and companies refuse to design a product that lasts more than a couple years. That's not to say that I don't see value in upgrading for some new exciting feature. Sure, if a video game console provides a whole new interface or something cool like that, I won't have a problem dropping coin on it. Having to buy a new Xbox 360 every couple years just because a company won't put any money into quality engineer is frustrating though.
<br> <br>
The same thing goes with mobile phones. If a company adds some cool new feature, like cameras, to their phone, I will drop coin on buying it if I value the feature. Paying to constantly replace a simple phone that I use primarily for texting or talking on every couple of years seems absurd however. This is especially true when I need to buy a new phone for no other reason than it has problems interfacing with a new battery or because the screen just magically 'wears out.'
<br> <br>
I know that wasn't the point of your post, but I don't consider purchases of a few hundred dollars whimsical or cheap. I really wish tech companies would stop pushing these items on us like they were cheap throw away toilet paper to be replaced in a dozen months. I want something that lasts if I am going to buy it damn it. Hell, I am riding a 31 year old motorcycle that functions just fine today. I would be stoked if I could get mobile phone that could do the same....
<br> <br>
On a side note, I can also use a land-line telephone that is 31 years old today. Our culture seems to have changed quite a bit when it comes to quality engineering.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A mobile phone is a throw away cheap device I still do n't understand this mindset .
A mobile phone , bought without a contract , is often upwards of a few hundred dollars here in America .
Purchased with a contract , it comes at the price of about $ 50 with two years worth of monthly payments that you ca n't get out of without paying , you guessed it , a few hundred dollars .
Nowhere in my book does that price put mobile phones in the range of cheap throw away devices .
Cheap throw away devices are things like paper towels and flashlights that run under the $ 20 mark and are trivial to find and purchase just about anywhere .
Something as expensive as a mobile phone seems to me like a long term investment .
I put a lot of thought into what kind of phone I am going to purchase , what kind of capability it should have , and how much I am willing to pay for that capability .
Mobile phone purchases require research and awareness and sometimes even a bit of silver-tongued bartering on the buyer 's part .
That does n't seem like a throw away device to me .
I really wish this idea and similar ideas regarding things like computers and video game consoles would cease already .
I am sick of having to save up for new multiple hundred dollar purchases every two or three new years because designers and companies refuse to design a product that lasts more than a couple years .
That 's not to say that I do n't see value in upgrading for some new exciting feature .
Sure , if a video game console provides a whole new interface or something cool like that , I wo n't have a problem dropping coin on it .
Having to buy a new Xbox 360 every couple years just because a company wo n't put any money into quality engineer is frustrating though .
The same thing goes with mobile phones .
If a company adds some cool new feature , like cameras , to their phone , I will drop coin on buying it if I value the feature .
Paying to constantly replace a simple phone that I use primarily for texting or talking on every couple of years seems absurd however .
This is especially true when I need to buy a new phone for no other reason than it has problems interfacing with a new battery or because the screen just magically 'wears out .
' I know that was n't the point of your post , but I do n't consider purchases of a few hundred dollars whimsical or cheap .
I really wish tech companies would stop pushing these items on us like they were cheap throw away toilet paper to be replaced in a dozen months .
I want something that lasts if I am going to buy it damn it .
Hell , I am riding a 31 year old motorcycle that functions just fine today .
I would be stoked if I could get mobile phone that could do the same... . On a side note , I can also use a land-line telephone that is 31 years old today .
Our culture seems to have changed quite a bit when it comes to quality engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mobile phone is a throw away cheap device
I still don't understand this mindset.
A mobile phone, bought without a contract, is often upwards of a few hundred dollars here in America.
Purchased with a contract, it comes at the price of about $50 with two years worth of monthly payments that you can't get out of without paying, you guessed it, a few hundred dollars.
Nowhere in my book does that price put mobile phones in the range of cheap throw away devices.
Cheap throw away devices are things like paper towels and flashlights that run under the $20 mark and are trivial to find and purchase just about anywhere.
Something as expensive as a mobile phone seems to me like a long term investment.
I put a lot of thought into what kind of phone I am going to purchase, what kind of capability it should have, and how much I am willing to pay for that capability.
Mobile phone purchases require research and awareness and sometimes even a bit of silver-tongued bartering on the buyer's part.
That doesn't seem like a throw away device to me.
I really wish this idea and similar ideas regarding things like computers and video game consoles would cease already.
I am sick of having to save up for new multiple hundred dollar purchases every two or three new years because designers and companies refuse to design a product that lasts more than a couple years.
That's not to say that I don't see value in upgrading for some new exciting feature.
Sure, if a video game console provides a whole new interface or something cool like that, I won't have a problem dropping coin on it.
Having to buy a new Xbox 360 every couple years just because a company won't put any money into quality engineer is frustrating though.
The same thing goes with mobile phones.
If a company adds some cool new feature, like cameras, to their phone, I will drop coin on buying it if I value the feature.
Paying to constantly replace a simple phone that I use primarily for texting or talking on every couple of years seems absurd however.
This is especially true when I need to buy a new phone for no other reason than it has problems interfacing with a new battery or because the screen just magically 'wears out.
'
 
I know that wasn't the point of your post, but I don't consider purchases of a few hundred dollars whimsical or cheap.
I really wish tech companies would stop pushing these items on us like they were cheap throw away toilet paper to be replaced in a dozen months.
I want something that lasts if I am going to buy it damn it.
Hell, I am riding a 31 year old motorcycle that functions just fine today.
I would be stoked if I could get mobile phone that could do the same....
 
On a side note, I can also use a land-line telephone that is 31 years old today.
Our culture seems to have changed quite a bit when it comes to quality engineering.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30665018</id>
	<title>Re:Do we need another distraction?</title>
	<author>phoenix\_rizzen</author>
	<datestamp>1262708580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sit on a bus, subway, train, back seat for 20-60 minutes, and you'll discover just how convenient it is having mobile browsing, or video, or games, or whatever in your pocket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sit on a bus , subway , train , back seat for 20-60 minutes , and you 'll discover just how convenient it is having mobile browsing , or video , or games , or whatever in your pocket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sit on a bus, subway, train, back seat for 20-60 minutes, and you'll discover just how convenient it is having mobile browsing, or video, or games, or whatever in your pocket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660760</id>
	<title>No thanks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262686560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe I'm a luddite, but I'm not really in favor of TV becoming more prevalent than it already is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm a luddite , but I 'm not really in favor of TV becoming more prevalent than it already is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm a luddite, but I'm not really in favor of TV becoming more prevalent than it already is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661282</id>
	<title>Please, Plebes</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1262688780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, plebes, please choke the shitty US cell network further by watching TV on your phones in addition to all the other trivial shit you do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , plebes , please choke the shitty US cell network further by watching TV on your phones in addition to all the other trivial shit you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, plebes, please choke the shitty US cell network further by watching TV on your phones in addition to all the other trivial shit you do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662110</id>
	<title>Re:Dollars and nonsense.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262692320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't get is why in the world they'd want the traffic going across their network, instead of just picking it up from a broadcast signal that someone else is already paying for.</p><p>I've seen bills going to congress to eliminate free TV, so maybe this is "inline" with those, but I can't see why they'd want the aggrevation and congestion unless they had some other motive... $$$.... Not just the feeds... maybe they can highjack the "local" advertising and submit their own ads and such.</p><p>Who knows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get is why in the world they 'd want the traffic going across their network , instead of just picking it up from a broadcast signal that someone else is already paying for.I 've seen bills going to congress to eliminate free TV , so maybe this is " inline " with those , but I ca n't see why they 'd want the aggrevation and congestion unless they had some other motive... $ $ $ .... Not just the feeds... maybe they can highjack the " local " advertising and submit their own ads and such.Who knows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get is why in the world they'd want the traffic going across their network, instead of just picking it up from a broadcast signal that someone else is already paying for.I've seen bills going to congress to eliminate free TV, so maybe this is "inline" with those, but I can't see why they'd want the aggrevation and congestion unless they had some other motive... $$$.... Not just the feeds... maybe they can highjack the "local" advertising and submit their own ads and such.Who knows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660690</id>
	<title>Dollars and nonsense.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262686260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see... as non-cellphone devices, FLO TV costs $250 for the 7-inch LCD TV at Best Buy, and then you get 6 months free after which you pay about $15/month.</p><p>An ATSC-based portable LCD of the same size costs $100 at Best Buy, and of course has no monthly fees because ATSC is broadcast in the clear.</p><p>Now, the FLO TV product has an advantage because what you're paying for isn't just the broadcast networks, but also a few "basic cable" channels such as ESPN, CNN, CNBC, Nick, and Comedy Central. It's a case of you get what you pay for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see... as non-cellphone devices , FLO TV costs $ 250 for the 7-inch LCD TV at Best Buy , and then you get 6 months free after which you pay about $ 15/month.An ATSC-based portable LCD of the same size costs $ 100 at Best Buy , and of course has no monthly fees because ATSC is broadcast in the clear.Now , the FLO TV product has an advantage because what you 're paying for is n't just the broadcast networks , but also a few " basic cable " channels such as ESPN , CNN , CNBC , Nick , and Comedy Central .
It 's a case of you get what you pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see... as non-cellphone devices, FLO TV costs $250 for the 7-inch LCD TV at Best Buy, and then you get 6 months free after which you pay about $15/month.An ATSC-based portable LCD of the same size costs $100 at Best Buy, and of course has no monthly fees because ATSC is broadcast in the clear.Now, the FLO TV product has an advantage because what you're paying for isn't just the broadcast networks, but also a few "basic cable" channels such as ESPN, CNN, CNBC, Nick, and Comedy Central.
It's a case of you get what you pay for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664002</id>
	<title>Why pay for a service that already exists?</title>
	<author>Pro923</author>
	<datestamp>1262701740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been watching TV on my WM phones for years now for free.  Well - not for free - I mean I already pay for the internet connection...  I was living out in Seattle for a short contract and needed to see the patriots games.  Back home I have a XP box in the basement with an old ATI TV card in it.  The flow goes like this:

CATV from Boston
ATI TV Wonder card
Windows Media Encoder (free download from MS)
Internet connection to phone
Windows media player

What's so complicated?  I could even use Remote Desktop to log in and switch channels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been watching TV on my WM phones for years now for free .
Well - not for free - I mean I already pay for the internet connection... I was living out in Seattle for a short contract and needed to see the patriots games .
Back home I have a XP box in the basement with an old ATI TV card in it .
The flow goes like this : CATV from Boston ATI TV Wonder card Windows Media Encoder ( free download from MS ) Internet connection to phone Windows media player What 's so complicated ?
I could even use Remote Desktop to log in and switch channels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been watching TV on my WM phones for years now for free.
Well - not for free - I mean I already pay for the internet connection...  I was living out in Seattle for a short contract and needed to see the patriots games.
Back home I have a XP box in the basement with an old ATI TV card in it.
The flow goes like this:

CATV from Boston
ATI TV Wonder card
Windows Media Encoder (free download from MS)
Internet connection to phone
Windows media player

What's so complicated?
I could even use Remote Desktop to log in and switch channels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663064</id>
	<title>Re:No thanks.</title>
	<author>A nonymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1262696940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe I'm a luddite.</p></div><p>Is <b>luddite</b> "I know what's good for other people" in busybody-speak?</p><p>If you don't like it, don't watch it.  If you don't like it and it doesn't harm you, it is none of your business if it becomes more prevalent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm a luddite.Is luddite " I know what 's good for other people " in busybody-speak ? If you do n't like it , do n't watch it .
If you do n't like it and it does n't harm you , it is none of your business if it becomes more prevalent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm a luddite.Is luddite "I know what's good for other people" in busybody-speak?If you don't like it, don't watch it.
If you don't like it and it doesn't harm you, it is none of your business if it becomes more prevalent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30671688</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262801820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A mobile phone is a throw away cheap device that is issed for two way communications with another person.</i></p><p>A five hundred dollar device used for two way communication is NOT cheap; a POTS phone is ten bucks. And my phone has email that I can send to more than one recipient at a time, so it's not two way communications ONLY (and it's a relatively cheap phone). You can buy a small TV for less than I paid for my phone.</p><p><i>A TV is something you watch from your recliner in the living room with a beer in your hand (or wine).</i></p><p>When I was a teenager I worked at a drive-in theater. When I worked the ticket booth I kept my twelve inch Panasonic and a book or two to keep boredom away after the cars stopped coming in. You'ld have a hard time watching a TV with a screen that small from  a recliner sitting across the room.</p><p>I think the idea of a phone also acting as a TV and MP3 plsyer and FM radio and ebook reader is a good idea; less junk to carry around with you. Pocket space is pretty limited in most clothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A mobile phone is a throw away cheap device that is issed for two way communications with another person.A five hundred dollar device used for two way communication is NOT cheap ; a POTS phone is ten bucks .
And my phone has email that I can send to more than one recipient at a time , so it 's not two way communications ONLY ( and it 's a relatively cheap phone ) .
You can buy a small TV for less than I paid for my phone.A TV is something you watch from your recliner in the living room with a beer in your hand ( or wine ) .When I was a teenager I worked at a drive-in theater .
When I worked the ticket booth I kept my twelve inch Panasonic and a book or two to keep boredom away after the cars stopped coming in .
You'ld have a hard time watching a TV with a screen that small from a recliner sitting across the room.I think the idea of a phone also acting as a TV and MP3 plsyer and FM radio and ebook reader is a good idea ; less junk to carry around with you .
Pocket space is pretty limited in most clothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mobile phone is a throw away cheap device that is issed for two way communications with another person.A five hundred dollar device used for two way communication is NOT cheap; a POTS phone is ten bucks.
And my phone has email that I can send to more than one recipient at a time, so it's not two way communications ONLY (and it's a relatively cheap phone).
You can buy a small TV for less than I paid for my phone.A TV is something you watch from your recliner in the living room with a beer in your hand (or wine).When I was a teenager I worked at a drive-in theater.
When I worked the ticket booth I kept my twelve inch Panasonic and a book or two to keep boredom away after the cars stopped coming in.
You'ld have a hard time watching a TV with a screen that small from  a recliner sitting across the room.I think the idea of a phone also acting as a TV and MP3 plsyer and FM radio and ebook reader is a good idea; less junk to carry around with you.
Pocket space is pretty limited in most clothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661614</id>
	<title>This might be of interest to everyone...</title>
	<author>HotBBQ</author>
	<datestamp>1262690040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like Samsung has put a Digital TV chip into its Moment cellular device.  It will be able to receive live DTV.  They have a demo available at the CES.  <a href="http://www.samsungusanews.com/index.jsp?menu=post&amp;post=4173" title="samsungusanews.com" rel="nofollow">Hit up the link from Samsung.</a> [samsungusanews.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like Samsung has put a Digital TV chip into its Moment cellular device .
It will be able to receive live DTV .
They have a demo available at the CES .
Hit up the link from Samsung .
[ samsungusanews.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like Samsung has put a Digital TV chip into its Moment cellular device.
It will be able to receive live DTV.
They have a demo available at the CES.
Hit up the link from Samsung.
[samsungusanews.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660746</id>
	<title>Why not?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262686500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not? We already have hundreds of channels of "high def" cable TV that's usually 480p and so compressed that it looks like hammered sh**. It'll probably look <i>better</i> on a cell phone where fine detail can't be picked up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not ?
We already have hundreds of channels of " high def " cable TV that 's usually 480p and so compressed that it looks like hammered sh * * .
It 'll probably look better on a cell phone where fine detail ca n't be picked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not?
We already have hundreds of channels of "high def" cable TV that's usually 480p and so compressed that it looks like hammered sh**.
It'll probably look better on a cell phone where fine detail can't be picked up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262686620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A mobile phone is a throw away cheap device that is issed for two way communications with another person.  A TV is something you watch from your recliner in the living room with a beer in your hand (or wine).  The two should not have and will not have anything in common.  This is just a stupid idea and anyone buying into this is just flushing money down the toilet (which also appears to be included in this phone).</htmltext>
<tokenext>A mobile phone is a throw away cheap device that is issed for two way communications with another person .
A TV is something you watch from your recliner in the living room with a beer in your hand ( or wine ) .
The two should not have and will not have anything in common .
This is just a stupid idea and anyone buying into this is just flushing money down the toilet ( which also appears to be included in this phone ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mobile phone is a throw away cheap device that is issed for two way communications with another person.
A TV is something you watch from your recliner in the living room with a beer in your hand (or wine).
The two should not have and will not have anything in common.
This is just a stupid idea and anyone buying into this is just flushing money down the toilet (which also appears to be included in this phone).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664052</id>
	<title>Mobile DTV and Flo TV DON'T USE the Cell Network!</title>
	<author>BBF\_BBF</author>
	<datestamp>1262702160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't trust the article to provide correct information.  <br>
<br>
As others have posted, both the new US Mobile DTV standard and Qualcomm's Flo TV do not use the Cell network to broadcast its video/audio signals.  Those are broadcast using a completely separate broadcast network similar to existing Terristrial Broadcast ATSC.  No extra bandwidth is used on the cell network for audio/video data.
Unlike the previous gen of Carrier provided video like Vcast and SprintTV that actually sent/still send data individually to each handset through the cellular data connection, requiring scads of bandwidth that could be used for browsing the interwebs/calls/pron.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't trust the article to provide correct information .
As others have posted , both the new US Mobile DTV standard and Qualcomm 's Flo TV do not use the Cell network to broadcast its video/audio signals .
Those are broadcast using a completely separate broadcast network similar to existing Terristrial Broadcast ATSC .
No extra bandwidth is used on the cell network for audio/video data .
Unlike the previous gen of Carrier provided video like Vcast and SprintTV that actually sent/still send data individually to each handset through the cellular data connection , requiring scads of bandwidth that could be used for browsing the interwebs/calls/pron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't trust the article to provide correct information.
As others have posted, both the new US Mobile DTV standard and Qualcomm's Flo TV do not use the Cell network to broadcast its video/audio signals.
Those are broadcast using a completely separate broadcast network similar to existing Terristrial Broadcast ATSC.
No extra bandwidth is used on the cell network for audio/video data.
Unlike the previous gen of Carrier provided video like Vcast and SprintTV that actually sent/still send data individually to each handset through the cellular data connection, requiring scads of bandwidth that could be used for browsing the interwebs/calls/pron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660722</id>
	<title>Dedicated devices do it better.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262686380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seeing it's taking forever to get FM radio added to the iPhone, why would they want to put in a digital TV tuner of either kind? FLO TV has a prototype of an add-on device that could use the iPhone as a screen... but it's a mess of a brick bigger than the iPhone. ATSC TV on the iPhone seems kind of pointless when you can buy a $100 TV that comes with its own 7-inch screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seeing it 's taking forever to get FM radio added to the iPhone , why would they want to put in a digital TV tuner of either kind ?
FLO TV has a prototype of an add-on device that could use the iPhone as a screen... but it 's a mess of a brick bigger than the iPhone .
ATSC TV on the iPhone seems kind of pointless when you can buy a $ 100 TV that comes with its own 7-inch screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seeing it's taking forever to get FM radio added to the iPhone, why would they want to put in a digital TV tuner of either kind?
FLO TV has a prototype of an add-on device that could use the iPhone as a screen... but it's a mess of a brick bigger than the iPhone.
ATSC TV on the iPhone seems kind of pointless when you can buy a $100 TV that comes with its own 7-inch screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30666704</id>
	<title>Re:Dedicated devices do it better.</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1262811060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They don't have to put it on the iPhone. </i></p><p>But it will be on your iPhone.  ATSC-M/H is an IP based system, and there will be a device called <a href="http://ces.cnet.com/8301-31045\_1-10418784-269.html" title="cnet.com">Tivit</a> [cnet.com] that will receive an ATSC-M/H IP stream, and rebroadcast it over WiFi to your iPhone, Touch, PC, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't have to put it on the iPhone .
But it will be on your iPhone .
ATSC-M/H is an IP based system , and there will be a device called Tivit [ cnet.com ] that will receive an ATSC-M/H IP stream , and rebroadcast it over WiFi to your iPhone , Touch , PC , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't have to put it on the iPhone.
But it will be on your iPhone.
ATSC-M/H is an IP based system, and there will be a device called Tivit [cnet.com] that will receive an ATSC-M/H IP stream, and rebroadcast it over WiFi to your iPhone, Touch, PC, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661640</id>
	<title>Flash</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1262690220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought some have suggested this was a big reason why Flash has been ported to other platforms, but isn't on the iPhone. AT&amp;T has publicly said it, but there are theories AT&amp;T is terrified of what would happen to data usage if you could stream video to the iPhone via Flash from any number of sites.</p><p>Not to mention it would hurt iTunes video sales to the same devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought some have suggested this was a big reason why Flash has been ported to other platforms , but is n't on the iPhone .
AT&amp;T has publicly said it , but there are theories AT&amp;T is terrified of what would happen to data usage if you could stream video to the iPhone via Flash from any number of sites.Not to mention it would hurt iTunes video sales to the same devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought some have suggested this was a big reason why Flash has been ported to other platforms, but isn't on the iPhone.
AT&amp;T has publicly said it, but there are theories AT&amp;T is terrified of what would happen to data usage if you could stream video to the iPhone via Flash from any number of sites.Not to mention it would hurt iTunes video sales to the same devices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660952</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262687340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>an iPhone costs as much has a 42" plasma.  Yes real prices. you cant count the subsidized pricing that AT&amp;T gives out.  I bought a 42" Pioneer plasma this xmas for $590.00. That is how much a iPhone costs if you buy it outright.</p><p>So a TV is as cheap as a throwaway cellphone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>an iPhone costs as much has a 42 " plasma .
Yes real prices .
you cant count the subsidized pricing that AT&amp;T gives out .
I bought a 42 " Pioneer plasma this xmas for $ 590.00 .
That is how much a iPhone costs if you buy it outright.So a TV is as cheap as a throwaway cellphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an iPhone costs as much has a 42" plasma.
Yes real prices.
you cant count the subsidized pricing that AT&amp;T gives out.
I bought a 42" Pioneer plasma this xmas for $590.00.
That is how much a iPhone costs if you buy it outright.So a TV is as cheap as a throwaway cellphone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660998</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262687520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing worth watching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing worth watching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing worth watching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30665100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30674962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30666320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30680406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30665018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30665134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30671688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30666704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30666594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2032259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30666704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30680406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30666594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30660952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30666320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30665134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30663946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30671688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30665100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30665018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30674962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30664552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2032259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30661108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2032259.30662874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
