<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_05_2331255</id>
	<title>Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1262694720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>adeelarshad82 writes <i>"In a surprising endorsement for 3D display technology, Sony Corp. of America, Discovery Communications and IMAX Corp. have announced plans to form a <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357685,00.asp">US television network entirely devoted to 3D programming</a>. The three parties have signed a letter of intent to form the unnamed venture, which is scheduled to launch in 2012. The new network is intended as a sort of carrot to lure buyers to purchase 3D-enabled TVs."</i> Reader jggimi notes NY Times coverage, which points out that this prospective network <a href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/discovery-imax-sony-form-3d-television-channel/">won't be the first</a>: "Earlier Tuesday, ESPN announced that it would start 'ESPN 3D' in June 2010. The channel will show a minimum of 85 live 3D events during the first year."</htmltext>
<tokenext>adeelarshad82 writes " In a surprising endorsement for 3D display technology , Sony Corp. of America , Discovery Communications and IMAX Corp. have announced plans to form a US television network entirely devoted to 3D programming .
The three parties have signed a letter of intent to form the unnamed venture , which is scheduled to launch in 2012 .
The new network is intended as a sort of carrot to lure buyers to purchase 3D-enabled TVs .
" Reader jggimi notes NY Times coverage , which points out that this prospective network wo n't be the first : " Earlier Tuesday , ESPN announced that it would start 'ESPN 3D ' in June 2010 .
The channel will show a minimum of 85 live 3D events during the first year .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adeelarshad82 writes "In a surprising endorsement for 3D display technology, Sony Corp. of America, Discovery Communications and IMAX Corp. have announced plans to form a US television network entirely devoted to 3D programming.
The three parties have signed a letter of intent to form the unnamed venture, which is scheduled to launch in 2012.
The new network is intended as a sort of carrot to lure buyers to purchase 3D-enabled TVs.
" Reader jggimi notes NY Times coverage, which points out that this prospective network won't be the first: "Earlier Tuesday, ESPN announced that it would start 'ESPN 3D' in June 2010.
The channel will show a minimum of 85 live 3D events during the first year.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30675228</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn.  Fad is Over</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1262773980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do that every day.  I didn't even have to ask, the answer was right there.</p><p>I have personal reasons for wanting 3D handily available, partly because it adds apparent detail.  I'm not sure if I can explain it properly but, assuming 1024x768 for a starting point:</p><p>Polarized light displays let you have 1024x768 for each eye.  That doesn't translate into 1024x768x2 pixels, because your brain doesn't work that way.  But the 3D perception gives you more context for the existing detail.  Object relationships are clearer, and the barrier between objects goes from being a straight line to a spatial separation.</p><p>In theory, 3D should give you 1024x768xInfinity, because it is supposed to represent the X and Y coordinates as well as Z (depth).</p><p>I have noticed additional detail in movies at home between 2D and 3D, even with anaglyph type separation.  Coraline was the one - it didn't even have the benefit of polarized display, so both eyes had to be packed into the same space as 3D.  But it seemed clearer in 3D.</p><p>As a thought experiment, anaglyph DVD at 720x480 (345600) would be split into two 360x240 images, one for each eye.  So you essentially get 360x240x240, assuming the Z axis resolution cannot exceed the minimum of X and Y, or an apparent resolution of 20736000, a 60-fold increase in data.  For polarized digital movies in 2k, that's 2048&#215;1080 (2211840), which doesn't have to be split.  3D might give you 2048&#215;1080*1080, a 1080-fold increase in data density.  You can't see through objects or around them so you don't get 1080 times more data, but you do get an apparent increase assuming a static viewpoint.</p><p>I have no idea if this actually plays out, but based on my observations it would be a good subject for a Doctoral thesis: How to calculate (or quantify) the actual net information gain when using 3D vs 2D.</p><p>When I saw Avatar, I tried closing one eye and had trouble distinguishing objects - it was one big mess.  With 3D, the spatial separation allowed additional context so I could easily and intuitively distinguish objects or textures.  Something so alien is difficult to process, unless it is introduced slowly enough that you can make out what's attached to what, which parts are moving or not.  With 3D, you can skip that part and let the perception engine in your cranium figure it out the way it does in the real world.</p><p>3D is really a trick, I think it is exaggerated compared with reality, so I put it in the special-effects pile, not one step closer to reality.  Just another trick in the bag, which can be used to great effect if used smartly, and hinder where it's not needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do that every day .
I did n't even have to ask , the answer was right there.I have personal reasons for wanting 3D handily available , partly because it adds apparent detail .
I 'm not sure if I can explain it properly but , assuming 1024x768 for a starting point : Polarized light displays let you have 1024x768 for each eye .
That does n't translate into 1024x768x2 pixels , because your brain does n't work that way .
But the 3D perception gives you more context for the existing detail .
Object relationships are clearer , and the barrier between objects goes from being a straight line to a spatial separation.In theory , 3D should give you 1024x768xInfinity , because it is supposed to represent the X and Y coordinates as well as Z ( depth ) .I have noticed additional detail in movies at home between 2D and 3D , even with anaglyph type separation .
Coraline was the one - it did n't even have the benefit of polarized display , so both eyes had to be packed into the same space as 3D .
But it seemed clearer in 3D.As a thought experiment , anaglyph DVD at 720x480 ( 345600 ) would be split into two 360x240 images , one for each eye .
So you essentially get 360x240x240 , assuming the Z axis resolution can not exceed the minimum of X and Y , or an apparent resolution of 20736000 , a 60-fold increase in data .
For polarized digital movies in 2k , that 's 2048   1080 ( 2211840 ) , which does n't have to be split .
3D might give you 2048   1080 * 1080 , a 1080-fold increase in data density .
You ca n't see through objects or around them so you do n't get 1080 times more data , but you do get an apparent increase assuming a static viewpoint.I have no idea if this actually plays out , but based on my observations it would be a good subject for a Doctoral thesis : How to calculate ( or quantify ) the actual net information gain when using 3D vs 2D.When I saw Avatar , I tried closing one eye and had trouble distinguishing objects - it was one big mess .
With 3D , the spatial separation allowed additional context so I could easily and intuitively distinguish objects or textures .
Something so alien is difficult to process , unless it is introduced slowly enough that you can make out what 's attached to what , which parts are moving or not .
With 3D , you can skip that part and let the perception engine in your cranium figure it out the way it does in the real world.3D is really a trick , I think it is exaggerated compared with reality , so I put it in the special-effects pile , not one step closer to reality .
Just another trick in the bag , which can be used to great effect if used smartly , and hinder where it 's not needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do that every day.
I didn't even have to ask, the answer was right there.I have personal reasons for wanting 3D handily available, partly because it adds apparent detail.
I'm not sure if I can explain it properly but, assuming 1024x768 for a starting point:Polarized light displays let you have 1024x768 for each eye.
That doesn't translate into 1024x768x2 pixels, because your brain doesn't work that way.
But the 3D perception gives you more context for the existing detail.
Object relationships are clearer, and the barrier between objects goes from being a straight line to a spatial separation.In theory, 3D should give you 1024x768xInfinity, because it is supposed to represent the X and Y coordinates as well as Z (depth).I have noticed additional detail in movies at home between 2D and 3D, even with anaglyph type separation.
Coraline was the one - it didn't even have the benefit of polarized display, so both eyes had to be packed into the same space as 3D.
But it seemed clearer in 3D.As a thought experiment, anaglyph DVD at 720x480 (345600) would be split into two 360x240 images, one for each eye.
So you essentially get 360x240x240, assuming the Z axis resolution cannot exceed the minimum of X and Y, or an apparent resolution of 20736000, a 60-fold increase in data.
For polarized digital movies in 2k, that's 2048×1080 (2211840), which doesn't have to be split.
3D might give you 2048×1080*1080, a 1080-fold increase in data density.
You can't see through objects or around them so you don't get 1080 times more data, but you do get an apparent increase assuming a static viewpoint.I have no idea if this actually plays out, but based on my observations it would be a good subject for a Doctoral thesis: How to calculate (or quantify) the actual net information gain when using 3D vs 2D.When I saw Avatar, I tried closing one eye and had trouble distinguishing objects - it was one big mess.
With 3D, the spatial separation allowed additional context so I could easily and intuitively distinguish objects or textures.
Something so alien is difficult to process, unless it is introduced slowly enough that you can make out what's attached to what, which parts are moving or not.
With 3D, you can skip that part and let the perception engine in your cranium figure it out the way it does in the real world.3D is really a trick, I think it is exaggerated compared with reality, so I put it in the special-effects pile, not one step closer to reality.
Just another trick in the bag, which can be used to great effect if used smartly, and hinder where it's not needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667510</id>
	<title>The real reason for the change of mind:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262777880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D can&rsquo;t be ripped over the analog hole, it requires digital connections, which have DRM in them, or which allows them to push through new hardware... for about five days, when someone cracks that too, and sticks the thing in a MKV container.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D can    t be ripped over the analog hole , it requires digital connections , which have DRM in them , or which allows them to push through new hardware... for about five days , when someone cracks that too , and sticks the thing in a MKV container .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D can’t be ripped over the analog hole, it requires digital connections, which have DRM in them, or which allows them to push through new hardware... for about five days, when someone cracks that too, and sticks the thing in a MKV container.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30670674</id>
	<title>3D TV won't truly take off til used for porn</title>
	<author>axl917</author>
	<datestamp>1262797920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A corollary of Rule 34.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A corollary of Rule 34 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A corollary of Rule 34.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667140</id>
	<title>Re:Party like it's 1999</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1262773680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who doesn't give much of a shit about 3d TV content?  Woo, so some things seem a bit more foregroundy and others a bit more backgroundy... and I have to wear glasses all the time to see the effect.</p><p>Then again, I haven't bought into the HDTV hype, either.  Sure, it's higher resolution, but I don't care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who does n't give much of a shit about 3d TV content ?
Woo , so some things seem a bit more foregroundy and others a bit more backgroundy... and I have to wear glasses all the time to see the effect.Then again , I have n't bought into the HDTV hype , either .
Sure , it 's higher resolution , but I do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who doesn't give much of a shit about 3d TV content?
Woo, so some things seem a bit more foregroundy and others a bit more backgroundy... and I have to wear glasses all the time to see the effect.Then again, I haven't bought into the HDTV hype, either.
Sure, it's higher resolution, but I don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664134</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn.  Fad is Over</title>
	<author>blitzkrieg3</author>
	<datestamp>1262702820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Man, I know exactly what you mean! This reminds me of that lame device with <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/1816257" title="slashdot.org">"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad".</a> [slashdot.org] Who the hell is going to buy that!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , I know exactly what you mean !
This reminds me of that lame device with " No wireless .
Less space than a Nomad " .
[ slashdot.org ] Who the hell is going to buy that !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, I know exactly what you mean!
This reminds me of that lame device with "No wireless.
Less space than a Nomad".
[slashdot.org] Who the hell is going to buy that!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470</id>
	<title>Won't be needing 3D TV</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1262698860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't be needing 3D TV<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ever.<br>Just saw my first full length film in 3D, and I don't need that in my house. It just doesn't add that much to the viewing experience.<br>I'll be skipping blu-ray.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't be needing 3D TV ... ever.Just saw my first full length film in 3D , and I do n't need that in my house .
It just does n't add that much to the viewing experience.I 'll be skipping blu-ray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't be needing 3D TV ... ever.Just saw my first full length film in 3D, and I don't need that in my house.
It just doesn't add that much to the viewing experience.I'll be skipping blu-ray.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665032</id>
	<title>You forgot...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262708700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D World Series of Poker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D World Series of Poker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D World Series of Poker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664094</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be needing 3D TV</title>
	<author>That's Unpossible!</author>
	<datestamp>1262702460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you gave 3D an entire movie experience before deciding it's fate?</p><p>And you're skipping blu-ray... uh huh. I'll come back to you in a year when you can't even find a non-bluray DVD player on the market any more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you gave 3D an entire movie experience before deciding it 's fate ? And you 're skipping blu-ray... uh huh .
I 'll come back to you in a year when you ca n't even find a non-bluray DVD player on the market any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you gave 3D an entire movie experience before deciding it's fate?And you're skipping blu-ray... uh huh.
I'll come back to you in a year when you can't even find a non-bluray DVD player on the market any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666160</id>
	<title>Re:First Day Schedule Released</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1262718240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aw, gee. I was hoping to see Creature From the Black Lagoon and the 2 Three Stooges episodes again and again and again and again and again...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aw , gee .
I was hoping to see Creature From the Black Lagoon and the 2 Three Stooges episodes again and again and again and again and again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aw, gee.
I was hoping to see Creature From the Black Lagoon and the 2 Three Stooges episodes again and again and again and again and again...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663610</id>
	<title>First Day Schedule Released</title>
	<author>StefanJ</author>
	<datestamp>1262699460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>12:00 am to 6:30 am: 3D infomercials<br>6:30 am: 3D National Anthem<br>6:35 am: Scripture Study with Rev. Harlon Stereo<br>6:45 am: Davey &amp; Goliath in the Land of Three Dimensions<br>7:00 am: Bwana Devil<br>9:00 am: House of Wax<br>11:00 am: Treasure of the Four Crowns<br>1:00 pm: Pixar Trailer Compilation<br>2:00 pm: House of Wax<br>4:00 pm: 3D National News from the rim of the Grand Canyon<br>6:00 pm: Simpsons 3D episode<br>6:30 pm: Viewmaster Travelogue Presents: Beautiful Holland.<br>7:00 pm: House of Wax<br>9:00 pm: Stetson's Hangout (premiere) Sitcom featuring the wacky exploits of the Tosser Family. In this epiode, Stetson Tosser throws snakes, soiled diapers and a bowl of Jell-0 at the camera.<br>9:30 pm: Lacrosse championships from Watertown, NY. In 3D.<br>11:00 pm: Late News hanging from a platform on the side of the Empire State Building<br>11:30 pm: Viewmaster Showcase: Bible Stories</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>12 : 00 am to 6 : 30 am : 3D infomercials6 : 30 am : 3D National Anthem6 : 35 am : Scripture Study with Rev .
Harlon Stereo6 : 45 am : Davey &amp; Goliath in the Land of Three Dimensions7 : 00 am : Bwana Devil9 : 00 am : House of Wax11 : 00 am : Treasure of the Four Crowns1 : 00 pm : Pixar Trailer Compilation2 : 00 pm : House of Wax4 : 00 pm : 3D National News from the rim of the Grand Canyon6 : 00 pm : Simpsons 3D episode6 : 30 pm : Viewmaster Travelogue Presents : Beautiful Holland.7 : 00 pm : House of Wax9 : 00 pm : Stetson 's Hangout ( premiere ) Sitcom featuring the wacky exploits of the Tosser Family .
In this epiode , Stetson Tosser throws snakes , soiled diapers and a bowl of Jell-0 at the camera.9 : 30 pm : Lacrosse championships from Watertown , NY .
In 3D.11 : 00 pm : Late News hanging from a platform on the side of the Empire State Building11 : 30 pm : Viewmaster Showcase : Bible Stories</tokentext>
<sentencetext>12:00 am to 6:30 am: 3D infomercials6:30 am: 3D National Anthem6:35 am: Scripture Study with Rev.
Harlon Stereo6:45 am: Davey &amp; Goliath in the Land of Three Dimensions7:00 am: Bwana Devil9:00 am: House of Wax11:00 am: Treasure of the Four Crowns1:00 pm: Pixar Trailer Compilation2:00 pm: House of Wax4:00 pm: 3D National News from the rim of the Grand Canyon6:00 pm: Simpsons 3D episode6:30 pm: Viewmaster Travelogue Presents: Beautiful Holland.7:00 pm: House of Wax9:00 pm: Stetson's Hangout (premiere) Sitcom featuring the wacky exploits of the Tosser Family.
In this epiode, Stetson Tosser throws snakes, soiled diapers and a bowl of Jell-0 at the camera.9:30 pm: Lacrosse championships from Watertown, NY.
In 3D.11:00 pm: Late News hanging from a platform on the side of the Empire State Building11:30 pm: Viewmaster Showcase: Bible Stories</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663878</id>
	<title>3D will be much more meaningful in the computer</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1262700960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>side of entertainment.  3d Video games can already provide the experience with a 3d monitor with little rewriting and so could the OS.  Then there will be CAD like programs.</p><p>I don't know why the industry is trying to push it from the TV side of things, 1st adopters are usually computer geeks.  Push stuff out there and see if people want it.</p><p>I like 3D movies, but until they have holograms down, I don't want to be watching TV with glasses or even see 3D all that much to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>side of entertainment .
3d Video games can already provide the experience with a 3d monitor with little rewriting and so could the OS .
Then there will be CAD like programs.I do n't know why the industry is trying to push it from the TV side of things , 1st adopters are usually computer geeks .
Push stuff out there and see if people want it.I like 3D movies , but until they have holograms down , I do n't want to be watching TV with glasses or even see 3D all that much to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>side of entertainment.
3d Video games can already provide the experience with a 3d monitor with little rewriting and so could the OS.
Then there will be CAD like programs.I don't know why the industry is trying to push it from the TV side of things, 1st adopters are usually computer geeks.
Push stuff out there and see if people want it.I like 3D movies, but until they have holograms down, I don't want to be watching TV with glasses or even see 3D all that much to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665496</id>
	<title>Stoners will be all over this...</title>
	<author>PCM2</author>
	<datestamp>1262711760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for the 3D infomercials alone! Can you imagine all the crazy gimmicks they'll be pulling to hold your attention? It will blow your <i>miiiiiiiinnnnd,</i> man!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for the 3D infomercials alone !
Can you imagine all the crazy gimmicks they 'll be pulling to hold your attention ?
It will blow your miiiiiiiinnnnd , man !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for the 3D infomercials alone!
Can you imagine all the crazy gimmicks they'll be pulling to hold your attention?
It will blow your miiiiiiiinnnnd, man!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663406</id>
	<title>Sony, IMAX, Discovery To Launch 3D TV Network</title>
	<author>omar.sahal</author>
	<datestamp>1262698620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok now your thinking "out side the box" big media (3D TV Network can't be copied and give the same user experience). I still don't think 3D TV will work, standard media will do, and I think you will still screw up the execution of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok now your thinking " out side the box " big media ( 3D TV Network ca n't be copied and give the same user experience ) .
I still do n't think 3D TV will work , standard media will do , and I think you will still screw up the execution of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok now your thinking "out side the box" big media (3D TV Network can't be copied and give the same user experience).
I still don't think 3D TV will work, standard media will do, and I think you will still screw up the execution of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665112</id>
	<title>Sports</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1262709060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now. I'm watching football (Orange Bowl) on my HDTV. This is good, but it would be better if it was in 3D.</p><p>Also, nature documentaries. They're beautiful in HD, but they'd be even better in 3D.</p><p>Whether I'd pay extra or wear uncomfortable glasses is another matter. But if I had the choice between 2D and 3D for those programs without significant cost or inconvenience, I'd choose 3D every time.</p><p>That's the same phenomenon as color, stereo, high definition, and surround sound. At the time that each was introduced it was a luxury and only gimmicky shows made much use of them. But eventually they became cheap, standard, and ubiquitous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now .
I 'm watching football ( Orange Bowl ) on my HDTV .
This is good , but it would be better if it was in 3D.Also , nature documentaries .
They 're beautiful in HD , but they 'd be even better in 3D.Whether I 'd pay extra or wear uncomfortable glasses is another matter .
But if I had the choice between 2D and 3D for those programs without significant cost or inconvenience , I 'd choose 3D every time.That 's the same phenomenon as color , stereo , high definition , and surround sound .
At the time that each was introduced it was a luxury and only gimmicky shows made much use of them .
But eventually they became cheap , standard , and ubiquitous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now.
I'm watching football (Orange Bowl) on my HDTV.
This is good, but it would be better if it was in 3D.Also, nature documentaries.
They're beautiful in HD, but they'd be even better in 3D.Whether I'd pay extra or wear uncomfortable glasses is another matter.
But if I had the choice between 2D and 3D for those programs without significant cost or inconvenience, I'd choose 3D every time.That's the same phenomenon as color, stereo, high definition, and surround sound.
At the time that each was introduced it was a luxury and only gimmicky shows made much use of them.
But eventually they became cheap, standard, and ubiquitous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663578</id>
	<title>This is like launching HDTV in 1996...</title>
	<author>SexyKellyOsbourne</author>
	<datestamp>1262699280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, this launch is a bit premature. Sure, such technologies exist, but with no market for it.</p><p>Unless they're requiring red and blue glasses, no one can watch it in 3D -- 3D broadcasting requires 240hz televisions alongside enough shutter glasses to cover a 20+ person sports gathering.</p><p>The American consumer is already tapped out on debt, since they maxed out their credit cards on flat-panel HDTVs in the age of subprime lending, and are probably only using them to watch low-res basic cable now that they have to pay the bills.</p><p>It'll be a good 10-15 years before 3D broadcasting will even be considered normal. Yet it's not entirely stupid -- in the business world, people still fall for the "Reagan Star Wars" tactic. Just convince the competition you're revolutionary and they'll waste all their cash trying to catch up to something infeasible...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , this launch is a bit premature .
Sure , such technologies exist , but with no market for it.Unless they 're requiring red and blue glasses , no one can watch it in 3D -- 3D broadcasting requires 240hz televisions alongside enough shutter glasses to cover a 20 + person sports gathering.The American consumer is already tapped out on debt , since they maxed out their credit cards on flat-panel HDTVs in the age of subprime lending , and are probably only using them to watch low-res basic cable now that they have to pay the bills.It 'll be a good 10-15 years before 3D broadcasting will even be considered normal .
Yet it 's not entirely stupid -- in the business world , people still fall for the " Reagan Star Wars " tactic .
Just convince the competition you 're revolutionary and they 'll waste all their cash trying to catch up to something infeasible.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, this launch is a bit premature.
Sure, such technologies exist, but with no market for it.Unless they're requiring red and blue glasses, no one can watch it in 3D -- 3D broadcasting requires 240hz televisions alongside enough shutter glasses to cover a 20+ person sports gathering.The American consumer is already tapped out on debt, since they maxed out their credit cards on flat-panel HDTVs in the age of subprime lending, and are probably only using them to watch low-res basic cable now that they have to pay the bills.It'll be a good 10-15 years before 3D broadcasting will even be considered normal.
Yet it's not entirely stupid -- in the business world, people still fall for the "Reagan Star Wars" tactic.
Just convince the competition you're revolutionary and they'll waste all their cash trying to catch up to something infeasible...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664408</id>
	<title>Re:This is like launching HDTV in 1996...</title>
	<author>PieSquared</author>
	<datestamp>1262704560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Red-blue or shutters plus double frame rate aren't the only options. There's also differential polarization and double the resolution. All we have to do is turn half the LED's 90 degrees and enable the proper video format and polarized glasses will do the job of red-blue ones - except you lose the "polarization" channel and half the resolution instead of the "color" channel. And lets face it, you wouldn't notice if you lose your already tiny ability to discern polarization.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Red-blue or shutters plus double frame rate are n't the only options .
There 's also differential polarization and double the resolution .
All we have to do is turn half the LED 's 90 degrees and enable the proper video format and polarized glasses will do the job of red-blue ones - except you lose the " polarization " channel and half the resolution instead of the " color " channel .
And lets face it , you would n't notice if you lose your already tiny ability to discern polarization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Red-blue or shutters plus double frame rate aren't the only options.
There's also differential polarization and double the resolution.
All we have to do is turn half the LED's 90 degrees and enable the proper video format and polarized glasses will do the job of red-blue ones - except you lose the "polarization" channel and half the resolution instead of the "color" channel.
And lets face it, you wouldn't notice if you lose your already tiny ability to discern polarization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663920</id>
	<title>get out your SCTV disks</title>
	<author>swschrad</author>
	<datestamp>1262701200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you can stand Dr. Tongue's "3D House of Stewardesses," this has a chance.  lame concept, will have lame execution, even lamer if they play "let's break the fourth wall."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you can stand Dr. Tongue 's " 3D House of Stewardesses , " this has a chance .
lame concept , will have lame execution , even lamer if they play " let 's break the fourth wall .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you can stand Dr. Tongue's "3D House of Stewardesses," this has a chance.
lame concept, will have lame execution, even lamer if they play "let's break the fourth wall.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667466</id>
	<title>why are we calling it 3D anyway?</title>
	<author>times2</author>
	<datestamp>1262777400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amazing thing is that hollywood have managed to get everyone to accept this technology as '3D'.</p><p>They are actually stereoscopic movies. Stereo vision being just one cue that our brain uses to interpret the 3D world along with perspective, parallax, atmospheric colour.. And one that works mainly for  things that are within our arms reach.</p><p>I saw avatar in '3D' and '2D'. The '3D' version really doesnt add a lot. And there is nothing more lame than the shots where objects approach the camera just to show off the technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amazing thing is that hollywood have managed to get everyone to accept this technology as '3D'.They are actually stereoscopic movies .
Stereo vision being just one cue that our brain uses to interpret the 3D world along with perspective , parallax , atmospheric colour.. And one that works mainly for things that are within our arms reach.I saw avatar in '3D ' and '2D' .
The '3D ' version really doesnt add a lot .
And there is nothing more lame than the shots where objects approach the camera just to show off the technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amazing thing is that hollywood have managed to get everyone to accept this technology as '3D'.They are actually stereoscopic movies.
Stereo vision being just one cue that our brain uses to interpret the 3D world along with perspective, parallax, atmospheric colour.. And one that works mainly for  things that are within our arms reach.I saw avatar in '3D' and '2D'.
The '3D' version really doesnt add a lot.
And there is nothing more lame than the shots where objects approach the camera just to show off the technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663844</id>
	<title>Re:headaches welcome?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1262700720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory 3D should be possible without these issues. Have you seen Avatar in Imax 3D? I've heard tell it's not headache-inducing.</p><p>I'm willing to believe that the headaches on the tech demoes I've seen are the result of poor filmography or hardware (both of which are tricky.)</p><p>Of course I would be surprised if healthy hardware is ready for the home by 2012.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory 3D should be possible without these issues .
Have you seen Avatar in Imax 3D ?
I 've heard tell it 's not headache-inducing.I 'm willing to believe that the headaches on the tech demoes I 've seen are the result of poor filmography or hardware ( both of which are tricky .
) Of course I would be surprised if healthy hardware is ready for the home by 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory 3D should be possible without these issues.
Have you seen Avatar in Imax 3D?
I've heard tell it's not headache-inducing.I'm willing to believe that the headaches on the tech demoes I've seen are the result of poor filmography or hardware (both of which are tricky.
)Of course I would be surprised if healthy hardware is ready for the home by 2012.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30668164</id>
	<title>Quadraphonic sound, Take Two.</title>
	<author>speedlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1262784960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw Avatar and was happy most of it was NOT 3D gimmicks...but I fear.

When I set up my 5.1 sound system, I was annoyed to find that the best encoded programming was the commercials.  Not only louder, but in full 5.1......

I can hardly wait for 3d....commercials....NOT.

I'm old enough to remember "Quadraphonic" sound.....this looks like the 2010 version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw Avatar and was happy most of it was NOT 3D gimmicks...but I fear .
When I set up my 5.1 sound system , I was annoyed to find that the best encoded programming was the commercials .
Not only louder , but in full 5.1..... . I can hardly wait for 3d....commercials....NOT .
I 'm old enough to remember " Quadraphonic " sound.....this looks like the 2010 version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw Avatar and was happy most of it was NOT 3D gimmicks...but I fear.
When I set up my 5.1 sound system, I was annoyed to find that the best encoded programming was the commercials.
Not only louder, but in full 5.1......

I can hardly wait for 3d....commercials....NOT.
I'm old enough to remember "Quadraphonic" sound.....this looks like the 2010 version.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664434</id>
	<title>Stereoscopic, not 3D</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1262704740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry to be a pedant, but it's only 3D when I can walk around the TV and see things from every angle.  This is stereoscopic; "3D" from only one viewpoint by tricks of the eyes+brain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to be a pedant , but it 's only 3D when I can walk around the TV and see things from every angle .
This is stereoscopic ; " 3D " from only one viewpoint by tricks of the eyes + brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to be a pedant, but it's only 3D when I can walk around the TV and see things from every angle.
This is stereoscopic; "3D" from only one viewpoint by tricks of the eyes+brain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665574</id>
	<title>Avatar</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1262712360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just saw my first full length film in 3D, and I don't need that in my house. It just doesn't add that much to the viewing experience.<br>I'll be skipping blu-ray.</i> </p><p>Why one man's opinion gets a mod-up to *3, Informative on Slashdot remains a mystery to me.</p><p> <i> <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htm" title="boxofficemojo.com">Avatar</a> [boxofficemojo.com] </i> grossed <b>$1 Billion US Dollars</b> in eighteen days. <i>Up</i> delivered a very respectable $293 million. <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=3d.htm" title="boxofficemojo.com"> </a> [boxofficemojo.com]</p><p> I'll take that as evidence the 3D experience does matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just saw my first full length film in 3D , and I do n't need that in my house .
It just does n't add that much to the viewing experience.I 'll be skipping blu-ray .
Why one man 's opinion gets a mod-up to * 3 , Informative on Slashdot remains a mystery to me .
Avatar [ boxofficemojo.com ] grossed $ 1 Billion US Dollars in eighteen days .
Up delivered a very respectable $ 293 million .
[ boxofficemojo.com ] I 'll take that as evidence the 3D experience does matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just saw my first full length film in 3D, and I don't need that in my house.
It just doesn't add that much to the viewing experience.I'll be skipping blu-ray.
Why one man's opinion gets a mod-up to *3, Informative on Slashdot remains a mystery to me.
Avatar [boxofficemojo.com]  grossed $1 Billion US Dollars in eighteen days.
Up delivered a very respectable $293 million.
[boxofficemojo.com] I'll take that as evidence the 3D experience does matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667766</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be needing 3D TV</title>
	<author>Walzmyn</author>
	<datestamp>1262780820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it was pretty. It just didn't *ADD* a damn thing to the lame ass story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it was pretty .
It just did n't * ADD * a damn thing to the lame ass story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it was pretty.
It just didn't *ADD* a damn thing to the lame ass story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30669296</id>
	<title>Re:This is like launching HDTV in 1996...</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1262792340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It only takes 120hz, which most new LCD TVs support. Glasses are around $200 (with like a whole three of them on the market), and will inevitably drop in price before this channel airs. If you throw sports parties with 20+ people in attendance you already have a huge entertainment budget and shouldn't find this a problem. Or you can go with the polarized projectors approach. Either way, expect yourself not to get invited to these parties, since apparently all you do is bitch bitch bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It only takes 120hz , which most new LCD TVs support .
Glasses are around $ 200 ( with like a whole three of them on the market ) , and will inevitably drop in price before this channel airs .
If you throw sports parties with 20 + people in attendance you already have a huge entertainment budget and should n't find this a problem .
Or you can go with the polarized projectors approach .
Either way , expect yourself not to get invited to these parties , since apparently all you do is bitch bitch bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only takes 120hz, which most new LCD TVs support.
Glasses are around $200 (with like a whole three of them on the market), and will inevitably drop in price before this channel airs.
If you throw sports parties with 20+ people in attendance you already have a huge entertainment budget and shouldn't find this a problem.
Or you can go with the polarized projectors approach.
Either way, expect yourself not to get invited to these parties, since apparently all you do is bitch bitch bitch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664640</id>
	<title>Re:Stereoscopic, not 3D</title>
	<author>MidnightBrewer</author>
	<datestamp>1262706300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confusing rendering method with result.  It's 3D when it gives the illusion of depth.  What you're describing is "in the round", while the TV version is more like "bas relief".  Both still fall under the category of 3D.  The technique for delivering the 3D might be stereoscopy, but that doesn't invalidate the result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing rendering method with result .
It 's 3D when it gives the illusion of depth .
What you 're describing is " in the round " , while the TV version is more like " bas relief " .
Both still fall under the category of 3D .
The technique for delivering the 3D might be stereoscopy , but that does n't invalidate the result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing rendering method with result.
It's 3D when it gives the illusion of depth.
What you're describing is "in the round", while the TV version is more like "bas relief".
Both still fall under the category of 3D.
The technique for delivering the 3D might be stereoscopy, but that doesn't invalidate the result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665894</id>
	<title>rejoice porn industry you have been saved</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262715720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D juggs coming your way..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D juggs coming your way. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D juggs coming your way..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663482</id>
	<title>Thank you for watching.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262698860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're tuned to the Headache Channel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're tuned to the Headache Channel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're tuned to the Headache Channel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664276</id>
	<title>Sony products? meh.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a former Sony fanboi I have to say that if the 3D TVs are made by Sony then I \_won't\_ be buying one.   If its a premium pay channel i won't be patronizing it.   I am done with Sony and their shenanigans.  They are malicious to their customers, They are rabid RIAA/MPAA attack dogs,  And they lobby clueless US politicians relentlessly to criminalize normal behavior.    And now they want to close the analog hole, intoduce DRM broadcast flags, etc. etc.  FUCK Sony.  They are ruthless bastards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a former Sony fanboi I have to say that if the 3D TVs are made by Sony then I \ _wo n't \ _ be buying one .
If its a premium pay channel i wo n't be patronizing it .
I am done with Sony and their shenanigans .
They are malicious to their customers , They are rabid RIAA/MPAA attack dogs , And they lobby clueless US politicians relentlessly to criminalize normal behavior .
And now they want to close the analog hole , intoduce DRM broadcast flags , etc .
etc. FUCK Sony .
They are ruthless bastards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a former Sony fanboi I have to say that if the 3D TVs are made by Sony then I \_won't\_ be buying one.
If its a premium pay channel i won't be patronizing it.
I am done with Sony and their shenanigans.
They are malicious to their customers, They are rabid RIAA/MPAA attack dogs,  And they lobby clueless US politicians relentlessly to criminalize normal behavior.
And now they want to close the analog hole, intoduce DRM broadcast flags, etc.
etc.  FUCK Sony.
They are ruthless bastards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664388</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be needing 3D TV</title>
	<author>baptiste</author>
	<datestamp>1262704440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agree 100\% Saw Avatar in 3D. great movie, but would have enjoyed it just as much in 2D I expect. Have no desire to watch sitcoms or football or soccer with 3D glasses on. Just annoying. Ok for an occasional movie, but viewing at home? Meh - not until they can project it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree 100 \ % Saw Avatar in 3D .
great movie , but would have enjoyed it just as much in 2D I expect .
Have no desire to watch sitcoms or football or soccer with 3D glasses on .
Just annoying .
Ok for an occasional movie , but viewing at home ?
Meh - not until they can project it : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree 100\% Saw Avatar in 3D.
great movie, but would have enjoyed it just as much in 2D I expect.
Have no desire to watch sitcoms or football or soccer with 3D glasses on.
Just annoying.
Ok for an occasional movie, but viewing at home?
Meh - not until they can project it :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663462</id>
	<title>The Chicken or the 3D Network</title>
	<author>wooferhound</author>
	<datestamp>1262698800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which cam first<br>
the 3D TV or the 3D Network ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which cam first the 3D TV or the 3D Network ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which cam first
the 3D TV or the 3D Network ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663842</id>
	<title>Excellent idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262700720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know how much people tend to spend in recessions. People are sure to go out and buy incredibly expensive 3D television sets!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know how much people tend to spend in recessions .
People are sure to go out and buy incredibly expensive 3D television sets !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know how much people tend to spend in recessions.
People are sure to go out and buy incredibly expensive 3D television sets!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666056</id>
	<title>TV is so worthless</title>
	<author>Sam36</author>
	<datestamp>1262717340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One might as well spend the day smoking crystal meth rather than watch tv, they are both just as productive. I don't watch tv and I certainly won't be watching any of this 3d junk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One might as well spend the day smoking crystal meth rather than watch tv , they are both just as productive .
I do n't watch tv and I certainly wo n't be watching any of this 3d junk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One might as well spend the day smoking crystal meth rather than watch tv, they are both just as productive.
I don't watch tv and I certainly won't be watching any of this 3d junk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665582</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn.  Fad is Over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262712420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the beginning, there was 1D, but people started dreaming of 2D so we got tv.</p><p>Everytime I watch a movie or play a game I tell myself : It would be so much better in virtual reality with a datajack with infinite movies in parallel with sensations.</p><p>Please dream about technology or we won't progress</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the beginning , there was 1D , but people started dreaming of 2D so we got tv.Everytime I watch a movie or play a game I tell myself : It would be so much better in virtual reality with a datajack with infinite movies in parallel with sensations.Please dream about technology or we wo n't progress</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the beginning, there was 1D, but people started dreaming of 2D so we got tv.Everytime I watch a movie or play a game I tell myself : It would be so much better in virtual reality with a datajack with infinite movies in parallel with sensations.Please dream about technology or we won't progress</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665674</id>
	<title>I have amblyopia...</title>
	<author>scourfish</author>
	<datestamp>1262713320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time to file frivolous, but lucrative lawsuits against Sony, ESPN, and the Discovery Channel under the guise of the American's with Disabilities Act.  Hooray for money!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to file frivolous , but lucrative lawsuits against Sony , ESPN , and the Discovery Channel under the guise of the American 's with Disabilities Act .
Hooray for money !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to file frivolous, but lucrative lawsuits against Sony, ESPN, and the Discovery Channel under the guise of the American's with Disabilities Act.
Hooray for money!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666250</id>
	<title>Re:Party like it's 1999</title>
	<author>StormUP</author>
	<datestamp>1262719080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bought a 73" Mitsubishi 3D Ready 120hz 1080P DLP HDTV yesterday at Costco with stand for $1500 total. Now it doesn't come with the glasses and IR emitter to use 3d, but it has the plugin on it. Honestly I have no idea how much those would cost to buy as the fact the TV is 3d ready wasn't my major reason for the purchase. It doesn't seem to me like there was much, if any additional cost to add the 3d ready port to this beast. I suspect the real cost is going to be in purchasing a pair of glasses for each viewer if I ever chose to go 3d.

My primary purpose for this TV is to watch media such as movies or TV on DVD/Blu-Ray and play video games.

I do not subscribe to any cable or satellite services and have no intention of doing so. I find that they deliver a bunch of crap I don't want and I can rent/purchase what I do want to watch for cheaper per month and I don't ever waste time mindlessly flipping through the channels just because I'm bored.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought a 73 " Mitsubishi 3D Ready 120hz 1080P DLP HDTV yesterday at Costco with stand for $ 1500 total .
Now it does n't come with the glasses and IR emitter to use 3d , but it has the plugin on it .
Honestly I have no idea how much those would cost to buy as the fact the TV is 3d ready was n't my major reason for the purchase .
It does n't seem to me like there was much , if any additional cost to add the 3d ready port to this beast .
I suspect the real cost is going to be in purchasing a pair of glasses for each viewer if I ever chose to go 3d .
My primary purpose for this TV is to watch media such as movies or TV on DVD/Blu-Ray and play video games .
I do not subscribe to any cable or satellite services and have no intention of doing so .
I find that they deliver a bunch of crap I do n't want and I can rent/purchase what I do want to watch for cheaper per month and I do n't ever waste time mindlessly flipping through the channels just because I 'm bored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought a 73" Mitsubishi 3D Ready 120hz 1080P DLP HDTV yesterday at Costco with stand for $1500 total.
Now it doesn't come with the glasses and IR emitter to use 3d, but it has the plugin on it.
Honestly I have no idea how much those would cost to buy as the fact the TV is 3d ready wasn't my major reason for the purchase.
It doesn't seem to me like there was much, if any additional cost to add the 3d ready port to this beast.
I suspect the real cost is going to be in purchasing a pair of glasses for each viewer if I ever chose to go 3d.
My primary purpose for this TV is to watch media such as movies or TV on DVD/Blu-Ray and play video games.
I do not subscribe to any cable or satellite services and have no intention of doing so.
I find that they deliver a bunch of crap I don't want and I can rent/purchase what I do want to watch for cheaper per month and I don't ever waste time mindlessly flipping through the channels just because I'm bored.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666556</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be needing 3D TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262808960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah the phisical media is dead, digital download and streaming will be the future. hope all companies push toward that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah the phisical media is dead , digital download and streaming will be the future .
hope all companies push toward that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah the phisical media is dead, digital download and streaming will be the future.
hope all companies push toward that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664078</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn.  Fad is Over</title>
	<author>the\_humeister</author>
	<datestamp>1262702340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avatar is what people are saying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar is what people are saying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar is what people are saying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663480</id>
	<title>headaches welcome?</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1262698860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay headaches?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>Why is 3D somehow better? They cause eye strain, and the average house watches <i>how many</i> hours of TV a week? This might not just be a bad marketing gimmick -- it could actually be a public health hazard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay headaches ?
: ( Why is 3D somehow better ?
They cause eye strain , and the average house watches how many hours of TV a week ?
This might not just be a bad marketing gimmick -- it could actually be a public health hazard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay headaches?
:(Why is 3D somehow better?
They cause eye strain, and the average house watches how many hours of TV a week?
This might not just be a bad marketing gimmick -- it could actually be a public health hazard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664464</id>
	<title>and 1\% buys it like hte HD crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262704980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yup pandering to the rich niche market dont work and i'm not buying into it and ill stick with regular and guess what FREE TV</p><p>go fraking broke dummies is all i have to say trying to invent a wheel and peeps tried this when the 3d glasses came out YEARS AGO and it failed then and it will fail now</p><p>anything to justify a cost increase MY GOD WHEN DO WE START SEEING ANYTHING GET CHEAPER<br>IM SICK A THIS SHIT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yup pandering to the rich niche market dont work and i 'm not buying into it and ill stick with regular and guess what FREE TVgo fraking broke dummies is all i have to say trying to invent a wheel and peeps tried this when the 3d glasses came out YEARS AGO and it failed then and it will fail nowanything to justify a cost increase MY GOD WHEN DO WE START SEEING ANYTHING GET CHEAPERIM SICK A THIS SHIT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yup pandering to the rich niche market dont work and i'm not buying into it and ill stick with regular and guess what FREE TVgo fraking broke dummies is all i have to say trying to invent a wheel and peeps tried this when the 3d glasses came out YEARS AGO and it failed then and it will fail nowanything to justify a cost increase MY GOD WHEN DO WE START SEEING ANYTHING GET CHEAPERIM SICK A THIS SHIT</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667220</id>
	<title>4D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll wait for 4D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll wait for 4D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll wait for 4D.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666302</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn.  Fad is Over</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1262719500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ask yourself this:  When was the last time you watched anything and said, "You know what?  This is good, but it would better if it was in 3D."</p></div><p>There are three kinds of liars about porn:<br>
1) Those who say they've never seen any<br>
2) Those who say they tried it once, but didn't like it<br>
3) Those who say they've never thought about how awesome it would be in 3D.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask yourself this : When was the last time you watched anything and said , " You know what ?
This is good , but it would better if it was in 3D .
" There are three kinds of liars about porn : 1 ) Those who say they 've never seen any 2 ) Those who say they tried it once , but did n't like it 3 ) Those who say they 've never thought about how awesome it would be in 3D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask yourself this:  When was the last time you watched anything and said, "You know what?
This is good, but it would better if it was in 3D.
"There are three kinds of liars about porn:
1) Those who say they've never seen any
2) Those who say they tried it once, but didn't like it
3) Those who say they've never thought about how awesome it would be in 3D.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30674704</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be needing 3D TV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262771520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I saw Avatar, I was impressed with the graphics and enjoyed the 3D.</p><p>But by the time the movie was over, I definitely felt the beginnings of a headache coming on.  I'm not saying it happens for everyone, but I'm in whatever percentage of the population the OP is in.</p><p>However, even ignoring that aspect of my experience, I'd still pass on 3D TV in general.  It's definitely fun as a novelty, but until we get to the hologram stage or something else that's actually three dimensional and beyond tricking the eyes into seeing different things with special glasses, I'm not really interested in seeing it on a day-to-day basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I saw Avatar , I was impressed with the graphics and enjoyed the 3D.But by the time the movie was over , I definitely felt the beginnings of a headache coming on .
I 'm not saying it happens for everyone , but I 'm in whatever percentage of the population the OP is in.However , even ignoring that aspect of my experience , I 'd still pass on 3D TV in general .
It 's definitely fun as a novelty , but until we get to the hologram stage or something else that 's actually three dimensional and beyond tricking the eyes into seeing different things with special glasses , I 'm not really interested in seeing it on a day-to-day basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I saw Avatar, I was impressed with the graphics and enjoyed the 3D.But by the time the movie was over, I definitely felt the beginnings of a headache coming on.
I'm not saying it happens for everyone, but I'm in whatever percentage of the population the OP is in.However, even ignoring that aspect of my experience, I'd still pass on 3D TV in general.
It's definitely fun as a novelty, but until we get to the hologram stage or something else that's actually three dimensional and beyond tricking the eyes into seeing different things with special glasses, I'm not really interested in seeing it on a day-to-day basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665780</id>
	<title>Re:Stereoscopic, not 3D</title>
	<author>TheModelEskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1262714580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, we only offer True3D(tm) in countries where ubiquitous camera coverage is available. This currently includes the UK, and some smaller countries such as Chicago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , we only offer True3D ( tm ) in countries where ubiquitous camera coverage is available .
This currently includes the UK , and some smaller countries such as Chicago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, we only offer True3D(tm) in countries where ubiquitous camera coverage is available.
This currently includes the UK, and some smaller countries such as Chicago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30693630</id>
	<title>Avatar got in just in time</title>
	<author>cavebison</author>
	<datestamp>1262962380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Avatar has just grossed US$1B, helped along mightily by the more expensive tickets of the 3D release.</p><p>Oh well, there goes that revenue stream for the movie industry. I had assumed 3D their brainchild way out of all the "lost profits" from piracy. Soon 3D will be nothing special and nobody will want to pay extra for the tickets. At least the boost in grosses may have eased their foul whining about piracy for a while.</p><p>Of course I'm in Australia, where a 3D movie ticket is $20. My impression is that's a bit more than other countries.</p><p>Personally I really enjoyed the *subtle* 3D visuals of Avatar.. like doing a "fern-dolly" through the forest, with all the beautiful greenery coming out at me.. that was nice! Apart from that, 3D just distracts me from the *story*. I don't need 3D fonts or even coloured lettering to profoundly appreciate a good book. That would distract me from relaxing and absorbing what I'm reading. Same with movies, unless of course you're James Cameron and story isn't a factor.</p><p>The live-action scenes looked terrible.. actors looked like cardboard cut-outs against the 3D background. Perhaps the combination of live action on 3D CGI is yet to be fine-tuned.. but it was quite jarring for me. It may be the last 3D movie I ever see, at least until 3D becomes part of the *art* of movie making instead of a distracting gimmick. But points to Cameron for being relatively subtle with it.</p><p>I've since seen it again, from a 1.4GB avi file on my not-quite-wide-enough TV. Strangely, I enjoyed it just as much - brainless and disappointing climax/ending notwithstanding. James Cameron is an artist of detail, immersion and lead-up, but that doesn't make up his inability to write a story that has meaning. But then he's a movie-maker, not an author. The inspiration behind Avatar cried out for a real story to go along with it, but we got stereotypes and robot exoskeletons again. Epic yet empty, at best vainglorious, climactic confrontation.. again.</p><p>Such an evocative, immersive, even emotive journey, beautifully set up... just to take us *there* again?</p><p>I really loved the lead-up, all of us had tears and excited grins. Zoe Saldana was incredible, truly leading us into another realm. That's why I truly hate the let-down so much. The going-nowhere story. It could have had real meaning and been so much more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avatar has just grossed US $ 1B , helped along mightily by the more expensive tickets of the 3D release.Oh well , there goes that revenue stream for the movie industry .
I had assumed 3D their brainchild way out of all the " lost profits " from piracy .
Soon 3D will be nothing special and nobody will want to pay extra for the tickets .
At least the boost in grosses may have eased their foul whining about piracy for a while.Of course I 'm in Australia , where a 3D movie ticket is $ 20 .
My impression is that 's a bit more than other countries.Personally I really enjoyed the * subtle * 3D visuals of Avatar.. like doing a " fern-dolly " through the forest , with all the beautiful greenery coming out at me.. that was nice !
Apart from that , 3D just distracts me from the * story * .
I do n't need 3D fonts or even coloured lettering to profoundly appreciate a good book .
That would distract me from relaxing and absorbing what I 'm reading .
Same with movies , unless of course you 're James Cameron and story is n't a factor.The live-action scenes looked terrible.. actors looked like cardboard cut-outs against the 3D background .
Perhaps the combination of live action on 3D CGI is yet to be fine-tuned.. but it was quite jarring for me .
It may be the last 3D movie I ever see , at least until 3D becomes part of the * art * of movie making instead of a distracting gimmick .
But points to Cameron for being relatively subtle with it.I 've since seen it again , from a 1.4GB avi file on my not-quite-wide-enough TV .
Strangely , I enjoyed it just as much - brainless and disappointing climax/ending notwithstanding .
James Cameron is an artist of detail , immersion and lead-up , but that does n't make up his inability to write a story that has meaning .
But then he 's a movie-maker , not an author .
The inspiration behind Avatar cried out for a real story to go along with it , but we got stereotypes and robot exoskeletons again .
Epic yet empty , at best vainglorious , climactic confrontation.. again.Such an evocative , immersive , even emotive journey , beautifully set up... just to take us * there * again ? I really loved the lead-up , all of us had tears and excited grins .
Zoe Saldana was incredible , truly leading us into another realm .
That 's why I truly hate the let-down so much .
The going-nowhere story .
It could have had real meaning and been so much more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avatar has just grossed US$1B, helped along mightily by the more expensive tickets of the 3D release.Oh well, there goes that revenue stream for the movie industry.
I had assumed 3D their brainchild way out of all the "lost profits" from piracy.
Soon 3D will be nothing special and nobody will want to pay extra for the tickets.
At least the boost in grosses may have eased their foul whining about piracy for a while.Of course I'm in Australia, where a 3D movie ticket is $20.
My impression is that's a bit more than other countries.Personally I really enjoyed the *subtle* 3D visuals of Avatar.. like doing a "fern-dolly" through the forest, with all the beautiful greenery coming out at me.. that was nice!
Apart from that, 3D just distracts me from the *story*.
I don't need 3D fonts or even coloured lettering to profoundly appreciate a good book.
That would distract me from relaxing and absorbing what I'm reading.
Same with movies, unless of course you're James Cameron and story isn't a factor.The live-action scenes looked terrible.. actors looked like cardboard cut-outs against the 3D background.
Perhaps the combination of live action on 3D CGI is yet to be fine-tuned.. but it was quite jarring for me.
It may be the last 3D movie I ever see, at least until 3D becomes part of the *art* of movie making instead of a distracting gimmick.
But points to Cameron for being relatively subtle with it.I've since seen it again, from a 1.4GB avi file on my not-quite-wide-enough TV.
Strangely, I enjoyed it just as much - brainless and disappointing climax/ending notwithstanding.
James Cameron is an artist of detail, immersion and lead-up, but that doesn't make up his inability to write a story that has meaning.
But then he's a movie-maker, not an author.
The inspiration behind Avatar cried out for a real story to go along with it, but we got stereotypes and robot exoskeletons again.
Epic yet empty, at best vainglorious, climactic confrontation.. again.Such an evocative, immersive, even emotive journey, beautifully set up... just to take us *there* again?I really loved the lead-up, all of us had tears and excited grins.
Zoe Saldana was incredible, truly leading us into another realm.
That's why I truly hate the let-down so much.
The going-nowhere story.
It could have had real meaning and been so much more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664702</id>
	<title>Re:headaches welcome?</title>
	<author>markdavis</author>
	<datestamp>1262706540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D does not cause eye strain nor headaches when it is done PROPERLY (like it was done with Avatar 3D Imax).</p><p>Now, with 30/60Hz flicker-glasses, yeah, that could be an issue.  And since that is the technology they will have to use with home TV, I am not overly optimistic... but I will reserve judgment until I experience it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D does not cause eye strain nor headaches when it is done PROPERLY ( like it was done with Avatar 3D Imax ) .Now , with 30/60Hz flicker-glasses , yeah , that could be an issue .
And since that is the technology they will have to use with home TV , I am not overly optimistic... but I will reserve judgment until I experience it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D does not cause eye strain nor headaches when it is done PROPERLY (like it was done with Avatar 3D Imax).Now, with 30/60Hz flicker-glasses, yeah, that could be an issue.
And since that is the technology they will have to use with home TV, I am not overly optimistic... but I will reserve judgment until I experience it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30684554</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn.  Fad is Over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262888400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div class="quote"><p><i> <i>Ask yourself this: When was the last time you watched anything and said, "You know what? This is good, but it would better if it was in 3D."</i></i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Answer:  Me, fucking your Karma on a heart shaped bed, bitch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask yourself this : When was the last time you watched anything and said , " You know what ?
This is good , but it would better if it was in 3D .
" Answer : Me , fucking your Karma on a heart shaped bed , bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Ask yourself this: When was the last time you watched anything and said, "You know what?
This is good, but it would better if it was in 3D.
" Answer:  Me, fucking your Karma on a heart shaped bed, bitch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667668</id>
	<title>Re:Stereoscopic, not 3D</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262779620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don&rsquo;t forget being able to cut it with a arbitrary set of planes to an arbitrary shape, to see the inside.</p><p>Hmmm... what shape configuration do I need, to remove Jessica Alba&rsquo;s clothes? ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Don    t forget being able to cut it with a arbitrary set of planes to an arbitrary shape , to see the inside.Hmmm... what shape configuration do I need , to remove Jessica Alba    s clothes ?
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don’t forget being able to cut it with a arbitrary set of planes to an arbitrary shape, to see the inside.Hmmm... what shape configuration do I need, to remove Jessica Alba’s clothes?
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664142</id>
	<title>I want 3D M:tG coverage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262702820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think about it... all the excitement and thrills of an M:tG tournament RIGHT IN YOUR LIVING ROOM!<br> <br>

Maybe ESPN will do the World Championships again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about it... all the excitement and thrills of an M : tG tournament RIGHT IN YOUR LIVING ROOM !
Maybe ESPN will do the World Championships again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about it... all the excitement and thrills of an M:tG tournament RIGHT IN YOUR LIVING ROOM!
Maybe ESPN will do the World Championships again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663424</id>
	<title>Party like it's 1999</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262698680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is about the point where HD was in 1999. Announced, but not quite online yet and only limited programs are being broadcast. Channels are so light on content they sign off rather than take up bandwidth when they've got nothing to show. This will make more sense when the devices are out and priced like an HD set is today... we're just not there yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is about the point where HD was in 1999 .
Announced , but not quite online yet and only limited programs are being broadcast .
Channels are so light on content they sign off rather than take up bandwidth when they 've got nothing to show .
This will make more sense when the devices are out and priced like an HD set is today... we 're just not there yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is about the point where HD was in 1999.
Announced, but not quite online yet and only limited programs are being broadcast.
Channels are so light on content they sign off rather than take up bandwidth when they've got nothing to show.
This will make more sense when the devices are out and priced like an HD set is today... we're just not there yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664296</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be needing 3D TV</title>
	<author>Mad Quacker</author>
	<datestamp>1262703840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Won't be needing 3D TV<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ever.<br>Just saw my first full length film in 3D, and I don't need that in my house. It just doesn't add that much to the viewing experience.<br>I'll be skipping blu-ray.</p></div></blockquote><p>Let me guess you have no depth perception and are partially blind? Watching Avatar in RealD 3D was quite an experience. It wasn't just me either, people were standing up in the theater trying to grab the RealD introduction out of the air. No flicker, no headaches, no red/blue tinting.</p><p>I am not easily impressed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't be needing 3D TV ... ever.Just saw my first full length film in 3D , and I do n't need that in my house .
It just does n't add that much to the viewing experience.I 'll be skipping blu-ray.Let me guess you have no depth perception and are partially blind ?
Watching Avatar in RealD 3D was quite an experience .
It was n't just me either , people were standing up in the theater trying to grab the RealD introduction out of the air .
No flicker , no headaches , no red/blue tinting.I am not easily impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't be needing 3D TV ... ever.Just saw my first full length film in 3D, and I don't need that in my house.
It just doesn't add that much to the viewing experience.I'll be skipping blu-ray.Let me guess you have no depth perception and are partially blind?
Watching Avatar in RealD 3D was quite an experience.
It wasn't just me either, people were standing up in the theater trying to grab the RealD introduction out of the air.
No flicker, no headaches, no red/blue tinting.I am not easily impressed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665658</id>
	<title>Re:First Day Schedule Released</title>
	<author>rockNme2349</author>
	<datestamp>1262712960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D infomercials. Everything is shown on one plane as close as possible to the viewer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D infomercials .
Everything is shown on one plane as close as possible to the viewer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D infomercials.
Everything is shown on one plane as close as possible to the viewer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667582</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be needing 3D TV</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262778540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That&rsquo;s <em>only</em> you. To us it matters a lot. Sure, it does not replace anything else (like a good story), but it adds much.<br>Maybe you only got one eye. Dunno. Are you a cyclops? Or is your name Leela?</p><p>The real reason this will never ever come to TV, is because by the time it would be implemented, there will be no TV anymore. I mean half of the people I know already don&rsquo;t have or use a TV anymore. And when they do, they just skip channels, rant that there&rsquo;s nothing on, and turn the TV off again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s only you .
To us it matters a lot .
Sure , it does not replace anything else ( like a good story ) , but it adds much.Maybe you only got one eye .
Dunno. Are you a cyclops ?
Or is your name Leela ? The real reason this will never ever come to TV , is because by the time it would be implemented , there will be no TV anymore .
I mean half of the people I know already don    t have or use a TV anymore .
And when they do , they just skip channels , rant that there    s nothing on , and turn the TV off again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s only you.
To us it matters a lot.
Sure, it does not replace anything else (like a good story), but it adds much.Maybe you only got one eye.
Dunno. Are you a cyclops?
Or is your name Leela?The real reason this will never ever come to TV, is because by the time it would be implemented, there will be no TV anymore.
I mean half of the people I know already don’t have or use a TV anymore.
And when they do, they just skip channels, rant that there’s nothing on, and turn the TV off again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30676098</id>
	<title>Re:Sony products? meh.</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1262777880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, with the caveat that gaming consoles actually hurt their bottom line.  You have to buy a lot of games to make up for it.  I think it was 5 Sony games, 10 third party or something when I checked last year.</p><p>I hate to admit it, but I will be upgrading to PS3 soon.  As long as no one posts evidence contrary to my understanding of course cos then I'll be very irritated, and conflicted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , with the caveat that gaming consoles actually hurt their bottom line .
You have to buy a lot of games to make up for it .
I think it was 5 Sony games , 10 third party or something when I checked last year.I hate to admit it , but I will be upgrading to PS3 soon .
As long as no one posts evidence contrary to my understanding of course cos then I 'll be very irritated , and conflicted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, with the caveat that gaming consoles actually hurt their bottom line.
You have to buy a lot of games to make up for it.
I think it was 5 Sony games, 10 third party or something when I checked last year.I hate to admit it, but I will be upgrading to PS3 soon.
As long as no one posts evidence contrary to my understanding of course cos then I'll be very irritated, and conflicted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664574</id>
	<title>Re:Yawn. Fad is Over</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262705760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Better in 3D" is a bit misleading for <i>Avatar</i>. It is more accurate to say that <i>Avatar</i> is just a display of 3D effects, so seeing it in 2D is silly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Better in 3D " is a bit misleading for Avatar .
It is more accurate to say that Avatar is just a display of 3D effects , so seeing it in 2D is silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Better in 3D" is a bit misleading for Avatar.
It is more accurate to say that Avatar is just a display of 3D effects, so seeing it in 2D is silly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664452</id>
	<title>Re:This is like launching HDTV in 1996...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262704860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>if you knew jack shit out marketing you wouldn't be hanging out on slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you knew jack shit out marketing you would n't be hanging out on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you knew jack shit out marketing you wouldn't be hanging out on slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663350</id>
	<title>Lame start...</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262698320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't seem to be breaking much ground with this. It was already known that the World Cup going to be shot in 3D... ESPN is basically saying they'll make that feed available in the USA because they own the English-language TV rights. Could we please have Sunday Night Baseball and Monday Night Football in 3D?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't seem to be breaking much ground with this .
It was already known that the World Cup going to be shot in 3D... ESPN is basically saying they 'll make that feed available in the USA because they own the English-language TV rights .
Could we please have Sunday Night Baseball and Monday Night Football in 3D ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't seem to be breaking much ground with this.
It was already known that the World Cup going to be shot in 3D... ESPN is basically saying they'll make that feed available in the USA because they own the English-language TV rights.
Could we please have Sunday Night Baseball and Monday Night Football in 3D?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664622</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be needing 3D TV</title>
	<author>roc97007</author>
	<datestamp>1262706180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&gt; And you're skipping blu-ray... uh huh. I'll come back to you in a year when you can't even find a non-bluray DVD player on the market any more.
</p><p>
I'm wondering if this will be happening any time soon.  I own a Blu-Ray player and a fairly large Sony Bravia, and I honestly can't see any significant visible difference between my blu-ray titles and a reasonably well-mastered DVD.  And I'm fairly picky -- I never did go the VHS route, preferring to suffer with Laserdisc until DVD became available.  Laserdisc blew VHS away, and DVD was a significant improvement over Laserdisc, but Blu-Ray doesn't seem to give the same quantum improvement over DVD.
</p><p>
But I'm a geek, so I have one.  There may be enough geeks to keep the format alive, but certainly not enough for it to take over DVD.
</p><p>
My friend with the 100" front-projection set says there's a significant difference between Blu-Ray and DVD.  I bet he's right, on his high-end equipment.  But are there enough people <i>with TVs good enough to tell the difference</i> to support the format?
</p><p>
What about Fred and Ethyl Six-Pack, who probably still have a tube set, or just got their first flat panel at Costco but have no idea how to set it up.  Do their jaws drop the first time they see the blu-ray version of Bad Boys II?  Of course not.
</p><p>
I look forward to the day when Blu-Ray players are available for $34.99 at Wal-Mart, as DVD players are today.  Fortunately, our DVDs will still play fine, and there will still be no reason to replace them with their Blu-Ray counterparts.
</p><p>
In the case of 3D TV, if done properly, it could be the quantum leap that HDTV was over NTSC.  So.... how long did it take for HDTV to go from concept to generally available?  And then, how long did it take to become affordable enough for Fred and Ethyl to consider buying one?  I forget, how many converters were sold the year NTSC stopped transmitting?
</p><p>
Personally, I think 3D is an interesting novelty in the theater.  I bought the Bravia in 2009, and typically keep my TVs for ten years or more.  Let's talk about 3D around 2019, shall we?  With the length of time for standards struggles to be resolved and decisions to actually be made, 3D should be just about ready for prime time by then.  Or maybe a little later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; And you 're skipping blu-ray... uh huh .
I 'll come back to you in a year when you ca n't even find a non-bluray DVD player on the market any more .
I 'm wondering if this will be happening any time soon .
I own a Blu-Ray player and a fairly large Sony Bravia , and I honestly ca n't see any significant visible difference between my blu-ray titles and a reasonably well-mastered DVD .
And I 'm fairly picky -- I never did go the VHS route , preferring to suffer with Laserdisc until DVD became available .
Laserdisc blew VHS away , and DVD was a significant improvement over Laserdisc , but Blu-Ray does n't seem to give the same quantum improvement over DVD .
But I 'm a geek , so I have one .
There may be enough geeks to keep the format alive , but certainly not enough for it to take over DVD .
My friend with the 100 " front-projection set says there 's a significant difference between Blu-Ray and DVD .
I bet he 's right , on his high-end equipment .
But are there enough people with TVs good enough to tell the difference to support the format ?
What about Fred and Ethyl Six-Pack , who probably still have a tube set , or just got their first flat panel at Costco but have no idea how to set it up .
Do their jaws drop the first time they see the blu-ray version of Bad Boys II ?
Of course not .
I look forward to the day when Blu-Ray players are available for $ 34.99 at Wal-Mart , as DVD players are today .
Fortunately , our DVDs will still play fine , and there will still be no reason to replace them with their Blu-Ray counterparts .
In the case of 3D TV , if done properly , it could be the quantum leap that HDTV was over NTSC .
So.... how long did it take for HDTV to go from concept to generally available ?
And then , how long did it take to become affordable enough for Fred and Ethyl to consider buying one ?
I forget , how many converters were sold the year NTSC stopped transmitting ?
Personally , I think 3D is an interesting novelty in the theater .
I bought the Bravia in 2009 , and typically keep my TVs for ten years or more .
Let 's talk about 3D around 2019 , shall we ?
With the length of time for standards struggles to be resolved and decisions to actually be made , 3D should be just about ready for prime time by then .
Or maybe a little later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
&gt; And you're skipping blu-ray... uh huh.
I'll come back to you in a year when you can't even find a non-bluray DVD player on the market any more.
I'm wondering if this will be happening any time soon.
I own a Blu-Ray player and a fairly large Sony Bravia, and I honestly can't see any significant visible difference between my blu-ray titles and a reasonably well-mastered DVD.
And I'm fairly picky -- I never did go the VHS route, preferring to suffer with Laserdisc until DVD became available.
Laserdisc blew VHS away, and DVD was a significant improvement over Laserdisc, but Blu-Ray doesn't seem to give the same quantum improvement over DVD.
But I'm a geek, so I have one.
There may be enough geeks to keep the format alive, but certainly not enough for it to take over DVD.
My friend with the 100" front-projection set says there's a significant difference between Blu-Ray and DVD.
I bet he's right, on his high-end equipment.
But are there enough people with TVs good enough to tell the difference to support the format?
What about Fred and Ethyl Six-Pack, who probably still have a tube set, or just got their first flat panel at Costco but have no idea how to set it up.
Do their jaws drop the first time they see the blu-ray version of Bad Boys II?
Of course not.
I look forward to the day when Blu-Ray players are available for $34.99 at Wal-Mart, as DVD players are today.
Fortunately, our DVDs will still play fine, and there will still be no reason to replace them with their Blu-Ray counterparts.
In the case of 3D TV, if done properly, it could be the quantum leap that HDTV was over NTSC.
So.... how long did it take for HDTV to go from concept to generally available?
And then, how long did it take to become affordable enough for Fred and Ethyl to consider buying one?
I forget, how many converters were sold the year NTSC stopped transmitting?
Personally, I think 3D is an interesting novelty in the theater.
I bought the Bravia in 2009, and typically keep my TVs for ten years or more.
Let's talk about 3D around 2019, shall we?
With the length of time for standards struggles to be resolved and decisions to actually be made, 3D should be just about ready for prime time by then.
Or maybe a little later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667850</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be needing 3D TV</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262781660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What&rsquo;s a blu-ray DVD??</p><p>Is that like a formula 1 car bicycle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What    s a blu-ray DVD ?
? Is that like a formula 1 car bicycle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What’s a blu-ray DVD?
?Is that like a formula 1 car bicycle?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663446</id>
	<title>ugg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262698800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I have to use stupid red/green or red/blue glasses count me out. now, the weird polarized glasses (or whatever) they use in theaters now would be awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I have to use stupid red/green or red/blue glasses count me out .
now , the weird polarized glasses ( or whatever ) they use in theaters now would be awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I have to use stupid red/green or red/blue glasses count me out.
now, the weird polarized glasses (or whatever) they use in theaters now would be awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664612</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be needing 3D TV</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1262706060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Let me guess you have no depth perception and are partially blind? Watching Avatar in RealD 3D was quite an experience. It wasn't just me either, people were standing up in the theater trying to grab the RealD introduction out of the air.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's because it's fairly new. But I have to agree with my fellow "flatlander" above: it doesn't add that much to the experience. Good use of movement-based parallax produces almost the same depth cues as direct 3D, and doesn't require special goggles. As a novelty, 3D is cool, but <b>the novelty wears off</b>. Producers should perfect the art of parallax instead. It's pretty cool if used right.</p><p>But hey, if it stimulates the economy for a while, then go ahead and blow wods of cash on 3D equipment. Personally, I'd rather it go toward fixing potholes; they are 3D too. Some are so fscked I think they are 4D.<br>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me guess you have no depth perception and are partially blind ?
Watching Avatar in RealD 3D was quite an experience .
It was n't just me either , people were standing up in the theater trying to grab the RealD introduction out of the air.That 's because it 's fairly new .
But I have to agree with my fellow " flatlander " above : it does n't add that much to the experience .
Good use of movement-based parallax produces almost the same depth cues as direct 3D , and does n't require special goggles .
As a novelty , 3D is cool , but the novelty wears off .
Producers should perfect the art of parallax instead .
It 's pretty cool if used right.But hey , if it stimulates the economy for a while , then go ahead and blow wods of cash on 3D equipment .
Personally , I 'd rather it go toward fixing potholes ; they are 3D too .
Some are so fscked I think they are 4D .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me guess you have no depth perception and are partially blind?
Watching Avatar in RealD 3D was quite an experience.
It wasn't just me either, people were standing up in the theater trying to grab the RealD introduction out of the air.That's because it's fairly new.
But I have to agree with my fellow "flatlander" above: it doesn't add that much to the experience.
Good use of movement-based parallax produces almost the same depth cues as direct 3D, and doesn't require special goggles.
As a novelty, 3D is cool, but the novelty wears off.
Producers should perfect the art of parallax instead.
It's pretty cool if used right.But hey, if it stimulates the economy for a while, then go ahead and blow wods of cash on 3D equipment.
Personally, I'd rather it go toward fixing potholes; they are 3D too.
Some are so fscked I think they are 4D.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663468</id>
	<title>Great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262698860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heard from a trusted source that it's going to be called ADHD3DTV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard from a trusted source that it 's going to be called ADHD3DTV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard from a trusted source that it's going to be called ADHD3DTV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900</id>
	<title>Yawn.   Fad is Over</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1262701140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ask yourself this:  When was the last time you watched anything and said, "You know what?  This is good, but it would better if it was in 3D."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask yourself this : When was the last time you watched anything and said , " You know what ?
This is good , but it would better if it was in 3D .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask yourself this:  When was the last time you watched anything and said, "You know what?
This is good, but it would better if it was in 3D.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664294</id>
	<title>Re:Lame start...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262703840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They don't seem to be breaking much ground with this. It was already known that the World Cup going to be shot in 3D... ESPN is basically saying they'll make that feed available in the USA because they own the English-language TV rights. Could we please have Sunday Night Baseball and Monday Night Football in 3D?</p></div><p>To heck with 3D foot ball, I want 3D tennis and 3D volley ball!  The only sports worth staring at for hours, its the unclad truth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't seem to be breaking much ground with this .
It was already known that the World Cup going to be shot in 3D... ESPN is basically saying they 'll make that feed available in the USA because they own the English-language TV rights .
Could we please have Sunday Night Baseball and Monday Night Football in 3D ? To heck with 3D foot ball , I want 3D tennis and 3D volley ball !
The only sports worth staring at for hours , its the unclad truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't seem to be breaking much ground with this.
It was already known that the World Cup going to be shot in 3D... ESPN is basically saying they'll make that feed available in the USA because they own the English-language TV rights.
Could we please have Sunday Night Baseball and Monday Night Football in 3D?To heck with 3D foot ball, I want 3D tennis and 3D volley ball!
The only sports worth staring at for hours, its the unclad truth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30712198</id>
	<title>Re:headaches welcome?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263053940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>My father worked at the first national tv station we had in my country (.nl)... he told me people were saying the same thing about the introduction of normal television...<br><br>... looking at the society I live in... they might have been right tho<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>My father worked at the first national tv station we had in my country ( .nl ) ... he told me people were saying the same thing about the introduction of normal television...... looking at the society I live in... they might have been right tho ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My father worked at the first national tv station we had in my country (.nl)... he told me people were saying the same thing about the introduction of normal television...... looking at the society I live in... they might have been right tho ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665632</id>
	<title>Curious..</title>
	<author>cyberjock1980</author>
	<datestamp>1262712780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand that the brain see's the 2 signals and puts them together to give the impression that an object is 3D.</p><p>I'm curious to know what long term use of this would have on the brain.  Will a brain try to rewire itself to see the 2 distinct images without the 3D "error"?  Is this something that over generations will genetically change so that people can no longer use 3D televisions.</p><p>I know that 3D televisions will probably be long obsolete before the genes could change to prevent the 3D effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that the brain see 's the 2 signals and puts them together to give the impression that an object is 3D.I 'm curious to know what long term use of this would have on the brain .
Will a brain try to rewire itself to see the 2 distinct images without the 3D " error " ?
Is this something that over generations will genetically change so that people can no longer use 3D televisions.I know that 3D televisions will probably be long obsolete before the genes could change to prevent the 3D effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that the brain see's the 2 signals and puts them together to give the impression that an object is 3D.I'm curious to know what long term use of this would have on the brain.
Will a brain try to rewire itself to see the 2 distinct images without the 3D "error"?
Is this something that over generations will genetically change so that people can no longer use 3D televisions.I know that 3D televisions will probably be long obsolete before the genes could change to prevent the 3D effect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666994</id>
	<title>Re:Won't be needing 3D TV</title>
	<author>LilGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262771880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I saw avatar in 2d and enjoyed it.  Then on christmas my family wanted to go see the 3d version so I tagged along.  That was the first 3d movie I've ever seen without the red/blue glasses and I was blown away.  I actually caught myself trying to swipe away some flaming ash from my face at one point and the best part was I didn't get a headache from watching it!</p><p>If 3D tv is anything like that count me in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw avatar in 2d and enjoyed it .
Then on christmas my family wanted to go see the 3d version so I tagged along .
That was the first 3d movie I 've ever seen without the red/blue glasses and I was blown away .
I actually caught myself trying to swipe away some flaming ash from my face at one point and the best part was I did n't get a headache from watching it ! If 3D tv is anything like that count me in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw avatar in 2d and enjoyed it.
Then on christmas my family wanted to go see the 3d version so I tagged along.
That was the first 3d movie I've ever seen without the red/blue glasses and I was blown away.
I actually caught myself trying to swipe away some flaming ash from my face at one point and the best part was I didn't get a headache from watching it!If 3D tv is anything like that count me in!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30668396</id>
	<title>Lamarckism died a long time ago</title>
	<author>Quadraginta</author>
	<datestamp>1262786820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless people whose brain fails to rewire itself get killed off before they can reproduce, then, no, evolution isn't going to change a damn thing.</p><p>You're falling prey to the Lamarck mistake, thinking that characteristics acquired during life are somehow passed on to offspring.  They're not.  The only way evolution proceeds is by the differential reproductive success of different genetic patterns.</p><p>In other words, if you make the usual assertions, you're safe in predicting that humanity will evolve to be puzzled and uninterested in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., since the usual belief is that being interested in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. implies reproductive nonsuccess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless people whose brain fails to rewire itself get killed off before they can reproduce , then , no , evolution is n't going to change a damn thing.You 're falling prey to the Lamarck mistake , thinking that characteristics acquired during life are somehow passed on to offspring .
They 're not .
The only way evolution proceeds is by the differential reproductive success of different genetic patterns.In other words , if you make the usual assertions , you 're safe in predicting that humanity will evolve to be puzzled and uninterested in /. , since the usual belief is that being interested in / .
implies reproductive nonsuccess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless people whose brain fails to rewire itself get killed off before they can reproduce, then, no, evolution isn't going to change a damn thing.You're falling prey to the Lamarck mistake, thinking that characteristics acquired during life are somehow passed on to offspring.
They're not.
The only way evolution proceeds is by the differential reproductive success of different genetic patterns.In other words, if you make the usual assertions, you're safe in predicting that humanity will evolve to be puzzled and uninterested in /., since the usual belief is that being interested in /.
implies reproductive nonsuccess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666470</id>
	<title>Re:A few featured shows:</title>
	<author>Bill Dog</author>
	<datestamp>1262721540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The first lineup has been announced, it will feature "Comin' Atcha!" "Think Fast!" and "Look Out, I'm Throwing Things At Your Head!"</i></p><p>Then in the following season we'll all be ready for some <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r\_4jrMwvZ2A" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">high-brow entertainment</a> [youtube.com]!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first lineup has been announced , it will feature " Comin ' Atcha !
" " Think Fast !
" and " Look Out , I 'm Throwing Things At Your Head !
" Then in the following season we 'll all be ready for some high-brow entertainment [ youtube.com ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first lineup has been announced, it will feature "Comin' Atcha!
" "Think Fast!
" and "Look Out, I'm Throwing Things At Your Head!
"Then in the following season we'll all be ready for some high-brow entertainment [youtube.com]!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664204</id>
	<title>First 3D post!</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1262703120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tThHiIsS iIsS tThHeE vVeErRyY fFiIrRsStT tThHrReEeE dD pPoOsStT</p><p>cCaAuUtTiIoOnN mMaAyY cCaAuUsSeE nNaAuUsSeEaA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tThHiIsS iIsS tThHeE vVeErRyY fFiIrRsStT tThHrReEeE dD pPoOsStTcCaAuUtTiIoOnN mMaAyY cCaAuUsSeE nNaAuUsSeEaA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tThHiIsS iIsS tThHeE vVeErRyY fFiIrRsStT tThHrReEeE dD pPoOsStTcCaAuUtTiIoOnN mMaAyY cCaAuUsSeE nNaAuUsSeEaA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664194</id>
	<title>Re:A few featured shows:</title>
	<author>mrsurb</author>
	<datestamp>1262703060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I went to see Avatar 3D they had a preview for Alice in Wonderland 3D. It was all flashy "look-at-me, I'm in 3D!" showy rubbish. I despaired at having to sit through almost three hours of Avatar if it was going to draw that much attention to the special effects. Fortunately, the effects were used much more effectively (excuse the pun) in the movie proper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I went to see Avatar 3D they had a preview for Alice in Wonderland 3D .
It was all flashy " look-at-me , I 'm in 3D !
" showy rubbish .
I despaired at having to sit through almost three hours of Avatar if it was going to draw that much attention to the special effects .
Fortunately , the effects were used much more effectively ( excuse the pun ) in the movie proper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I went to see Avatar 3D they had a preview for Alice in Wonderland 3D.
It was all flashy "look-at-me, I'm in 3D!
" showy rubbish.
I despaired at having to sit through almost three hours of Avatar if it was going to draw that much attention to the special effects.
Fortunately, the effects were used much more effectively (excuse the pun) in the movie proper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30669728</id>
	<title>It's always a mind trick</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1262794500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True.</p><p>And your TV can only display yellow by tricks of the eyes+brain.</p><p>My interpretation of what goes on is this: there's a red dot and a green dot close to each other.  These emit intensity-equal streams of "red photons" and "green photons" (of appropriate wavelengths).  Pairs of these hit neighbouring cones in your eye, the long-wavelength cone reacting to the red photon and the medium-wavelength cone reacting to the green photon.</p><p>Your brain then (acts as if it) assumes the activations of the cones were due to the <em>same</em> photon source.  But the only way for one photon source to activate the long and medium wavelength cones equally is if the photon source is yellow.</p><p>See also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color\_vision" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color\_vision</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Pedantry is fun.  And the brain always computes on the information it is fed; there's never raw access (what would that even mean?).</p><p>Not surprisingly, we design display/video technology such that after processing by our brains, we have the desired perception.</p><p>So what if it's stereoscopic and not real 3D?  The real world is always viewed through a stereoscopic lens (figuratively speaking).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True.And your TV can only display yellow by tricks of the eyes + brain.My interpretation of what goes on is this : there 's a red dot and a green dot close to each other .
These emit intensity-equal streams of " red photons " and " green photons " ( of appropriate wavelengths ) .
Pairs of these hit neighbouring cones in your eye , the long-wavelength cone reacting to the red photon and the medium-wavelength cone reacting to the green photon.Your brain then ( acts as if it ) assumes the activations of the cones were due to the same photon source .
But the only way for one photon source to activate the long and medium wavelength cones equally is if the photon source is yellow.See also http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color \ _vision [ wikipedia.org ] Pedantry is fun .
And the brain always computes on the information it is fed ; there 's never raw access ( what would that even mean ?
) .Not surprisingly , we design display/video technology such that after processing by our brains , we have the desired perception.So what if it 's stereoscopic and not real 3D ?
The real world is always viewed through a stereoscopic lens ( figuratively speaking ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True.And your TV can only display yellow by tricks of the eyes+brain.My interpretation of what goes on is this: there's a red dot and a green dot close to each other.
These emit intensity-equal streams of "red photons" and "green photons" (of appropriate wavelengths).
Pairs of these hit neighbouring cones in your eye, the long-wavelength cone reacting to the red photon and the medium-wavelength cone reacting to the green photon.Your brain then (acts as if it) assumes the activations of the cones were due to the same photon source.
But the only way for one photon source to activate the long and medium wavelength cones equally is if the photon source is yellow.See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color\_vision [wikipedia.org]Pedantry is fun.
And the brain always computes on the information it is fed; there's never raw access (what would that even mean?
).Not surprisingly, we design display/video technology such that after processing by our brains, we have the desired perception.So what if it's stereoscopic and not real 3D?
The real world is always viewed through a stereoscopic lens (figuratively speaking).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663476</id>
	<title>A few featured shows:</title>
	<author>Gizzmonic</author>
	<datestamp>1262698860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first lineup has been announced, it will feature "Comin' Atcha!" "Think Fast!" and "Look Out, I'm Throwing Things At Your Head!"</p><p>-with apologies to <a href="http://twitter.com/MKupperman" title="twitter.com">Michael Kupperman</a> [twitter.com], the hilarious comic artist I stole that joke from</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first lineup has been announced , it will feature " Comin ' Atcha !
" " Think Fast !
" and " Look Out , I 'm Throwing Things At Your Head !
" -with apologies to Michael Kupperman [ twitter.com ] , the hilarious comic artist I stole that joke from</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first lineup has been announced, it will feature "Comin' Atcha!
" "Think Fast!
" and "Look Out, I'm Throwing Things At Your Head!
"-with apologies to Michael Kupperman [twitter.com], the hilarious comic artist I stole that joke from</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667712</id>
	<title>3D won't make a lot of sense on TVs...</title>
	<author>Lisandro</author>
	<datestamp>1262780220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...unless they find a way of making it work <i>without</i> goggles or additional gear. Would you wear a pair of glasses every time you feel like watching TV? I know i wouldn't.</p><p>I've watched a couple of movies in 3D. The effect works just fine - we're leaps and bound ahead of the days of red-and-green glasses. Maybe someone will find a more creative way of using this technology, but right now, 3D doesn't really add much to the experience IMHO. Unless you feel <i>directly</i> into the 3D world it's just a bit of depth perception at the cost of a dimmer, lower quality image.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, try it if you haven't. Just don't expect to feel like throwing your old 2D TV after.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...unless they find a way of making it work without goggles or additional gear .
Would you wear a pair of glasses every time you feel like watching TV ?
I know i would n't.I 've watched a couple of movies in 3D .
The effect works just fine - we 're leaps and bound ahead of the days of red-and-green glasses .
Maybe someone will find a more creative way of using this technology , but right now , 3D does n't really add much to the experience IMHO .
Unless you feel directly into the 3D world it 's just a bit of depth perception at the cost of a dimmer , lower quality image.Do n't get me wrong , try it if you have n't .
Just do n't expect to feel like throwing your old 2D TV after .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...unless they find a way of making it work without goggles or additional gear.
Would you wear a pair of glasses every time you feel like watching TV?
I know i wouldn't.I've watched a couple of movies in 3D.
The effect works just fine - we're leaps and bound ahead of the days of red-and-green glasses.
Maybe someone will find a more creative way of using this technology, but right now, 3D doesn't really add much to the experience IMHO.
Unless you feel directly into the 3D world it's just a bit of depth perception at the cost of a dimmer, lower quality image.Don't get me wrong, try it if you haven't.
Just don't expect to feel like throwing your old 2D TV after.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667852</id>
	<title>Marketing and built in redundancy</title>
	<author>GuyFawkes</author>
	<datestamp>1262781720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is nothing more than the industry having settled on a hardware redundancy lifecycle in order to drive periodic sales, gone are the days of buying a radio / record player / reel to reel / television and the damn thing still worked 20 years later.</p><p>Even if it works, there will be no media.</p><p>Since there is no media, there is no point building it so it will still work.</p><p>I have a 49 year old Sony Tapecorder 500 reel to reel that still works, my dad bought it new. Essentially there is no media for it. (yeah, via the internet I can buy blank, try buying content though)</p><p>consume, consume, consume.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nothing more than the industry having settled on a hardware redundancy lifecycle in order to drive periodic sales , gone are the days of buying a radio / record player / reel to reel / television and the damn thing still worked 20 years later.Even if it works , there will be no media.Since there is no media , there is no point building it so it will still work.I have a 49 year old Sony Tapecorder 500 reel to reel that still works , my dad bought it new .
Essentially there is no media for it .
( yeah , via the internet I can buy blank , try buying content though ) consume , consume , consume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nothing more than the industry having settled on a hardware redundancy lifecycle in order to drive periodic sales, gone are the days of buying a radio / record player / reel to reel / television and the damn thing still worked 20 years later.Even if it works, there will be no media.Since there is no media, there is no point building it so it will still work.I have a 49 year old Sony Tapecorder 500 reel to reel that still works, my dad bought it new.
Essentially there is no media for it.
(yeah, via the internet I can buy blank, try buying content though)consume, consume, consume.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30676098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30674704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30669728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30669296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30675228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30684554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30668396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30712198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_2331255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30669296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30676098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30712198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30668396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30669728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664464
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30674704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30667140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_2331255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30663900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30675228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30664574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30684554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30666302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_2331255.30665582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
