<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_09_156231</id>
	<title>KIA Bringing News &amp; Social Media To Your Car</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263055260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>thecarchik writes <i>"Earlier this week KIA made some major announcements about their future cars. They shed some light on the details of their new UVO system, which lets you answer and place phone calls, send and receive SMS text messages, and access music via voice commands. Moreover, their new widget-based system for the on-screen controls lets you include RSS news, financial information, and weather reports, <a href="http://blogs.thecarconnection.com/marty-blog/1041381\_kia-uvo-in-car-twitter-facebookand-180-mph-tv-viewing">along with Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn updates</a>. If there is one thing we can take away from this and Ford's recent <a href="http://www.gearlog.com/2010/01/revamped\_sync\_new\_myford\_touch.php">announcement about the MyFord Touch system</a>, it is that we'll see some heated internet technology battles between car manufacturers."</i>
The NY Times pointed out a few days ago that many companies are already turning their attention to dashboard computing, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/technology/07distracted.html?em=&amp;pagewanted=all">much to the dismay of those who warn against distracted driving</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>thecarchik writes " Earlier this week KIA made some major announcements about their future cars .
They shed some light on the details of their new UVO system , which lets you answer and place phone calls , send and receive SMS text messages , and access music via voice commands .
Moreover , their new widget-based system for the on-screen controls lets you include RSS news , financial information , and weather reports , along with Twitter , Facebook , and LinkedIn updates .
If there is one thing we can take away from this and Ford 's recent announcement about the MyFord Touch system , it is that we 'll see some heated internet technology battles between car manufacturers .
" The NY Times pointed out a few days ago that many companies are already turning their attention to dashboard computing , much to the dismay of those who warn against distracted driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thecarchik writes "Earlier this week KIA made some major announcements about their future cars.
They shed some light on the details of their new UVO system, which lets you answer and place phone calls, send and receive SMS text messages, and access music via voice commands.
Moreover, their new widget-based system for the on-screen controls lets you include RSS news, financial information, and weather reports, along with Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn updates.
If there is one thing we can take away from this and Ford's recent announcement about the MyFord Touch system, it is that we'll see some heated internet technology battles between car manufacturers.
"
The NY Times pointed out a few days ago that many companies are already turning their attention to dashboard computing, much to the dismay of those who warn against distracted driving.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898</id>
	<title>Make them safer first</title>
	<author>yog</author>
	<datestamp>1263059160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think an "infotainment" system for the car is fine for passengers, but if it tempts drivers to take their eyes off the road, it should be accompanied by a collision avoidance system that counteracts the increased distractability factor.</p><p>I think Volvo points the way with their low velocity laser/radar collision avoidance system (18 MPH).  However I would like to see universal adoption of a high speed system that would at least make collisions more survivable, if not prevent them entirely.</p><p>With about 38,000 people dying on the road every year in the U.S. alone, it's unfathomable that our leaders (and the voters) pay so little attention to collision survivability.  For a while back in the '70s, they were forcing car makers to increase the force absorption ability of bumpers every few years.  It got up to 5 mph, but then in the '80s, with high fuel prices and a deep recession, the standards were relaxed down to 2.5 mph to encourage more profits.</p><p>The technology today is light years beyond what we had in the '70s.  We could put RF chips in the major roads (buried, or on the railings, or whatever) to help cars stay in their lanes, we could mandate Volvo-style (and airplane-style) collision avoidance systems that would automatically swerve cars out of collision paths, and we could probably increase the shock absorption abilities of passenger vehicles.  It costs money, to be sure, but we should ask ourselves, would we rather pay an extra $500 a year in taxes or an extra $100 a month in car payments and live, or be wealthier and dead (or paraplegic or quadraplegic or whiplashed)?</p><p>We went to war over 3000 deaths on 9/11, yet we consider the 3000 deaths per month on the road as a normal hazard of our transportation system.  Let's take off the blinders and fix this problem already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think an " infotainment " system for the car is fine for passengers , but if it tempts drivers to take their eyes off the road , it should be accompanied by a collision avoidance system that counteracts the increased distractability factor.I think Volvo points the way with their low velocity laser/radar collision avoidance system ( 18 MPH ) .
However I would like to see universal adoption of a high speed system that would at least make collisions more survivable , if not prevent them entirely.With about 38,000 people dying on the road every year in the U.S. alone , it 's unfathomable that our leaders ( and the voters ) pay so little attention to collision survivability .
For a while back in the '70s , they were forcing car makers to increase the force absorption ability of bumpers every few years .
It got up to 5 mph , but then in the '80s , with high fuel prices and a deep recession , the standards were relaxed down to 2.5 mph to encourage more profits.The technology today is light years beyond what we had in the '70s .
We could put RF chips in the major roads ( buried , or on the railings , or whatever ) to help cars stay in their lanes , we could mandate Volvo-style ( and airplane-style ) collision avoidance systems that would automatically swerve cars out of collision paths , and we could probably increase the shock absorption abilities of passenger vehicles .
It costs money , to be sure , but we should ask ourselves , would we rather pay an extra $ 500 a year in taxes or an extra $ 100 a month in car payments and live , or be wealthier and dead ( or paraplegic or quadraplegic or whiplashed ) ? We went to war over 3000 deaths on 9/11 , yet we consider the 3000 deaths per month on the road as a normal hazard of our transportation system .
Let 's take off the blinders and fix this problem already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think an "infotainment" system for the car is fine for passengers, but if it tempts drivers to take their eyes off the road, it should be accompanied by a collision avoidance system that counteracts the increased distractability factor.I think Volvo points the way with their low velocity laser/radar collision avoidance system (18 MPH).
However I would like to see universal adoption of a high speed system that would at least make collisions more survivable, if not prevent them entirely.With about 38,000 people dying on the road every year in the U.S. alone, it's unfathomable that our leaders (and the voters) pay so little attention to collision survivability.
For a while back in the '70s, they were forcing car makers to increase the force absorption ability of bumpers every few years.
It got up to 5 mph, but then in the '80s, with high fuel prices and a deep recession, the standards were relaxed down to 2.5 mph to encourage more profits.The technology today is light years beyond what we had in the '70s.
We could put RF chips in the major roads (buried, or on the railings, or whatever) to help cars stay in their lanes, we could mandate Volvo-style (and airplane-style) collision avoidance systems that would automatically swerve cars out of collision paths, and we could probably increase the shock absorption abilities of passenger vehicles.
It costs money, to be sure, but we should ask ourselves, would we rather pay an extra $500 a year in taxes or an extra $100 a month in car payments and live, or be wealthier and dead (or paraplegic or quadraplegic or whiplashed)?We went to war over 3000 deaths on 9/11, yet we consider the 3000 deaths per month on the road as a normal hazard of our transportation system.
Let's take off the blinders and fix this problem already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707934</id>
	<title>I think some manufacturers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263059640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..erm kia should concentrate on making road-worthy cars before they roll out wifi tech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..erm kia should concentrate on making road-worthy cars before they roll out wifi tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..erm kia should concentrate on making road-worthy cars before they roll out wifi tech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708220</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1263062220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the car a second home now?  Maybe this stuff belongs in a camper, or a van (for long trips), but do drivers need to be that distracted?  If you think there's a chance you'll be in a long traffic jam and get bored, sure, turn on the radio or use your cell phone and make a call, but there's no need to set up your car like an office or a living room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the car a second home now ?
Maybe this stuff belongs in a camper , or a van ( for long trips ) , but do drivers need to be that distracted ?
If you think there 's a chance you 'll be in a long traffic jam and get bored , sure , turn on the radio or use your cell phone and make a call , but there 's no need to set up your car like an office or a living room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the car a second home now?
Maybe this stuff belongs in a camper, or a van (for long trips), but do drivers need to be that distracted?
If you think there's a chance you'll be in a long traffic jam and get bored, sure, turn on the radio or use your cell phone and make a call, but there's no need to set up your car like an office or a living room.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709968</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1263034740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you want to save lives, how about a campaign to DRIVE SLOWER</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Does that actually save lives, ignoring the obvious saving when people drive at say 5 MPH all the time? Let's say you reduced the limit from 65 to 40. People would go slower, but they'd be on the road for longer. And even if this did save lives on the roads, it would literally waste thousands of man-years in increased transporation time. I'm not saying this wouldn't be an overall benefit, just questioning the "oh, it would obviously be a net benefit" notion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to save lives , how about a campaign to DRIVE SLOWER Does that actually save lives , ignoring the obvious saving when people drive at say 5 MPH all the time ?
Let 's say you reduced the limit from 65 to 40 .
People would go slower , but they 'd be on the road for longer .
And even if this did save lives on the roads , it would literally waste thousands of man-years in increased transporation time .
I 'm not saying this would n't be an overall benefit , just questioning the " oh , it would obviously be a net benefit " notion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to save lives, how about a campaign to DRIVE SLOWER
Does that actually save lives, ignoring the obvious saving when people drive at say 5 MPH all the time?
Let's say you reduced the limit from 65 to 40.
People would go slower, but they'd be on the road for longer.
And even if this did save lives on the roads, it would literally waste thousands of man-years in increased transporation time.
I'm not saying this wouldn't be an overall benefit, just questioning the "oh, it would obviously be a net benefit" notion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709996</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1263035040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Many people consider driving almost like a sport. It's a very intimate, hands-on affair, and these people would rather accept the risks that come with it than have the experience "dumbed down" for safety."</p><p>Great, fine. Let them intimately control their cars somewhere where they can't hit me.</p><p>Once you're on the road, your personal preferences DON'T MATTER. If something makes driving safer (without significantly limiting speed) then it MUST be done. You don't like it? Well, tough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Many people consider driving almost like a sport .
It 's a very intimate , hands-on affair , and these people would rather accept the risks that come with it than have the experience " dumbed down " for safety .
" Great , fine .
Let them intimately control their cars somewhere where they ca n't hit me.Once you 're on the road , your personal preferences DO N'T MATTER .
If something makes driving safer ( without significantly limiting speed ) then it MUST be done .
You do n't like it ?
Well , tough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Many people consider driving almost like a sport.
It's a very intimate, hands-on affair, and these people would rather accept the risks that come with it than have the experience "dumbed down" for safety.
"Great, fine.
Let them intimately control their cars somewhere where they can't hit me.Once you're on the road, your personal preferences DON'T MATTER.
If something makes driving safer (without significantly limiting speed) then it MUST be done.
You don't like it?
Well, tough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30710118</id>
	<title>More usless junk!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263036360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just more useless crap designed to inflate the price and force the buyer to factory service dealers. From the buyers point of view, don't want or need it, can't find or use a radio due to complication, and just want a car they can drive without a night school class. I know I am in the minority, but how about an ashtray larger then two butts that isn't buried behind the shift lever or get rid of the counsel and install a bench seat. Anyone tried to enter your car from the passenger side lately? You just can't emulate a 747 cockpit in a Mooney, there is no room and no reason for it. A Porsche customer will not be buying a Kia and a Kia buyer probable doesn't want a Porsche.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just more useless crap designed to inflate the price and force the buyer to factory service dealers .
From the buyers point of view , do n't want or need it , ca n't find or use a radio due to complication , and just want a car they can drive without a night school class .
I know I am in the minority , but how about an ashtray larger then two butts that is n't buried behind the shift lever or get rid of the counsel and install a bench seat .
Anyone tried to enter your car from the passenger side lately ?
You just ca n't emulate a 747 cockpit in a Mooney , there is no room and no reason for it .
A Porsche customer will not be buying a Kia and a Kia buyer probable does n't want a Porsche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just more useless crap designed to inflate the price and force the buyer to factory service dealers.
From the buyers point of view, don't want or need it, can't find or use a radio due to complication, and just want a car they can drive without a night school class.
I know I am in the minority, but how about an ashtray larger then two butts that isn't buried behind the shift lever or get rid of the counsel and install a bench seat.
Anyone tried to enter your car from the passenger side lately?
You just can't emulate a 747 cockpit in a Mooney, there is no room and no reason for it.
A Porsche customer will not be buying a Kia and a Kia buyer probable doesn't want a Porsche.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707888</id>
	<title>"LOLZ"</title>
	<author>technomom</author>
	<datestamp>1263059100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I kan has kar rek"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I kan has kar rek " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I kan has kar rek"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707914</id>
	<title>Why do you all-cap Kia?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263059340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not talking about someone killed-in-action (cue obvious jokes about distracted driving).  Kia's not an acronym.</p><p>Are you one of those tossers who think it's necessary to all-cap "Mac" when you speak of Macintosh computers?</p><p>Extra points to Soulskill for non-editing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not talking about someone killed-in-action ( cue obvious jokes about distracted driving ) .
Kia 's not an acronym.Are you one of those tossers who think it 's necessary to all-cap " Mac " when you speak of Macintosh computers ? Extra points to Soulskill for non-editing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not talking about someone killed-in-action (cue obvious jokes about distracted driving).
Kia's not an acronym.Are you one of those tossers who think it's necessary to all-cap "Mac" when you speak of Macintosh computers?Extra points to Soulskill for non-editing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708136</id>
	<title>Why is this worthwhile?</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1263061380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds to me that they are pitching a device that will take what you say to it, translate it to text, and send that text to someone else.  And then when that person replies to you in text, it will read the text to you so that you can then use the speech-to-text recognition to reply to them again.  How is this advantageous over just using a phone?  <br> <br>You have now taken SMS technology and made it slower and more error-prone.  Why not just<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... oh, I don't know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <i>call the person on the phone</i>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds to me that they are pitching a device that will take what you say to it , translate it to text , and send that text to someone else .
And then when that person replies to you in text , it will read the text to you so that you can then use the speech-to-text recognition to reply to them again .
How is this advantageous over just using a phone ?
You have now taken SMS technology and made it slower and more error-prone .
Why not just ... oh , I do n't know ... call the person on the phone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds to me that they are pitching a device that will take what you say to it, translate it to text, and send that text to someone else.
And then when that person replies to you in text, it will read the text to you so that you can then use the speech-to-text recognition to reply to them again.
How is this advantageous over just using a phone?
You have now taken SMS technology and made it slower and more error-prone.
Why not just ... oh, I don't know ... call the person on the phone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708516</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263064620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a very simple and obvious solution for you:<br>A new &ldquo;driving&rdquo; runlevel, that gets enabled at, say, 5 mph, and can only be disabled by slowing down again. Sort of a reverse Speed bomb.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>In that runlevel, the functionality is limited in the same way, when you are inside the engine of a racing game, as opposed to the menu (including the pause menu).</p><p>Building on top of that basic concept:</p><p>Everything that <em>is</em> displayed, is displayed on the front window, an a specific area with a maximum horizontal and vertical degree (FOV). And every still available control, is limited to special buttons on the steering wheel. Not some generic cursor cross. A special button for every function, or the function does not get integrated. Period. No double or tripe function assignment. No hold, double-tap or shit like that. If this means there would be too many buttons, well tough shit, cause then you have to reduce the functionality! Or make it better. (Recommended is a maximum of one button per finger.)</p><p>A nice solution would be, to be able to freely choose the displayed elements and button assignments when you stand. Like the 4096 out of 16.7 million color mapping. A 12 out of 240 action mapping, and a similar display mapping. (Which must automatically enforce free sight by disallowing displayables to be placed in obstructing locations.)</p><p>There, is that so hard?<br>This was 5 minutes of medium thinking.<br>Imagine I&rsquo;d have a month of hard thinking!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a very simple and obvious solution for you : A new    driving    runlevel , that gets enabled at , say , 5 mph , and can only be disabled by slowing down again .
Sort of a reverse Speed bomb .
; ) In that runlevel , the functionality is limited in the same way , when you are inside the engine of a racing game , as opposed to the menu ( including the pause menu ) .Building on top of that basic concept : Everything that is displayed , is displayed on the front window , an a specific area with a maximum horizontal and vertical degree ( FOV ) .
And every still available control , is limited to special buttons on the steering wheel .
Not some generic cursor cross .
A special button for every function , or the function does not get integrated .
Period. No double or tripe function assignment .
No hold , double-tap or shit like that .
If this means there would be too many buttons , well tough shit , cause then you have to reduce the functionality !
Or make it better .
( Recommended is a maximum of one button per finger .
) A nice solution would be , to be able to freely choose the displayed elements and button assignments when you stand .
Like the 4096 out of 16.7 million color mapping .
A 12 out of 240 action mapping , and a similar display mapping .
( Which must automatically enforce free sight by disallowing displayables to be placed in obstructing locations .
) There , is that so hard ? This was 5 minutes of medium thinking.Imagine I    d have a month of hard thinking !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a very simple and obvious solution for you:A new “driving” runlevel, that gets enabled at, say, 5 mph, and can only be disabled by slowing down again.
Sort of a reverse Speed bomb.
;)In that runlevel, the functionality is limited in the same way, when you are inside the engine of a racing game, as opposed to the menu (including the pause menu).Building on top of that basic concept:Everything that is displayed, is displayed on the front window, an a specific area with a maximum horizontal and vertical degree (FOV).
And every still available control, is limited to special buttons on the steering wheel.
Not some generic cursor cross.
A special button for every function, or the function does not get integrated.
Period. No double or tripe function assignment.
No hold, double-tap or shit like that.
If this means there would be too many buttons, well tough shit, cause then you have to reduce the functionality!
Or make it better.
(Recommended is a maximum of one button per finger.
)A nice solution would be, to be able to freely choose the displayed elements and button assignments when you stand.
Like the 4096 out of 16.7 million color mapping.
A 12 out of 240 action mapping, and a similar display mapping.
(Which must automatically enforce free sight by disallowing displayables to be placed in obstructing locations.
)There, is that so hard?This was 5 minutes of medium thinking.Imagine I’d have a month of hard thinking!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708904</id>
	<title>K.I.A.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263068160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The irony of the spelling of Kia is not lost on me.  K.I.A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony of the spelling of Kia is not lost on me .
K.I.A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony of the spelling of Kia is not lost on me.
K.I.A.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30712378</id>
	<title>Re:Too much head-down time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263056160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the in-car ui's i've seen so far in practice are just irritating and complete crap. This is clear evidence of a car manufacturer need to increase profit margins by offering optional rubbish which anyone with a brain would not buy if it was not attached to a car.</p><p>It would be nice if the only thing a manufacturer installed is an oled display and a usb interface and users can choose their own computing device and software to interpret and drive the display of data.</p><p>dream, dream, dream...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the in-car ui 's i 've seen so far in practice are just irritating and complete crap .
This is clear evidence of a car manufacturer need to increase profit margins by offering optional rubbish which anyone with a brain would not buy if it was not attached to a car.It would be nice if the only thing a manufacturer installed is an oled display and a usb interface and users can choose their own computing device and software to interpret and drive the display of data.dream , dream , dream.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the in-car ui's i've seen so far in practice are just irritating and complete crap.
This is clear evidence of a car manufacturer need to increase profit margins by offering optional rubbish which anyone with a brain would not buy if it was not attached to a car.It would be nice if the only thing a manufacturer installed is an oled display and a usb interface and users can choose their own computing device and software to interpret and drive the display of data.dream, dream, dream...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30710494</id>
	<title>Error codes</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1263039960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if they are putting that in, the least they could do is include diagnostic code reader and real time system monitor</htmltext>
<tokenext>if they are putting that in , the least they could do is include diagnostic code reader and real time system monitor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they are putting that in, the least they could do is include diagnostic code reader and real time system monitor</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708266</id>
	<title>KIA: Killled In Action</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263062700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or tweating as the case may be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or tweating as the case may be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or tweating as the case may be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709738</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>MechaStreisand</author>
	<datestamp>1263032340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Minor nitpick, but the thought that locked wheels are <i>never</i> good is a popular, but dangerous misconception. They are sometimes the fastest way to stop, ie, on gravel roads or in deep snow. See <a href="http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/ABS\_offroad.html" title="4x4abc.com">this link</a> [4x4abc.com] for more. Car makers should be allowed to include a switch that disables ABS so that drivers can stop safely when they're on those surfaces.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Minor nitpick , but the thought that locked wheels are never good is a popular , but dangerous misconception .
They are sometimes the fastest way to stop , ie , on gravel roads or in deep snow .
See this link [ 4x4abc.com ] for more .
Car makers should be allowed to include a switch that disables ABS so that drivers can stop safely when they 're on those surfaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minor nitpick, but the thought that locked wheels are never good is a popular, but dangerous misconception.
They are sometimes the fastest way to stop, ie, on gravel roads or in deep snow.
See this link [4x4abc.com] for more.
Car makers should be allowed to include a switch that disables ABS so that drivers can stop safely when they're on those surfaces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708252</id>
	<title>I'm ready!</title>
	<author>tchdab1</author>
	<datestamp>1263062580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't wait for dashboard programming.<br>Has it been determined yet that debugging syntax while driving is dangerous?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for dashboard programming.Has it been determined yet that debugging syntax while driving is dangerous ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for dashboard programming.Has it been determined yet that debugging syntax while driving is dangerous?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707886</id>
	<title>Dashboard Computing</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1263059040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would make sense if the vehicle were smart enough to find its way on its own (like horses did). But then, how much sense would a car make?
<br> <br>
CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would make sense if the vehicle were smart enough to find its way on its own ( like horses did ) .
But then , how much sense would a car make ?
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would make sense if the vehicle were smart enough to find its way on its own (like horses did).
But then, how much sense would a car make?
CC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30723560</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this worthwhile?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263227520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because text messages are asynchronous.  You don't need the other person to be available immediately to reply and you don't need to take time out of their day by making them reply immediately.  They can do it to their own timescale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because text messages are asynchronous .
You do n't need the other person to be available immediately to reply and you do n't need to take time out of their day by making them reply immediately .
They can do it to their own timescale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because text messages are asynchronous.
You don't need the other person to be available immediately to reply and you don't need to take time out of their day by making them reply immediately.
They can do it to their own timescale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708228</id>
	<title>Re:Why do you all-cap Kia?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1263062280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Duh, it is a KOREAN company, just like HYUNDAI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh , it is a KOREAN company , just like HYUNDAI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh, it is a KOREAN company, just like HYUNDAI.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709482</id>
	<title>What I want in a motor vehicle...</title>
	<author>Baloo Uriza</author>
	<datestamp>1263029640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is  a sub-compact 4x4 that gets 30MPG on the highway with a 4-star crash safety rating, for under $10,000.  They freaking had that with the 1991-1996 Sportage, and I put 300,000 miles on one before it finally died!  Now, trying to replace it, I find I'd rather walk than spend the kind of cash auto makers expect for a new car that is eight times the size it needs to be, gets worse mileage than a '95 Sportage, and has a bunch of distracting bullshit <i>nobody</i> needs behind the wheel.
<p>
Really, the whole thing about adding more airbags, traction control, etc. is retarded.  We don't need Sync, an in-dash TV and a minibar in the center console.  We need focused drivers.  Just give us air conditioning, a heater, a stereo and a transfer case.  Focused drivers are safe drivers, and a safe driver is the only safety feature you need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is a sub-compact 4x4 that gets 30MPG on the highway with a 4-star crash safety rating , for under $ 10,000 .
They freaking had that with the 1991-1996 Sportage , and I put 300,000 miles on one before it finally died !
Now , trying to replace it , I find I 'd rather walk than spend the kind of cash auto makers expect for a new car that is eight times the size it needs to be , gets worse mileage than a '95 Sportage , and has a bunch of distracting bullshit nobody needs behind the wheel .
Really , the whole thing about adding more airbags , traction control , etc .
is retarded .
We do n't need Sync , an in-dash TV and a minibar in the center console .
We need focused drivers .
Just give us air conditioning , a heater , a stereo and a transfer case .
Focused drivers are safe drivers , and a safe driver is the only safety feature you need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is  a sub-compact 4x4 that gets 30MPG on the highway with a 4-star crash safety rating, for under $10,000.
They freaking had that with the 1991-1996 Sportage, and I put 300,000 miles on one before it finally died!
Now, trying to replace it, I find I'd rather walk than spend the kind of cash auto makers expect for a new car that is eight times the size it needs to be, gets worse mileage than a '95 Sportage, and has a bunch of distracting bullshit nobody needs behind the wheel.
Really, the whole thing about adding more airbags, traction control, etc.
is retarded.
We don't need Sync, an in-dash TV and a minibar in the center console.
We need focused drivers.
Just give us air conditioning, a heater, a stereo and a transfer case.
Focused drivers are safe drivers, and a safe driver is the only safety feature you need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708040</id>
	<title>Ridiculous</title>
	<author>tsa</author>
	<datestamp>1263060360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been shown in several studies that car kits are not much less unsafe than using a moblie phone while driving. Introducing even more communication equipment in cars will only lead to more deaths. And do you really need to follow Twitter while you drive? I think it would be a good idea to forbid cars with this kind of equipment on board, or make the equipment stop working while the car is driving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been shown in several studies that car kits are not much less unsafe than using a moblie phone while driving .
Introducing even more communication equipment in cars will only lead to more deaths .
And do you really need to follow Twitter while you drive ?
I think it would be a good idea to forbid cars with this kind of equipment on board , or make the equipment stop working while the car is driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been shown in several studies that car kits are not much less unsafe than using a moblie phone while driving.
Introducing even more communication equipment in cars will only lead to more deaths.
And do you really need to follow Twitter while you drive?
I think it would be a good idea to forbid cars with this kind of equipment on board, or make the equipment stop working while the car is driving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707894</id>
	<title>Why is subject in Red ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263059160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dunno ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dunno ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dunno ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709050</id>
	<title>A good use for those computers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263069120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While there at it, how about using all that fancy processing power to manage and control collision avoidance systems, roll over protection and electronic traction control. I would rather a combination of all of those types systems in every vehicle be what car companies pursue as the future ubiquitous automotive technology.</p><p>They say they are working to reduce the amount of time drivers spend looking away from the roads.  Only future statistics can show this to be true or false.  For the sake of the possibility that we will start having more "interactive accidents", I suggest that automotive companies put an equal eye on ramping up those technologies in order to at least make a play for positive future statistics, lest those statistics be responsible for squashing their interactive revelation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While there at it , how about using all that fancy processing power to manage and control collision avoidance systems , roll over protection and electronic traction control .
I would rather a combination of all of those types systems in every vehicle be what car companies pursue as the future ubiquitous automotive technology.They say they are working to reduce the amount of time drivers spend looking away from the roads .
Only future statistics can show this to be true or false .
For the sake of the possibility that we will start having more " interactive accidents " , I suggest that automotive companies put an equal eye on ramping up those technologies in order to at least make a play for positive future statistics , lest those statistics be responsible for squashing their interactive revelation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While there at it, how about using all that fancy processing power to manage and control collision avoidance systems, roll over protection and electronic traction control.
I would rather a combination of all of those types systems in every vehicle be what car companies pursue as the future ubiquitous automotive technology.They say they are working to reduce the amount of time drivers spend looking away from the roads.
Only future statistics can show this to be true or false.
For the sake of the possibility that we will start having more "interactive accidents", I suggest that automotive companies put an equal eye on ramping up those technologies in order to at least make a play for positive future statistics, lest those statistics be responsible for squashing their interactive revelation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708452</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1263064200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds, the part of that sample you don't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed.</p></div><p>That's a horrible fallacy. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't make it "highly unlikely." <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/dont-be-terrorized" title="reason.com" rel="nofollow">Reason</a> [reason.com].</p><p>BTW, I've got some bad news for you: There is a 1 in 96 chance that you will die in a car accident in your lifetime. The odds seem pretty gruesome to me... Do the math yourself: Population = <a href="http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&amp;met=population&amp;tdim=true&amp;q=population+of+us" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">300,000,000 people</a> [google.com]; Deaths/year = <a href="http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html" title="unitedjustice.com" rel="nofollow">40,000 people/year</a> [unitedjustice.com]; Life expectancy = <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_life\_expectancy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">78.2 years</a> [wikipedia.org]. If your family has four members, then there is a 1 in 24 chance that one of you will die in a car accident during their lifetime.</p><p>"Ah, but you don't consider the people that DON'T die" sounds nice, until one of your family members or maybe even YOU are one of them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds , the part of that sample you do n't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed.That 's a horrible fallacy .
Just because it did n't happen to you does n't make it " highly unlikely .
" Reason [ reason.com ] .BTW , I 've got some bad news for you : There is a 1 in 96 chance that you will die in a car accident in your lifetime .
The odds seem pretty gruesome to me... Do the math yourself : Population = 300,000,000 people [ google.com ] ; Deaths/year = 40,000 people/year [ unitedjustice.com ] ; Life expectancy = 78.2 years [ wikipedia.org ] .
If your family has four members , then there is a 1 in 24 chance that one of you will die in a car accident during their lifetime .
" Ah , but you do n't consider the people that DO N'T die " sounds nice , until one of your family members or maybe even YOU are one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds, the part of that sample you don't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed.That's a horrible fallacy.
Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't make it "highly unlikely.
" Reason [reason.com].BTW, I've got some bad news for you: There is a 1 in 96 chance that you will die in a car accident in your lifetime.
The odds seem pretty gruesome to me... Do the math yourself: Population = 300,000,000 people [google.com]; Deaths/year = 40,000 people/year [unitedjustice.com]; Life expectancy = 78.2 years [wikipedia.org].
If your family has four members, then there is a 1 in 24 chance that one of you will die in a car accident during their lifetime.
"Ah, but you don't consider the people that DON'T die" sounds nice, until one of your family members or maybe even YOU are one of them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708166</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1263061620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't have blinders on about the problem, but I also realize that part of being a free human being is having the ability to take calculated risks, without some entity (typically government) spending my money for me in the interest of my safety.</p><p>Where people can agree that the cost-benefit ratio is really there, we've seen car-makers add all sorts of technologies to improve vehicle safety over the years.  Anti-lock brakes, for example, went from unheard-of to standard.  After a little bit of initial resistance, most people came around to understand that they really don't interfere with one's driving at all.  They simply shorten stopping distance when you're in situations where you're trying to tell the vehicle to stop as quickly as possible (slamming on the brakes).  So essentially, they improve the vehicle's performance.</p><p>I think we haven't seen some of these more drastic changes, like sensors in the roads, because there's too much loss of driver control involved in the scenario.  THESE technologies say, "We think our computerized system has better judgment than you, the driver, so we're going to take control of your vehicle and drive it for you when we think it's necessary."  Many people consider driving almost like a sport.  It's a very intimate, hands-on affair, and these people would rather accept the risks that come with it than have the experience "dumbed down" for safety.  (Do you think sports like boxing would go over well, if all the contestants had big plexiglass protective bubbles around their heads so you couldn't actually hurt their heads or knock out teeth?  We can all agree it would be safer though, right?)</p><p>Even the "rest of us" who just consider driving a necessary chore (or even evil?), I don't think are necessarily "sold" on paying thousands a year in increased taxes for a computerized road system....  What about malfunctions that might CAUSE a random accident?  What about unforeseen circumstances where the system tries to do what's best, but it's misinterpreting what's really going on?  And maybe more importantly, what if people start taking it for granted, driving haphazardly because they "know the road system will stop them from wrecking anyway"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have blinders on about the problem , but I also realize that part of being a free human being is having the ability to take calculated risks , without some entity ( typically government ) spending my money for me in the interest of my safety.Where people can agree that the cost-benefit ratio is really there , we 've seen car-makers add all sorts of technologies to improve vehicle safety over the years .
Anti-lock brakes , for example , went from unheard-of to standard .
After a little bit of initial resistance , most people came around to understand that they really do n't interfere with one 's driving at all .
They simply shorten stopping distance when you 're in situations where you 're trying to tell the vehicle to stop as quickly as possible ( slamming on the brakes ) .
So essentially , they improve the vehicle 's performance.I think we have n't seen some of these more drastic changes , like sensors in the roads , because there 's too much loss of driver control involved in the scenario .
THESE technologies say , " We think our computerized system has better judgment than you , the driver , so we 're going to take control of your vehicle and drive it for you when we think it 's necessary .
" Many people consider driving almost like a sport .
It 's a very intimate , hands-on affair , and these people would rather accept the risks that come with it than have the experience " dumbed down " for safety .
( Do you think sports like boxing would go over well , if all the contestants had big plexiglass protective bubbles around their heads so you could n't actually hurt their heads or knock out teeth ?
We can all agree it would be safer though , right ?
) Even the " rest of us " who just consider driving a necessary chore ( or even evil ?
) , I do n't think are necessarily " sold " on paying thousands a year in increased taxes for a computerized road system.... What about malfunctions that might CAUSE a random accident ?
What about unforeseen circumstances where the system tries to do what 's best , but it 's misinterpreting what 's really going on ?
And maybe more importantly , what if people start taking it for granted , driving haphazardly because they " know the road system will stop them from wrecking anyway " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have blinders on about the problem, but I also realize that part of being a free human being is having the ability to take calculated risks, without some entity (typically government) spending my money for me in the interest of my safety.Where people can agree that the cost-benefit ratio is really there, we've seen car-makers add all sorts of technologies to improve vehicle safety over the years.
Anti-lock brakes, for example, went from unheard-of to standard.
After a little bit of initial resistance, most people came around to understand that they really don't interfere with one's driving at all.
They simply shorten stopping distance when you're in situations where you're trying to tell the vehicle to stop as quickly as possible (slamming on the brakes).
So essentially, they improve the vehicle's performance.I think we haven't seen some of these more drastic changes, like sensors in the roads, because there's too much loss of driver control involved in the scenario.
THESE technologies say, "We think our computerized system has better judgment than you, the driver, so we're going to take control of your vehicle and drive it for you when we think it's necessary.
"  Many people consider driving almost like a sport.
It's a very intimate, hands-on affair, and these people would rather accept the risks that come with it than have the experience "dumbed down" for safety.
(Do you think sports like boxing would go over well, if all the contestants had big plexiglass protective bubbles around their heads so you couldn't actually hurt their heads or knock out teeth?
We can all agree it would be safer though, right?
)Even the "rest of us" who just consider driving a necessary chore (or even evil?
), I don't think are necessarily "sold" on paying thousands a year in increased taxes for a computerized road system....  What about malfunctions that might CAUSE a random accident?
What about unforeseen circumstances where the system tries to do what's best, but it's misinterpreting what's really going on?
And maybe more importantly, what if people start taking it for granted, driving haphazardly because they "know the road system will stop them from wrecking anyway"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708192</id>
	<title>Nanny state here we come.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263061860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With about 38,000 people dying on the road every year in the U.S. alone, it's unfathomable that our leaders (and the voters) pay so little attention to collision survivability.</p></div><p>And Millions more die from preventable diseases - like heart disease from obese or from smoking. 38,000 is nothing.</p><p>We Americans need to grow up and take responsibility for own actions instead of having momma Government take care of us.</p><p>Scratch that. We Americans are too fucking stupid and lazy to take care of ourselves.</p><p>We need more Government regulations! When the fuck is the Government guy going to come over and wipe my ass and change my underwear?! I'm starting to smell here!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With about 38,000 people dying on the road every year in the U.S. alone , it 's unfathomable that our leaders ( and the voters ) pay so little attention to collision survivability.And Millions more die from preventable diseases - like heart disease from obese or from smoking .
38,000 is nothing.We Americans need to grow up and take responsibility for own actions instead of having momma Government take care of us.Scratch that .
We Americans are too fucking stupid and lazy to take care of ourselves.We need more Government regulations !
When the fuck is the Government guy going to come over and wipe my ass and change my underwear ? !
I 'm starting to smell here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With about 38,000 people dying on the road every year in the U.S. alone, it's unfathomable that our leaders (and the voters) pay so little attention to collision survivability.And Millions more die from preventable diseases - like heart disease from obese or from smoking.
38,000 is nothing.We Americans need to grow up and take responsibility for own actions instead of having momma Government take care of us.Scratch that.
We Americans are too fucking stupid and lazy to take care of ourselves.We need more Government regulations!
When the fuck is the Government guy going to come over and wipe my ass and change my underwear?!
I'm starting to smell here!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30710926</id>
	<title>Re:Make the drivers safer first</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1263043440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fixed the subject heading for you.  There is only one cause for every vehicle collision on the road: DRIVER ERROR. (note I said vehicle collision, not deer collision for example)</p><p>Everything you've suggested is just padding.  The more padding you put on a football player, the harder they hit.  The safer the cars, the less drivers concern themselves with safe driving.</p><p>For example, who here routinely keeps their blind spots clear?  If you don't, remember to tell the officer "the other car came out of NOWHERE!"  But you've never been in a serious accident, so you must be a good driver, right?  Just like everyone else who gets into serious accidents...</p><p>As for your swerving safety mechanisms, a good driver would disable them rather than surrender control of their vehicle.  It wouldn't be long before some assholes start selling dog collars with those RF chips to keep dogs (which their owners irresponsibly let run on the roads) from being run over.  Most of the time it is better to run over a small animal rather than risk losing control of the vehicle.  Meanwhile many cars don't allow for their anti-lock brakes to be disabled, even though it's better to disable anti-lock brakes on gravel roads.  Handing over control to technology can only be effective if absolutely every vehicle on the road is fully controlled by a unified system.</p><p>The investment you mention should be spent on driver training and higher license requirements.  The more technology goes into cars, the more drivers need to know to operate the vehicle responsibly.  Driver education is already well behind the technological advances, and the longer people survive their poor driving habits, the harder it is to teach them they're wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fixed the subject heading for you .
There is only one cause for every vehicle collision on the road : DRIVER ERROR .
( note I said vehicle collision , not deer collision for example ) Everything you 've suggested is just padding .
The more padding you put on a football player , the harder they hit .
The safer the cars , the less drivers concern themselves with safe driving.For example , who here routinely keeps their blind spots clear ?
If you do n't , remember to tell the officer " the other car came out of NOWHERE !
" But you 've never been in a serious accident , so you must be a good driver , right ?
Just like everyone else who gets into serious accidents...As for your swerving safety mechanisms , a good driver would disable them rather than surrender control of their vehicle .
It would n't be long before some assholes start selling dog collars with those RF chips to keep dogs ( which their owners irresponsibly let run on the roads ) from being run over .
Most of the time it is better to run over a small animal rather than risk losing control of the vehicle .
Meanwhile many cars do n't allow for their anti-lock brakes to be disabled , even though it 's better to disable anti-lock brakes on gravel roads .
Handing over control to technology can only be effective if absolutely every vehicle on the road is fully controlled by a unified system.The investment you mention should be spent on driver training and higher license requirements .
The more technology goes into cars , the more drivers need to know to operate the vehicle responsibly .
Driver education is already well behind the technological advances , and the longer people survive their poor driving habits , the harder it is to teach them they 're wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fixed the subject heading for you.
There is only one cause for every vehicle collision on the road: DRIVER ERROR.
(note I said vehicle collision, not deer collision for example)Everything you've suggested is just padding.
The more padding you put on a football player, the harder they hit.
The safer the cars, the less drivers concern themselves with safe driving.For example, who here routinely keeps their blind spots clear?
If you don't, remember to tell the officer "the other car came out of NOWHERE!
"  But you've never been in a serious accident, so you must be a good driver, right?
Just like everyone else who gets into serious accidents...As for your swerving safety mechanisms, a good driver would disable them rather than surrender control of their vehicle.
It wouldn't be long before some assholes start selling dog collars with those RF chips to keep dogs (which their owners irresponsibly let run on the roads) from being run over.
Most of the time it is better to run over a small animal rather than risk losing control of the vehicle.
Meanwhile many cars don't allow for their anti-lock brakes to be disabled, even though it's better to disable anti-lock brakes on gravel roads.
Handing over control to technology can only be effective if absolutely every vehicle on the road is fully controlled by a unified system.The investment you mention should be spent on driver training and higher license requirements.
The more technology goes into cars, the more drivers need to know to operate the vehicle responsibly.
Driver education is already well behind the technological advances, and the longer people survive their poor driving habits, the harder it is to teach them they're wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708564</id>
	<title>Re:Why do you all-cap Kia?</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1263065100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  Kia is a name and only the first letter is capitalized.  I started reading the summary with "Killed In Action" and was thinking "wtf is this doing on slashdot?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Kia is a name and only the first letter is capitalized .
I started reading the summary with " Killed In Action " and was thinking " wtf is this doing on slashdot ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Kia is a name and only the first letter is capitalized.
I started reading the summary with "Killed In Action" and was thinking "wtf is this doing on slashdot?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709108</id>
	<title>Young drivers</title>
	<author>thephydes</author>
	<datestamp>1263069660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a father of four children under 30, I can say that their expectations and use of "communication" technology are far different to mine. Unfortunately they - particularly my youngest - are also the most inexperienced drivers, the most overconfident drivers and the ones most likely to want to use these technologies while they drive. It seems to me to be a recipe for disaster. Society as a whole will pay in increased health costs and insurance premiums - maybe the car companies should start paying a safety tax on each of these cars sold.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a father of four children under 30 , I can say that their expectations and use of " communication " technology are far different to mine .
Unfortunately they - particularly my youngest - are also the most inexperienced drivers , the most overconfident drivers and the ones most likely to want to use these technologies while they drive .
It seems to me to be a recipe for disaster .
Society as a whole will pay in increased health costs and insurance premiums - maybe the car companies should start paying a safety tax on each of these cars sold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a father of four children under 30, I can say that their expectations and use of "communication" technology are far different to mine.
Unfortunately they - particularly my youngest - are also the most inexperienced drivers, the most overconfident drivers and the ones most likely to want to use these technologies while they drive.
It seems to me to be a recipe for disaster.
Society as a whole will pay in increased health costs and insurance premiums - maybe the car companies should start paying a safety tax on each of these cars sold.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30711610</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1263048840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that getting the car to think for you is a bad idea (until we have cars that can drive themselves without any interference at all), but some kind of warning/alarm seems like a good idea. Driving is monotonous, so an alarm to warn drivers when their attention is needed (i.e. an accident is imminent) would probably help (assuming drivers don't panic).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that getting the car to think for you is a bad idea ( until we have cars that can drive themselves without any interference at all ) , but some kind of warning/alarm seems like a good idea .
Driving is monotonous , so an alarm to warn drivers when their attention is needed ( i.e .
an accident is imminent ) would probably help ( assuming drivers do n't panic ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that getting the car to think for you is a bad idea (until we have cars that can drive themselves without any interference at all), but some kind of warning/alarm seems like a good idea.
Driving is monotonous, so an alarm to warn drivers when their attention is needed (i.e.
an accident is imminent) would probably help (assuming drivers don't panic).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708182</id>
	<title>What Charlton Heston would say</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1263061800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>many companies are already turning their attention to dashboard computing, much to the dismay of those who warn against distracted driving.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
"You can have my driver dashboard computing when you pry it from my cold dead haCRASH!!!"
</p><p>
A lot of places have rules about displays not being visible from the drivers' position.
</p><p>
Then there's the legal liability to the manufacturers when a pedestrian gets killed. *THEY* never agreed to any EULA.
</p><p>
And insurance companies, who will now raise premiums (it's what they do, you know).
</p><p>
I think I'll take the bus instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>many companies are already turning their attention to dashboard computing , much to the dismay of those who warn against distracted driving .
" You can have my driver dashboard computing when you pry it from my cold dead haCRASH ! ! !
" A lot of places have rules about displays not being visible from the drivers ' position .
Then there 's the legal liability to the manufacturers when a pedestrian gets killed .
* THEY * never agreed to any EULA .
And insurance companies , who will now raise premiums ( it 's what they do , you know ) .
I think I 'll take the bus instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>many companies are already turning their attention to dashboard computing, much to the dismay of those who warn against distracted driving.
"You can have my driver dashboard computing when you pry it from my cold dead haCRASH!!!
"

A lot of places have rules about displays not being visible from the drivers' position.
Then there's the legal liability to the manufacturers when a pedestrian gets killed.
*THEY* never agreed to any EULA.
And insurance companies, who will now raise premiums (it's what they do, you know).
I think I'll take the bus instead.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708296</id>
	<title>I don't know about the rest of ye but..</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1263062940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather have an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel\_Atom" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel\_Atom</a> [wikipedia.org] with the bare minimum of gadgets and gimmicks than some driverless luxobarge with built-in twitter support.<br> <br>

Modern cars isolate the driver from the road far too much. Soundproofing and power everything makes it easy to forget you are doing 100mph in a large lump of metal.
<br> <br>
There is if course also the issue of Twitter and Facebook being long dead (hopefully) before the car reaches half it's expected lifetime.<br> <br>

Of course i have nothing really against driverless cars and people who have no interest in driving a car shouldn't have to, as long as I can still get on the same roads with a completely manual car</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have an http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel \ _Atom [ wikipedia.org ] with the bare minimum of gadgets and gimmicks than some driverless luxobarge with built-in twitter support .
Modern cars isolate the driver from the road far too much .
Soundproofing and power everything makes it easy to forget you are doing 100mph in a large lump of metal .
There is if course also the issue of Twitter and Facebook being long dead ( hopefully ) before the car reaches half it 's expected lifetime .
Of course i have nothing really against driverless cars and people who have no interest in driving a car should n't have to , as long as I can still get on the same roads with a completely manual car</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel\_Atom [wikipedia.org] with the bare minimum of gadgets and gimmicks than some driverless luxobarge with built-in twitter support.
Modern cars isolate the driver from the road far too much.
Soundproofing and power everything makes it easy to forget you are doing 100mph in a large lump of metal.
There is if course also the issue of Twitter and Facebook being long dead (hopefully) before the car reaches half it's expected lifetime.
Of course i have nothing really against driverless cars and people who have no interest in driving a car shouldn't have to, as long as I can still get on the same roads with a completely manual car</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30710818</id>
	<title>Where is KITT when you need him??</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1263042540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if they are going to put this much C**P in a car then they should go all the way and put a full AI in the car<br>of course then you will have</p><p>"Well Bozo not only can i drive better than you but i can Tweet about how much of a drunk moron you are and still get you back to that Hovel you call a house safely"</p><p>hmm new way to get out of a DWI jump: "But Officer ask my car im not driving HE WON'T LET ME"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if they are going to put this much C * * P in a car then they should go all the way and put a full AI in the carof course then you will have " Well Bozo not only can i drive better than you but i can Tweet about how much of a drunk moron you are and still get you back to that Hovel you call a house safely " hmm new way to get out of a DWI jump : " But Officer ask my car im not driving HE WO N'T LET ME "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they are going to put this much C**P in a car then they should go all the way and put a full AI in the carof course then you will have"Well Bozo not only can i drive better than you but i can Tweet about how much of a drunk moron you are and still get you back to that Hovel you call a house safely"hmm new way to get out of a DWI jump: "But Officer ask my car im not driving HE WON'T LET ME"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30710312</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1263038040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The automotive insurance industry loves this shit. It jacks up the cost of the premiums insuring all that tech crap in your cars.</p><p>But soon, the industry will start accumulating data that suggests the people using all this crap are FAR more subject to filing claims, and they will start charging people more if they have such tech in their cars.</p><p>So this tech is going to have a hidden cost in that sense.</p><p>Here is the fun part. They will deny claims based on the fact the driver was distracted and thus at fault.</p><p>The automakers sell more stuff with each car, the tech companies get sales, the insurance companies make more from premiums...all so you don't have to wait 15 mins to get home and use your PC.</p><p>And another thing. If anyone ran into me with all this shit in their car, you can rest assured my lawyer will be bringing it up in court. Your cellphone is on during the accident? You lose. Wireless connection active during accident? You lose.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The automotive insurance industry loves this shit .
It jacks up the cost of the premiums insuring all that tech crap in your cars.But soon , the industry will start accumulating data that suggests the people using all this crap are FAR more subject to filing claims , and they will start charging people more if they have such tech in their cars.So this tech is going to have a hidden cost in that sense.Here is the fun part .
They will deny claims based on the fact the driver was distracted and thus at fault.The automakers sell more stuff with each car , the tech companies get sales , the insurance companies make more from premiums...all so you do n't have to wait 15 mins to get home and use your PC.And another thing .
If anyone ran into me with all this shit in their car , you can rest assured my lawyer will be bringing it up in court .
Your cellphone is on during the accident ?
You lose .
Wireless connection active during accident ?
You lose .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The automotive insurance industry loves this shit.
It jacks up the cost of the premiums insuring all that tech crap in your cars.But soon, the industry will start accumulating data that suggests the people using all this crap are FAR more subject to filing claims, and they will start charging people more if they have such tech in their cars.So this tech is going to have a hidden cost in that sense.Here is the fun part.
They will deny claims based on the fact the driver was distracted and thus at fault.The automakers sell more stuff with each car, the tech companies get sales, the insurance companies make more from premiums...all so you don't have to wait 15 mins to get home and use your PC.And another thing.
If anyone ran into me with all this shit in their car, you can rest assured my lawyer will be bringing it up in court.
Your cellphone is on during the accident?
You lose.
Wireless connection active during accident?
You lose.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709084</id>
	<title>Too much head-down time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263069420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
A touch-screen in a car, at least for the driver, is a terrible idea.  It can't be operated by feel; the driver has to look away from the road, and probably for more than a second.  Not good.  Twittering while driving?  Please.  <a href="http://www.bookofjoe.com/images/2008/10/30/ooi.jpg" title="bookofjoe.com">"Fully Loaded"</a> [bookofjoe.com], a Bruce McCall drawing, isn't a design goal.
</p><p>
Auto designers, desperately trying to get margins up with "more car per car" (an old GM slogan) are hanging on unneeded features that are cheap to install. Overpriced car stereos aren't enough any more.  Giant hood ornaments are out (there's a "pedestrian impalement" test cars have to pass, in response to a period in the 1950s when auto hoods were weaponized).  So now we have dashboard gimmicks.
</p><p>
In aviation, this is called the "head-down time" problem, and efforts are made to minimize head-down time. The military takes this to an extreme in fighters, with the HOTAS ("Hands On Throttle and Stick") concept. This leads to a proliferation of buttons on the throttle and stick, though.  Aviation people think hard about how many seconds of head-down time it takes to do something.
</p><p>
If you want to cause accidents, put in a touch screen that's stateful, so the driver has to look.  Then give it a timeout, so it goes back to the ground state if the driver doesn't give it undivided attention.  This forces the driver to look away from the road.  One of the examples in the original article looks very like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A touch-screen in a car , at least for the driver , is a terrible idea .
It ca n't be operated by feel ; the driver has to look away from the road , and probably for more than a second .
Not good .
Twittering while driving ?
Please. " Fully Loaded " [ bookofjoe.com ] , a Bruce McCall drawing , is n't a design goal .
Auto designers , desperately trying to get margins up with " more car per car " ( an old GM slogan ) are hanging on unneeded features that are cheap to install .
Overpriced car stereos are n't enough any more .
Giant hood ornaments are out ( there 's a " pedestrian impalement " test cars have to pass , in response to a period in the 1950s when auto hoods were weaponized ) .
So now we have dashboard gimmicks .
In aviation , this is called the " head-down time " problem , and efforts are made to minimize head-down time .
The military takes this to an extreme in fighters , with the HOTAS ( " Hands On Throttle and Stick " ) concept .
This leads to a proliferation of buttons on the throttle and stick , though .
Aviation people think hard about how many seconds of head-down time it takes to do something .
If you want to cause accidents , put in a touch screen that 's stateful , so the driver has to look .
Then give it a timeout , so it goes back to the ground state if the driver does n't give it undivided attention .
This forces the driver to look away from the road .
One of the examples in the original article looks very like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
A touch-screen in a car, at least for the driver, is a terrible idea.
It can't be operated by feel; the driver has to look away from the road, and probably for more than a second.
Not good.
Twittering while driving?
Please.  "Fully Loaded" [bookofjoe.com], a Bruce McCall drawing, isn't a design goal.
Auto designers, desperately trying to get margins up with "more car per car" (an old GM slogan) are hanging on unneeded features that are cheap to install.
Overpriced car stereos aren't enough any more.
Giant hood ornaments are out (there's a "pedestrian impalement" test cars have to pass, in response to a period in the 1950s when auto hoods were weaponized).
So now we have dashboard gimmicks.
In aviation, this is called the "head-down time" problem, and efforts are made to minimize head-down time.
The military takes this to an extreme in fighters, with the HOTAS ("Hands On Throttle and Stick") concept.
This leads to a proliferation of buttons on the throttle and stick, though.
Aviation people think hard about how many seconds of head-down time it takes to do something.
If you want to cause accidents, put in a touch screen that's stateful, so the driver has to look.
Then give it a timeout, so it goes back to the ground state if the driver doesn't give it undivided attention.
This forces the driver to look away from the road.
One of the examples in the original article looks very like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30712882</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>danomac</author>
	<datestamp>1263063780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>or make the equipment stop working while the car is driving.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I know of one car that does this already. My brother has a 2009 Pontiac G8, and it has a ton of options for the car built into controls on the steering wheel with a display on the instrument cluster. If the car is moving it only lets you change between two modes (IIRC digital speed display and odometer) while the car is in motion, even if you use the controls on the steering wheel.<br> <br>

Once the car is stopped, it will allow you to go into the setup menus to change preferences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or make the equipment stop working while the car is driving .
I know of one car that does this already .
My brother has a 2009 Pontiac G8 , and it has a ton of options for the car built into controls on the steering wheel with a display on the instrument cluster .
If the car is moving it only lets you change between two modes ( IIRC digital speed display and odometer ) while the car is in motion , even if you use the controls on the steering wheel .
Once the car is stopped , it will allow you to go into the setup menus to change preferences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or make the equipment stop working while the car is driving.
I know of one car that does this already.
My brother has a 2009 Pontiac G8, and it has a ton of options for the car built into controls on the steering wheel with a display on the instrument cluster.
If the car is moving it only lets you change between two modes (IIRC digital speed display and odometer) while the car is in motion, even if you use the controls on the steering wheel.
Once the car is stopped, it will allow you to go into the setup menus to change preferences.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708144</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263061440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree that making cars safer would be nice, you don't do that by making the car think for you. Anti-lock brakes work because it doesn't matter what the situation is. Locked brakes are never good. But how does a collision avoidance system that "swerves cars out of collision paths" know what direction is the right one? Great, the car swerves you to the right and avoids hitting the truck that just slammed on it's brakes... and drives you right off the side of a cliff. No thanks. If you want to save lives, how about a campaign to DRIVE SLOWER, or increase the testing needed to actually get a license. Give bigger insurance rate cuts to people who haven't had an accident in multiple years, and actually enforce the laws regarding using a phone while driving. Save the high tech for your living room. When you're in your car, DRIVE.
<br> <br>
And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds, the part of that sample you don't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed. Looked at that way, cars seem downright safe compared to say, being shot at in Afghanistan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that making cars safer would be nice , you do n't do that by making the car think for you .
Anti-lock brakes work because it does n't matter what the situation is .
Locked brakes are never good .
But how does a collision avoidance system that " swerves cars out of collision paths " know what direction is the right one ?
Great , the car swerves you to the right and avoids hitting the truck that just slammed on it 's brakes... and drives you right off the side of a cliff .
No thanks .
If you want to save lives , how about a campaign to DRIVE SLOWER , or increase the testing needed to actually get a license .
Give bigger insurance rate cuts to people who have n't had an accident in multiple years , and actually enforce the laws regarding using a phone while driving .
Save the high tech for your living room .
When you 're in your car , DRIVE .
And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds , the part of that sample you do n't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed .
Looked at that way , cars seem downright safe compared to say , being shot at in Afghanistan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that making cars safer would be nice, you don't do that by making the car think for you.
Anti-lock brakes work because it doesn't matter what the situation is.
Locked brakes are never good.
But how does a collision avoidance system that "swerves cars out of collision paths" know what direction is the right one?
Great, the car swerves you to the right and avoids hitting the truck that just slammed on it's brakes... and drives you right off the side of a cliff.
No thanks.
If you want to save lives, how about a campaign to DRIVE SLOWER, or increase the testing needed to actually get a license.
Give bigger insurance rate cuts to people who haven't had an accident in multiple years, and actually enforce the laws regarding using a phone while driving.
Save the high tech for your living room.
When you're in your car, DRIVE.
And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds, the part of that sample you don't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed.
Looked at that way, cars seem downright safe compared to say, being shot at in Afghanistan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708524</id>
	<title>Turn the display off when the car is in gear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263064680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>eom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>eom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30711316</id>
	<title>just make a good car already</title>
	<author>Alien Being</author>
	<datestamp>1263046560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can any of this be considered a major announcement about a car?</p><p>When a car maker tells me they have removed some electronic assholes from their vehicles, then I'll be interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can any of this be considered a major announcement about a car ? When a car maker tells me they have removed some electronic assholes from their vehicles , then I 'll be interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can any of this be considered a major announcement about a car?When a car maker tells me they have removed some electronic assholes from their vehicles, then I'll be interested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708004</id>
	<title>Dismay of those warning against distractions?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263060120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about dismay of those who don't want gimmicks? Those who want primarily...a car. With resources going into its reliability, low fuel consumption and safety?</p><p>Yes, "one doesn't exclude the other". But effort described in TFS as at best misplaced in case of cars. There is no place for doing <i>anything else</i> for driver than paying attention on the road, perhaps with some background music or telephone via hands-free and voice control - and that's almost covered, not by car manufacturers. If passengers want something more - it doesn't have to built into the car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about dismay of those who do n't want gimmicks ?
Those who want primarily...a car .
With resources going into its reliability , low fuel consumption and safety ? Yes , " one does n't exclude the other " .
But effort described in TFS as at best misplaced in case of cars .
There is no place for doing anything else for driver than paying attention on the road , perhaps with some background music or telephone via hands-free and voice control - and that 's almost covered , not by car manufacturers .
If passengers want something more - it does n't have to built into the car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about dismay of those who don't want gimmicks?
Those who want primarily...a car.
With resources going into its reliability, low fuel consumption and safety?Yes, "one doesn't exclude the other".
But effort described in TFS as at best misplaced in case of cars.
There is no place for doing anything else for driver than paying attention on the road, perhaps with some background music or telephone via hands-free and voice control - and that's almost covered, not by car manufacturers.
If passengers want something more - it doesn't have to built into the car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708534</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>kylegordon</author>
	<datestamp>1263064800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably nationally, 3000 deaths per month on the road - compared against how many miles or hours spent on the road by the entire nation over a similar timeframe? Addictions such as cigarettes and alcohol have a higher death rate than vehicles. It's just that millions more people drive than are addicted to anything.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile#Safety" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile#Safety</a> [wikipedia.org] would actually indicate that by all metrics, travelling by car is safer than travelling by foot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably nationally , 3000 deaths per month on the road - compared against how many miles or hours spent on the road by the entire nation over a similar timeframe ?
Addictions such as cigarettes and alcohol have a higher death rate than vehicles .
It 's just that millions more people drive than are addicted to anything.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile # Safety [ wikipedia.org ] would actually indicate that by all metrics , travelling by car is safer than travelling by foot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably nationally, 3000 deaths per month on the road - compared against how many miles or hours spent on the road by the entire nation over a similar timeframe?
Addictions such as cigarettes and alcohol have a higher death rate than vehicles.
It's just that millions more people drive than are addicted to anything.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile#Safety [wikipedia.org] would actually indicate that by all metrics, travelling by car is safer than travelling by foot!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708412</id>
	<title>1st KIA Tweet</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263063840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Helo. Iz in yr hwy, killin yr doods. KTHXB...[connection lost]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Helo .
Iz in yr hwy , killin yr doods .
KTHXB... [ connection lost ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Helo.
Iz in yr hwy, killin yr doods.
KTHXB...[connection lost]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30711080</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1263044700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anti-lock brakes work because it doesn't matter what the situation is. Locked brakes are never good.</p></div><p>Wrong.  Locked brakes stop cars faster on loose surfaces like gravel roads.  Just a few posts above I was complaining about driver education...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds, the part of that sample you don't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed. Looked at that way, cars seem downright safe compared to say, being shot at in Afghanistan.</p></div><p>That comparison is almost as dumb as the fact that more people have died in car accidents in the US since 1940 than all American wars combined.  What makes my comparison creepy is that it's actually part of an official USMC recruitment speech.  My problem is that I, as an educated driver, am just as likely to be hit by a bad driver as a bad driver is.  I'd much rather people learned how to drive better than learned stupid comparisons suggesting they don't need to learn to drive better.</p><p>And actually speeding isn't as much a problem as a wide difference in speeds between drivers on the same road.  Everyone doing 20\% over the limit is safer than some doing the limit and others doing 20\% over.  Speed limits should be very strictly enforced and vary depending on the conditions too.</p><p>One great use for in-car communications is highway information.  That way the speed limit could be changed at any time and drivers kept informed.  The car's computer could indicate if you're over the limit, without ratting you out, however the transponders at every on-ramp and off-ramp will be tricky to fool.  If you get from ramp A to ramp B in less time than it would take doing the legal limit, expect a warning or fine in the mail.</p><p>The odd thing is that many toll roads record the incoming and outgoing times without the information being used to catch speeders.  That really stumps me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anti-lock brakes work because it does n't matter what the situation is .
Locked brakes are never good.Wrong .
Locked brakes stop cars faster on loose surfaces like gravel roads .
Just a few posts above I was complaining about driver education...And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds , the part of that sample you do n't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed .
Looked at that way , cars seem downright safe compared to say , being shot at in Afghanistan.That comparison is almost as dumb as the fact that more people have died in car accidents in the US since 1940 than all American wars combined .
What makes my comparison creepy is that it 's actually part of an official USMC recruitment speech .
My problem is that I , as an educated driver , am just as likely to be hit by a bad driver as a bad driver is .
I 'd much rather people learned how to drive better than learned stupid comparisons suggesting they do n't need to learn to drive better.And actually speeding is n't as much a problem as a wide difference in speeds between drivers on the same road .
Everyone doing 20 \ % over the limit is safer than some doing the limit and others doing 20 \ % over .
Speed limits should be very strictly enforced and vary depending on the conditions too.One great use for in-car communications is highway information .
That way the speed limit could be changed at any time and drivers kept informed .
The car 's computer could indicate if you 're over the limit , without ratting you out , however the transponders at every on-ramp and off-ramp will be tricky to fool .
If you get from ramp A to ramp B in less time than it would take doing the legal limit , expect a warning or fine in the mail.The odd thing is that many toll roads record the incoming and outgoing times without the information being used to catch speeders .
That really stumps me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anti-lock brakes work because it doesn't matter what the situation is.
Locked brakes are never good.Wrong.
Locked brakes stop cars faster on loose surfaces like gravel roads.
Just a few posts above I was complaining about driver education...And as bad as 3000 deaths a month sounds, the part of that sample you don't mention are the number of people who go from point A to point B each day unscathed.
Looked at that way, cars seem downright safe compared to say, being shot at in Afghanistan.That comparison is almost as dumb as the fact that more people have died in car accidents in the US since 1940 than all American wars combined.
What makes my comparison creepy is that it's actually part of an official USMC recruitment speech.
My problem is that I, as an educated driver, am just as likely to be hit by a bad driver as a bad driver is.
I'd much rather people learned how to drive better than learned stupid comparisons suggesting they don't need to learn to drive better.And actually speeding isn't as much a problem as a wide difference in speeds between drivers on the same road.
Everyone doing 20\% over the limit is safer than some doing the limit and others doing 20\% over.
Speed limits should be very strictly enforced and vary depending on the conditions too.One great use for in-car communications is highway information.
That way the speed limit could be changed at any time and drivers kept informed.
The car's computer could indicate if you're over the limit, without ratting you out, however the transponders at every on-ramp and off-ramp will be tricky to fool.
If you get from ramp A to ramp B in less time than it would take doing the legal limit, expect a warning or fine in the mail.The odd thing is that many toll roads record the incoming and outgoing times without the information being used to catch speeders.
That really stumps me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708908</id>
	<title>Let's look at it another way.</title>
	<author>Dzimas</author>
	<datestamp>1263068220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The last thing I want in the dash of my 10 year old car is a 10 year old computer system with a glitchy, faded display and prehistoric software and networking. Given the quality of today's cars, it's easy to make one last 10-15 years reliably. Technology changes so quickly that one of the things I look for when buying is as little tech as possible - no built in GPS, no talking alarms, no roof-mount DVD system and definitely no PC. It makes far more sense to buy an aftermarket GPS for $150 than it does to buy essentially the same thing preinstalled for $650. The same goes for $2,500 headrest-mounted DVD players.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last thing I want in the dash of my 10 year old car is a 10 year old computer system with a glitchy , faded display and prehistoric software and networking .
Given the quality of today 's cars , it 's easy to make one last 10-15 years reliably .
Technology changes so quickly that one of the things I look for when buying is as little tech as possible - no built in GPS , no talking alarms , no roof-mount DVD system and definitely no PC .
It makes far more sense to buy an aftermarket GPS for $ 150 than it does to buy essentially the same thing preinstalled for $ 650 .
The same goes for $ 2,500 headrest-mounted DVD players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last thing I want in the dash of my 10 year old car is a 10 year old computer system with a glitchy, faded display and prehistoric software and networking.
Given the quality of today's cars, it's easy to make one last 10-15 years reliably.
Technology changes so quickly that one of the things I look for when buying is as little tech as possible - no built in GPS, no talking alarms, no roof-mount DVD system and definitely no PC.
It makes far more sense to buy an aftermarket GPS for $150 than it does to buy essentially the same thing preinstalled for $650.
The same goes for $2,500 headrest-mounted DVD players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708362</id>
	<title>For user convenience...</title>
	<author>EEBaum</author>
	<datestamp>1263063420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For user convenience, vehicles will be fitted with a special button to post "My Kia broke down again, FML" to the user's facebook account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For user convenience , vehicles will be fitted with a special button to post " My Kia broke down again , FML " to the user 's facebook account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For user convenience, vehicles will be fitted with a special button to post "My Kia broke down again, FML" to the user's facebook account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709788</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>alex-easyaspie</author>
	<datestamp>1263032700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree. It just feels like so much more ways to distract drivers from what they should be doing, which is driving! There should be some sort of safety mechanism on it as there is on the Garmin GPS (which won't let you enter information while the car is in motion). Just something that discourages people from twittering and driving at the same time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree .
It just feels like so much more ways to distract drivers from what they should be doing , which is driving !
There should be some sort of safety mechanism on it as there is on the Garmin GPS ( which wo n't let you enter information while the car is in motion ) .
Just something that discourages people from twittering and driving at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree.
It just feels like so much more ways to distract drivers from what they should be doing, which is driving!
There should be some sort of safety mechanism on it as there is on the Garmin GPS (which won't let you enter information while the car is in motion).
Just something that discourages people from twittering and driving at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708444</id>
	<title>More distractions = More deaths</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263064080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been hit by a car as a pedestrian by a distracted motorist that was admittedly texting while driving - thankfully I was not killed. We are going to allow even more temptation to multitask behind the wheel? These things should be backseat only or banned completely.

We crack down hard on DUI/DWI but this trend has the potential to be just as onerous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been hit by a car as a pedestrian by a distracted motorist that was admittedly texting while driving - thankfully I was not killed .
We are going to allow even more temptation to multitask behind the wheel ?
These things should be backseat only or banned completely .
We crack down hard on DUI/DWI but this trend has the potential to be just as onerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been hit by a car as a pedestrian by a distracted motorist that was admittedly texting while driving - thankfully I was not killed.
We are going to allow even more temptation to multitask behind the wheel?
These things should be backseat only or banned completely.
We crack down hard on DUI/DWI but this trend has the potential to be just as onerous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708312</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>countvlad</author>
	<datestamp>1263063060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't mind a tax increase to help pay for some of these things, and I live in CA, which is already heavily taxed.  Unfortunately, from a fiscal perspective, I have -zero- faith in the politicians capability to 1) Accurately estimate the cost of such a project, 2) Effectively execute and manage the project, 3) Appropriately and reasonably raise the initial funds to subsidize the project, and 4) Adjust the taxes/fees to adequately maintain the project.  CA has such a poor track record that this is more a systemic failure than anything else.
<br> <br>
That said, I'd rather see options in the cars available that include these features.  I certainly don't mind paying for my own safety (and collision avoidance systems would indeed protect the safety of others as well).
<br> <br>
Still...probably the biggest problem with American roads are the drivers, not the cars or the roads or the technology.  The number of deaths could be brought down considerably if states weren't so lenient on drivers.  And I'm not talking your basic speeding or stop sign rolling, but real hazards like blowing through red lights at full speed, weaving in and out of traffic on a busy freeway, or simply having no understanding of basic physics (1000 kg of steel at 100 kph has a LOT of energy).  The worst offenders tend to be younger, arrogant in their thinking, misguided in their judgment, and utterly ignorant of physics.
<br> <br>
Since you can't beat sense into reckless drivers (and boy do I wish this was possible) they should simply have the privilege of driving revoked.  Less reckless drivers translates to fewer deaths, lower traffic volumes, and lower insurance premiums.  Do this first and THEN evaluate whether expensive new safety mandates and technology requirements are necessary to fix public stupidity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't mind a tax increase to help pay for some of these things , and I live in CA , which is already heavily taxed .
Unfortunately , from a fiscal perspective , I have -zero- faith in the politicians capability to 1 ) Accurately estimate the cost of such a project , 2 ) Effectively execute and manage the project , 3 ) Appropriately and reasonably raise the initial funds to subsidize the project , and 4 ) Adjust the taxes/fees to adequately maintain the project .
CA has such a poor track record that this is more a systemic failure than anything else .
That said , I 'd rather see options in the cars available that include these features .
I certainly do n't mind paying for my own safety ( and collision avoidance systems would indeed protect the safety of others as well ) .
Still...probably the biggest problem with American roads are the drivers , not the cars or the roads or the technology .
The number of deaths could be brought down considerably if states were n't so lenient on drivers .
And I 'm not talking your basic speeding or stop sign rolling , but real hazards like blowing through red lights at full speed , weaving in and out of traffic on a busy freeway , or simply having no understanding of basic physics ( 1000 kg of steel at 100 kph has a LOT of energy ) .
The worst offenders tend to be younger , arrogant in their thinking , misguided in their judgment , and utterly ignorant of physics .
Since you ca n't beat sense into reckless drivers ( and boy do I wish this was possible ) they should simply have the privilege of driving revoked .
Less reckless drivers translates to fewer deaths , lower traffic volumes , and lower insurance premiums .
Do this first and THEN evaluate whether expensive new safety mandates and technology requirements are necessary to fix public stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't mind a tax increase to help pay for some of these things, and I live in CA, which is already heavily taxed.
Unfortunately, from a fiscal perspective, I have -zero- faith in the politicians capability to 1) Accurately estimate the cost of such a project, 2) Effectively execute and manage the project, 3) Appropriately and reasonably raise the initial funds to subsidize the project, and 4) Adjust the taxes/fees to adequately maintain the project.
CA has such a poor track record that this is more a systemic failure than anything else.
That said, I'd rather see options in the cars available that include these features.
I certainly don't mind paying for my own safety (and collision avoidance systems would indeed protect the safety of others as well).
Still...probably the biggest problem with American roads are the drivers, not the cars or the roads or the technology.
The number of deaths could be brought down considerably if states weren't so lenient on drivers.
And I'm not talking your basic speeding or stop sign rolling, but real hazards like blowing through red lights at full speed, weaving in and out of traffic on a busy freeway, or simply having no understanding of basic physics (1000 kg of steel at 100 kph has a LOT of energy).
The worst offenders tend to be younger, arrogant in their thinking, misguided in their judgment, and utterly ignorant of physics.
Since you can't beat sense into reckless drivers (and boy do I wish this was possible) they should simply have the privilege of driving revoked.
Less reckless drivers translates to fewer deaths, lower traffic volumes, and lower insurance premiums.
Do this first and THEN evaluate whether expensive new safety mandates and technology requirements are necessary to fix public stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30710034</id>
	<title>The distractoin issue will work itself out</title>
	<author>Cyberllama</author>
	<datestamp>1263035400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's fine, this sort of technology's rise will coincide with the rise of technologies that drive our cars for us -- so ultimately the distraction issue won't be an issue at all. We could probably have self-driving cars now if consumers weren't so leery of the idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fine , this sort of technology 's rise will coincide with the rise of technologies that drive our cars for us -- so ultimately the distraction issue wo n't be an issue at all .
We could probably have self-driving cars now if consumers were n't so leery of the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fine, this sort of technology's rise will coincide with the rise of technologies that drive our cars for us -- so ultimately the distraction issue won't be an issue at all.
We could probably have self-driving cars now if consumers weren't so leery of the idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708662</id>
	<title>Re:Make them safer first</title>
	<author>barzok</author>
	<datestamp>1263065940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx" title="dot.gov">Fatality rates are dropping annually</a> [dot.gov]. I'd say we're already making good progress on making crashes more survivable. Adding more "avoidance" systems only ignores the true problem - people are being encouraged to stop paying attention to driving.</p><p>Fix the drivers, not the technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fatality rates are dropping annually [ dot.gov ] .
I 'd say we 're already making good progress on making crashes more survivable .
Adding more " avoidance " systems only ignores the true problem - people are being encouraged to stop paying attention to driving.Fix the drivers , not the technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fatality rates are dropping annually [dot.gov].
I'd say we're already making good progress on making crashes more survivable.
Adding more "avoidance" systems only ignores the true problem - people are being encouraged to stop paying attention to driving.Fix the drivers, not the technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30711080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30712378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30712882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30710926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30711610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30723560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_156231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30710312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_156231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30712378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_156231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30712882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_156231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_156231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30723560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_156231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_156231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_156231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_156231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_156231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_156231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_156231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30710926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30711610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30711080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30709968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30708192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30710312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_156231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_156231.30707888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
