<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_11_0249241</id>
	<title>New Color E-Reader Tech To Challenge E-Ink Dominance</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263222960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Technology Review reports from the Consumer Elecronics Show in Las Vegas that <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/printer\_friendly\_article.aspx?id=24330&amp;channel=specialsections&amp;section=tomarket">potential e-reader competitors to E-Ink</a> are everywhere. The current market leader in e-book displays is greyscale-only, and it takes a long time to change the display ("turn the page"), so video applications are not possible. E-Ink says they will have a color display shipping by late next year, but it will be dimmer than the current greyscale and its response time will still be too slow for video. The wannabe competitors &mdash; Pixel Qi, Qualcomm MEMS Technologies, Liquavista, and Kent Displays &mdash; all do color and some of them can do video (Pixel Qi, Qualcomm, Liquavista), and some of them (Pixel Qi, Kent) are shipping now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technology Review reports from the Consumer Elecronics Show in Las Vegas that potential e-reader competitors to E-Ink are everywhere .
The current market leader in e-book displays is greyscale-only , and it takes a long time to change the display ( " turn the page " ) , so video applications are not possible .
E-Ink says they will have a color display shipping by late next year , but it will be dimmer than the current greyscale and its response time will still be too slow for video .
The wannabe competitors    Pixel Qi , Qualcomm MEMS Technologies , Liquavista , and Kent Displays    all do color and some of them can do video ( Pixel Qi , Qualcomm , Liquavista ) , and some of them ( Pixel Qi , Kent ) are shipping now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technology Review reports from the Consumer Elecronics Show in Las Vegas that potential e-reader competitors to E-Ink are everywhere.
The current market leader in e-book displays is greyscale-only, and it takes a long time to change the display ("turn the page"), so video applications are not possible.
E-Ink says they will have a color display shipping by late next year, but it will be dimmer than the current greyscale and its response time will still be too slow for video.
The wannabe competitors — Pixel Qi, Qualcomm MEMS Technologies, Liquavista, and Kent Displays — all do color and some of them can do video (Pixel Qi, Qualcomm, Liquavista), and some of them (Pixel Qi, Kent) are shipping now.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720452</id>
	<title>Re:Real book page turn times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263152820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of this:</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of this : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = pQHX-SjgQvQ</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720420</id>
	<title>Where is my Emma Watson?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263152100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thin, light, cheap and with a perm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thin , light , cheap and with a perm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thin, light, cheap and with a perm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30723476</id>
	<title>Re:Power?</title>
	<author>Bright Apollo</author>
	<datestamp>1263227100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the big draw is the ability to read the display in any light conditions, i.e. outside in sunlight.  The crossover effect this would have on handhelds for a workforce would be tremendous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the big draw is the ability to read the display in any light conditions , i.e .
outside in sunlight .
The crossover effect this would have on handhelds for a workforce would be tremendous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the big draw is the ability to read the display in any light conditions, i.e.
outside in sunlight.
The crossover effect this would have on handhelds for a workforce would be tremendous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721382</id>
	<title>Re:We don't need e-ink</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263211500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't think I don't know and understand all about e-ink and it's low power, looks like real printed text selling points.  What I'm saying is that there is no lower priced alternative for people who don't mind recharging a battery more often, and don't care if it looks like printed text in the least bit.  e-ink is to book readers what monster cables are to cables, if monster cables were the only cables you could buy anywhere with no lower priced competition.  I also know that a paperback book sized LCD device could be mass manufactured and sold for $19.99 if they didn't abruptly decide to charge $199.99 at the last minute because that's close to what the competition is selling for.  That's what I'm getting at.  This is price fixing.  Just like simm-chips near the turn of the century.  Once someone starts selling a fairly priced LCD alternative, it's all over for the e-ink people as their overpriced gadgets will only be bought by hardcore textophiles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't think I do n't know and understand all about e-ink and it 's low power , looks like real printed text selling points .
What I 'm saying is that there is no lower priced alternative for people who do n't mind recharging a battery more often , and do n't care if it looks like printed text in the least bit .
e-ink is to book readers what monster cables are to cables , if monster cables were the only cables you could buy anywhere with no lower priced competition .
I also know that a paperback book sized LCD device could be mass manufactured and sold for $ 19.99 if they did n't abruptly decide to charge $ 199.99 at the last minute because that 's close to what the competition is selling for .
That 's what I 'm getting at .
This is price fixing .
Just like simm-chips near the turn of the century .
Once someone starts selling a fairly priced LCD alternative , it 's all over for the e-ink people as their overpriced gadgets will only be bought by hardcore textophiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't think I don't know and understand all about e-ink and it's low power, looks like real printed text selling points.
What I'm saying is that there is no lower priced alternative for people who don't mind recharging a battery more often, and don't care if it looks like printed text in the least bit.
e-ink is to book readers what monster cables are to cables, if monster cables were the only cables you could buy anywhere with no lower priced competition.
I also know that a paperback book sized LCD device could be mass manufactured and sold for $19.99 if they didn't abruptly decide to charge $199.99 at the last minute because that's close to what the competition is selling for.
That's what I'm getting at.
This is price fixing.
Just like simm-chips near the turn of the century.
Once someone starts selling a fairly priced LCD alternative, it's all over for the e-ink people as their overpriced gadgets will only be bought by hardcore textophiles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719700</id>
	<title>flickering with e-ink</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263142560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>the new technology with color, faster page build  and better energy efficiency is welcome.
My biggest complaint with electronic ink is the "flicking" before a page turn.
I was told that it is necessary to remove any traces from the previous text. Its certainly
a personal thing, but I find this annoying. Every page flip reminds on how unfinished
the current e-ink technology is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the new technology with color , faster page build and better energy efficiency is welcome .
My biggest complaint with electronic ink is the " flicking " before a page turn .
I was told that it is necessary to remove any traces from the previous text .
Its certainly a personal thing , but I find this annoying .
Every page flip reminds on how unfinished the current e-ink technology is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the new technology with color, faster page build  and better energy efficiency is welcome.
My biggest complaint with electronic ink is the "flicking" before a page turn.
I was told that it is necessary to remove any traces from the previous text.
Its certainly
a personal thing, but I find this annoying.
Every page flip reminds on how unfinished
the current e-ink technology is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30724188</id>
	<title>Re:Power?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1263230520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The big draw of E-Ink is that it only uses power when doing a page change.  Do the color versions mentioned in TFA do that as well?  If so, welcome.  If not, nice try but fail.</p></div><p>That is a big part of it...  But readability is also a huge bonus with e-ink.  The fact of the matter is that a backlight is harder on the eyes than simple reflected light.  Most of the ereaders advertise that they're as readable as paper books - largely because of the lack of backlight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big draw of E-Ink is that it only uses power when doing a page change .
Do the color versions mentioned in TFA do that as well ?
If so , welcome .
If not , nice try but fail.That is a big part of it... But readability is also a huge bonus with e-ink .
The fact of the matter is that a backlight is harder on the eyes than simple reflected light .
Most of the ereaders advertise that they 're as readable as paper books - largely because of the lack of backlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big draw of E-Ink is that it only uses power when doing a page change.
Do the color versions mentioned in TFA do that as well?
If so, welcome.
If not, nice try but fail.That is a big part of it...  But readability is also a huge bonus with e-ink.
The fact of the matter is that a backlight is harder on the eyes than simple reflected light.
Most of the ereaders advertise that they're as readable as paper books - largely because of the lack of backlight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719622</id>
	<title>Re:Power?</title>
	<author>theblondebrunette</author>
	<datestamp>1263141660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you did RTFA, on the first page you'd see:<br>"Switching from the backlit mode, to the reflective one drops the display's power consumption from 2.5 Watts to 0.5 Watts. This is for a refresh rate of 60 Hz--fast enough to display video. Pixel Qi claims that using software to put the display into an e-reader mode--suitable for reading text, where the screen might only update ten times a second--could drop the power consumption to as low as 100 milliwatts."</p><p>For the IMOD:<br>"The height of the air gap between the plates determines the color of light that is reflected from the IMOD. When a voltage is applied, the plates are drawn together by electrostatic forces and the element goes black. When the voltage is removed, the plates separate and color is reflected off the IMOD. A single pixel is made up of several IMODs; adjusting the height of each affects the overall color of the pixel. The plates stay in place, using almost no energy, until the color needs to change again. A plate only has to move a few hundred nanometers to change color and can do it in tens of microseconds--fast enough to show video."</p><p>Liquavista:<br>"The LCD devices are based on a technique called electrowetting, in which a voltage is used to modify the surface tension of colored oil on a solid substrate. In the absence of a voltage, the oil forms a film over the substrate and is visible to the viewer. When a voltage is applied, the pixel becomes transparent. By controlling the voltage of each pixel independently, a picture can be displayed. Unlike E Ink's technology, electrowetting pixels can be switched in a few milliseconds, making them suitable for showing video."</p><p>What the article doesn't say, which is easiest on the eyes. My bets are still on e-ink.<br>Recently I tried this "Libre" LCD-based e-reader, and my eyes were bleeding, it was that horrible, or maybe I'm spoiled by real e-ink, and no, it's not Kindle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you did RTFA , on the first page you 'd see : " Switching from the backlit mode , to the reflective one drops the display 's power consumption from 2.5 Watts to 0.5 Watts .
This is for a refresh rate of 60 Hz--fast enough to display video .
Pixel Qi claims that using software to put the display into an e-reader mode--suitable for reading text , where the screen might only update ten times a second--could drop the power consumption to as low as 100 milliwatts .
" For the IMOD : " The height of the air gap between the plates determines the color of light that is reflected from the IMOD .
When a voltage is applied , the plates are drawn together by electrostatic forces and the element goes black .
When the voltage is removed , the plates separate and color is reflected off the IMOD .
A single pixel is made up of several IMODs ; adjusting the height of each affects the overall color of the pixel .
The plates stay in place , using almost no energy , until the color needs to change again .
A plate only has to move a few hundred nanometers to change color and can do it in tens of microseconds--fast enough to show video .
" Liquavista : " The LCD devices are based on a technique called electrowetting , in which a voltage is used to modify the surface tension of colored oil on a solid substrate .
In the absence of a voltage , the oil forms a film over the substrate and is visible to the viewer .
When a voltage is applied , the pixel becomes transparent .
By controlling the voltage of each pixel independently , a picture can be displayed .
Unlike E Ink 's technology , electrowetting pixels can be switched in a few milliseconds , making them suitable for showing video .
" What the article does n't say , which is easiest on the eyes .
My bets are still on e-ink.Recently I tried this " Libre " LCD-based e-reader , and my eyes were bleeding , it was that horrible , or maybe I 'm spoiled by real e-ink , and no , it 's not Kindle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you did RTFA, on the first page you'd see:"Switching from the backlit mode, to the reflective one drops the display's power consumption from 2.5 Watts to 0.5 Watts.
This is for a refresh rate of 60 Hz--fast enough to display video.
Pixel Qi claims that using software to put the display into an e-reader mode--suitable for reading text, where the screen might only update ten times a second--could drop the power consumption to as low as 100 milliwatts.
"For the IMOD:"The height of the air gap between the plates determines the color of light that is reflected from the IMOD.
When a voltage is applied, the plates are drawn together by electrostatic forces and the element goes black.
When the voltage is removed, the plates separate and color is reflected off the IMOD.
A single pixel is made up of several IMODs; adjusting the height of each affects the overall color of the pixel.
The plates stay in place, using almost no energy, until the color needs to change again.
A plate only has to move a few hundred nanometers to change color and can do it in tens of microseconds--fast enough to show video.
"Liquavista:"The LCD devices are based on a technique called electrowetting, in which a voltage is used to modify the surface tension of colored oil on a solid substrate.
In the absence of a voltage, the oil forms a film over the substrate and is visible to the viewer.
When a voltage is applied, the pixel becomes transparent.
By controlling the voltage of each pixel independently, a picture can be displayed.
Unlike E Ink's technology, electrowetting pixels can be switched in a few milliseconds, making them suitable for showing video.
"What the article doesn't say, which is easiest on the eyes.
My bets are still on e-ink.Recently I tried this "Libre" LCD-based e-reader, and my eyes were bleeding, it was that horrible, or maybe I'm spoiled by real e-ink, and no, it's not Kindle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719780</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1263143400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I wanted color, I'd hit an iPod touch, tablet PC, or laptop.</p></div><p>You must be one of those "I want my phone to be just phone" people.</p><p>But there's no turning back. Color eInk screens were already demoed, they just aren't production-ready... yet. But they will be. Remember, eInk tech is still in its infancy - the first device that shipped with a screen more advanced than N-segment indicator was Sony Librie, and that was in 2004! We've already got much better contrast since then, and - while it may be hard for people who only saw the current generation of readers to comprehend - page turning speed is actually a fair bit better than it used to be, too.</p><p>Don't expect major breakthroughs, but gradual evolutions. Higher DPI, faster refresh, higher contrast, eventually - color screens, with color depth increasing steadily.</p><p>So, yes, I fully expect to read color books on an eInk (or whatever it'll be called then) reader in 3-4 years at the latest.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I wanted color , I 'd hit an iPod touch , tablet PC , or laptop.You must be one of those " I want my phone to be just phone " people.But there 's no turning back .
Color eInk screens were already demoed , they just are n't production-ready... yet. But they will be .
Remember , eInk tech is still in its infancy - the first device that shipped with a screen more advanced than N-segment indicator was Sony Librie , and that was in 2004 !
We 've already got much better contrast since then , and - while it may be hard for people who only saw the current generation of readers to comprehend - page turning speed is actually a fair bit better than it used to be , too.Do n't expect major breakthroughs , but gradual evolutions .
Higher DPI , faster refresh , higher contrast , eventually - color screens , with color depth increasing steadily.So , yes , I fully expect to read color books on an eInk ( or whatever it 'll be called then ) reader in 3-4 years at the latest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I wanted color, I'd hit an iPod touch, tablet PC, or laptop.You must be one of those "I want my phone to be just phone" people.But there's no turning back.
Color eInk screens were already demoed, they just aren't production-ready... yet. But they will be.
Remember, eInk tech is still in its infancy - the first device that shipped with a screen more advanced than N-segment indicator was Sony Librie, and that was in 2004!
We've already got much better contrast since then, and - while it may be hard for people who only saw the current generation of readers to comprehend - page turning speed is actually a fair bit better than it used to be, too.Don't expect major breakthroughs, but gradual evolutions.
Higher DPI, faster refresh, higher contrast, eventually - color screens, with color depth increasing steadily.So, yes, I fully expect to read color books on an eInk (or whatever it'll be called then) reader in 3-4 years at the latest.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30746572</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want.</title>
	<author>binaryspiral</author>
	<datestamp>1263313020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>If I wanted color, I'd hit an iPod touch, tablet PC, or laptop.</p></div><p>You must be one of those "I want my phone to be just phone" people.</p></div><p>Hardly... I have a deep appreciation for multifunctional devices. I'm simply saying that if by introducing color to an e-ink device you make it dimmer and slower - then go home, you're fucking doing it wrong.</p><p>Don't cripple the kindle just so it can show a color picture. Make it color, brighter, AND refresh faster - then I'll be interested.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I wanted color , I 'd hit an iPod touch , tablet PC , or laptop.You must be one of those " I want my phone to be just phone " people.Hardly... I have a deep appreciation for multifunctional devices .
I 'm simply saying that if by introducing color to an e-ink device you make it dimmer and slower - then go home , you 're fucking doing it wrong.Do n't cripple the kindle just so it can show a color picture .
Make it color , brighter , AND refresh faster - then I 'll be interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I wanted color, I'd hit an iPod touch, tablet PC, or laptop.You must be one of those "I want my phone to be just phone" people.Hardly... I have a deep appreciation for multifunctional devices.
I'm simply saying that if by introducing color to an e-ink device you make it dimmer and slower - then go home, you're fucking doing it wrong.Don't cripple the kindle just so it can show a color picture.
Make it color, brighter, AND refresh faster - then I'll be interested.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719500</id>
	<title>Sorry, not news.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263140220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice that there are newcomers to the party, but Amazon hedges its bets with a iPod Touch / iPhone Kindle App. So, you don't need these new things if you want e-books and video on the same device.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice that there are newcomers to the party , but Amazon hedges its bets with a iPod Touch / iPhone Kindle App .
So , you do n't need these new things if you want e-books and video on the same device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice that there are newcomers to the party, but Amazon hedges its bets with a iPod Touch / iPhone Kindle App.
So, you don't need these new things if you want e-books and video on the same device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719742</id>
	<title>I love my kindle</title>
	<author>LlamaZorz</author>
	<datestamp>1263142860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a Kindle2 becasue it enables me to read more than I normally would.  Certain things I would only read online like periodicals and hack tutorials were not being read due to eye strain.  I didnt want to print these as it would become expensive and wasteful fast.

My kindle has really long battery life and I actually get less eye strain with it than with real paper books given the grey background.

I love the thing, any gloss or color will just make the device cause more strain and that's now what I wanted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Kindle2 becasue it enables me to read more than I normally would .
Certain things I would only read online like periodicals and hack tutorials were not being read due to eye strain .
I didnt want to print these as it would become expensive and wasteful fast .
My kindle has really long battery life and I actually get less eye strain with it than with real paper books given the grey background .
I love the thing , any gloss or color will just make the device cause more strain and that 's now what I wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Kindle2 becasue it enables me to read more than I normally would.
Certain things I would only read online like periodicals and hack tutorials were not being read due to eye strain.
I didnt want to print these as it would become expensive and wasteful fast.
My kindle has really long battery life and I actually get less eye strain with it than with real paper books given the grey background.
I love the thing, any gloss or color will just make the device cause more strain and that's now what I wanted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721160</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry, not news.</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1263207600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Nice that there are newcomers to the party, but Amazon hedges its bets with a iPod Touch / iPhone Kindle App. So, you don't need these new things if you want e-books and video on the same device.</i>
<p>
That might be fine if you love format restricted, DRM'd up the ass proprietary devices, but not so good if you don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice that there are newcomers to the party , but Amazon hedges its bets with a iPod Touch / iPhone Kindle App .
So , you do n't need these new things if you want e-books and video on the same device .
That might be fine if you love format restricted , DRM 'd up the ass proprietary devices , but not so good if you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice that there are newcomers to the party, but Amazon hedges its bets with a iPod Touch / iPhone Kindle App.
So, you don't need these new things if you want e-books and video on the same device.
That might be fine if you love format restricted, DRM'd up the ass proprietary devices, but not so good if you don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721654</id>
	<title>Um, people did.</title>
	<author>aussersterne</author>
	<datestamp>1263214980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go on eBay and you can pick up greyscale LCD e-book readers for well under $100, sometimes under $50.</p><p>Thing is, they suck. You don't want to read 1,000 pages with a backlight, nor can you sustain a battery for 1,000 pages with a backlight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go on eBay and you can pick up greyscale LCD e-book readers for well under $ 100 , sometimes under $ 50.Thing is , they suck .
You do n't want to read 1,000 pages with a backlight , nor can you sustain a battery for 1,000 pages with a backlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go on eBay and you can pick up greyscale LCD e-book readers for well under $100, sometimes under $50.Thing is, they suck.
You don't want to read 1,000 pages with a backlight, nor can you sustain a battery for 1,000 pages with a backlight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720562</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263240600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you never seen a magazine or colored paper in your life??</p><p>And frankly, &ldquo;KISS&rdquo; gets throw around here a lot. Maybe those who use it, kept themselves a bit too simple and stupid. Cause it&rsquo;s fuckin&rdquo; idiotic. I&rsquo;ll explain why:<br>&ldquo;KISS&rdquo; has a basic failure in the logic it is founded upon. Which is, that it equals simplicity with better usability. Which is a simplification that can&rsquo;t be made. They are not the the same.<br>The real ideal is <em>efficiency</em>.<br>&ldquo;KISS&rdquo; is exactly what brings you Clippy, MS Bob, Notepad, and interfaces that are so &ldquo;simple&rdquo; that you have to dumb yourself down to be able to use them. (Happens to me a lot with Apple UIs. No offense. I just find myself having to stop thinking so intelligently, to find the function I need. Which is a deal breaker for me. And MS interfaces too, obviously. MS is just harder because it is so badly designed.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>Efficiency does not equal simplicity. It means an interface that is adapted to your needs. That fits you like a glove. Which can mean a simpler interface. BUT only half the time! And that is the point. Sometimes you want a feature-rich complex interface, because the work you are doing is complex! Because you are experienced and good at it.<br>In one sentence: <em>You do not want the interface limiting you.</em><br>But frankly, dumb people get support left and right, because they do not feel ashamed of yelling loudly like they are entitled to get it pre-chewed. And we get to live whatever stupid interface fits them. Which is completely useless for us.<br>And why the either-or anyway? I expect from a good interface designer, to create something that adapts to the user, grows and shrinks with his needs, and can fit any user. From a genius to someone who got a mental disease.<br>&ldquo;KISS&ldquo; is just an excuse in favor of the dumb. Sorry, UI designers. Get your act together, and notch it up a dimension. Compromises are a makeshift solution. Not the real deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you never seen a magazine or colored paper in your life ?
? And frankly ,    KISS    gets throw around here a lot .
Maybe those who use it , kept themselves a bit too simple and stupid .
Cause it    s fuckin    idiotic .
I    ll explain why :    KISS    has a basic failure in the logic it is founded upon .
Which is , that it equals simplicity with better usability .
Which is a simplification that can    t be made .
They are not the the same.The real ideal is efficiency.    KISS    is exactly what brings you Clippy , MS Bob , Notepad , and interfaces that are so    simple    that you have to dumb yourself down to be able to use them .
( Happens to me a lot with Apple UIs .
No offense .
I just find myself having to stop thinking so intelligently , to find the function I need .
Which is a deal breaker for me .
And MS interfaces too , obviously .
MS is just harder because it is so badly designed .
; ) Efficiency does not equal simplicity .
It means an interface that is adapted to your needs .
That fits you like a glove .
Which can mean a simpler interface .
BUT only half the time !
And that is the point .
Sometimes you want a feature-rich complex interface , because the work you are doing is complex !
Because you are experienced and good at it.In one sentence : You do not want the interface limiting you.But frankly , dumb people get support left and right , because they do not feel ashamed of yelling loudly like they are entitled to get it pre-chewed .
And we get to live whatever stupid interface fits them .
Which is completely useless for us.And why the either-or anyway ?
I expect from a good interface designer , to create something that adapts to the user , grows and shrinks with his needs , and can fit any user .
From a genius to someone who got a mental disease.    KISS    is just an excuse in favor of the dumb .
Sorry , UI designers .
Get your act together , and notch it up a dimension .
Compromises are a makeshift solution .
Not the real deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you never seen a magazine or colored paper in your life?
?And frankly, “KISS” gets throw around here a lot.
Maybe those who use it, kept themselves a bit too simple and stupid.
Cause it’s fuckin” idiotic.
I’ll explain why:“KISS” has a basic failure in the logic it is founded upon.
Which is, that it equals simplicity with better usability.
Which is a simplification that can’t be made.
They are not the the same.The real ideal is efficiency.“KISS” is exactly what brings you Clippy, MS Bob, Notepad, and interfaces that are so “simple” that you have to dumb yourself down to be able to use them.
(Happens to me a lot with Apple UIs.
No offense.
I just find myself having to stop thinking so intelligently, to find the function I need.
Which is a deal breaker for me.
And MS interfaces too, obviously.
MS is just harder because it is so badly designed.
;)Efficiency does not equal simplicity.
It means an interface that is adapted to your needs.
That fits you like a glove.
Which can mean a simpler interface.
BUT only half the time!
And that is the point.
Sometimes you want a feature-rich complex interface, because the work you are doing is complex!
Because you are experienced and good at it.In one sentence: You do not want the interface limiting you.But frankly, dumb people get support left and right, because they do not feel ashamed of yelling loudly like they are entitled to get it pre-chewed.
And we get to live whatever stupid interface fits them.
Which is completely useless for us.And why the either-or anyway?
I expect from a good interface designer, to create something that adapts to the user, grows and shrinks with his needs, and can fit any user.
From a genius to someone who got a mental disease.“KISS“ is just an excuse in favor of the dumb.
Sorry, UI designers.
Get your act together, and notch it up a dimension.
Compromises are a makeshift solution.
Not the real deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30725118</id>
	<title>Re:Power?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263234360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would think Mirasol would have the potential to be as easy as e-ink.  If I read it correctly, it appears to be like an adjustable prism.  So when sunlight is shining on the now stable display, you see the colors sent out as if you were looking at one line that's coming out of a prism.  I would think the angle could change the picture dramatically, though.  So maybe it won't be as stable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think Mirasol would have the potential to be as easy as e-ink .
If I read it correctly , it appears to be like an adjustable prism .
So when sunlight is shining on the now stable display , you see the colors sent out as if you were looking at one line that 's coming out of a prism .
I would think the angle could change the picture dramatically , though .
So maybe it wo n't be as stable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think Mirasol would have the potential to be as easy as e-ink.
If I read it correctly, it appears to be like an adjustable prism.
So when sunlight is shining on the now stable display, you see the colors sent out as if you were looking at one line that's coming out of a prism.
I would think the angle could change the picture dramatically, though.
So maybe it won't be as stable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30723832</id>
	<title>Re:Real book page turn times</title>
	<author>flatrock</author>
	<datestamp>1263228780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The e-readers seem to do a good job at displaying text with low eye strain.  However it comes at a heafty price tag for a single function device.  It's like asking why people needed smart phones when two way pagers, PDAs, and simple cell phones already existed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The e-readers seem to do a good job at displaying text with low eye strain .
However it comes at a heafty price tag for a single function device .
It 's like asking why people needed smart phones when two way pagers , PDAs , and simple cell phones already existed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The e-readers seem to do a good job at displaying text with low eye strain.
However it comes at a heafty price tag for a single function device.
It's like asking why people needed smart phones when two way pagers, PDAs, and simple cell phones already existed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720800</id>
	<title>Re:flickering with e-ink</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1263201300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the flicking is a thing of getting used to, at first you are annoyed after a while you wont notice anymore, the bigger problem is the contrast, or lack thereof, paper quality is a lie, the contrast you get is more along the lines of 100 year old newspaper with aging ink.<br>Still good enough, but the media was writing garbage on global scale about the contrast, it does not even come close to a real book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the flicking is a thing of getting used to , at first you are annoyed after a while you wont notice anymore , the bigger problem is the contrast , or lack thereof , paper quality is a lie , the contrast you get is more along the lines of 100 year old newspaper with aging ink.Still good enough , but the media was writing garbage on global scale about the contrast , it does not even come close to a real book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the flicking is a thing of getting used to, at first you are annoyed after a while you wont notice anymore, the bigger problem is the contrast, or lack thereof, paper quality is a lie, the contrast you get is more along the lines of 100 year old newspaper with aging ink.Still good enough, but the media was writing garbage on global scale about the contrast, it does not even come close to a real book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720382</id>
	<title>Re:Real book page turn times</title>
	<author>warcow105</author>
	<datestamp>1263151740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You hit the nail right on the head. My sony reader got me reading books again, and thats what I got it for...I didnt wish it could do video, nor did a pause between pages bother me(like you said, it takes longer to turn a real page).  Feature bleed is a royal pain, instead of these manufacturers making a device that does 1 thing excellent, they jam as many features in as possible so their sales flier has more bullet points that company b, but it does it all half assed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You hit the nail right on the head .
My sony reader got me reading books again , and thats what I got it for...I didnt wish it could do video , nor did a pause between pages bother me ( like you said , it takes longer to turn a real page ) .
Feature bleed is a royal pain , instead of these manufacturers making a device that does 1 thing excellent , they jam as many features in as possible so their sales flier has more bullet points that company b , but it does it all half assed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You hit the nail right on the head.
My sony reader got me reading books again, and thats what I got it for...I didnt wish it could do video, nor did a pause between pages bother me(like you said, it takes longer to turn a real page).
Feature bleed is a royal pain, instead of these manufacturers making a device that does 1 thing excellent, they jam as many features in as possible so their sales flier has more bullet points that company b, but it does it all half assed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721312</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want.</title>
	<author>terryducks</author>
	<datestamp>1263210600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, the transition time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is long enough to be annoying.</p></div><p>When I'm "shopping",yes i agree.  When I'm reading - I'm usually immersed in the book and can hit the next page a little before i'm done with the sentence and minimize the wait time.  This doesn't work for PDFs as i'm scanning for info.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , the transition time ... is long enough to be annoying.When I 'm " shopping " ,yes i agree .
When I 'm reading - I 'm usually immersed in the book and can hit the next page a little before i 'm done with the sentence and minimize the wait time .
This does n't work for PDFs as i 'm scanning for info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, the transition time ... is long enough to be annoying.When I'm "shopping",yes i agree.
When I'm reading - I'm usually immersed in the book and can hit the next page a little before i'm done with the sentence and minimize the wait time.
This doesn't work for PDFs as i'm scanning for info.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719676</id>
	<title>Two years?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263142320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>End of next year? That's two years away!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>End of next year ?
That 's two years away !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>End of next year?
That's two years away!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30732370</id>
	<title>Re:Power?</title>
	<author>BillX</author>
	<datestamp>1263223140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, I wish TFA were more clear about which were actual bistable (zero-power image retention) displays. But I do know that the E-Ink (electrophoretic) and Kent (cholesteric) screens are bistable. A very interesting fact that is briefly touched on in the article is that the active material in Kent's displays is reflective in its 'lighted' state and optically clear in its 'dark' states respectively, vs. the typical reflective/absorptive states of E-Ink or mirrorbacked LCD - the 'black' you see in the off state is a black paint sprayed on the rear glass. At low refresh rates, the screens can actually become power-budget positive when this black material is replaced by a black thin-film solarcell and a dark-heavy image is displayed. There was a demo of a solar-powered e-reader at the Boston ESC a few years ago; shame that I haven't heard anything about the solar-screen possibility since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , I wish TFA were more clear about which were actual bistable ( zero-power image retention ) displays .
But I do know that the E-Ink ( electrophoretic ) and Kent ( cholesteric ) screens are bistable .
A very interesting fact that is briefly touched on in the article is that the active material in Kent 's displays is reflective in its 'lighted ' state and optically clear in its 'dark ' states respectively , vs. the typical reflective/absorptive states of E-Ink or mirrorbacked LCD - the 'black ' you see in the off state is a black paint sprayed on the rear glass .
At low refresh rates , the screens can actually become power-budget positive when this black material is replaced by a black thin-film solarcell and a dark-heavy image is displayed .
There was a demo of a solar-powered e-reader at the Boston ESC a few years ago ; shame that I have n't heard anything about the solar-screen possibility since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, I wish TFA were more clear about which were actual bistable (zero-power image retention) displays.
But I do know that the E-Ink (electrophoretic) and Kent (cholesteric) screens are bistable.
A very interesting fact that is briefly touched on in the article is that the active material in Kent's displays is reflective in its 'lighted' state and optically clear in its 'dark' states respectively, vs. the typical reflective/absorptive states of E-Ink or mirrorbacked LCD - the 'black' you see in the off state is a black paint sprayed on the rear glass.
At low refresh rates, the screens can actually become power-budget positive when this black material is replaced by a black thin-film solarcell and a dark-heavy image is displayed.
There was a demo of a solar-powered e-reader at the Boston ESC a few years ago; shame that I haven't heard anything about the solar-screen possibility since.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721442</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want.</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1263212280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I've noticed a fraction of a second can take years sometimes depending on the context.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 've noticed a fraction of a second can take years sometimes depending on the context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I've noticed a fraction of a second can take years sometimes depending on the context.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</id>
	<title>Real book page turn times</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263145320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand these complaints about the response times for the screens on e-readers.  They're designed to be easy to read for the purpose of replacing paper books, not replacing LCD TVs or computer monitors.  A real book doesn't have instant page turn times and there's a bit of "flicker" as the page flips up and over the current page.  I've used a kindle before and it takes longer to turn a real page than for the kindle to refresh so I don't see a problem here.<br><br>Seems like people are really bitching that e-readers can't be used for video.  My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO?  You should have bought a laptop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand these complaints about the response times for the screens on e-readers .
They 're designed to be easy to read for the purpose of replacing paper books , not replacing LCD TVs or computer monitors .
A real book does n't have instant page turn times and there 's a bit of " flicker " as the page flips up and over the current page .
I 've used a kindle before and it takes longer to turn a real page than for the kindle to refresh so I do n't see a problem here.Seems like people are really bitching that e-readers ca n't be used for video .
My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO ?
You should have bought a laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand these complaints about the response times for the screens on e-readers.
They're designed to be easy to read for the purpose of replacing paper books, not replacing LCD TVs or computer monitors.
A real book doesn't have instant page turn times and there's a bit of "flicker" as the page flips up and over the current page.
I've used a kindle before and it takes longer to turn a real page than for the kindle to refresh so I don't see a problem here.Seems like people are really bitching that e-readers can't be used for video.
My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO?
You should have bought a laptop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722904</id>
	<title>Re:I'd prefer higher contrast</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1263224100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those into 3D graphics, there are plenty of programming books that use colour too...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those into 3D graphics , there are plenty of programming books that use colour too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those into 3D graphics, there are plenty of programming books that use colour too...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722414</id>
	<title>It's not only about video</title>
	<author>joh</author>
	<datestamp>1263222000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Seems like people are really bitching that e-readers can't be used for video. My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO? You should have bought a laptop.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not only about video. If you have any user interface a bit more complex than a few buttons around the device you'll need a touchscreen. And with a touchscreen you NEED visual feedback. E-ink is just too slow for that. Even simple things like scrolling through lists totally sucks with e-ink.</p><p>Have a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4VoCTgKHQ0" title="youtube.com">look at the Plastic Logic Que</a> [youtube.com] reader. The user interface is just unusable. E-ink is fine for just looking at things, but as soon as you have to interact with a device in more ways than just turning a page, it starts to suck with no end.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like people are really bitching that e-readers ca n't be used for video .
My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO ?
You should have bought a laptop.It 's not only about video .
If you have any user interface a bit more complex than a few buttons around the device you 'll need a touchscreen .
And with a touchscreen you NEED visual feedback .
E-ink is just too slow for that .
Even simple things like scrolling through lists totally sucks with e-ink.Have a look at the Plastic Logic Que [ youtube.com ] reader .
The user interface is just unusable .
E-ink is fine for just looking at things , but as soon as you have to interact with a device in more ways than just turning a page , it starts to suck with no end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like people are really bitching that e-readers can't be used for video.
My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO?
You should have bought a laptop.It's not only about video.
If you have any user interface a bit more complex than a few buttons around the device you'll need a touchscreen.
And with a touchscreen you NEED visual feedback.
E-ink is just too slow for that.
Even simple things like scrolling through lists totally sucks with e-ink.Have a look at the Plastic Logic Que [youtube.com] reader.
The user interface is just unusable.
E-ink is fine for just looking at things, but as soon as you have to interact with a device in more ways than just turning a page, it starts to suck with no end.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719642</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263141840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd hit an iPod, for nothing more than the satisfaction of breaking it.</p><p>---<br>See sig for proof that P=NP</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd hit an iPod , for nothing more than the satisfaction of breaking it.---See sig for proof that P = NP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd hit an iPod, for nothing more than the satisfaction of breaking it.---See sig for proof that P=NP</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721554</id>
	<title>Re:Real book page turn times</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1263213420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't understand these complaints about the response times for the screens on e-readers.</p></div><p>Its not a problem as long as you're happy with a dedicated device for "page-by-page" reading of traditional books.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO?</p></div><p>Put that the other way round: why would you want to buy an e-reader if your media player lets you read books <i>and</i> watch video?
</p><p>Currently, the answer to that is that e-ink (a) is nicer to read than a backlit display and (b) offers vastly better battery life.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You should have bought a laptop.</p></div><p>...and the most interesting thing about these new screens (if they deliver) is that they could be used in laptops, smartphones and "slates", enabling them to compete with e-readers for display quality and battery life.
</p><p>If dedicated ebook readers are to survive, the answer is to make them cheaper and lighter so people are prepared to buy &amp; carry them <i>as well as</i> media players - or to have several on the go at once (like the PADDs in Star Trek TNG). That's how dedicated audio players have survived in the face of more sophisticated PMPs. However, "convergence" might be the safer bet for manufacturers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand these complaints about the response times for the screens on e-readers.Its not a problem as long as you 're happy with a dedicated device for " page-by-page " reading of traditional books.My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO ? Put that the other way round : why would you want to buy an e-reader if your media player lets you read books and watch video ?
Currently , the answer to that is that e-ink ( a ) is nicer to read than a backlit display and ( b ) offers vastly better battery life.You should have bought a laptop....and the most interesting thing about these new screens ( if they deliver ) is that they could be used in laptops , smartphones and " slates " , enabling them to compete with e-readers for display quality and battery life .
If dedicated ebook readers are to survive , the answer is to make them cheaper and lighter so people are prepared to buy &amp; carry them as well as media players - or to have several on the go at once ( like the PADDs in Star Trek TNG ) .
That 's how dedicated audio players have survived in the face of more sophisticated PMPs .
However , " convergence " might be the safer bet for manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand these complaints about the response times for the screens on e-readers.Its not a problem as long as you're happy with a dedicated device for "page-by-page" reading of traditional books.My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO?Put that the other way round: why would you want to buy an e-reader if your media player lets you read books and watch video?
Currently, the answer to that is that e-ink (a) is nicer to read than a backlit display and (b) offers vastly better battery life.You should have bought a laptop....and the most interesting thing about these new screens (if they deliver) is that they could be used in laptops, smartphones and "slates", enabling them to compete with e-readers for display quality and battery life.
If dedicated ebook readers are to survive, the answer is to make them cheaper and lighter so people are prepared to buy &amp; carry them as well as media players - or to have several on the go at once (like the PADDs in Star Trek TNG).
That's how dedicated audio players have survived in the face of more sophisticated PMPs.
However, "convergence" might be the safer bet for manufacturers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30726106</id>
	<title>Re:flickering with e-ink</title>
	<author>jecblackpepper</author>
	<datestamp>1263238740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the Cybook, you can select to have the blank step on or off. On it flashes black to clear the old text and then displays the next page (effectively taking two 'page turns'); off it just draws the next page - but there is a little ghosting left of the previous page where it hasn't completely cleared - no worse than in a real book where you can see the ink from the reverse of the page through the paper.
<p>
It can be annoying if the previous page had some graphics on it, but for normal text I hardly notice it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the Cybook , you can select to have the blank step on or off .
On it flashes black to clear the old text and then displays the next page ( effectively taking two 'page turns ' ) ; off it just draws the next page - but there is a little ghosting left of the previous page where it has n't completely cleared - no worse than in a real book where you can see the ink from the reverse of the page through the paper .
It can be annoying if the previous page had some graphics on it , but for normal text I hardly notice it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the Cybook, you can select to have the blank step on or off.
On it flashes black to clear the old text and then displays the next page (effectively taking two 'page turns'); off it just draws the next page - but there is a little ghosting left of the previous page where it hasn't completely cleared - no worse than in a real book where you can see the ink from the reverse of the page through the paper.
It can be annoying if the previous page had some graphics on it, but for normal text I hardly notice it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722618</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want.</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1263222900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I could have a computer whose display didn't use any power unless it was changing a particular pixel, that would be very valuable.</p><p>For some applications (not video, I'd guess) it might present a significant benefit over a standard screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I could have a computer whose display did n't use any power unless it was changing a particular pixel , that would be very valuable.For some applications ( not video , I 'd guess ) it might present a significant benefit over a standard screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I could have a computer whose display didn't use any power unless it was changing a particular pixel, that would be very valuable.For some applications (not video, I'd guess) it might present a significant benefit over a standard screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544</id>
	<title>Power?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263140700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big draw of E-Ink is that it only uses power when doing a page change.  Do the color versions mentioned in TFA do that as well?  If so, welcome.  If not, nice try but fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big draw of E-Ink is that it only uses power when doing a page change .
Do the color versions mentioned in TFA do that as well ?
If so , welcome .
If not , nice try but fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big draw of E-Ink is that it only uses power when doing a page change.
Do the color versions mentioned in TFA do that as well?
If so, welcome.
If not, nice try but fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720920</id>
	<title>Re:Real book page turn times</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1263203820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A real book doesn't have instant page turn times</p></div><p>A real book gets pretty damn close to instant page turn, as it gives you the freedom to flip through tens or hundred of pages at once, it doesn't limits you to linear flipping forward and backward through a book. And that style of browsing a book is incredible useful when you search for a page, where you don't have a bookmark to. The ability to quickly browse through books, with an intuitive interface on top, is one of the main reason why I prefer a real book to digital book one. Even a digital one on a LCD with a PDF reader can't really keep up with a real book, as you always get tiny delays between page flips or an incomplete redraw of the page that takes a moment to finish.</p><p>The other issue with refresh is simply the Internet. If I have a device that is used to read stuff, I want to be able to read with it the largest resource of reading material out there and for that I need fast refresh, as a lot of webpages assume that fast refresh and scrolling is available and can't properly function without it. And even with proper designed pages you want fast refresh, as clicking through links, flipping through tabs and all that stuff needs to be fast. Imagine for a moment that Firefox would take a second to respond to each of your actions. Doesn't sound all that great a user experience, does it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A real book does n't have instant page turn timesA real book gets pretty damn close to instant page turn , as it gives you the freedom to flip through tens or hundred of pages at once , it does n't limits you to linear flipping forward and backward through a book .
And that style of browsing a book is incredible useful when you search for a page , where you do n't have a bookmark to .
The ability to quickly browse through books , with an intuitive interface on top , is one of the main reason why I prefer a real book to digital book one .
Even a digital one on a LCD with a PDF reader ca n't really keep up with a real book , as you always get tiny delays between page flips or an incomplete redraw of the page that takes a moment to finish.The other issue with refresh is simply the Internet .
If I have a device that is used to read stuff , I want to be able to read with it the largest resource of reading material out there and for that I need fast refresh , as a lot of webpages assume that fast refresh and scrolling is available and ca n't properly function without it .
And even with proper designed pages you want fast refresh , as clicking through links , flipping through tabs and all that stuff needs to be fast .
Imagine for a moment that Firefox would take a second to respond to each of your actions .
Does n't sound all that great a user experience , does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A real book doesn't have instant page turn timesA real book gets pretty damn close to instant page turn, as it gives you the freedom to flip through tens or hundred of pages at once, it doesn't limits you to linear flipping forward and backward through a book.
And that style of browsing a book is incredible useful when you search for a page, where you don't have a bookmark to.
The ability to quickly browse through books, with an intuitive interface on top, is one of the main reason why I prefer a real book to digital book one.
Even a digital one on a LCD with a PDF reader can't really keep up with a real book, as you always get tiny delays between page flips or an incomplete redraw of the page that takes a moment to finish.The other issue with refresh is simply the Internet.
If I have a device that is used to read stuff, I want to be able to read with it the largest resource of reading material out there and for that I need fast refresh, as a lot of webpages assume that fast refresh and scrolling is available and can't properly function without it.
And even with proper designed pages you want fast refresh, as clicking through links, flipping through tabs and all that stuff needs to be fast.
Imagine for a moment that Firefox would take a second to respond to each of your actions.
Doesn't sound all that great a user experience, does it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720308</id>
	<title>Re:We don't need e-ink</title>
	<author>vcgodinich</author>
	<datestamp>1263150540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Failure to understand the benefits of the technology. CHECK</p><p>2) Offer proposal not based in reality (Technical or Fiscal) CHECK</p><p>3) Typical "Someone should do something about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." bitching. CHECK</p><p>Three strikes and you are out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Failure to understand the benefits of the technology .
CHECK2 ) Offer proposal not based in reality ( Technical or Fiscal ) CHECK3 ) Typical " Someone should do something about ... " bitching .
CHECKThree strikes and you are out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Failure to understand the benefits of the technology.
CHECK2) Offer proposal not based in reality (Technical or Fiscal) CHECK3) Typical "Someone should do something about ..." bitching.
CHECKThree strikes and you are out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30724296</id>
	<title>Re:Real book page turn times</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1263231180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Seems like people are really bitching that e-readers can't be used for video. My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO? You should have bought a laptop.</p></div></blockquote><p>I got a nook for the holidays.</p><p>Had it at work last week, someone noticed it and asked what it was.  I told them it was an ereader, for reading books.  They then asked if it could play video too.  They looked slightly confused when I indicated that it was just for books.</p><p>I think there are two major problems with ereaders right now...</p><p>First of all, people have come to expect that electronic gadgets can do a bunch of different things.  Typically one of those things is video playback.  Many MP3 players can also play video.  iTunes (ostensibly a music store) sells video.  Many cell phones can play music and video.  So the idea of a device that basically does just one thing, and doesn't play video, is a little weird.</p><p>The second problem is that not all that many people are familiar with the idea of reading novels for entertainment.  When I tell someone that the nook is <i>just</i> for reading books, they usually look at me slightly odd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like people are really bitching that e-readers ca n't be used for video .
My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO ?
You should have bought a laptop.I got a nook for the holidays.Had it at work last week , someone noticed it and asked what it was .
I told them it was an ereader , for reading books .
They then asked if it could play video too .
They looked slightly confused when I indicated that it was just for books.I think there are two major problems with ereaders right now...First of all , people have come to expect that electronic gadgets can do a bunch of different things .
Typically one of those things is video playback .
Many MP3 players can also play video .
iTunes ( ostensibly a music store ) sells video .
Many cell phones can play music and video .
So the idea of a device that basically does just one thing , and does n't play video , is a little weird.The second problem is that not all that many people are familiar with the idea of reading novels for entertainment .
When I tell someone that the nook is just for reading books , they usually look at me slightly odd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like people are really bitching that e-readers can't be used for video.
My question is why did you buy an e-READER if you wanted to watch VIDEO?
You should have bought a laptop.I got a nook for the holidays.Had it at work last week, someone noticed it and asked what it was.
I told them it was an ereader, for reading books.
They then asked if it could play video too.
They looked slightly confused when I indicated that it was just for books.I think there are two major problems with ereaders right now...First of all, people have come to expect that electronic gadgets can do a bunch of different things.
Typically one of those things is video playback.
Many MP3 players can also play video.
iTunes (ostensibly a music store) sells video.
Many cell phones can play music and video.
So the idea of a device that basically does just one thing, and doesn't play video, is a little weird.The second problem is that not all that many people are familiar with the idea of reading novels for entertainment.
When I tell someone that the nook is just for reading books, they usually look at me slightly odd.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721058</id>
	<title>Re:Real book page turn times</title>
	<author>totally bogus dude</author>
	<datestamp>1263205800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First: why should new technology aspire to be no better than old technology? What's wrong with having or wanting a faster/instant refresh?</p><p>Second: the delay on an e-reader is probably <em>more noticeable</em> because you're waiting for it. If you're turning the page of a book, you have something to do to keep you busy until it's done, so it doesn't matter if it takes a while. If your only interaction with the device is to press a "next page" button, you have nothing to do except wait for the display to refresh. Time seems to go much slower if you have nothing to do...</p><p>Third: e-readers are purporting to provide the advantages of electronic displays combined with the advantages of real ink on paper. One of the advantages of (other) electronic displays is that they update "instantly", so people may have a preconceived notion that that will be one of the benefits they receive with their shiny new e-reader. That would lead to disappointment when they find it's not.</p><p>Fourth: many people are probably conditioned to view a slow refresh as indicative of an underpowered system; e.g. when their word processor takes ages to seek in a file, or their browser struggles to smoothly scroll on a busy website, etc. So a noticeable refresh may trigger a subconscious feeling of unease.</p><p>Faster refreshes also provides additional opportunities, for example when reading on my phone I sometimes use the auto-scroll feature so I don't have to keep pressing a button to get the next page. Presumably, an auto-scroll wouldn't really be viable with current e-ink type readers. Which goes to point #1: making things better can make for more opportunities that you wouldn't otherwise consider if your only goal was to make it "as good as" the older technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First : why should new technology aspire to be no better than old technology ?
What 's wrong with having or wanting a faster/instant refresh ? Second : the delay on an e-reader is probably more noticeable because you 're waiting for it .
If you 're turning the page of a book , you have something to do to keep you busy until it 's done , so it does n't matter if it takes a while .
If your only interaction with the device is to press a " next page " button , you have nothing to do except wait for the display to refresh .
Time seems to go much slower if you have nothing to do...Third : e-readers are purporting to provide the advantages of electronic displays combined with the advantages of real ink on paper .
One of the advantages of ( other ) electronic displays is that they update " instantly " , so people may have a preconceived notion that that will be one of the benefits they receive with their shiny new e-reader .
That would lead to disappointment when they find it 's not.Fourth : many people are probably conditioned to view a slow refresh as indicative of an underpowered system ; e.g .
when their word processor takes ages to seek in a file , or their browser struggles to smoothly scroll on a busy website , etc .
So a noticeable refresh may trigger a subconscious feeling of unease.Faster refreshes also provides additional opportunities , for example when reading on my phone I sometimes use the auto-scroll feature so I do n't have to keep pressing a button to get the next page .
Presumably , an auto-scroll would n't really be viable with current e-ink type readers .
Which goes to point # 1 : making things better can make for more opportunities that you would n't otherwise consider if your only goal was to make it " as good as " the older technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First: why should new technology aspire to be no better than old technology?
What's wrong with having or wanting a faster/instant refresh?Second: the delay on an e-reader is probably more noticeable because you're waiting for it.
If you're turning the page of a book, you have something to do to keep you busy until it's done, so it doesn't matter if it takes a while.
If your only interaction with the device is to press a "next page" button, you have nothing to do except wait for the display to refresh.
Time seems to go much slower if you have nothing to do...Third: e-readers are purporting to provide the advantages of electronic displays combined with the advantages of real ink on paper.
One of the advantages of (other) electronic displays is that they update "instantly", so people may have a preconceived notion that that will be one of the benefits they receive with their shiny new e-reader.
That would lead to disappointment when they find it's not.Fourth: many people are probably conditioned to view a slow refresh as indicative of an underpowered system; e.g.
when their word processor takes ages to seek in a file, or their browser struggles to smoothly scroll on a busy website, etc.
So a noticeable refresh may trigger a subconscious feeling of unease.Faster refreshes also provides additional opportunities, for example when reading on my phone I sometimes use the auto-scroll feature so I don't have to keep pressing a button to get the next page.
Presumably, an auto-scroll wouldn't really be viable with current e-ink type readers.
Which goes to point #1: making things better can make for more opportunities that you wouldn't otherwise consider if your only goal was to make it "as good as" the older technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30723946</id>
	<title>Re:Don't limit the perception of those screens!</title>
	<author>mliu</author>
	<datestamp>1263229260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely!  A lot of these e-readers are running Linux of some flavor such as Android, and I remember reading news about both the Nook and the Kindle having been rooted.</p><p>Something that would pretty much instantly open my wallet would be if one of these could be setup with a driver to connect it to a computer and used as an external display.  To compensate for the slow refresh, maybe every time a certain key combo was pressed, the contents of the window with focus would be mirrored onto the e-ink display.</p><p>I do pretty much 99\% of my reading on my computer now.  I would definitely pay to have a less eye-strain inducing supplementary display.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely !
A lot of these e-readers are running Linux of some flavor such as Android , and I remember reading news about both the Nook and the Kindle having been rooted.Something that would pretty much instantly open my wallet would be if one of these could be setup with a driver to connect it to a computer and used as an external display .
To compensate for the slow refresh , maybe every time a certain key combo was pressed , the contents of the window with focus would be mirrored onto the e-ink display.I do pretty much 99 \ % of my reading on my computer now .
I would definitely pay to have a less eye-strain inducing supplementary display .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely!
A lot of these e-readers are running Linux of some flavor such as Android, and I remember reading news about both the Nook and the Kindle having been rooted.Something that would pretty much instantly open my wallet would be if one of these could be setup with a driver to connect it to a computer and used as an external display.
To compensate for the slow refresh, maybe every time a certain key combo was pressed, the contents of the window with focus would be mirrored onto the e-ink display.I do pretty much 99\% of my reading on my computer now.
I would definitely pay to have a less eye-strain inducing supplementary display.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30726548</id>
	<title>Re:Power?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1263240540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recall seeing news articles about existing color readers long before the Kindle and Sony readers came out, as well.</p><p>I suspect it's a number of things:</p><p>1) You've got two products which beat everything in the market at paper-like utility; one is better than the other but still not awesome. Keep the one which is better in the back room and improve it (don't show all your cards at once) while the lesser one garners sales.<br>2) Cost. Realize that these are mainly being targeted at the paper-replacement market (ebook readers and web tablets). There was (is?) no market for color e-Ink yet, so they didn't send them to market. (Things are a little tight now for everyone, so they need to try and turn their research into money.)<br>3)Competition. Nobody has been able to come even close to the power/use utility of e-Ink yet, so they've not been quick to show their aces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recall seeing news articles about existing color readers long before the Kindle and Sony readers came out , as well.I suspect it 's a number of things : 1 ) You 've got two products which beat everything in the market at paper-like utility ; one is better than the other but still not awesome .
Keep the one which is better in the back room and improve it ( do n't show all your cards at once ) while the lesser one garners sales.2 ) Cost .
Realize that these are mainly being targeted at the paper-replacement market ( ebook readers and web tablets ) .
There was ( is ?
) no market for color e-Ink yet , so they did n't send them to market .
( Things are a little tight now for everyone , so they need to try and turn their research into money. ) 3 ) Competition .
Nobody has been able to come even close to the power/use utility of e-Ink yet , so they 've not been quick to show their aces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recall seeing news articles about existing color readers long before the Kindle and Sony readers came out, as well.I suspect it's a number of things:1) You've got two products which beat everything in the market at paper-like utility; one is better than the other but still not awesome.
Keep the one which is better in the back room and improve it (don't show all your cards at once) while the lesser one garners sales.2) Cost.
Realize that these are mainly being targeted at the paper-replacement market (ebook readers and web tablets).
There was (is?
) no market for color e-Ink yet, so they didn't send them to market.
(Things are a little tight now for everyone, so they need to try and turn their research into money.)3)Competition.
Nobody has been able to come even close to the power/use utility of e-Ink yet, so they've not been quick to show their aces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720150</id>
	<title>Re:Power?</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1263148560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A typical problem with displays is that many newly developed display types have very limited life times. Sometimes as short as days or a few changes, deteriorating fast. I can imagine that such a colour version had a short life time, maybe in the order of 100 changes. That's probably good enough for a prototype display to show off, but not for consumer applications.
</p><p>As another commenter points out the pixel size may have been an issue. Again this is something that makes it sound to me like nice prototype, but that's it.
</p><p>These two issues - life time and resolution - is what producers were waiting for to mature. In b/w they have matured: hence the Kindle et. al are there. Colour may be next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A typical problem with displays is that many newly developed display types have very limited life times .
Sometimes as short as days or a few changes , deteriorating fast .
I can imagine that such a colour version had a short life time , maybe in the order of 100 changes .
That 's probably good enough for a prototype display to show off , but not for consumer applications .
As another commenter points out the pixel size may have been an issue .
Again this is something that makes it sound to me like nice prototype , but that 's it .
These two issues - life time and resolution - is what producers were waiting for to mature .
In b/w they have matured : hence the Kindle et .
al are there .
Colour may be next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A typical problem with displays is that many newly developed display types have very limited life times.
Sometimes as short as days or a few changes, deteriorating fast.
I can imagine that such a colour version had a short life time, maybe in the order of 100 changes.
That's probably good enough for a prototype display to show off, but not for consumer applications.
As another commenter points out the pixel size may have been an issue.
Again this is something that makes it sound to me like nice prototype, but that's it.
These two issues - life time and resolution - is what producers were waiting for to mature.
In b/w they have matured: hence the Kindle et.
al are there.
Colour may be next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719806</id>
	<title>Re:Power?</title>
	<author>Idbar</author>
	<datestamp>1263143640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A couple of years ago, I had the chance of going to a talk from the guys of E-ink. They showed the B&amp;W and Color displays before the e-readers came out. I was amazed at the picture frame prototype they had, and always wonder what happened to it.<br> <br>
I'm curious about the reason they are holding back the release of color screens and waited for a punch from the competitors. I had it in my hands, so I know it existed way longer than the first Sony reader came to the market. <br> <br>
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20051030033753/www.eink.com/press/releases/pr86.html" title="archive.org">This is before they took that off of their website</a> [archive.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of years ago , I had the chance of going to a talk from the guys of E-ink .
They showed the B&amp;W and Color displays before the e-readers came out .
I was amazed at the picture frame prototype they had , and always wonder what happened to it .
I 'm curious about the reason they are holding back the release of color screens and waited for a punch from the competitors .
I had it in my hands , so I know it existed way longer than the first Sony reader came to the market .
This is before they took that off of their website [ archive.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of years ago, I had the chance of going to a talk from the guys of E-ink.
They showed the B&amp;W and Color displays before the e-readers came out.
I was amazed at the picture frame prototype they had, and always wonder what happened to it.
I'm curious about the reason they are holding back the release of color screens and waited for a punch from the competitors.
I had it in my hands, so I know it existed way longer than the first Sony reader came to the market.
This is before they took that off of their website [archive.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720596</id>
	<title>Re:Power?</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1263241260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thing is that unless the system fully powers down between page turns (and even then may bleed some purely from the imperfection in transistors), there is still a cpu in the background, idling and waiting for user input.</p><p>the biggest power draw in displays are more often backlight, then maintaining a static image, unless one is using CRT or similar where one continually repaints the pixels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thing is that unless the system fully powers down between page turns ( and even then may bleed some purely from the imperfection in transistors ) , there is still a cpu in the background , idling and waiting for user input.the biggest power draw in displays are more often backlight , then maintaining a static image , unless one is using CRT or similar where one continually repaints the pixels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thing is that unless the system fully powers down between page turns (and even then may bleed some purely from the imperfection in transistors), there is still a cpu in the background, idling and waiting for user input.the biggest power draw in displays are more often backlight, then maintaining a static image, unless one is using CRT or similar where one continually repaints the pixels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30724370</id>
	<title>Re:We don't need e-ink</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1263231600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This e-ink stuff is a marketing gimmick to justify charging outrageous prices.  If someone would just release a very basic LCD book reader for $19.99 it would probably sell 100,000 units faster than e-ink sellers could sell 100 units.  It would probably put the e-ink people out of business, almost overnight.</p></div><p>You have obviously not spent much time reading books on an LCD.</p><p>I've been reading ebooks for literally years now.  I started out on a Handspring Visor...  Then I moved to a Palm m505...  Then to a desktop with a CRT, and a laptop with an LCD...  And now I've got a nook with an e-ink display.</p><p>There is a <b>huge</b> difference.</p><p>The first difference is battery life.  I can read for about four days on my nook before I feel the need to recharge it.  And I could go much longer than that if I'd turn off the wireless.  My netbook, by comparison, is good for about a day.  My old PDAs were good for about two days, roughly.  Whether you like it or not, e-ink draws significantly less power than an LCD does.</p><p>The second difference is readability.  When I'm reading a novel I'll be looking at text for a good couple of hours at a time.  Reading on a backlit display (like most LCDs) causes more eyestrain than reading something that uses reflected light (like a paper book or e-ink display).  While you can do a reflectively-lit LCD (my old Handspring did that) there's still the refresh rate and contrast.  Ultimately, if I'm going to spend 8+ hours looking at text on a screen, it'll hurt a lot less if it's e-ink.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This e-ink stuff is a marketing gimmick to justify charging outrageous prices .
If someone would just release a very basic LCD book reader for $ 19.99 it would probably sell 100,000 units faster than e-ink sellers could sell 100 units .
It would probably put the e-ink people out of business , almost overnight.You have obviously not spent much time reading books on an LCD.I 've been reading ebooks for literally years now .
I started out on a Handspring Visor... Then I moved to a Palm m505... Then to a desktop with a CRT , and a laptop with an LCD... And now I 've got a nook with an e-ink display.There is a huge difference.The first difference is battery life .
I can read for about four days on my nook before I feel the need to recharge it .
And I could go much longer than that if I 'd turn off the wireless .
My netbook , by comparison , is good for about a day .
My old PDAs were good for about two days , roughly .
Whether you like it or not , e-ink draws significantly less power than an LCD does.The second difference is readability .
When I 'm reading a novel I 'll be looking at text for a good couple of hours at a time .
Reading on a backlit display ( like most LCDs ) causes more eyestrain than reading something that uses reflected light ( like a paper book or e-ink display ) .
While you can do a reflectively-lit LCD ( my old Handspring did that ) there 's still the refresh rate and contrast .
Ultimately , if I 'm going to spend 8 + hours looking at text on a screen , it 'll hurt a lot less if it 's e-ink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This e-ink stuff is a marketing gimmick to justify charging outrageous prices.
If someone would just release a very basic LCD book reader for $19.99 it would probably sell 100,000 units faster than e-ink sellers could sell 100 units.
It would probably put the e-ink people out of business, almost overnight.You have obviously not spent much time reading books on an LCD.I've been reading ebooks for literally years now.
I started out on a Handspring Visor...  Then I moved to a Palm m505...  Then to a desktop with a CRT, and a laptop with an LCD...  And now I've got a nook with an e-ink display.There is a huge difference.The first difference is battery life.
I can read for about four days on my nook before I feel the need to recharge it.
And I could go much longer than that if I'd turn off the wireless.
My netbook, by comparison, is good for about a day.
My old PDAs were good for about two days, roughly.
Whether you like it or not, e-ink draws significantly less power than an LCD does.The second difference is readability.
When I'm reading a novel I'll be looking at text for a good couple of hours at a time.
Reading on a backlit display (like most LCDs) causes more eyestrain than reading something that uses reflected light (like a paper book or e-ink display).
While you can do a reflectively-lit LCD (my old Handspring did that) there's still the refresh rate and contrast.
Ultimately, if I'm going to spend 8+ hours looking at text on a screen, it'll hurt a lot less if it's e-ink.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719970</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263145920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... However, the transition time on the Kindle or other grayscale eink devices is long enough to be annoying....</p></div><p>The transition time on my Sony 300 is less than a second - about the same as physically turning a page.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... However , the transition time on the Kindle or other grayscale eink devices is long enough to be annoying....The transition time on my Sony 300 is less than a second - about the same as physically turning a page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... However, the transition time on the Kindle or other grayscale eink devices is long enough to be annoying....The transition time on my Sony 300 is less than a second - about the same as physically turning a page.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719838</id>
	<title>Where is my Harry-Potter newspaper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263144240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>Thin, light, cheap</b> and <b>permanent</b>.<br>
That's what I thought this E-ink would aspire to be.
</p><p>
Why do we but such big ugly boxes around E-ink?<br>
We're just making super-low power tablets with slow screens.
</p><p>
I want a sheet of paper screen that I can crumple up and throw away when I spill coffee on in.<br>
Sure watching videos is nice. But why is it called an E-book?<br>
This is a step in the wrong direction.</p><p>
I want to end up with something like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU4P6Z\_Q\_NM" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">This</a> [youtube.com] (Caprica) or like the display sheets in the show Andromeda instead of just another tablet.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thin , light , cheap and permanent .
That 's what I thought this E-ink would aspire to be .
Why do we but such big ugly boxes around E-ink ?
We 're just making super-low power tablets with slow screens .
I want a sheet of paper screen that I can crumple up and throw away when I spill coffee on in .
Sure watching videos is nice .
But why is it called an E-book ?
This is a step in the wrong direction .
I want to end up with something like This [ youtube.com ] ( Caprica ) or like the display sheets in the show Andromeda instead of just another tablet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Thin, light, cheap and permanent.
That's what I thought this E-ink would aspire to be.
Why do we but such big ugly boxes around E-ink?
We're just making super-low power tablets with slow screens.
I want a sheet of paper screen that I can crumple up and throw away when I spill coffee on in.
Sure watching videos is nice.
But why is it called an E-book?
This is a step in the wrong direction.
I want to end up with something like This [youtube.com] (Caprica) or like the display sheets in the show Andromeda instead of just another tablet.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720750</id>
	<title>Re:flickering with e-ink</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263200460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should be easy to solve in software or firmware.<br>Right now they just first loop trough all the pixels and flip them to white. Then loop trough the new image and flip black pixels.<br>I assume that the reason is, that there is some very fast way to blank everything, which saves refresh time.</p><p>But they could also use a single loop which flips a bit, if it is different from the one in the new image.<br>I just guess that this would actually take longer because it would not be as fast.</p><p>So they chose the faster one, assuming that nobody would be annoyed. I liked it, so it works for me.<br>But if there are actually many people annoyed by it, I would build in a option to choose the second mode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should be easy to solve in software or firmware.Right now they just first loop trough all the pixels and flip them to white .
Then loop trough the new image and flip black pixels.I assume that the reason is , that there is some very fast way to blank everything , which saves refresh time.But they could also use a single loop which flips a bit , if it is different from the one in the new image.I just guess that this would actually take longer because it would not be as fast.So they chose the faster one , assuming that nobody would be annoyed .
I liked it , so it works for me.But if there are actually many people annoyed by it , I would build in a option to choose the second mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should be easy to solve in software or firmware.Right now they just first loop trough all the pixels and flip them to white.
Then loop trough the new image and flip black pixels.I assume that the reason is, that there is some very fast way to blank everything, which saves refresh time.But they could also use a single loop which flips a bit, if it is different from the one in the new image.I just guess that this would actually take longer because it would not be as fast.So they chose the faster one, assuming that nobody would be annoyed.
I liked it, so it works for me.But if there are actually many people annoyed by it, I would build in a option to choose the second mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721996</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want.</title>
	<author>SilentTristero</author>
	<datestamp>1263219720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except... it's not at all close to paper.  I've had a Kindle for a year and it's my main reading device, and the fact that the "paper" is about 30\% gray, not even *close* to white, is the thing that bugs me the most.  Of course the blacks are nowhere near as black as print either, so the overall contrast level is tiny compared to paper.  I can easily read a paper book in light levels that are way too low to read my Kindle2.  The main way it's "very close to paper" is that it's illuminated by ambient light.</p><p>(Not to say I don't love it -- the convenience factor is amazing.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except... it 's not at all close to paper .
I 've had a Kindle for a year and it 's my main reading device , and the fact that the " paper " is about 30 \ % gray , not even * close * to white , is the thing that bugs me the most .
Of course the blacks are nowhere near as black as print either , so the overall contrast level is tiny compared to paper .
I can easily read a paper book in light levels that are way too low to read my Kindle2 .
The main way it 's " very close to paper " is that it 's illuminated by ambient light .
( Not to say I do n't love it -- the convenience factor is amazing .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except... it's not at all close to paper.
I've had a Kindle for a year and it's my main reading device, and the fact that the "paper" is about 30\% gray, not even *close* to white, is the thing that bugs me the most.
Of course the blacks are nowhere near as black as print either, so the overall contrast level is tiny compared to paper.
I can easily read a paper book in light levels that are way too low to read my Kindle2.
The main way it's "very close to paper" is that it's illuminated by ambient light.
(Not to say I don't love it -- the convenience factor is amazing.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720790</id>
	<title>Re:Power?</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1263201240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>E-Ink charges a fortune per display, the single most expensive part (about 100$ for a 7 inch reader) is the display, and since they have a monopoly or still  have one, that is not bound to change, they probably are withholding the color one for exactly that reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>E-Ink charges a fortune per display , the single most expensive part ( about 100 $ for a 7 inch reader ) is the display , and since they have a monopoly or still have one , that is not bound to change , they probably are withholding the color one for exactly that reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>E-Ink charges a fortune per display, the single most expensive part (about 100$ for a 7 inch reader) is the display, and since they have a monopoly or still  have one, that is not bound to change, they probably are withholding the color one for exactly that reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30732866</id>
	<title>Re:Where is my Harry-Potter newspaper?</title>
	<author>gmhowell</author>
	<datestamp>1263227040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I want a sheet of paper screen that I can crumple up and throw away when I spill coffee on in.</p><p>Sure watching videos is nice. But why is it called an E-book?</p><p>This is a step in the wrong direction.</p></div><p>You're the reason we can't have nice things!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want a sheet of paper screen that I can crumple up and throw away when I spill coffee on in.Sure watching videos is nice .
But why is it called an E-book ? This is a step in the wrong direction.You 're the reason we ca n't have nice things !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want a sheet of paper screen that I can crumple up and throw away when I spill coffee on in.Sure watching videos is nice.
But why is it called an E-book?This is a step in the wrong direction.You're the reason we can't have nice things!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719828</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry, not news.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263144180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I knew there had to be a reason why Amazon passed on buying eInk several months ago, allowing it to be snapped up by the Taiwanese for a couple hundred million USD.  That seemed strange at the time since eInk was/is Amazon's main supplier for its hit product.  In the course of doing its own due diligence, Amazon must have determined that eInk was no longer the lead dog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew there had to be a reason why Amazon passed on buying eInk several months ago , allowing it to be snapped up by the Taiwanese for a couple hundred million USD .
That seemed strange at the time since eInk was/is Amazon 's main supplier for its hit product .
In the course of doing its own due diligence , Amazon must have determined that eInk was no longer the lead dog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew there had to be a reason why Amazon passed on buying eInk several months ago, allowing it to be snapped up by the Taiwanese for a couple hundred million USD.
That seemed strange at the time since eInk was/is Amazon's main supplier for its hit product.
In the course of doing its own due diligence, Amazon must have determined that eInk was no longer the lead dog.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719608</id>
	<title>Don't limit the perception of those screens!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263141540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We see in the summary "e-reader", "e-book"...ignoring that those screens (well, at least Pixel Qi one, that I'm sure of) are great also as replacements for screens in netbooks (remember commercials of those depicting them on the beach, in the park or bright cafe?); generally any highly portable device.</p><p>Those are the screens which were supposed to be in place all along. Finally we can have them. Who cares about e-book readers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We see in the summary " e-reader " , " e-book " ...ignoring that those screens ( well , at least Pixel Qi one , that I 'm sure of ) are great also as replacements for screens in netbooks ( remember commercials of those depicting them on the beach , in the park or bright cafe ?
) ; generally any highly portable device.Those are the screens which were supposed to be in place all along .
Finally we can have them .
Who cares about e-book readers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We see in the summary "e-reader", "e-book"...ignoring that those screens (well, at least Pixel Qi one, that I'm sure of) are great also as replacements for screens in netbooks (remember commercials of those depicting them on the beach, in the park or bright cafe?
); generally any highly portable device.Those are the screens which were supposed to be in place all along.
Finally we can have them.
Who cares about e-book readers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30723638</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263227880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The beauty of grayscale eink is that it's very close to paper - making it easy to read for long periods of time. </p></div><p>Children books.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The beauty of grayscale eink is that it 's very close to paper - making it easy to read for long periods of time .
Children books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The beauty of grayscale eink is that it's very close to paper - making it easy to read for long periods of time.
Children books.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720050</id>
	<title>We don't need e-ink</title>
	<author>Flentil</author>
	<datestamp>1263147060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This e-ink stuff is a marketing gimmick to justify charging outrageous prices.  If someone would just release a very basic LCD book reader for $19.99 it would probably sell 100,000 units faster than e-ink sellers could sell 100 units.  It would probably put the e-ink people out of business, almost overnight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This e-ink stuff is a marketing gimmick to justify charging outrageous prices .
If someone would just release a very basic LCD book reader for $ 19.99 it would probably sell 100,000 units faster than e-ink sellers could sell 100 units .
It would probably put the e-ink people out of business , almost overnight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This e-ink stuff is a marketing gimmick to justify charging outrageous prices.
If someone would just release a very basic LCD book reader for $19.99 it would probably sell 100,000 units faster than e-ink sellers could sell 100 units.
It would probably put the e-ink people out of business, almost overnight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722882</id>
	<title>Re:Real book page turn times</title>
	<author>cuenca</author>
	<datestamp>1263224040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want shorter page turn times because the typical ebook screen packs less information than a typical paper book. So I find myself turning the pages quite often in an eBook. An improvement to page turning, or even better, displays that can pack the same amount of information that you have in a paper page will be welcome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want shorter page turn times because the typical ebook screen packs less information than a typical paper book .
So I find myself turning the pages quite often in an eBook .
An improvement to page turning , or even better , displays that can pack the same amount of information that you have in a paper page will be welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want shorter page turn times because the typical ebook screen packs less information than a typical paper book.
So I find myself turning the pages quite often in an eBook.
An improvement to page turning, or even better, displays that can pack the same amount of information that you have in a paper page will be welcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722242</id>
	<title>Re:We don't need e-ink</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263221100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, haven't seen such a completely clueless comment on slashdot in a long time.  You obviously have no experience working in the real world.  Is it warm enough down there in the basement?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , have n't seen such a completely clueless comment on slashdot in a long time .
You obviously have no experience working in the real world .
Is it warm enough down there in the basement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, haven't seen such a completely clueless comment on slashdot in a long time.
You obviously have no experience working in the real world.
Is it warm enough down there in the basement?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720104</id>
	<title>Re:Do not want.</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1263147660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps it would be useful for something that doesn't require a lot of transitions in a short time. A few of the things I can think of are picture frames, advertisements/billboards, signs/menus on walls, digital clocks... those big informative posters I used to see in elementary school that were changed out every week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it would be useful for something that does n't require a lot of transitions in a short time .
A few of the things I can think of are picture frames , advertisements/billboards , signs/menus on walls , digital clocks... those big informative posters I used to see in elementary school that were changed out every week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it would be useful for something that doesn't require a lot of transitions in a short time.
A few of the things I can think of are picture frames, advertisements/billboards, signs/menus on walls, digital clocks... those big informative posters I used to see in elementary school that were changed out every week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721564</id>
	<title>Because I need to browse...</title>
	<author>BerntB</author>
	<datestamp>1263213660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>I don't understand these complaints about the response times for the screens on e-readers.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
I want to browse, at least when not reading literature. Also, I want a full A4 with note taking for browsing code (my own and others).
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand these complaints about the response times for the screens on e-readers .
I want to browse , at least when not reading literature .
Also , I want a full A4 with note taking for browsing code ( my own and others ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I don't understand these complaints about the response times for the screens on e-readers.
I want to browse, at least when not reading literature.
Also, I want a full A4 with note taking for browsing code (my own and others).

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586</id>
	<title>Do not want.</title>
	<author>binaryspiral</author>
	<datestamp>1263141360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The beauty of grayscale eink is that it's very close to paper - making it easy to read for long periods of time. However, the transition time on the Kindle or other grayscale eink devices is long enough to be annoying. Making these transitions longer will decrease my satisfaction in them, making the display dimmer will make them worthless to me.</p><p>If I wanted color, I'd hit an iPod touch, tablet PC, or laptop.</p><p>Keep It Simple Stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The beauty of grayscale eink is that it 's very close to paper - making it easy to read for long periods of time .
However , the transition time on the Kindle or other grayscale eink devices is long enough to be annoying .
Making these transitions longer will decrease my satisfaction in them , making the display dimmer will make them worthless to me.If I wanted color , I 'd hit an iPod touch , tablet PC , or laptop.Keep It Simple Stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The beauty of grayscale eink is that it's very close to paper - making it easy to read for long periods of time.
However, the transition time on the Kindle or other grayscale eink devices is long enough to be annoying.
Making these transitions longer will decrease my satisfaction in them, making the display dimmer will make them worthless to me.If I wanted color, I'd hit an iPod touch, tablet PC, or laptop.Keep It Simple Stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721570</id>
	<title>Re:We don't need e-ink</title>
	<author>Mr. Freeman</author>
	<datestamp>1263213720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you ever actually seen an e-ink display?  I agree that they're overpriced, one of the reasons I don't own one, but they are a lot better than an LCD.  My friend has one and it looks almost like real paper.  At first it's slightly easier to read than an LCD but if you want to sit down for a few hours to read it it'll save you one hell of a headache.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever actually seen an e-ink display ?
I agree that they 're overpriced , one of the reasons I do n't own one , but they are a lot better than an LCD .
My friend has one and it looks almost like real paper .
At first it 's slightly easier to read than an LCD but if you want to sit down for a few hours to read it it 'll save you one hell of a headache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever actually seen an e-ink display?
I agree that they're overpriced, one of the reasons I don't own one, but they are a lot better than an LCD.
My friend has one and it looks almost like real paper.
At first it's slightly easier to read than an LCD but if you want to sit down for a few hours to read it it'll save you one hell of a headache.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30724200</id>
	<title>Re:Real book page turn times</title>
	<author>zerobytes</author>
	<datestamp>1263230640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This guy's got it right. <br> <br>

"How come it's not in color and when will it show me video"

<br> <br> <i>translation:</i> <br> <br>

"Where are the pictures in your book, Daddy?" <br> <br>

Some of us bought the bloody thing to READ, not to replace our iPhone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy 's got it right .
" How come it 's not in color and when will it show me video " translation : " Where are the pictures in your book , Daddy ?
" Some of us bought the bloody thing to READ , not to replace our iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy's got it right.
"How come it's not in color and when will it show me video"

  translation:  

"Where are the pictures in your book, Daddy?
"  

Some of us bought the bloody thing to READ, not to replace our iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719880</id>
	<title>I'd prefer higher contrast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263144660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A color eBook reader is something that will really appeal to my girlfriend (who has many art books and comic books). I, on the other hand, use my Kindle to read novels and programming books. There might be a little colored syntax highlighting in my programming books, but that's the extent that color would affect my eBook-reading experience.

I'd much prefer a higher-contrast greyscale eBook reader. Currently, the contrast on my Kindle (and, from what I understand, the Nook and the Sony readers) is about the same as that of a dirty newspaper (about 8:1 I believe). It doesn't bother me, but I'd buy one that has paperback book contrast (about 50:1) in a heartbeat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A color eBook reader is something that will really appeal to my girlfriend ( who has many art books and comic books ) .
I , on the other hand , use my Kindle to read novels and programming books .
There might be a little colored syntax highlighting in my programming books , but that 's the extent that color would affect my eBook-reading experience .
I 'd much prefer a higher-contrast greyscale eBook reader .
Currently , the contrast on my Kindle ( and , from what I understand , the Nook and the Sony readers ) is about the same as that of a dirty newspaper ( about 8 : 1 I believe ) .
It does n't bother me , but I 'd buy one that has paperback book contrast ( about 50 : 1 ) in a heartbeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A color eBook reader is something that will really appeal to my girlfriend (who has many art books and comic books).
I, on the other hand, use my Kindle to read novels and programming books.
There might be a little colored syntax highlighting in my programming books, but that's the extent that color would affect my eBook-reading experience.
I'd much prefer a higher-contrast greyscale eBook reader.
Currently, the contrast on my Kindle (and, from what I understand, the Nook and the Sony readers) is about the same as that of a dirty newspaper (about 8:1 I believe).
It doesn't bother me, but I'd buy one that has paperback book contrast (about 50:1) in a heartbeat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720102</id>
	<title>Re:Real book page turn times</title>
	<author>Rytr23</author>
	<datestamp>1263147660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1!!  God damn it annoys me when people start whining about the second "page flip".  99\% of people don't read fast enough for this to be an issue anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 ! !
God damn it annoys me when people start whining about the second " page flip " .
99 \ % of people do n't read fast enough for this to be an issue anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1!!
God damn it annoys me when people start whining about the second "page flip".
99\% of people don't read fast enough for this to be an issue anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30726106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30732866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30746572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30723946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30724370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30723476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30732370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30723832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30724188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30725118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30726548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30724200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30723638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_11_0249241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30724296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0249241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30732866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0249241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0249241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30724188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30732370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30726548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719622
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30725118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30723476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0249241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30723832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30724200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30724296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0249241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30726106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0249241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30723946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0249241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30723638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30746572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0249241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30720308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30721570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30724370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_11_0249241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30719880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_11_0249241.30722904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
