<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_16_0336210</id>
	<title>THX Caught With Pants Down Over Lexicon Blu-ray Player</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263634800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>SchlimpyChicken writes <i>"Lexicon and THX apparently attempted to pull a fast one on the consumer electronics industry, but got caught this week when a couple websites exposed the fact that the high-end electronics company<a href="http://www.avrant.com/?p=1169"> put a nearly-unmodified $500 Oppo Blu-ray player into a new Lexicon chassis</a> and was selling it for $3500. AV Rant broke the story first on its home theater podcast with some pics of the two players' internals. Audioholics.com then <a href="http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/high-definition-dvd-players-hd-dvd-blu-ray/lexicon-bd-30-blu-ray-oppo-clone/oppo-inside-lexicon-outside-1">posted a full suite of pics</a> and tested the players with an Audio Precision analyzer. Both showed identical analogue audio performance and both <em>failed</em> a couple of basic THX specifications. Audioholics also posted commentary from THX on the matter and noted that both companies appear to be in a mad scramble to hide the fact that the player was ever deemed THX certified."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>SchlimpyChicken writes " Lexicon and THX apparently attempted to pull a fast one on the consumer electronics industry , but got caught this week when a couple websites exposed the fact that the high-end electronics company put a nearly-unmodified $ 500 Oppo Blu-ray player into a new Lexicon chassis and was selling it for $ 3500 .
AV Rant broke the story first on its home theater podcast with some pics of the two players ' internals .
Audioholics.com then posted a full suite of pics and tested the players with an Audio Precision analyzer .
Both showed identical analogue audio performance and both failed a couple of basic THX specifications .
Audioholics also posted commentary from THX on the matter and noted that both companies appear to be in a mad scramble to hide the fact that the player was ever deemed THX certified .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SchlimpyChicken writes "Lexicon and THX apparently attempted to pull a fast one on the consumer electronics industry, but got caught this week when a couple websites exposed the fact that the high-end electronics company put a nearly-unmodified $500 Oppo Blu-ray player into a new Lexicon chassis and was selling it for $3500.
AV Rant broke the story first on its home theater podcast with some pics of the two players' internals.
Audioholics.com then posted a full suite of pics and tested the players with an Audio Precision analyzer.
Both showed identical analogue audio performance and both failed a couple of basic THX specifications.
Audioholics also posted commentary from THX on the matter and noted that both companies appear to be in a mad scramble to hide the fact that the player was ever deemed THX certified.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30809482</id>
	<title>Re:How many more products like this are there?</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1263838020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course this happens, and all the more in the world of digital. In many cases, there's absolutely nothing left to do to improve the device. A true audiophile is not going to use the DACs built-in on their device anyway... they'll probably have a separate HDMI driven DAC box, many times more expensive than a Blu-Ray player ought to be, so they can feed their tube amps or whatever. And folks like me (I care about real improvements in audio, but am immune to the "snake oil" level of this business) will run the HDMI directly into a good quality digital amp, and be happy enough. Low-end folks will use the TV's speakers (well, one can assume that's why they still bother building speakers into TVs... I haven't used my television speakers since five main televisions ago (current DLP, previous CRT-projection HDTV, previous CRT-projection SDTV, and previous tube based SDTV were each integrated into an audio system).</p><p>So your Blu-Ray player is a computing device, primarily. There's not much room for improvements in performance versus the low-end: no DACs, not much analog at all. Features, sure... little things. But there's still a crazy market for upscale hardware. Not a huge one... not really large enough for independent product development, at least not from any major CE company. At best you get a consumer board with higher-spec components, at worst you get that same old consumer board. In both cases, maybe tweaks to the firmware to make it look upscale on-screen, maybe even offering a few options not available on the regular product. And of course, a nice expensive looking case.</p><p>I'm not claiming there are no high-end units designed from the get-go as high-end units, but there's only so much you can do of any real value to affect the look and sound of the Blu-Ray, as used in high-end systems. And the fact that this same board gets much better reviews in the high-end box than the low-end box is simply telling what everyone here pretty much knows: for the most part, the audiophile emperor is not wearing clothes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course this happens , and all the more in the world of digital .
In many cases , there 's absolutely nothing left to do to improve the device .
A true audiophile is not going to use the DACs built-in on their device anyway... they 'll probably have a separate HDMI driven DAC box , many times more expensive than a Blu-Ray player ought to be , so they can feed their tube amps or whatever .
And folks like me ( I care about real improvements in audio , but am immune to the " snake oil " level of this business ) will run the HDMI directly into a good quality digital amp , and be happy enough .
Low-end folks will use the TV 's speakers ( well , one can assume that 's why they still bother building speakers into TVs... I have n't used my television speakers since five main televisions ago ( current DLP , previous CRT-projection HDTV , previous CRT-projection SDTV , and previous tube based SDTV were each integrated into an audio system ) .So your Blu-Ray player is a computing device , primarily .
There 's not much room for improvements in performance versus the low-end : no DACs , not much analog at all .
Features , sure... little things .
But there 's still a crazy market for upscale hardware .
Not a huge one... not really large enough for independent product development , at least not from any major CE company .
At best you get a consumer board with higher-spec components , at worst you get that same old consumer board .
In both cases , maybe tweaks to the firmware to make it look upscale on-screen , maybe even offering a few options not available on the regular product .
And of course , a nice expensive looking case.I 'm not claiming there are no high-end units designed from the get-go as high-end units , but there 's only so much you can do of any real value to affect the look and sound of the Blu-Ray , as used in high-end systems .
And the fact that this same board gets much better reviews in the high-end box than the low-end box is simply telling what everyone here pretty much knows : for the most part , the audiophile emperor is not wearing clothes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course this happens, and all the more in the world of digital.
In many cases, there's absolutely nothing left to do to improve the device.
A true audiophile is not going to use the DACs built-in on their device anyway... they'll probably have a separate HDMI driven DAC box, many times more expensive than a Blu-Ray player ought to be, so they can feed their tube amps or whatever.
And folks like me (I care about real improvements in audio, but am immune to the "snake oil" level of this business) will run the HDMI directly into a good quality digital amp, and be happy enough.
Low-end folks will use the TV's speakers (well, one can assume that's why they still bother building speakers into TVs... I haven't used my television speakers since five main televisions ago (current DLP, previous CRT-projection HDTV, previous CRT-projection SDTV, and previous tube based SDTV were each integrated into an audio system).So your Blu-Ray player is a computing device, primarily.
There's not much room for improvements in performance versus the low-end: no DACs, not much analog at all.
Features, sure... little things.
But there's still a crazy market for upscale hardware.
Not a huge one... not really large enough for independent product development, at least not from any major CE company.
At best you get a consumer board with higher-spec components, at worst you get that same old consumer board.
In both cases, maybe tweaks to the firmware to make it look upscale on-screen, maybe even offering a few options not available on the regular product.
And of course, a nice expensive looking case.I'm not claiming there are no high-end units designed from the get-go as high-end units, but there's only so much you can do of any real value to affect the look and sound of the Blu-Ray, as used in high-end systems.
And the fact that this same board gets much better reviews in the high-end box than the low-end box is simply telling what everyone here pretty much knows: for the most part, the audiophile emperor is not wearing clothes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30801214</id>
	<title>Re:What is the point of "high-end" with digital?</title>
	<author>ahabswhale</author>
	<datestamp>1263723120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad you have no idea what you're talking about.  Yes, if two different players generate the exact same data, it will be sent over bit for bit the same.  However, the data sent from the players is NEVER THE SAME.  They all have different methods for generating that data which is why there are lots of differences between blu-ray players.  What is fair to say is that the price of the player doesn't necessarily equate to the best picture.  The Oppo BDP-83 is $500 but performs as well as many $2 - 3k players.  However, Oppo is a bit of an oddball in that regard and they have a crazy good reputation for high quality at a fair price.  There are people who actually test this sort of thing and report what artifacting tests pass and fail between different blu-ray players.  If they all generated the same data, they would all pass and fail the exact same tests.  What is also fair to say is that, for many people,  they don't give a shit since it's still a lot better than what a SD DVD player is going to produce regardless of whether it's the shittiest blu-ray player on the planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad you have no idea what you 're talking about .
Yes , if two different players generate the exact same data , it will be sent over bit for bit the same .
However , the data sent from the players is NEVER THE SAME .
They all have different methods for generating that data which is why there are lots of differences between blu-ray players .
What is fair to say is that the price of the player does n't necessarily equate to the best picture .
The Oppo BDP-83 is $ 500 but performs as well as many $ 2 - 3k players .
However , Oppo is a bit of an oddball in that regard and they have a crazy good reputation for high quality at a fair price .
There are people who actually test this sort of thing and report what artifacting tests pass and fail between different blu-ray players .
If they all generated the same data , they would all pass and fail the exact same tests .
What is also fair to say is that , for many people , they do n't give a shit since it 's still a lot better than what a SD DVD player is going to produce regardless of whether it 's the shittiest blu-ray player on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad you have no idea what you're talking about.
Yes, if two different players generate the exact same data, it will be sent over bit for bit the same.
However, the data sent from the players is NEVER THE SAME.
They all have different methods for generating that data which is why there are lots of differences between blu-ray players.
What is fair to say is that the price of the player doesn't necessarily equate to the best picture.
The Oppo BDP-83 is $500 but performs as well as many $2 - 3k players.
However, Oppo is a bit of an oddball in that regard and they have a crazy good reputation for high quality at a fair price.
There are people who actually test this sort of thing and report what artifacting tests pass and fail between different blu-ray players.
If they all generated the same data, they would all pass and fail the exact same tests.
What is also fair to say is that, for many people,  they don't give a shit since it's still a lot better than what a SD DVD player is going to produce regardless of whether it's the shittiest blu-ray player on the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789010</id>
	<title>Haha, and some people ridicule me....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263640920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...because I always buy cheapest. Mostly people who deem themselves audiophile and cannot understand that I am not. For me a cheap player was always enough. Now I also have the satisfaction that I am not cheated. At least I get what I pay for.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because I always buy cheapest .
Mostly people who deem themselves audiophile and can not understand that I am not .
For me a cheap player was always enough .
Now I also have the satisfaction that I am not cheated .
At least I get what I pay for .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because I always buy cheapest.
Mostly people who deem themselves audiophile and cannot understand that I am not.
For me a cheap player was always enough.
Now I also have the satisfaction that I am not cheated.
At least I get what I pay for.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790550</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1263659760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A Mac would be considerable to a high end PC and they're about the same price. A mac will be better than something bought in Wal-Mart because the Wal-Mart PC will have shit parts and will be subsidised by all the crap installed on it.
<br> <br>
Yes you can clean it out and even re-install a clean copy of windows to ensure it works to its best but then you're paying with your time rather than money.
<br> <br>
Tight-wads love stories like this to justify buying the cheapest shit out there but in general you'll find middle of the road stuff is the best. High-end stuff is always over priced and is more about brand than performance. Low-end is for people in trailers and will mean cheaper parts, less support or something.
<br> <br>
Mid-range is basically a real high-end and aimed at normal people. Where as anything that is advertised as being high-end is for pompous jerks with more money than sense. These are the sort of people that don't care how long it lasts because they can buy 2 more to replace it.
<br> <br>
Apple does sort of move into the high-end market but, as I said, a good PC that won't be out of date in 2 months will cost about the same. Apple will likely charge more and they realise that which is why they act like Nazis and like to have their systems closed up as much as possible. Having fewer pieces of crap software on your system and less hardware variety will lead to perceived quality increase despite using the same parts.
<br> <br>
While it's the same parts inside, it's also what's on the outside that makes a difference and Apple has lead in design and usability. Even their old G4s had nice doors that are opened via a handle rather than some funky ass piece of metal that requires you to take the screws out and even then they can often be a pain to slide in and out of place or some big ass U shaped piece of metal that is more likely to cut you than go back on properly.
<br> <br>
What you're paying for on average with a Mac is for them to employ more designers and usability experts than Acer will ever have and Nazi-like control. Sure they could subsidise the cost with shit-ware from Norton, McAffee, Real, etc and it would be cheaper and it would still have a superior design to a Wal-Mart PC but then it would run worse and there wouldn't be much point in moving to OSX and giving up all your Windows software if you're not getting the stability.
<br> <br>
Unlike the case with Lexicon, I don't think Apple hides the fact their hardware is the same stuff inside and that their quality comes through other means which do work if you're willing to give up the freedom. It happens that I' not willing to give up the freedom so I've never owned a Mac. It's just too easy to build your own quality PC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A Mac would be considerable to a high end PC and they 're about the same price .
A mac will be better than something bought in Wal-Mart because the Wal-Mart PC will have shit parts and will be subsidised by all the crap installed on it .
Yes you can clean it out and even re-install a clean copy of windows to ensure it works to its best but then you 're paying with your time rather than money .
Tight-wads love stories like this to justify buying the cheapest shit out there but in general you 'll find middle of the road stuff is the best .
High-end stuff is always over priced and is more about brand than performance .
Low-end is for people in trailers and will mean cheaper parts , less support or something .
Mid-range is basically a real high-end and aimed at normal people .
Where as anything that is advertised as being high-end is for pompous jerks with more money than sense .
These are the sort of people that do n't care how long it lasts because they can buy 2 more to replace it .
Apple does sort of move into the high-end market but , as I said , a good PC that wo n't be out of date in 2 months will cost about the same .
Apple will likely charge more and they realise that which is why they act like Nazis and like to have their systems closed up as much as possible .
Having fewer pieces of crap software on your system and less hardware variety will lead to perceived quality increase despite using the same parts .
While it 's the same parts inside , it 's also what 's on the outside that makes a difference and Apple has lead in design and usability .
Even their old G4s had nice doors that are opened via a handle rather than some funky ass piece of metal that requires you to take the screws out and even then they can often be a pain to slide in and out of place or some big ass U shaped piece of metal that is more likely to cut you than go back on properly .
What you 're paying for on average with a Mac is for them to employ more designers and usability experts than Acer will ever have and Nazi-like control .
Sure they could subsidise the cost with shit-ware from Norton , McAffee , Real , etc and it would be cheaper and it would still have a superior design to a Wal-Mart PC but then it would run worse and there would n't be much point in moving to OSX and giving up all your Windows software if you 're not getting the stability .
Unlike the case with Lexicon , I do n't think Apple hides the fact their hardware is the same stuff inside and that their quality comes through other means which do work if you 're willing to give up the freedom .
It happens that I ' not willing to give up the freedom so I 've never owned a Mac .
It 's just too easy to build your own quality PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Mac would be considerable to a high end PC and they're about the same price.
A mac will be better than something bought in Wal-Mart because the Wal-Mart PC will have shit parts and will be subsidised by all the crap installed on it.
Yes you can clean it out and even re-install a clean copy of windows to ensure it works to its best but then you're paying with your time rather than money.
Tight-wads love stories like this to justify buying the cheapest shit out there but in general you'll find middle of the road stuff is the best.
High-end stuff is always over priced and is more about brand than performance.
Low-end is for people in trailers and will mean cheaper parts, less support or something.
Mid-range is basically a real high-end and aimed at normal people.
Where as anything that is advertised as being high-end is for pompous jerks with more money than sense.
These are the sort of people that don't care how long it lasts because they can buy 2 more to replace it.
Apple does sort of move into the high-end market but, as I said, a good PC that won't be out of date in 2 months will cost about the same.
Apple will likely charge more and they realise that which is why they act like Nazis and like to have their systems closed up as much as possible.
Having fewer pieces of crap software on your system and less hardware variety will lead to perceived quality increase despite using the same parts.
While it's the same parts inside, it's also what's on the outside that makes a difference and Apple has lead in design and usability.
Even their old G4s had nice doors that are opened via a handle rather than some funky ass piece of metal that requires you to take the screws out and even then they can often be a pain to slide in and out of place or some big ass U shaped piece of metal that is more likely to cut you than go back on properly.
What you're paying for on average with a Mac is for them to employ more designers and usability experts than Acer will ever have and Nazi-like control.
Sure they could subsidise the cost with shit-ware from Norton, McAffee, Real, etc and it would be cheaper and it would still have a superior design to a Wal-Mart PC but then it would run worse and there wouldn't be much point in moving to OSX and giving up all your Windows software if you're not getting the stability.
Unlike the case with Lexicon, I don't think Apple hides the fact their hardware is the same stuff inside and that their quality comes through other means which do work if you're willing to give up the freedom.
It happens that I' not willing to give up the freedom so I've never owned a Mac.
It's just too easy to build your own quality PC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790024</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263654420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't NeXT continue living only in the form of libaries in the OSX, strictly speaking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't NeXT continue living only in the form of libaries in the OSX , strictly speaking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't NeXT continue living only in the form of libaries in the OSX, strictly speaking?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791790</id>
	<title>"High end" computers</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1263669000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's amusing that we don't have "high end" computers for multimedia use.  Features might include:
</p><ul>
<li>
No firmware runs in System Management Mode, stealing cycles from the main CPU.</li>
<li>
No paging.</li>
<li>
Operating system is tested and certified for interrupt response under 1us, 100\% of the time.  (Hard real-time operating systems like QNX can do this.  Linux and Windows still have excessive interrupt lockout times; I think Linux is now below 1ms if you don't have any crappy drivers installed, but 1us is a long way off.)</li>
<li>
Support for "sporadic scheduling", where the OS guarantees, say, 20\% of the CPU every 1ms to a task that requests it.  This allows playing multimedia with no breaks while doing something else. If you try to open too many multimedia windows, the scheduling request is rejected, because you're out of capacity.</li>
<li>
Disk access prioritization, so that CPU priority affects disk access priority.  (QNX has this).</li>
<li>
All solid state disks.</li>
</ul><p>
These are the kind of specs you see in hard real time systems that have to run both time-critical and non-time-critical code.  "Multimedia PCs" ought to have specs like that, but they don't.  So you still get pausing and stuttering if something else interferes with playback.
</p><p>
A typical test in the real time world is to hook up a square wave generator to an input pin and a digital oscilloscope to an output pin. You then run a program which is waiting for interrupts triggered by the input pin, and when the user process triggered by the interrupt gets control, it turns on the output pin. You load up the CPU with other, lower-priority tasks.  You watch the results on a storage 'scope, timing the time from input to output.  You expect all the spikes to be below the promised time threshold.   If there are any outliers, users get annoyed, file bug reports, and it gets fixed.  This is how you get rid of "jitter" at the OS level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amusing that we do n't have " high end " computers for multimedia use .
Features might include : No firmware runs in System Management Mode , stealing cycles from the main CPU .
No paging .
Operating system is tested and certified for interrupt response under 1us , 100 \ % of the time .
( Hard real-time operating systems like QNX can do this .
Linux and Windows still have excessive interrupt lockout times ; I think Linux is now below 1ms if you do n't have any crappy drivers installed , but 1us is a long way off .
) Support for " sporadic scheduling " , where the OS guarantees , say , 20 \ % of the CPU every 1ms to a task that requests it .
This allows playing multimedia with no breaks while doing something else .
If you try to open too many multimedia windows , the scheduling request is rejected , because you 're out of capacity .
Disk access prioritization , so that CPU priority affects disk access priority .
( QNX has this ) .
All solid state disks .
These are the kind of specs you see in hard real time systems that have to run both time-critical and non-time-critical code .
" Multimedia PCs " ought to have specs like that , but they do n't .
So you still get pausing and stuttering if something else interferes with playback .
A typical test in the real time world is to hook up a square wave generator to an input pin and a digital oscilloscope to an output pin .
You then run a program which is waiting for interrupts triggered by the input pin , and when the user process triggered by the interrupt gets control , it turns on the output pin .
You load up the CPU with other , lower-priority tasks .
You watch the results on a storage 'scope , timing the time from input to output .
You expect all the spikes to be below the promised time threshold .
If there are any outliers , users get annoyed , file bug reports , and it gets fixed .
This is how you get rid of " jitter " at the OS level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's amusing that we don't have "high end" computers for multimedia use.
Features might include:


No firmware runs in System Management Mode, stealing cycles from the main CPU.
No paging.
Operating system is tested and certified for interrupt response under 1us, 100\% of the time.
(Hard real-time operating systems like QNX can do this.
Linux and Windows still have excessive interrupt lockout times; I think Linux is now below 1ms if you don't have any crappy drivers installed, but 1us is a long way off.
)

Support for "sporadic scheduling", where the OS guarantees, say, 20\% of the CPU every 1ms to a task that requests it.
This allows playing multimedia with no breaks while doing something else.
If you try to open too many multimedia windows, the scheduling request is rejected, because you're out of capacity.
Disk access prioritization, so that CPU priority affects disk access priority.
(QNX has this).
All solid state disks.
These are the kind of specs you see in hard real time systems that have to run both time-critical and non-time-critical code.
"Multimedia PCs" ought to have specs like that, but they don't.
So you still get pausing and stuttering if something else interferes with playback.
A typical test in the real time world is to hook up a square wave generator to an input pin and a digital oscilloscope to an output pin.
You then run a program which is waiting for interrupts triggered by the input pin, and when the user process triggered by the interrupt gets control, it turns on the output pin.
You load up the CPU with other, lower-priority tasks.
You watch the results on a storage 'scope, timing the time from input to output.
You expect all the spikes to be below the promised time threshold.
If there are any outliers, users get annoyed, file bug reports, and it gets fixed.
This is how you get rid of "jitter" at the OS level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791384</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263666240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine a company that would take a few hundred bucks worth of regular PC parts, add a slightly modified free open-source OS, package the thing in a white shiny box and sell it for a few thousand bucks... What a scam it would be!</p></div><p>If you think OSX is "slightly modified", stop holding Command+S when you turn it on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a company that would take a few hundred bucks worth of regular PC parts , add a slightly modified free open-source OS , package the thing in a white shiny box and sell it for a few thousand bucks... What a scam it would be ! If you think OSX is " slightly modified " , stop holding Command + S when you turn it on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a company that would take a few hundred bucks worth of regular PC parts, add a slightly modified free open-source OS, package the thing in a white shiny box and sell it for a few thousand bucks... What a scam it would be!If you think OSX is "slightly modified", stop holding Command+S when you turn it on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789636</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263649260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only white?  I'll pay an extra $150 for black.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only white ?
I 'll pay an extra $ 150 for black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only white?
I'll pay an extra $150 for black.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791724</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263668640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Careful, the angry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. mob's Apple sense is tingling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Careful , the angry / .
mob 's Apple sense is tingling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Careful, the angry /.
mob's Apple sense is tingling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789402</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263646440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like your post but there is a minor error.  OS X is not open source.  It's derived from NeXT which is a closed-source OS from the 1980s that was ported to the PowerPC platform, and is still closed source today.</p><p>Wow.  I can't believe I just defended Apple.  That's like defending Chrysler's practice of taking a Dodge Stratus, rebadging it a chrysler sebring, and then adding 10,000 to the pricetag.  Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus do the same deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like your post but there is a minor error .
OS X is not open source .
It 's derived from NeXT which is a closed-source OS from the 1980s that was ported to the PowerPC platform , and is still closed source today.Wow .
I ca n't believe I just defended Apple .
That 's like defending Chrysler 's practice of taking a Dodge Stratus , rebadging it a chrysler sebring , and then adding 10,000 to the pricetag .
Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus do the same deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like your post but there is a minor error.
OS X is not open source.
It's derived from NeXT which is a closed-source OS from the 1980s that was ported to the PowerPC platform, and is still closed source today.Wow.
I can't believe I just defended Apple.
That's like defending Chrysler's practice of taking a Dodge Stratus, rebadging it a chrysler sebring, and then adding 10,000 to the pricetag.
Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus do the same deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789388</id>
	<title>Re:had a similar case with B&amp;O and Panasonic</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1263646080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This also works in the opposite direction.</p><p>I have a Sears-branded record player, but of course Sears doesn't manufacture anything so I opened it up.  It had a Panasonic label on the circuit board, so I got a better quality unit that what I originally thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This also works in the opposite direction.I have a Sears-branded record player , but of course Sears does n't manufacture anything so I opened it up .
It had a Panasonic label on the circuit board , so I got a better quality unit that what I originally thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This also works in the opposite direction.I have a Sears-branded record player, but of course Sears doesn't manufacture anything so I opened it up.
It had a Panasonic label on the circuit board, so I got a better quality unit that what I originally thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789592</id>
	<title>Re:had a similar case with B&amp;O and Panasonic</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1263648720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is standard practice in the electronics industry and anybody acting surprised at this article just hasn't been paying attention to consumer electronics in recent years.<br>Particularly with TVs, there are only really a handful of factories making the components.<br>There's hardly ever much difference between products from "premium" brands and others. They're all made with economics and logistics in mind, which most of the time means outsourcing to chinese manufacturers and using ready-made designs. They all use the same chipsets and the same components.<br>That's why you'll often find that "good enough" is as good as it gets. Unless you understand what you're paying for, don't pay a premium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is standard practice in the electronics industry and anybody acting surprised at this article just has n't been paying attention to consumer electronics in recent years.Particularly with TVs , there are only really a handful of factories making the components.There 's hardly ever much difference between products from " premium " brands and others .
They 're all made with economics and logistics in mind , which most of the time means outsourcing to chinese manufacturers and using ready-made designs .
They all use the same chipsets and the same components.That 's why you 'll often find that " good enough " is as good as it gets .
Unless you understand what you 're paying for , do n't pay a premium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is standard practice in the electronics industry and anybody acting surprised at this article just hasn't been paying attention to consumer electronics in recent years.Particularly with TVs, there are only really a handful of factories making the components.There's hardly ever much difference between products from "premium" brands and others.
They're all made with economics and logistics in mind, which most of the time means outsourcing to chinese manufacturers and using ready-made designs.
They all use the same chipsets and the same components.That's why you'll often find that "good enough" is as good as it gets.
Unless you understand what you're paying for, don't pay a premium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30792882</id>
	<title>Re:How many more products like this are there?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263634320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the sites linked to by this story, in turn linked to a glowing review of this Blu-Ray player by another site that <a href="http://hometheaterreview.com/lexicon-bd-30-universal-blu-ray-player-reviewed/" title="hometheaterreview.com" rel="nofollow">praised its superiority</a> [hometheaterreview.com] over the very Oppo unit it is "based" on.</p></div><p>The hometheaterreview site owner has even gotten involved in the comments on that review, with accusations of "conspiracy" against a few of the commentators who are referring to Slashdot.
The comments are much more fun to read than the article itself!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the sites linked to by this story , in turn linked to a glowing review of this Blu-Ray player by another site that praised its superiority [ hometheaterreview.com ] over the very Oppo unit it is " based " on.The hometheaterreview site owner has even gotten involved in the comments on that review , with accusations of " conspiracy " against a few of the commentators who are referring to Slashdot .
The comments are much more fun to read than the article itself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the sites linked to by this story, in turn linked to a glowing review of this Blu-Ray player by another site that praised its superiority [hometheaterreview.com] over the very Oppo unit it is "based" on.The hometheaterreview site owner has even gotten involved in the comments on that review, with accusations of "conspiracy" against a few of the commentators who are referring to Slashdot.
The comments are much more fun to read than the article itself!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789118</id>
	<title>Can there be a difference?</title>
	<author>RJabelman</author>
	<datestamp>1263642360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What puzzles me about Blu-Ray players is whether there can actually be a difference in picture and audio quality between cheap and more costly players. Ignore the analogue output - I appreciate the "better" player can have a better DAC. Also, I appreciate the "better" one could be more responsive in the menu system, load faster etc. But when it comes down to actually playing the movie, surely the player's just reading the data, decoding it according to a specified algorithm and spitting out the decoded version over HDMI?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What puzzles me about Blu-Ray players is whether there can actually be a difference in picture and audio quality between cheap and more costly players .
Ignore the analogue output - I appreciate the " better " player can have a better DAC .
Also , I appreciate the " better " one could be more responsive in the menu system , load faster etc .
But when it comes down to actually playing the movie , surely the player 's just reading the data , decoding it according to a specified algorithm and spitting out the decoded version over HDMI ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What puzzles me about Blu-Ray players is whether there can actually be a difference in picture and audio quality between cheap and more costly players.
Ignore the analogue output - I appreciate the "better" player can have a better DAC.
Also, I appreciate the "better" one could be more responsive in the menu system, load faster etc.
But when it comes down to actually playing the movie, surely the player's just reading the data, decoding it according to a specified algorithm and spitting out the decoded version over HDMI?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791308</id>
	<title>Re:What is the point of "high-end" with digital?</title>
	<author>chrispitude</author>
	<datestamp>1263665760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahh, but Blu-ray figured this out already.  Digital output is all the same?  Easy, just make the player operating system so inefficient and slow that people pay extra to play an inserted movie in less than a minute!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , but Blu-ray figured this out already .
Digital output is all the same ?
Easy , just make the player operating system so inefficient and slow that people pay extra to play an inserted movie in less than a minute !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, but Blu-ray figured this out already.
Digital output is all the same?
Easy, just make the player operating system so inefficient and slow that people pay extra to play an inserted movie in less than a minute!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790786</id>
	<title>Re:Haha, and some people ridicule me....</title>
	<author>flanders123</author>
	<datestamp>1263662040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's nice.  I personally buy mid-range stuff because I am not audiophile enough justify paying for "the best", but have a good enough ear to dislike most speakers sold at WalMart.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nice .
I personally buy mid-range stuff because I am not audiophile enough justify paying for " the best " , but have a good enough ear to dislike most speakers sold at WalMart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nice.
I personally buy mid-range stuff because I am not audiophile enough justify paying for "the best", but have a good enough ear to dislike most speakers sold at WalMart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789414</id>
	<title>Re:Can there be a difference?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1263646620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a difference in the codec software.  I've observed the same with m PS2 which plays DVDs just fine, but doesn't apply any kind of filtering so dark scenes look pixelated.  The same DVD on my Sony 5-disc player applies post-processing filters to smooth the pixels and create a near-flawless image.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a difference in the codec software .
I 've observed the same with m PS2 which plays DVDs just fine , but does n't apply any kind of filtering so dark scenes look pixelated .
The same DVD on my Sony 5-disc player applies post-processing filters to smooth the pixels and create a near-flawless image .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a difference in the codec software.
I've observed the same with m PS2 which plays DVDs just fine, but doesn't apply any kind of filtering so dark scenes look pixelated.
The same DVD on my Sony 5-disc player applies post-processing filters to smooth the pixels and create a near-flawless image.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790340</id>
	<title>Re:But it was greatly improved!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263657900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought audiophile was Latin for "a sucker is born every minute!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought audiophile was Latin for " a sucker is born every minute !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought audiophile was Latin for "a sucker is born every minute!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789120</id>
	<title>But it was greatly improved!</title>
	<author>Greger47</author>
	<datestamp>1263642420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The blog got it all wrong! Lexicon if very honest about taking the Oppo player and improving upon it, and boy they did!
</p><p>It's common knowledge that the audiophile listener derives his pleasure not from the quality of sound reproduction but from the price tag of his equipment.
</p><p>So an audiophile is getting 7x the pleasure from listening to the Lexicon compared to the Oppo. Beat that if you can!
</p><p>/greger</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The blog got it all wrong !
Lexicon if very honest about taking the Oppo player and improving upon it , and boy they did !
It 's common knowledge that the audiophile listener derives his pleasure not from the quality of sound reproduction but from the price tag of his equipment .
So an audiophile is getting 7x the pleasure from listening to the Lexicon compared to the Oppo .
Beat that if you can !
/greger</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The blog got it all wrong!
Lexicon if very honest about taking the Oppo player and improving upon it, and boy they did!
It's common knowledge that the audiophile listener derives his pleasure not from the quality of sound reproduction but from the price tag of his equipment.
So an audiophile is getting 7x the pleasure from listening to the Lexicon compared to the Oppo.
Beat that if you can!
/greger</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791892</id>
	<title>Re:How many more products like this are there?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263669780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I worked in the custom A/V industry, this practice was a big part of why I left.</p><p>We flew out and visited Runco, a premium manufacturer in CA, where they "made" waay overpriced LCDs, plasmas, and projectors.  But even when we were there we could see "making" a plasma was the process of jamming a Panasonic TV into a metal frame.  The markup almost doubled the price over the Panasonic.  (Runco has apparently gone out of business since then.)</p><p>Projectors&mdash;their bread an butter&mdash;were almost no better.  They had created their own market segmentation by buying out a competitor, (Vidikron), and then rebadging the same models at different price points.  Since we were new, we couldn't become a Runco dealer, but we could become a Vidikron dealer.  However, they basically expected us to sell the Vidikrons by saying "oh, it's just like a Runco...but different!"</p><p>This crap, alongside having to compete against Bose (we learned from insiders that their $100+ horrible-sounding cube speakers cost $1 to produce), (I've got a Monster-in-my-pocket-) Best Buy, and every so-called "trunk-slammer" in a 200 mile radius, forced me to get out.  I just couldn't bring myself to smile and say how wonderful someone's new system would be when I knew that they could get the same quality for way less, and just paying someone in the know to set it up properly.  Of course, one also can't make a living just plugging in TVs and A/V equipment.</p><p> <em>Posted anonymously so I feel comfortable using brand names.</em>  (And seriously, don't ever let anyone you care about give money to Bose or Monster.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I worked in the custom A/V industry , this practice was a big part of why I left.We flew out and visited Runco , a premium manufacturer in CA , where they " made " waay overpriced LCDs , plasmas , and projectors .
But even when we were there we could see " making " a plasma was the process of jamming a Panasonic TV into a metal frame .
The markup almost doubled the price over the Panasonic .
( Runco has apparently gone out of business since then .
) Projectors    their bread an butter    were almost no better .
They had created their own market segmentation by buying out a competitor , ( Vidikron ) , and then rebadging the same models at different price points .
Since we were new , we could n't become a Runco dealer , but we could become a Vidikron dealer .
However , they basically expected us to sell the Vidikrons by saying " oh , it 's just like a Runco...but different !
" This crap , alongside having to compete against Bose ( we learned from insiders that their $ 100 + horrible-sounding cube speakers cost $ 1 to produce ) , ( I 've got a Monster-in-my-pocket- ) Best Buy , and every so-called " trunk-slammer " in a 200 mile radius , forced me to get out .
I just could n't bring myself to smile and say how wonderful someone 's new system would be when I knew that they could get the same quality for way less , and just paying someone in the know to set it up properly .
Of course , one also ca n't make a living just plugging in TVs and A/V equipment .
Posted anonymously so I feel comfortable using brand names .
( And seriously , do n't ever let anyone you care about give money to Bose or Monster .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I worked in the custom A/V industry, this practice was a big part of why I left.We flew out and visited Runco, a premium manufacturer in CA, where they "made" waay overpriced LCDs, plasmas, and projectors.
But even when we were there we could see "making" a plasma was the process of jamming a Panasonic TV into a metal frame.
The markup almost doubled the price over the Panasonic.
(Runco has apparently gone out of business since then.
)Projectors—their bread an butter—were almost no better.
They had created their own market segmentation by buying out a competitor, (Vidikron), and then rebadging the same models at different price points.
Since we were new, we couldn't become a Runco dealer, but we could become a Vidikron dealer.
However, they basically expected us to sell the Vidikrons by saying "oh, it's just like a Runco...but different!
"This crap, alongside having to compete against Bose (we learned from insiders that their $100+ horrible-sounding cube speakers cost $1 to produce), (I've got a Monster-in-my-pocket-) Best Buy, and every so-called "trunk-slammer" in a 200 mile radius, forced me to get out.
I just couldn't bring myself to smile and say how wonderful someone's new system would be when I knew that they could get the same quality for way less, and just paying someone in the know to set it up properly.
Of course, one also can't make a living just plugging in TVs and A/V equipment.
Posted anonymously so I feel comfortable using brand names.
(And seriously, don't ever let anyone you care about give money to Bose or Monster.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30795526</id>
	<title>Re:What is the point of "high-end" with digital?</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1263656820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have both an oppo 971H dvd player and a samsung bdp1600 bluray player. On DVDs, the Oppo produces a noticeably better picture than the samsung. It's particularly good at deinterlacing, though to be fair, I sold off my DVD of Outland, which used to be my torture test for video filters.</p><p>The Oppo bluray player is $499, which might explain why I've made do with the Samsung.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have both an oppo 971H dvd player and a samsung bdp1600 bluray player .
On DVDs , the Oppo produces a noticeably better picture than the samsung .
It 's particularly good at deinterlacing , though to be fair , I sold off my DVD of Outland , which used to be my torture test for video filters.The Oppo bluray player is $ 499 , which might explain why I 've made do with the Samsung .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have both an oppo 971H dvd player and a samsung bdp1600 bluray player.
On DVDs, the Oppo produces a noticeably better picture than the samsung.
It's particularly good at deinterlacing, though to be fair, I sold off my DVD of Outland, which used to be my torture test for video filters.The Oppo bluray player is $499, which might explain why I've made do with the Samsung.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790866</id>
	<title>It was the early 1990's</title>
	<author>kilodelta</author>
	<datestamp>1263662760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And in my office we had a combination of Macintosh LC II's, and LC III's and LC IV's.
<br> <br>
In one office someone got upgraded to an LC IV which made their office mate jealous because she only had an LC II. We didn't have the money to buy more of the newer machines but since they all used the same case/covers I had an idea. I took the cover from my LC IV and swapped it with her LC II cover. She was so happy with her new machine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And in my office we had a combination of Macintosh LC II 's , and LC III 's and LC IV 's .
In one office someone got upgraded to an LC IV which made their office mate jealous because she only had an LC II .
We did n't have the money to buy more of the newer machines but since they all used the same case/covers I had an idea .
I took the cover from my LC IV and swapped it with her LC II cover .
She was so happy with her new machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in my office we had a combination of Macintosh LC II's, and LC III's and LC IV's.
In one office someone got upgraded to an LC IV which made their office mate jealous because she only had an LC II.
We didn't have the money to buy more of the newer machines but since they all used the same case/covers I had an idea.
I took the cover from my LC IV and swapped it with her LC II cover.
She was so happy with her new machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30800372</id>
	<title>Re:Well, at least B&amp;O is about looks</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1263760500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sugar is one of those things manufacturers can't actually claim are 'better' than other brands. All sugar is considered to be 100\% identical, legally. (Paradoxically, this does allow them to claim to be 'the best', because if everyone is identical, then everyone is tied for 'best'. They're also 'the worst', but somehow that never makes it into their ad.) This makes sense, as it's really all just bought at giant auctions out of grain silos from unknown farmers and stuck into bags.</p><p>
In fact, I'm not even sure your 'grain size' concept is correct. I suspect what's going on there is that cheaper sugar is in crappier bags, which let in more moisture, which make the sugar turn into 'rock candy' or whatever the technical term for that is. Or perhaps it's already done that in the silos, and they have to 'recrush' it back to smaller size, and the expensive places are better at that. Regardless, I don't think it has anything to do with 'sorting', because you can run sugar through a crusher easier than trying to sort it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sugar is one of those things manufacturers ca n't actually claim are 'better ' than other brands .
All sugar is considered to be 100 \ % identical , legally .
( Paradoxically , this does allow them to claim to be 'the best ' , because if everyone is identical , then everyone is tied for 'best' .
They 're also 'the worst ' , but somehow that never makes it into their ad .
) This makes sense , as it 's really all just bought at giant auctions out of grain silos from unknown farmers and stuck into bags .
In fact , I 'm not even sure your 'grain size ' concept is correct .
I suspect what 's going on there is that cheaper sugar is in crappier bags , which let in more moisture , which make the sugar turn into 'rock candy ' or whatever the technical term for that is .
Or perhaps it 's already done that in the silos , and they have to 'recrush ' it back to smaller size , and the expensive places are better at that .
Regardless , I do n't think it has anything to do with 'sorting ' , because you can run sugar through a crusher easier than trying to sort it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sugar is one of those things manufacturers can't actually claim are 'better' than other brands.
All sugar is considered to be 100\% identical, legally.
(Paradoxically, this does allow them to claim to be 'the best', because if everyone is identical, then everyone is tied for 'best'.
They're also 'the worst', but somehow that never makes it into their ad.
) This makes sense, as it's really all just bought at giant auctions out of grain silos from unknown farmers and stuck into bags.
In fact, I'm not even sure your 'grain size' concept is correct.
I suspect what's going on there is that cheaper sugar is in crappier bags, which let in more moisture, which make the sugar turn into 'rock candy' or whatever the technical term for that is.
Or perhaps it's already done that in the silos, and they have to 'recrush' it back to smaller size, and the expensive places are better at that.
Regardless, I don't think it has anything to do with 'sorting', because you can run sugar through a crusher easier than trying to sort it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30794836</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1263648900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who said anything about OSX?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said anything about OSX ?
: 0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said anything about OSX?
:0</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789334</id>
	<title>Re:Haha, and some people ridicule me....</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1263645180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Haha, and some people ridicule me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...because I always buy cheapest.</p></div><p>That's just as stupid as always buying the most expensive thing. What you should be looking for is quality and value.</p><p>I'm curious, though. Do you apply this philosophy to <em>everything?</em> For example do you always buy the cheapest food, regardless of how it tastes, or how nutritious it is? Are you posting this from a 286 or a Vic 20, rather than a more expensive modern computer?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha , and some people ridicule me ...because I always buy cheapest.That 's just as stupid as always buying the most expensive thing .
What you should be looking for is quality and value.I 'm curious , though .
Do you apply this philosophy to everything ?
For example do you always buy the cheapest food , regardless of how it tastes , or how nutritious it is ?
Are you posting this from a 286 or a Vic 20 , rather than a more expensive modern computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha, and some people ridicule me ...because I always buy cheapest.That's just as stupid as always buying the most expensive thing.
What you should be looking for is quality and value.I'm curious, though.
Do you apply this philosophy to everything?
For example do you always buy the cheapest food, regardless of how it tastes, or how nutritious it is?
Are you posting this from a 286 or a Vic 20, rather than a more expensive modern computer?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789062</id>
	<title>THX?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263641760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. I'm sticking with THC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
I 'm sticking with THC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
I'm sticking with THC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790346</id>
	<title>New Product</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263657960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could probably package a drive tray mechanism and whatnot mated to a drill motor then state that prior to playback a disk symmetry and vibration check will be run prior to playback. if a loud noise is heard, your dvd/blueray disk was found to be faulty and as such destroyed in the interest of sound/video quality. Maybe put some cheap uc/ancient pc motherboards on the inside so it isn't completely bare.</p><p>no doubt, some people would buy it and destroy every disk they own on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could probably package a drive tray mechanism and whatnot mated to a drill motor then state that prior to playback a disk symmetry and vibration check will be run prior to playback .
if a loud noise is heard , your dvd/blueray disk was found to be faulty and as such destroyed in the interest of sound/video quality .
Maybe put some cheap uc/ancient pc motherboards on the inside so it is n't completely bare.no doubt , some people would buy it and destroy every disk they own on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could probably package a drive tray mechanism and whatnot mated to a drill motor then state that prior to playback a disk symmetry and vibration check will be run prior to playback.
if a loud noise is heard, your dvd/blueray disk was found to be faulty and as such destroyed in the interest of sound/video quality.
Maybe put some cheap uc/ancient pc motherboards on the inside so it isn't completely bare.no doubt, some people would buy it and destroy every disk they own on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789348</id>
	<title>Re:But it was greatly improved!</title>
	<author>johnny cashed</author>
	<datestamp>1263645540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But its got a <i>billet aluminum front face</i>!<br> <br> An aside: as a machinist, I loathe the term "billet aluminum".  Way overused and very incorrect.  But hey, some people pay a lot of $$$ for "billet aluminum"  <br> <br> What was it PT Barnum supposedly said about suckers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But its got a billet aluminum front face !
An aside : as a machinist , I loathe the term " billet aluminum " .
Way overused and very incorrect .
But hey , some people pay a lot of $ $ $ for " billet aluminum " What was it PT Barnum supposedly said about suckers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But its got a billet aluminum front face!
An aside: as a machinist, I loathe the term "billet aluminum".
Way overused and very incorrect.
But hey, some people pay a lot of $$$ for "billet aluminum"    What was it PT Barnum supposedly said about suckers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076</id>
	<title>Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>lucm</author>
	<datestamp>1263641880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine a company that would take a few hundred bucks worth of regular PC parts, add a slightly modified free open-source OS, package the thing in a white shiny box and sell it for a few thousand bucks... What a scam it would be!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a company that would take a few hundred bucks worth of regular PC parts , add a slightly modified free open-source OS , package the thing in a white shiny box and sell it for a few thousand bucks... What a scam it would be !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a company that would take a few hundred bucks worth of regular PC parts, add a slightly modified free open-source OS, package the thing in a white shiny box and sell it for a few thousand bucks... What a scam it would be!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30793006</id>
	<title>Sad, Lexicon used to make great stuff</title>
	<author>jdb8167</author>
	<datestamp>1263635580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to work for them in the early 90's. They made really amazing surround sound processors. It is kind of sad that Lexicon has fallen this far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to work for them in the early 90 's .
They made really amazing surround sound processors .
It is kind of sad that Lexicon has fallen this far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to work for them in the early 90's.
They made really amazing surround sound processors.
It is kind of sad that Lexicon has fallen this far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30794892</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>Neil Hodges</author>
	<datestamp>1263649740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like your post but there is a minor error.  OS X is not open source.  It's derived from NeXT which is a closed-source OS from the 1980s that was ported to the PowerPC platform, and is still closed source today.</p></div><p>You may want to read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin\_(operating\_system)" title="wikipedia.org">this</a> [wikipedia.org]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000. It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.</p><p>Darwin forms the core set of components upon which Mac OS X, Apple TV, and iPhone OS are based. It is compatible with the Single UNIX Specification version 3 (SUSv3) and POSIX UNIX applications and utilities.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Darwin's heritage began with NeXT's NeXTSTEP operating system (later known as OPENSTEP), first released in 1989. After Apple bought NeXT in 1997, it announced it would base its next operating system on OPENSTEP. This was developed into Rhapsody in 1997 and the Rhapsody-based Mac OS X Server 1.0 in 1999. In 2000, Rhapsody was forked into Darwin and released as open-source software under the Apple Public Source License (APSL), and components from Darwin are present in Mac OS X today.</p></div><p>Darwin version 10.2 corresponds to Mac OS X 10.6.2.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like your post but there is a minor error .
OS X is not open source .
It 's derived from NeXT which is a closed-source OS from the 1980s that was ported to the PowerPC platform , and is still closed source today.You may want to read this [ wikipedia.org ] : Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000 .
It is composed of code developed by Apple , as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP , BSD , and other free software projects.Darwin forms the core set of components upon which Mac OS X , Apple TV , and iPhone OS are based .
It is compatible with the Single UNIX Specification version 3 ( SUSv3 ) and POSIX UNIX applications and utilities.Darwin 's heritage began with NeXT 's NeXTSTEP operating system ( later known as OPENSTEP ) , first released in 1989 .
After Apple bought NeXT in 1997 , it announced it would base its next operating system on OPENSTEP .
This was developed into Rhapsody in 1997 and the Rhapsody-based Mac OS X Server 1.0 in 1999 .
In 2000 , Rhapsody was forked into Darwin and released as open-source software under the Apple Public Source License ( APSL ) , and components from Darwin are present in Mac OS X today.Darwin version 10.2 corresponds to Mac OS X 10.6.2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like your post but there is a minor error.
OS X is not open source.
It's derived from NeXT which is a closed-source OS from the 1980s that was ported to the PowerPC platform, and is still closed source today.You may want to read this [wikipedia.org]:Darwin is an open source POSIX-compliant computer operating system released by Apple Inc. in 2000.
It is composed of code developed by Apple, as well as code derived from NeXTSTEP, BSD, and other free software projects.Darwin forms the core set of components upon which Mac OS X, Apple TV, and iPhone OS are based.
It is compatible with the Single UNIX Specification version 3 (SUSv3) and POSIX UNIX applications and utilities.Darwin's heritage began with NeXT's NeXTSTEP operating system (later known as OPENSTEP), first released in 1989.
After Apple bought NeXT in 1997, it announced it would base its next operating system on OPENSTEP.
This was developed into Rhapsody in 1997 and the Rhapsody-based Mac OS X Server 1.0 in 1999.
In 2000, Rhapsody was forked into Darwin and released as open-source software under the Apple Public Source License (APSL), and components from Darwin are present in Mac OS X today.Darwin version 10.2 corresponds to Mac OS X 10.6.2.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790482</id>
	<title>What is the point of "high-end" with digital?</title>
	<author>llZENll</author>
	<datestamp>1263659220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could understand the point of high end hardware, or at least have a shred of belief that it actually \_might\_ be better when things were all analog, but as soon as it goes digital what is the point?  A $90 bluray player is going to output THE EXACT SAME audio and video bits as a $5000 bluray player.  People spend way too much time and money on things they \_think\_ are better, rather than things they \_know\_ are better, I guess its a lot easier to do the former though than finding trusted sources of reviews who do blind testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could understand the point of high end hardware , or at least have a shred of belief that it actually \ _might \ _ be better when things were all analog , but as soon as it goes digital what is the point ?
A $ 90 bluray player is going to output THE EXACT SAME audio and video bits as a $ 5000 bluray player .
People spend way too much time and money on things they \ _think \ _ are better , rather than things they \ _know \ _ are better , I guess its a lot easier to do the former though than finding trusted sources of reviews who do blind testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could understand the point of high end hardware, or at least have a shred of belief that it actually \_might\_ be better when things were all analog, but as soon as it goes digital what is the point?
A $90 bluray player is going to output THE EXACT SAME audio and video bits as a $5000 bluray player.
People spend way too much time and money on things they \_think\_ are better, rather than things they \_know\_ are better, I guess its a lot easier to do the former though than finding trusted sources of reviews who do blind testing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30807440</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263827280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You find a few hundred bucks of regular PC parts that are like those in my 27" iMac or my Macbook Air or even my Macbook Pro and I'll suck your dick, troll. Go back to using your horrible plastic Toshiba laptop, or your jaundice CFL backlit Dell LCD panels. Who gives a shit about OSX, you get what you pay for hardware wise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You find a few hundred bucks of regular PC parts that are like those in my 27 " iMac or my Macbook Air or even my Macbook Pro and I 'll suck your dick , troll .
Go back to using your horrible plastic Toshiba laptop , or your jaundice CFL backlit Dell LCD panels .
Who gives a shit about OSX , you get what you pay for hardware wise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You find a few hundred bucks of regular PC parts that are like those in my 27" iMac or my Macbook Air or even my Macbook Pro and I'll suck your dick, troll.
Go back to using your horrible plastic Toshiba laptop, or your jaundice CFL backlit Dell LCD panels.
Who gives a shit about OSX, you get what you pay for hardware wise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789678</id>
	<title>Sense of Perspective. Get One.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263649620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes this is a troll post, but all this has just proved to me that you so called audiophiles are the biggest bunch of pretentious wankers ever to exist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes this is a troll post , but all this has just proved to me that you so called audiophiles are the biggest bunch of pretentious wankers ever to exist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes this is a troll post, but all this has just proved to me that you so called audiophiles are the biggest bunch of pretentious wankers ever to exist</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790820</id>
	<title>Re:What is the point of "high-end" with digital?</title>
	<author>pomakis</author>
	<datestamp>1263662400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A $90 bluray player is going to output THE EXACT SAME audio and video bits as a $5000 bluray player.</p></div><p>That's not quite true, though.  A lot goes on in a Blu-Ray player between decoding the raw H.264 stream an pumping an HDMI video signal to the TV.  There's the matter of handling all of the many nuances of turning an interlaced signal into a progressive signal, for example.  Some players do this sort of thing way better than others, and the resulting difference in video quality is definitely noticeable.  Then there's the matter of converting between different framerates.  It may sound like a trivial task, but a lot of the low-end players do a quick-and-dirty job of it, resulting in lower-quality video.

I'm not sure about audio.  I suspect similar differentiating factors are at work there, too.

That being said, paying $5000 for a Blu-Ray player is a bit ridiculous.   Avoid the $90 Walmart specials, sure, but the average $400 Blu-Ray player or a PS3 will give you audio and video that you'd be pretty hard-pressed to distinguish from the best.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A $ 90 bluray player is going to output THE EXACT SAME audio and video bits as a $ 5000 bluray player.That 's not quite true , though .
A lot goes on in a Blu-Ray player between decoding the raw H.264 stream an pumping an HDMI video signal to the TV .
There 's the matter of handling all of the many nuances of turning an interlaced signal into a progressive signal , for example .
Some players do this sort of thing way better than others , and the resulting difference in video quality is definitely noticeable .
Then there 's the matter of converting between different framerates .
It may sound like a trivial task , but a lot of the low-end players do a quick-and-dirty job of it , resulting in lower-quality video .
I 'm not sure about audio .
I suspect similar differentiating factors are at work there , too .
That being said , paying $ 5000 for a Blu-Ray player is a bit ridiculous .
Avoid the $ 90 Walmart specials , sure , but the average $ 400 Blu-Ray player or a PS3 will give you audio and video that you 'd be pretty hard-pressed to distinguish from the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A $90 bluray player is going to output THE EXACT SAME audio and video bits as a $5000 bluray player.That's not quite true, though.
A lot goes on in a Blu-Ray player between decoding the raw H.264 stream an pumping an HDMI video signal to the TV.
There's the matter of handling all of the many nuances of turning an interlaced signal into a progressive signal, for example.
Some players do this sort of thing way better than others, and the resulting difference in video quality is definitely noticeable.
Then there's the matter of converting between different framerates.
It may sound like a trivial task, but a lot of the low-end players do a quick-and-dirty job of it, resulting in lower-quality video.
I'm not sure about audio.
I suspect similar differentiating factors are at work there, too.
That being said, paying $5000 for a Blu-Ray player is a bit ridiculous.
Avoid the $90 Walmart specials, sure, but the average $400 Blu-Ray player or a PS3 will give you audio and video that you'd be pretty hard-pressed to distinguish from the best.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789566</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263648540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Imagine a company that would take a few hundred bucks worth of regular PC parts, add a slightly modified free open-source OS, package the thing in a white shiny box and sell it for a few thousand bucks... What a scam it would be!</p></div><p>I take it the reference is for OSX. Hate to disagree. It's hardly "slightly modified". Also a prime example of the difference between Mac and Windows is I bought two machines at the same time, one OSX Leopard and one Vista Pro. The Vista Pro was a higher end machine than the Mac. After six months the Mac still works perfectly and the PC is bricked. I finally broke down and ordered Windows 7 Ultimate and I'll have to redo the machine when it comes in. The fun part is reinstalling all the software. Just in the last three years alone I've owned four different Macs and twice that many PCs, I do graphics work. Other than a hard drive dying on my first iMac after two years the Macs have been rock solid and virtually every PC has required constant fiddling just to keep them working. Eventually all the PCs developed major problems and required reinstalling the OS. I never once had to do this with a Mac. If there's a scam here it's with Windows and not Macs. I'm stuck with them because some of my software and hardware is Windows only but if I could live without them I would in a heart beat. Back in the day redoing the OS wasn't that big a deal but now they are so large and the software has so much security it's a nightmare every time I have to start over. I hope Windows 7 sorts out the mess but either way I hate all the changes. XP was serviceable and fairly easy to use. Vista was a mess. They ruined a perfectly good filing system, far better than Macs, and somehow managed to turn off by default all the useful stuff and turn on all the annoying and useless stuff. Add in all the instability and insecurity and the only things keeping the average user with Windows are they haven't tried Mac or they can't aford them or are unwilling to pay the extra. The software limitations don't really affect 90\% of the users out there except gaming people. The newer iMacs are pretty good and the two Mac Pros I've owned were excellent. My first iMac gradually died, first the superdrive and eventually the hard drive but the OS never missed a beat. The newer iMac seem to be much better quality and better all round machines. Also with the last two machines I bought the iMac took minutes to set up. I was over an hour before I could use the PC running Vista. I know were are all supposed to make fun of Macs but honestly if you just want a machine that works I'd go with Mac every time. All my PCs are miserable media players. The Macs just pop in a DVD and they just work every time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a company that would take a few hundred bucks worth of regular PC parts , add a slightly modified free open-source OS , package the thing in a white shiny box and sell it for a few thousand bucks... What a scam it would be ! I take it the reference is for OSX .
Hate to disagree .
It 's hardly " slightly modified " .
Also a prime example of the difference between Mac and Windows is I bought two machines at the same time , one OSX Leopard and one Vista Pro .
The Vista Pro was a higher end machine than the Mac .
After six months the Mac still works perfectly and the PC is bricked .
I finally broke down and ordered Windows 7 Ultimate and I 'll have to redo the machine when it comes in .
The fun part is reinstalling all the software .
Just in the last three years alone I 've owned four different Macs and twice that many PCs , I do graphics work .
Other than a hard drive dying on my first iMac after two years the Macs have been rock solid and virtually every PC has required constant fiddling just to keep them working .
Eventually all the PCs developed major problems and required reinstalling the OS .
I never once had to do this with a Mac .
If there 's a scam here it 's with Windows and not Macs .
I 'm stuck with them because some of my software and hardware is Windows only but if I could live without them I would in a heart beat .
Back in the day redoing the OS was n't that big a deal but now they are so large and the software has so much security it 's a nightmare every time I have to start over .
I hope Windows 7 sorts out the mess but either way I hate all the changes .
XP was serviceable and fairly easy to use .
Vista was a mess .
They ruined a perfectly good filing system , far better than Macs , and somehow managed to turn off by default all the useful stuff and turn on all the annoying and useless stuff .
Add in all the instability and insecurity and the only things keeping the average user with Windows are they have n't tried Mac or they ca n't aford them or are unwilling to pay the extra .
The software limitations do n't really affect 90 \ % of the users out there except gaming people .
The newer iMacs are pretty good and the two Mac Pros I 've owned were excellent .
My first iMac gradually died , first the superdrive and eventually the hard drive but the OS never missed a beat .
The newer iMac seem to be much better quality and better all round machines .
Also with the last two machines I bought the iMac took minutes to set up .
I was over an hour before I could use the PC running Vista .
I know were are all supposed to make fun of Macs but honestly if you just want a machine that works I 'd go with Mac every time .
All my PCs are miserable media players .
The Macs just pop in a DVD and they just work every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a company that would take a few hundred bucks worth of regular PC parts, add a slightly modified free open-source OS, package the thing in a white shiny box and sell it for a few thousand bucks... What a scam it would be!I take it the reference is for OSX.
Hate to disagree.
It's hardly "slightly modified".
Also a prime example of the difference between Mac and Windows is I bought two machines at the same time, one OSX Leopard and one Vista Pro.
The Vista Pro was a higher end machine than the Mac.
After six months the Mac still works perfectly and the PC is bricked.
I finally broke down and ordered Windows 7 Ultimate and I'll have to redo the machine when it comes in.
The fun part is reinstalling all the software.
Just in the last three years alone I've owned four different Macs and twice that many PCs, I do graphics work.
Other than a hard drive dying on my first iMac after two years the Macs have been rock solid and virtually every PC has required constant fiddling just to keep them working.
Eventually all the PCs developed major problems and required reinstalling the OS.
I never once had to do this with a Mac.
If there's a scam here it's with Windows and not Macs.
I'm stuck with them because some of my software and hardware is Windows only but if I could live without them I would in a heart beat.
Back in the day redoing the OS wasn't that big a deal but now they are so large and the software has so much security it's a nightmare every time I have to start over.
I hope Windows 7 sorts out the mess but either way I hate all the changes.
XP was serviceable and fairly easy to use.
Vista was a mess.
They ruined a perfectly good filing system, far better than Macs, and somehow managed to turn off by default all the useful stuff and turn on all the annoying and useless stuff.
Add in all the instability and insecurity and the only things keeping the average user with Windows are they haven't tried Mac or they can't aford them or are unwilling to pay the extra.
The software limitations don't really affect 90\% of the users out there except gaming people.
The newer iMacs are pretty good and the two Mac Pros I've owned were excellent.
My first iMac gradually died, first the superdrive and eventually the hard drive but the OS never missed a beat.
The newer iMac seem to be much better quality and better all round machines.
Also with the last two machines I bought the iMac took minutes to set up.
I was over an hour before I could use the PC running Vista.
I know were are all supposed to make fun of Macs but honestly if you just want a machine that works I'd go with Mac every time.
All my PCs are miserable media players.
The Macs just pop in a DVD and they just work every time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30797168</id>
	<title>Re:How many more products like this are there?</title>
	<author>SchlimpyChicken</author>
	<datestamp>1263728640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He removed all the comments that got put on that site... It was a VERY interesting example of apparent corruption (of the Editor) who was obviously defending one of his advertisers. He was attacking everything and everybody EXCEPT Lexicon and THX.

Of course, in the end, when he was being attacked from all sides he deleted the thread entirely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He removed all the comments that got put on that site... It was a VERY interesting example of apparent corruption ( of the Editor ) who was obviously defending one of his advertisers .
He was attacking everything and everybody EXCEPT Lexicon and THX .
Of course , in the end , when he was being attacked from all sides he deleted the thread entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He removed all the comments that got put on that site... It was a VERY interesting example of apparent corruption (of the Editor) who was obviously defending one of his advertisers.
He was attacking everything and everybody EXCEPT Lexicon and THX.
Of course, in the end, when he was being attacked from all sides he deleted the thread entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30796162</id>
	<title>Re:THX?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263665700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter what equipment you have, THC will increase your enjoyment of most movies and music, far more than THX will...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what equipment you have , THC will increase your enjoyment of most movies and music , far more than THX will.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what equipment you have, THC will increase your enjoyment of most movies and music, far more than THX will...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790690</id>
	<title>Re:Is this really a surprise?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263660960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gosh, someone should tell those customers that a CD/DVD/BlueRay works differently than Vinyl... on the other hand... IF I get someone to write to them, I'd rather get some nigerian friend to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gosh , someone should tell those customers that a CD/DVD/BlueRay works differently than Vinyl... on the other hand... IF I get someone to write to them , I 'd rather get some nigerian friend to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gosh, someone should tell those customers that a CD/DVD/BlueRay works differently than Vinyl... on the other hand... IF I get someone to write to them, I'd rather get some nigerian friend to do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789244</id>
	<title>Monster Cables</title>
	<author>jamesl</author>
	<datestamp>1263644040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll bet they forgot to use the Monster Cables.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bet they forgot to use the Monster Cables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bet they forgot to use the Monster Cables.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789518</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263648120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you referring to Apple by any chance? In that case, I don't really see how you can compare the two, seeing as Apple has spent a great deal of time creating probably the best OS ever, OSX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you referring to Apple by any chance ?
In that case , I do n't really see how you can compare the two , seeing as Apple has spent a great deal of time creating probably the best OS ever , OSX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you referring to Apple by any chance?
In that case, I don't really see how you can compare the two, seeing as Apple has spent a great deal of time creating probably the best OS ever, OSX.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791370</id>
	<title>Re:THX?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263666180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey guys, get it? A weed joke!</p><p>Will you set the clock in your Blu-Ray player to 4:20 too? Did you get that subtle one? Another weed joke! Ha ha!</p><p>The depth and sophistication of humor from potheads is incredible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey guys , get it ?
A weed joke ! Will you set the clock in your Blu-Ray player to 4 : 20 too ?
Did you get that subtle one ?
Another weed joke !
Ha ha ! The depth and sophistication of humor from potheads is incredible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey guys, get it?
A weed joke!Will you set the clock in your Blu-Ray player to 4:20 too?
Did you get that subtle one?
Another weed joke!
Ha ha!The depth and sophistication of humor from potheads is incredible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789606</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1263648900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That depends if you think the cost of the box they put the parts in is worth the price difference.</p><p>I know your post is not altogether serious, but the difference is that people who buy such things (mostly) are well aware of what's inside the box that they are handing over money for. Not so in the case of this bluray player where they are literally rebadging a cheaper product and selling it deceitfully as a $3500 machine.</p><p>I wish my iMac was cheaper too, but I still think it was worth the price I paid for it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Also, "slightly" modified is a bit of a stretch I think, perhaps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends if you think the cost of the box they put the parts in is worth the price difference.I know your post is not altogether serious , but the difference is that people who buy such things ( mostly ) are well aware of what 's inside the box that they are handing over money for .
Not so in the case of this bluray player where they are literally rebadging a cheaper product and selling it deceitfully as a $ 3500 machine.I wish my iMac was cheaper too , but I still think it was worth the price I paid for it .
: ) Also , " slightly " modified is a bit of a stretch I think , perhaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends if you think the cost of the box they put the parts in is worth the price difference.I know your post is not altogether serious, but the difference is that people who buy such things (mostly) are well aware of what's inside the box that they are handing over money for.
Not so in the case of this bluray player where they are literally rebadging a cheaper product and selling it deceitfully as a $3500 machine.I wish my iMac was cheaper too, but I still think it was worth the price I paid for it.
:)Also, "slightly" modified is a bit of a stretch I think, perhaps?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791740</id>
	<title>Simple fraud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263668700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a clear case of fraud, but because it was perpetrated by a corporation there will be no legal consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a clear case of fraud , but because it was perpetrated by a corporation there will be no legal consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a clear case of fraud, but because it was perpetrated by a corporation there will be no legal consequences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790730</id>
	<title>Not news...</title>
	<author>Critical\_</author>
	<datestamp>1263661320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not news. Many of us in the A/V community over at <a href="http://www.avsforum.com/" title="avsforum.com">AVS Forums</a> [avsforum.com] knew about this a very long time ago. This is why it is important to research a product before purchasing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not news .
Many of us in the A/V community over at AVS Forums [ avsforum.com ] knew about this a very long time ago .
This is why it is important to research a product before purchasing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not news.
Many of us in the A/V community over at AVS Forums [avsforum.com] knew about this a very long time ago.
This is why it is important to research a product before purchasing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789802</id>
	<title>Is this really a surprise?</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1263651360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Audiophiles are stupid. As long as something comes in a chunky heavy box with knobs, meters and valves they'll pay a substantial markup even if the innards are nothing special. Onkyo and Pioneer have both sold Blu Ray players which are almost the same as $100 Magnavox models sold in Walmart with a huge markup.
<p>
The really, really stupid audiophiles don't stop at $3500 though. Go and have a laugh at the <a href="http://www.goldmund.com/products/eidos20bd/" title="goldmund.com">Goldmund</a> [goldmund.com] <a href="http://www.goldmund.com/products/eidosreferenceblue/" title="goldmund.com">players</a> [goldmund.com]. How does anyone ever manage to play a blu ray without a "magnetic damper". I expect if you cracked them open they'd be built around the same SOCs powering devices costing 1/20th the price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Audiophiles are stupid .
As long as something comes in a chunky heavy box with knobs , meters and valves they 'll pay a substantial markup even if the innards are nothing special .
Onkyo and Pioneer have both sold Blu Ray players which are almost the same as $ 100 Magnavox models sold in Walmart with a huge markup .
The really , really stupid audiophiles do n't stop at $ 3500 though .
Go and have a laugh at the Goldmund [ goldmund.com ] players [ goldmund.com ] .
How does anyone ever manage to play a blu ray without a " magnetic damper " .
I expect if you cracked them open they 'd be built around the same SOCs powering devices costing 1/20th the price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Audiophiles are stupid.
As long as something comes in a chunky heavy box with knobs, meters and valves they'll pay a substantial markup even if the innards are nothing special.
Onkyo and Pioneer have both sold Blu Ray players which are almost the same as $100 Magnavox models sold in Walmart with a huge markup.
The really, really stupid audiophiles don't stop at $3500 though.
Go and have a laugh at the Goldmund [goldmund.com] players [goldmund.com].
How does anyone ever manage to play a blu ray without a "magnetic damper".
I expect if you cracked them open they'd be built around the same SOCs powering devices costing 1/20th the price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790216</id>
	<title>Oppo is a really solid player.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263656520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those not familiar with the brand, Oppo is one of the top consumer grade players out there.  when I wash shopping for an up scaling DVD player, it was consistently one of the better recommendations on the AV forums and friends who did some serious (but not stupid) home setups.  I love mine.  In the case of several movies, it seems to skip the FBI warning - bonus!</p><p>If you were to 'hide' any consumer grade stuff into what is positioned as l33t/your left arm hardware, an Oppo would have been my first guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those not familiar with the brand , Oppo is one of the top consumer grade players out there .
when I wash shopping for an up scaling DVD player , it was consistently one of the better recommendations on the AV forums and friends who did some serious ( but not stupid ) home setups .
I love mine .
In the case of several movies , it seems to skip the FBI warning - bonus ! If you were to 'hide ' any consumer grade stuff into what is positioned as l33t/your left arm hardware , an Oppo would have been my first guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those not familiar with the brand, Oppo is one of the top consumer grade players out there.
when I wash shopping for an up scaling DVD player, it was consistently one of the better recommendations on the AV forums and friends who did some serious (but not stupid) home setups.
I love mine.
In the case of several movies, it seems to skip the FBI warning - bonus!If you were to 'hide' any consumer grade stuff into what is positioned as l33t/your left arm hardware, an Oppo would have been my first guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789022</id>
	<title>had a similar case with B&amp;O and Panasonic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263641160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was working for a Bang &amp; Olufsen dealer I we had the case of a broken TV we had to pick up from a client and fix it. The TV in question was a rebadged panasonic with a nice B &amp; O frame. We repaired the tv in the workshop and tested it. After that we put it back in its B&amp;O frame and returned it to the customer only to find it wasn't working. Why? One of us had managed to accidently press the original panasonic powerbutton while putting it back in the B&amp;O frame. Try explaining that to a customer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was working for a Bang &amp; Olufsen dealer I we had the case of a broken TV we had to pick up from a client and fix it .
The TV in question was a rebadged panasonic with a nice B &amp; O frame .
We repaired the tv in the workshop and tested it .
After that we put it back in its B&amp;O frame and returned it to the customer only to find it was n't working .
Why ? One of us had managed to accidently press the original panasonic powerbutton while putting it back in the B&amp;O frame .
Try explaining that to a customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was working for a Bang &amp; Olufsen dealer I we had the case of a broken TV we had to pick up from a client and fix it.
The TV in question was a rebadged panasonic with a nice B &amp; O frame.
We repaired the tv in the workshop and tested it.
After that we put it back in its B&amp;O frame and returned it to the customer only to find it wasn't working.
Why? One of us had managed to accidently press the original panasonic powerbutton while putting it back in the B&amp;O frame.
Try explaining that to a customer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789134</id>
	<title>Re:Haha, and some people ridicule me....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263642540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was involved in a quite heated<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ discussion about this and the conclusion was as follows:</p><p>Spend on the source ( cd player / turntable / receiver ) and the reproduction units aka speakers.</p><p>As for a lot of hi-end equipment there are still a few worth paying the price for like McIntosh but most of what you get these days is just what this is all about, selling the brand, screw whats inside, sell the brand..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was involved in a quite heated ./ discussion about this and the conclusion was as follows : Spend on the source ( cd player / turntable / receiver ) and the reproduction units aka speakers.As for a lot of hi-end equipment there are still a few worth paying the price for like McIntosh but most of what you get these days is just what this is all about , selling the brand , screw whats inside , sell the brand. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was involved in a quite heated ./ discussion about this and the conclusion was as follows:Spend on the source ( cd player / turntable / receiver ) and the reproduction units aka speakers.As for a lot of hi-end equipment there are still a few worth paying the price for like McIntosh but most of what you get these days is just what this is all about, selling the brand, screw whats inside, sell the brand..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789408</id>
	<title>Well, at least B&amp;O is about looks</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1263646500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you buy B&amp;O for quality but for the looks, they got very nice designs. Frankly, I am not really all that upset about all this, but then I have been used to PC's doing the same for ever.
</p><p>Personally I always smiled when people wanted Compaq over Dell because it was a better brandname... guess it is, if you want a cheap IBM clone, go to the one who created the first.
</p><p>Apple is really just an intel PC but with a "nice" design on it. I say "nice because my arm is resting on the edge of a macbook and OUCH. Sharp plastic edge, who thought that was a good idea?
</p><p>Open up your brandname computer, and see what is inside that makes your X an X. Wanna bet it is almost entirely the casing, and even that is probably desinged by the same laptop company as its competitor.
</p><p>It ain't much different in the food sector, the cheap no-name brand comes from the same production line.
</p><p>About half a year ago I was shopping with a friend, who insisted on buying the "brandname" sugar because it was better... It is SUGAR even if it came from different factories, which it doesn't, the LAW dictates EXACTLY what sugar must be. There is no room for quality difference. If there was any, the quality control from the government would be all over them. The only difference is that for the cheap stuff, they use whatever granular size they got in surplus, but for thee and coffee that hardly matters. For some tasks, grain size matters, so what they do is they produce a certain granular size, fill the order they got and then anything left over is put in the cheap consumer bags. If you are making certain cookies (arnhemse meisjes) you need a large grain. Of course if you need that, just shake the cheap bag to see if you got lucky.
</p><p>Rebadging the same crap to charge more is nothing unusual. I am just amazed they had the balls to do it so blatantly, come on, they could at least have insisted on having a new batch of components made in a different color, and put them in indivudual boxes to hide the layout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you buy B&amp;O for quality but for the looks , they got very nice designs .
Frankly , I am not really all that upset about all this , but then I have been used to PC 's doing the same for ever .
Personally I always smiled when people wanted Compaq over Dell because it was a better brandname... guess it is , if you want a cheap IBM clone , go to the one who created the first .
Apple is really just an intel PC but with a " nice " design on it .
I say " nice because my arm is resting on the edge of a macbook and OUCH .
Sharp plastic edge , who thought that was a good idea ?
Open up your brandname computer , and see what is inside that makes your X an X. Wan na bet it is almost entirely the casing , and even that is probably desinged by the same laptop company as its competitor .
It ai n't much different in the food sector , the cheap no-name brand comes from the same production line .
About half a year ago I was shopping with a friend , who insisted on buying the " brandname " sugar because it was better... It is SUGAR even if it came from different factories , which it does n't , the LAW dictates EXACTLY what sugar must be .
There is no room for quality difference .
If there was any , the quality control from the government would be all over them .
The only difference is that for the cheap stuff , they use whatever granular size they got in surplus , but for thee and coffee that hardly matters .
For some tasks , grain size matters , so what they do is they produce a certain granular size , fill the order they got and then anything left over is put in the cheap consumer bags .
If you are making certain cookies ( arnhemse meisjes ) you need a large grain .
Of course if you need that , just shake the cheap bag to see if you got lucky .
Rebadging the same crap to charge more is nothing unusual .
I am just amazed they had the balls to do it so blatantly , come on , they could at least have insisted on having a new batch of components made in a different color , and put them in indivudual boxes to hide the layout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you buy B&amp;O for quality but for the looks, they got very nice designs.
Frankly, I am not really all that upset about all this, but then I have been used to PC's doing the same for ever.
Personally I always smiled when people wanted Compaq over Dell because it was a better brandname... guess it is, if you want a cheap IBM clone, go to the one who created the first.
Apple is really just an intel PC but with a "nice" design on it.
I say "nice because my arm is resting on the edge of a macbook and OUCH.
Sharp plastic edge, who thought that was a good idea?
Open up your brandname computer, and see what is inside that makes your X an X. Wanna bet it is almost entirely the casing, and even that is probably desinged by the same laptop company as its competitor.
It ain't much different in the food sector, the cheap no-name brand comes from the same production line.
About half a year ago I was shopping with a friend, who insisted on buying the "brandname" sugar because it was better... It is SUGAR even if it came from different factories, which it doesn't, the LAW dictates EXACTLY what sugar must be.
There is no room for quality difference.
If there was any, the quality control from the government would be all over them.
The only difference is that for the cheap stuff, they use whatever granular size they got in surplus, but for thee and coffee that hardly matters.
For some tasks, grain size matters, so what they do is they produce a certain granular size, fill the order they got and then anything left over is put in the cheap consumer bags.
If you are making certain cookies (arnhemse meisjes) you need a large grain.
Of course if you need that, just shake the cheap bag to see if you got lucky.
Rebadging the same crap to charge more is nothing unusual.
I am just amazed they had the balls to do it so blatantly, come on, they could at least have insisted on having a new batch of components made in a different color, and put them in indivudual boxes to hide the layout.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791422</id>
	<title>Re:Can there be a difference?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1263666540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, I appreciate the "better" one could be more responsive in the menu system, load faster etc.</p></div><p>Likewise, a player might support only the basic profile, Bonus View, or BD-Live.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But when it comes down to actually playing the movie, surely the player's just reading the data, decoding it according to a specified algorithm and spitting out the decoded version over HDMI?</p></div><p>Algorithms for processing the video to compensate for the fact that 24 fps doesn't evenly divide into 60 Hz are another.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , I appreciate the " better " one could be more responsive in the menu system , load faster etc.Likewise , a player might support only the basic profile , Bonus View , or BD-Live.But when it comes down to actually playing the movie , surely the player 's just reading the data , decoding it according to a specified algorithm and spitting out the decoded version over HDMI ? Algorithms for processing the video to compensate for the fact that 24 fps does n't evenly divide into 60 Hz are another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, I appreciate the "better" one could be more responsive in the menu system, load faster etc.Likewise, a player might support only the basic profile, Bonus View, or BD-Live.But when it comes down to actually playing the movie, surely the player's just reading the data, decoding it according to a specified algorithm and spitting out the decoded version over HDMI?Algorithms for processing the video to compensate for the fact that 24 fps doesn't evenly divide into 60 Hz are another.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789366</id>
	<title>How many more products like this are there?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1263645840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the sites linked to by this story, in turn linked to a glowing review of this Blu-Ray player by another site that <a href="http://hometheaterreview.com/lexicon-bd-30-universal-blu-ray-player-reviewed/" title="hometheaterreview.com">praised its superiority</a> [hometheaterreview.com] over the very Oppo unit it is "based" on.</p><p>With my interest piqued, I browsed a little more on this site, and found a <a href="http://hometheaterreview.com/anthem-ltx-500-lcos-projector-reviewed/" title="hometheaterreview.com">review for an HD projector that sounded weirdly similar</a> [hometheaterreview.com] in that it appears to be a JVC projector that has been repackaged and rebadged at a higher price, and got a similarly glowing review. Without any real technical scrutiny, of course. I wonder how many more products are out there of a similarly repackaged and fraudulent nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the sites linked to by this story , in turn linked to a glowing review of this Blu-Ray player by another site that praised its superiority [ hometheaterreview.com ] over the very Oppo unit it is " based " on.With my interest piqued , I browsed a little more on this site , and found a review for an HD projector that sounded weirdly similar [ hometheaterreview.com ] in that it appears to be a JVC projector that has been repackaged and rebadged at a higher price , and got a similarly glowing review .
Without any real technical scrutiny , of course .
I wonder how many more products are out there of a similarly repackaged and fraudulent nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the sites linked to by this story, in turn linked to a glowing review of this Blu-Ray player by another site that praised its superiority [hometheaterreview.com] over the very Oppo unit it is "based" on.With my interest piqued, I browsed a little more on this site, and found a review for an HD projector that sounded weirdly similar [hometheaterreview.com] in that it appears to be a JVC projector that has been repackaged and rebadged at a higher price, and got a similarly glowing review.
Without any real technical scrutiny, of course.
I wonder how many more products are out there of a similarly repackaged and fraudulent nature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30788868</id>
	<title>Audio/Videophiles Beware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263638820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Expensive isn't always better. Ever heard of <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/06/snake-oil-alert/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">Denon's $500 &lsquo;Audiophile&rsquo; Ethernet Cable</a> [wired.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Expensive is n't always better .
Ever heard of Denon 's $ 500    Audiophile    Ethernet Cable [ wired.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expensive isn't always better.
Ever heard of Denon's $500 ‘Audiophile’ Ethernet Cable [wired.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791136</id>
	<title>Re:Could never happen with computers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263664500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lexuses aren't just badge engineered, dude. There is no USDM Toyota-badged equivalent to any given Lexus. You cannot buy Lexuses at Toyota prices, because they are real luxury cars that don't even share any platforms with the likes of the Corolla.</p><p>Not gonna defend the Sebring, though. And I don't actually have any experience with Acuras and Hondas, because I'm British, and Honda doesn't feel the need to misrepresent any of their cars' origins over here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lexuses are n't just badge engineered , dude .
There is no USDM Toyota-badged equivalent to any given Lexus .
You can not buy Lexuses at Toyota prices , because they are real luxury cars that do n't even share any platforms with the likes of the Corolla.Not gon na defend the Sebring , though .
And I do n't actually have any experience with Acuras and Hondas , because I 'm British , and Honda does n't feel the need to misrepresent any of their cars ' origins over here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lexuses aren't just badge engineered, dude.
There is no USDM Toyota-badged equivalent to any given Lexus.
You cannot buy Lexuses at Toyota prices, because they are real luxury cars that don't even share any platforms with the likes of the Corolla.Not gonna defend the Sebring, though.
And I don't actually have any experience with Acuras and Hondas, because I'm British, and Honda doesn't feel the need to misrepresent any of their cars' origins over here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791858</id>
	<title>Re:THX?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263669480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find that THC products enhance my audio experience far more than THX ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find that THC products enhance my audio experience far more than THX ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find that THC products enhance my audio experience far more than THX ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789062</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30792882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30801214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30800372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30797168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30807440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30794836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30809482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30794892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30796162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0336210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30795526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0336210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0336210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30796162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0336210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30788868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0336210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0336210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0336210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0336210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0336210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30794836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30794892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30807440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0336210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30809482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30792882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30797168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0336210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30800372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0336210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30789334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0336210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30795526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30801214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30790820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0336210.30791308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
