<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_19_1338205</id>
	<title>Displayport V1.2 To Take Giant Leap Over HDMI</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263911580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"With HDMI becoming increasingly common, Displayport has been slow to emerge as a widely used connection interface, but a plethora of new features in the new v1.2 standard could see that change. As well as doubling the data rate of the existing v1.1a standard to 21.6 Gbps, the update <a href="http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/165045,displayport-v12-lands.aspx">allows for multiple monitors</a> to be connected to a single Displayport connector and adds support for transporting USB data at up to 720Mbps, enabling embedded webcams, speakers and USB hubs over a single cable. Ethernet data is also supported. The improved data rate will allow for richer, larger and higher resolution displays, and the new version is also backward compatible with the current display technology, so all the ports, cables and devices will be interchangeable, although they will revert to the lowest common denominator."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " With HDMI becoming increasingly common , Displayport has been slow to emerge as a widely used connection interface , but a plethora of new features in the new v1.2 standard could see that change .
As well as doubling the data rate of the existing v1.1a standard to 21.6 Gbps , the update allows for multiple monitors to be connected to a single Displayport connector and adds support for transporting USB data at up to 720Mbps , enabling embedded webcams , speakers and USB hubs over a single cable .
Ethernet data is also supported .
The improved data rate will allow for richer , larger and higher resolution displays , and the new version is also backward compatible with the current display technology , so all the ports , cables and devices will be interchangeable , although they will revert to the lowest common denominator .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "With HDMI becoming increasingly common, Displayport has been slow to emerge as a widely used connection interface, but a plethora of new features in the new v1.2 standard could see that change.
As well as doubling the data rate of the existing v1.1a standard to 21.6 Gbps, the update allows for multiple monitors to be connected to a single Displayport connector and adds support for transporting USB data at up to 720Mbps, enabling embedded webcams, speakers and USB hubs over a single cable.
Ethernet data is also supported.
The improved data rate will allow for richer, larger and higher resolution displays, and the new version is also backward compatible with the current display technology, so all the ports, cables and devices will be interchangeable, although they will revert to the lowest common denominator.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823294</id>
	<title>Re:Apple</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1263933180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>High definition audio formats (such as Dolby MAT, DTS HD, all BD formats,etc.)</i></p><p>What's Dolby MAT?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>High definition audio formats ( such as Dolby MAT , DTS HD , all BD formats,etc .
) What 's Dolby MAT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>High definition audio formats (such as Dolby MAT, DTS HD, all BD formats,etc.
)What's Dolby MAT?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30829396</id>
	<title>Bad USB standard</title>
	<author>LostMyBeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1263979800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>USB 3.0 is about to make it into mainstream this year and it has a 4.8Gbit per second speed. It seems to me that since USB 3.0 is now golden and read to go, then it should be supported as opposed to the measly 720Mbps provided by this spec.<br><br>Let's face it, display port is about video. It should be possible to transmit high definition video to the PC over the USB port. High definition video as defined by SMTPE requires 3.0Gbps, USB overhead will easily add an additional 25\% on top of that. So, USB 3.0 is a requirement for something interesting.<br><br>If it requires a different cable to do it, oh well, get it over with already. After all, you still have to special order display port cables most of the time anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>USB 3.0 is about to make it into mainstream this year and it has a 4.8Gbit per second speed .
It seems to me that since USB 3.0 is now golden and read to go , then it should be supported as opposed to the measly 720Mbps provided by this spec.Let 's face it , display port is about video .
It should be possible to transmit high definition video to the PC over the USB port .
High definition video as defined by SMTPE requires 3.0Gbps , USB overhead will easily add an additional 25 \ % on top of that .
So , USB 3.0 is a requirement for something interesting.If it requires a different cable to do it , oh well , get it over with already .
After all , you still have to special order display port cables most of the time anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>USB 3.0 is about to make it into mainstream this year and it has a 4.8Gbit per second speed.
It seems to me that since USB 3.0 is now golden and read to go, then it should be supported as opposed to the measly 720Mbps provided by this spec.Let's face it, display port is about video.
It should be possible to transmit high definition video to the PC over the USB port.
High definition video as defined by SMTPE requires 3.0Gbps, USB overhead will easily add an additional 25\% on top of that.
So, USB 3.0 is a requirement for something interesting.If it requires a different cable to do it, oh well, get it over with already.
After all, you still have to special order display port cables most of the time anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30824294</id>
	<title>Display Port vs HDMI</title>
	<author>AaronW</author>
	<datestamp>1263894540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to see DisplayPort become more popular. It has a number of distinct advantages over HDMI.</p><p>1. The connector is designed to latch into place so it's more robust. The latching method is a lot better.<br>2. Multiple display support.<br>3. It's AC coupled instead of DC coupled. This is useful in large installations (I've dealt with installations where DC coupling was quite challenging due to power issues).<br>4. Higher data rate.<br>5. No licensing fees.<br>6. It's micro packet based and can do things like update only specific regions on a display. It allows for more flexibility in what type of data is sent over it. For example, it shouldn't be difficult to add an alpha channel without breaking the existing spec.<br>7. Each channel is independent, not dedicated R, G or B like HDMI. Each channel has its own clock. As more bandwidth is needed, more channels can be added.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see DisplayPort become more popular .
It has a number of distinct advantages over HDMI.1 .
The connector is designed to latch into place so it 's more robust .
The latching method is a lot better.2 .
Multiple display support.3 .
It 's AC coupled instead of DC coupled .
This is useful in large installations ( I 've dealt with installations where DC coupling was quite challenging due to power issues ) .4 .
Higher data rate.5 .
No licensing fees.6 .
It 's micro packet based and can do things like update only specific regions on a display .
It allows for more flexibility in what type of data is sent over it .
For example , it should n't be difficult to add an alpha channel without breaking the existing spec.7 .
Each channel is independent , not dedicated R , G or B like HDMI .
Each channel has its own clock .
As more bandwidth is needed , more channels can be added .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see DisplayPort become more popular.
It has a number of distinct advantages over HDMI.1.
The connector is designed to latch into place so it's more robust.
The latching method is a lot better.2.
Multiple display support.3.
It's AC coupled instead of DC coupled.
This is useful in large installations (I've dealt with installations where DC coupling was quite challenging due to power issues).4.
Higher data rate.5.
No licensing fees.6.
It's micro packet based and can do things like update only specific regions on a display.
It allows for more flexibility in what type of data is sent over it.
For example, it shouldn't be difficult to add an alpha channel without breaking the existing spec.7.
Each channel is independent, not dedicated R, G or B like HDMI.
Each channel has its own clock.
As more bandwidth is needed, more channels can be added.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30824352</id>
	<title>Re:Cable wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263894840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would a display cable obsolete USB? Because the cable carries USB data? That's just a feature to facilitate monitors with built-in USB hubs, which improve access to USB ports (if your computer is under your desk or somewhere else inaccessible). That wouldn't obsolete USB, it would improve its prevalence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would a display cable obsolete USB ?
Because the cable carries USB data ?
That 's just a feature to facilitate monitors with built-in USB hubs , which improve access to USB ports ( if your computer is under your desk or somewhere else inaccessible ) .
That would n't obsolete USB , it would improve its prevalence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would a display cable obsolete USB?
Because the cable carries USB data?
That's just a feature to facilitate monitors with built-in USB hubs, which improve access to USB ports (if your computer is under your desk or somewhere else inaccessible).
That wouldn't obsolete USB, it would improve its prevalence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821222</id>
	<title>Knob and Tube</title>
	<author>jhmaughan</author>
	<datestamp>1263925320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ironically, he's just about right:

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob\_and\_tube\_wiring" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob\_and\_tube\_wiring</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , he 's just about right : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob \ _and \ _tube \ _wiring [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, he's just about right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knob\_and\_tube\_wiring [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819094</id>
	<title>Argh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263916080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>All my cables are obsolete again!</htmltext>
<tokenext>All my cables are obsolete again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All my cables are obsolete again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819916</id>
	<title>Re:Doubt it</title>
	<author>FictionPimp</author>
	<datestamp>1263919860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firewire didn't gain traction because of licensing fees. As far as I know (at least for mini-displayport) there is no fee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firewire did n't gain traction because of licensing fees .
As far as I know ( at least for mini-displayport ) there is no fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firewire didn't gain traction because of licensing fees.
As far as I know (at least for mini-displayport) there is no fee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070</id>
	<title>Doubt it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263915960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>DisplayPort seems like one of those technologies that have great mind share, as well as some advantages over the competing technology, but will never gain mainstream adoption (See: Firewire).</htmltext>
<tokenext>DisplayPort seems like one of those technologies that have great mind share , as well as some advantages over the competing technology , but will never gain mainstream adoption ( See : Firewire ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DisplayPort seems like one of those technologies that have great mind share, as well as some advantages over the competing technology, but will never gain mainstream adoption (See: Firewire).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819884</id>
	<title>Re:Migration path?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1263919740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c\_id=104&amp;cp\_id=10428&amp;cs\_id=1042802&amp;p\_id=5106&amp;seq=1&amp;format=1#largeimage" title="monoprice.com">8.55$USD is expensive</a> [monoprice.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>8.55 $ USD is expensive [ monoprice.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8.55$USD is expensive [monoprice.com]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821894</id>
	<title>Re:Migration path?</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1263928320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So the migration path from DVI to DisplayPort is for graphics cards to be able to produce both kinds of signal and for monitors to be able to accept both kind. </i></p><p>I have an HDMI monitor on my desk here, but I'm not terribly wed to it.  If I replaced my monitor and the new one was DisplayPort I'd get a graphics card that supported it.  Oh, wait, I think my mobo already has one, but either way.</p><p>The point being that computer gear turns over pretty quickly.  HDMI was defined for televisions which are not a moving target.  HDTV will be fixed for decades, probably - the bandwidth doesn't need to get better (though for 3D and the like it will - what will they use?).</p><p>On the other hand, the computer industry will rapidly eclipse TV once OLED and its ilk are really ready to roll (on large displays), so we're going to need something that can handle it.  Both DisplayPort and LightPeak are interesting and similar in concept - I hope the standards merge to form LightPort (aka DisplayPort v3).  Then we'll have a real peripherals bus again, something I've been occasionally fortunate to use (C=64, LocalTalk, Firewire).</p><p>I hate to say "fast enough", but if you can handle dozens of streams of quad-rez/quad-rate HD/3D, that's pretty darn useful for a while.  Compared to sticking with HDMI because it's common<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, the PanelLink technology is about 15 years old now and we're on the verge of it becoming incapable of satisfying market needs.  I went through five separate display technologies in the 80's alone, so that's not a bad run!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the migration path from DVI to DisplayPort is for graphics cards to be able to produce both kinds of signal and for monitors to be able to accept both kind .
I have an HDMI monitor on my desk here , but I 'm not terribly wed to it .
If I replaced my monitor and the new one was DisplayPort I 'd get a graphics card that supported it .
Oh , wait , I think my mobo already has one , but either way.The point being that computer gear turns over pretty quickly .
HDMI was defined for televisions which are not a moving target .
HDTV will be fixed for decades , probably - the bandwidth does n't need to get better ( though for 3D and the like it will - what will they use ?
) .On the other hand , the computer industry will rapidly eclipse TV once OLED and its ilk are really ready to roll ( on large displays ) , so we 're going to need something that can handle it .
Both DisplayPort and LightPeak are interesting and similar in concept - I hope the standards merge to form LightPort ( aka DisplayPort v3 ) .
Then we 'll have a real peripherals bus again , something I 've been occasionally fortunate to use ( C = 64 , LocalTalk , Firewire ) .I hate to say " fast enough " , but if you can handle dozens of streams of quad-rez/quad-rate HD/3D , that 's pretty darn useful for a while .
Compared to sticking with HDMI because it 's common ... well , the PanelLink technology is about 15 years old now and we 're on the verge of it becoming incapable of satisfying market needs .
I went through five separate display technologies in the 80 's alone , so that 's not a bad run !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the migration path from DVI to DisplayPort is for graphics cards to be able to produce both kinds of signal and for monitors to be able to accept both kind.
I have an HDMI monitor on my desk here, but I'm not terribly wed to it.
If I replaced my monitor and the new one was DisplayPort I'd get a graphics card that supported it.
Oh, wait, I think my mobo already has one, but either way.The point being that computer gear turns over pretty quickly.
HDMI was defined for televisions which are not a moving target.
HDTV will be fixed for decades, probably - the bandwidth doesn't need to get better (though for 3D and the like it will - what will they use?
).On the other hand, the computer industry will rapidly eclipse TV once OLED and its ilk are really ready to roll (on large displays), so we're going to need something that can handle it.
Both DisplayPort and LightPeak are interesting and similar in concept - I hope the standards merge to form LightPort (aka DisplayPort v3).
Then we'll have a real peripherals bus again, something I've been occasionally fortunate to use (C=64, LocalTalk, Firewire).I hate to say "fast enough", but if you can handle dozens of streams of quad-rez/quad-rate HD/3D, that's pretty darn useful for a while.
Compared to sticking with HDMI because it's common ... well, the PanelLink technology is about 15 years old now and we're on the verge of it becoming incapable of satisfying market needs.
I went through five separate display technologies in the 80's alone, so that's not a bad run!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821638</id>
	<title>Lossy compression for display cabling?</title>
	<author>Vegan Pagan</author>
	<datestamp>1263927180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recently, when I went electronics shopping, I noticed that all the TVs on display were hooked up by coax, and that HDMI cables are annoyingly expensive.  Could lossy compression be a way to deliver higher quality video over lower cost cables?  After all, compression processors obey Moore's Law, cables don't.  If video cabling used, say, H.264, or maybe JPEG2000 to preserve a higher quality colorspace, we could perhaps get away with using cheap USB cables for video connections.  Viable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently , when I went electronics shopping , I noticed that all the TVs on display were hooked up by coax , and that HDMI cables are annoyingly expensive .
Could lossy compression be a way to deliver higher quality video over lower cost cables ?
After all , compression processors obey Moore 's Law , cables do n't .
If video cabling used , say , H.264 , or maybe JPEG2000 to preserve a higher quality colorspace , we could perhaps get away with using cheap USB cables for video connections .
Viable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently, when I went electronics shopping, I noticed that all the TVs on display were hooked up by coax, and that HDMI cables are annoyingly expensive.
Could lossy compression be a way to deliver higher quality video over lower cost cables?
After all, compression processors obey Moore's Law, cables don't.
If video cabling used, say, H.264, or maybe JPEG2000 to preserve a higher quality colorspace, we could perhaps get away with using cheap USB cables for video connections.
Viable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819106</id>
	<title>Chicken and Egg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263916140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's very nice technically.  And it'll be useful in specialized scenarios.  But it's not going to touch HDMI in terms of installbase.  HDMI is the de facto standard and everything already supports it.  My cable box, Xbox 360, TV, laptop, desktop and dual monitors are all HDMI.  I don't need to go introducing another standard into that to have wires desktop-monitor-monitor instead of desktop-monitor for both (same number of wires, just different configuration) or to save having a wire to the USB hub in my monitor (which my monitors don't have because I'd never use it anyway).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very nice technically .
And it 'll be useful in specialized scenarios .
But it 's not going to touch HDMI in terms of installbase .
HDMI is the de facto standard and everything already supports it .
My cable box , Xbox 360 , TV , laptop , desktop and dual monitors are all HDMI .
I do n't need to go introducing another standard into that to have wires desktop-monitor-monitor instead of desktop-monitor for both ( same number of wires , just different configuration ) or to save having a wire to the USB hub in my monitor ( which my monitors do n't have because I 'd never use it anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very nice technically.
And it'll be useful in specialized scenarios.
But it's not going to touch HDMI in terms of installbase.
HDMI is the de facto standard and everything already supports it.
My cable box, Xbox 360, TV, laptop, desktop and dual monitors are all HDMI.
I don't need to go introducing another standard into that to have wires desktop-monitor-monitor instead of desktop-monitor for both (same number of wires, just different configuration) or to save having a wire to the USB hub in my monitor (which my monitors don't have because I'd never use it anyway).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821816</id>
	<title>Re:Doubt it</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263928020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That&rsquo;s because you have no idea what you are talking about.<br>DisplayPort will be a success for the very simple reason, that you need no license, to integrate it. For HDMI you do.<br>Which means less costs, even if you built in the stupid DRM codec chips. (That you don&rsquo;t need anyway if you do not plan on watching the physical old-media media, but load stuff from the net. Which means in China and the whole &ldquo;2nd/3rd world&rdquo;, nobody will care.)</p><p>Cheaper, less trouble, no disadvantages, more features. It would simply be a bad business decision, not to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s because you have no idea what you are talking about.DisplayPort will be a success for the very simple reason , that you need no license , to integrate it .
For HDMI you do.Which means less costs , even if you built in the stupid DRM codec chips .
( That you don    t need anyway if you do not plan on watching the physical old-media media , but load stuff from the net .
Which means in China and the whole    2nd/3rd world    , nobody will care .
) Cheaper , less trouble , no disadvantages , more features .
It would simply be a bad business decision , not to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s because you have no idea what you are talking about.DisplayPort will be a success for the very simple reason, that you need no license, to integrate it.
For HDMI you do.Which means less costs, even if you built in the stupid DRM codec chips.
(That you don’t need anyway if you do not plan on watching the physical old-media media, but load stuff from the net.
Which means in China and the whole “2nd/3rd world”, nobody will care.
)Cheaper, less trouble, no disadvantages, more features.
It would simply be a bad business decision, not to use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30830770</id>
	<title>Re:So, they've created a docking station cable?</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1263996540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right. Apple displays have been docking stations for a long time offering multiple USB, FireWire and audio outputs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
Apple displays have been docking stations for a long time offering multiple USB , FireWire and audio outputs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
Apple displays have been docking stations for a long time offering multiple USB, FireWire and audio outputs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819618</id>
	<title>New notebook required for large screens?</title>
	<author>gdp007</author>
	<datestamp>1263918600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those of us with DisplayPort notebooks... Does this require a hardware upgrade or is it a protocol/software-only upgrade?</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of us with DisplayPort notebooks... Does this require a hardware upgrade or is it a protocol/software-only upgrade ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of us with DisplayPort notebooks... Does this require a hardware upgrade or is it a protocol/software-only upgrade?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819326</id>
	<title>Re:Nice try!</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1263917280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure the newer graphics cards already do audio over HDMI.  It's not that far fetched.<br> <br>

I'd rather not have everything be dependent on the GPU though.  On the other hand, Nvidia would like nothing more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure the newer graphics cards already do audio over HDMI .
It 's not that far fetched .
I 'd rather not have everything be dependent on the GPU though .
On the other hand , Nvidia would like nothing more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure the newer graphics cards already do audio over HDMI.
It's not that far fetched.
I'd rather not have everything be dependent on the GPU though.
On the other hand, Nvidia would like nothing more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819236</id>
	<title>HDMI is not fine though</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1263916800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the big ones, a reason that Display Port was developed to begin with, is HDMI needs additional chips/control circuits on the transmitting and receiving end to deal with encoding and decoding. Display Port is directly compatible with the display panels themselves and as such needs less hardware. It can be used internally in a laptop as the bus to the integrated display, and as output to another display. All in all it equals the ability to make smaller and slimmer displays because there's less in them.</p><p>Another somewhat related is Display Port doesn't cost any royalties. HDMI does. Added together it can lead to reduced costs. Less stuff in the display and less licensing fees equals less cost.</p><p>The bandwidth thing is a potential issue too. Even HDMI 1.4 doesn't have near as high a bandwidth (1.4 is actually the same bandwidth as 1.3). Now it doesn't matter a whole lot at the moment, but could in a few years. If we see more high refresh displays, which are useful for 3D and also look nicer, as well as higher resolutions we are going to hit in to bandwidth limits. Would be good to have a connector that is going to scale up to those.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the big ones , a reason that Display Port was developed to begin with , is HDMI needs additional chips/control circuits on the transmitting and receiving end to deal with encoding and decoding .
Display Port is directly compatible with the display panels themselves and as such needs less hardware .
It can be used internally in a laptop as the bus to the integrated display , and as output to another display .
All in all it equals the ability to make smaller and slimmer displays because there 's less in them.Another somewhat related is Display Port does n't cost any royalties .
HDMI does .
Added together it can lead to reduced costs .
Less stuff in the display and less licensing fees equals less cost.The bandwidth thing is a potential issue too .
Even HDMI 1.4 does n't have near as high a bandwidth ( 1.4 is actually the same bandwidth as 1.3 ) .
Now it does n't matter a whole lot at the moment , but could in a few years .
If we see more high refresh displays , which are useful for 3D and also look nicer , as well as higher resolutions we are going to hit in to bandwidth limits .
Would be good to have a connector that is going to scale up to those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the big ones, a reason that Display Port was developed to begin with, is HDMI needs additional chips/control circuits on the transmitting and receiving end to deal with encoding and decoding.
Display Port is directly compatible with the display panels themselves and as such needs less hardware.
It can be used internally in a laptop as the bus to the integrated display, and as output to another display.
All in all it equals the ability to make smaller and slimmer displays because there's less in them.Another somewhat related is Display Port doesn't cost any royalties.
HDMI does.
Added together it can lead to reduced costs.
Less stuff in the display and less licensing fees equals less cost.The bandwidth thing is a potential issue too.
Even HDMI 1.4 doesn't have near as high a bandwidth (1.4 is actually the same bandwidth as 1.3).
Now it doesn't matter a whole lot at the moment, but could in a few years.
If we see more high refresh displays, which are useful for 3D and also look nicer, as well as higher resolutions we are going to hit in to bandwidth limits.
Would be good to have a connector that is going to scale up to those.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30825842</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Samah</author>
	<datestamp>1263901500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Luxury!  We used to dream of coat hangers!<br>
In my day we had to use hand-me-down shoelaces that had been wrapped in whatever old tinfoil we could find in other people's trash!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Luxury !
We used to dream of coat hangers !
In my day we had to use hand-me-down shoelaces that had been wrapped in whatever old tinfoil we could find in other people 's trash !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luxury!
We used to dream of coat hangers!
In my day we had to use hand-me-down shoelaces that had been wrapped in whatever old tinfoil we could find in other people's trash!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819124</id>
	<title>Figures</title>
	<author>COMON$</author>
	<datestamp>1263916260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our TVs were becoming too consistent,  we were due for a major change.  One thing you can guarantee with TV tech is they will make sure that it is obsolete the next year.  It is just good business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our TVs were becoming too consistent , we were due for a major change .
One thing you can guarantee with TV tech is they will make sure that it is obsolete the next year .
It is just good business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our TVs were becoming too consistent,  we were due for a major change.
One thing you can guarantee with TV tech is they will make sure that it is obsolete the next year.
It is just good business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820276</id>
	<title>Money</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1263921240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fiber is a real possibility, but then all the companies would not have future upgrade paths. And that is important.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fiber is a real possibility , but then all the companies would not have future upgrade paths .
And that is important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fiber is a real possibility, but then all the companies would not have future upgrade paths.
And that is important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819358</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263917400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm all for having everything cabled via point to point transmitters. single cable sharing won't work because you can usually have only two options picked from high bandwidth, low latency, cheap. and even this way you'll have the problem of powering up devices.<br><br>a natural choice would be ethernet over power line, so every device will use one cable at most. you still have to buy costly power switch to handle a complete entertainment system (audio, tv, game console and video recorder) so that you have only one cable running to that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for having everything cabled via point to point transmitters .
single cable sharing wo n't work because you can usually have only two options picked from high bandwidth , low latency , cheap .
and even this way you 'll have the problem of powering up devices.a natural choice would be ethernet over power line , so every device will use one cable at most .
you still have to buy costly power switch to handle a complete entertainment system ( audio , tv , game console and video recorder ) so that you have only one cable running to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for having everything cabled via point to point transmitters.
single cable sharing won't work because you can usually have only two options picked from high bandwidth, low latency, cheap.
and even this way you'll have the problem of powering up devices.a natural choice would be ethernet over power line, so every device will use one cable at most.
you still have to buy costly power switch to handle a complete entertainment system (audio, tv, game console and video recorder) so that you have only one cable running to that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30826122</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263902940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fewer cables Dammit. Fewer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fewer cables Dammit .
Fewer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fewer cables Dammit.
Fewer!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820452</id>
	<title>Re:Doubt it</title>
	<author>danomac</author>
	<datestamp>1263922080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>DisplayPort seems like one of those technologies that have great mind share, as well as some advantages over the competing technology, but will never gain mainstream adoption (See: Firewire).</p></div></blockquote><p>

Firewire is not really an apples-to-apples comparison. Not only did firewire have a $0.25/device royalty, it also required hardware to implement it, costing a couple dollars per device. Those requirements aren't around for firewire now, but that had a large part in its lack of mainstream adoption.<br> <br>

DisplayPort is royalty-free and as such does not have this problem. Only time will tell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DisplayPort seems like one of those technologies that have great mind share , as well as some advantages over the competing technology , but will never gain mainstream adoption ( See : Firewire ) .
Firewire is not really an apples-to-apples comparison .
Not only did firewire have a $ 0.25/device royalty , it also required hardware to implement it , costing a couple dollars per device .
Those requirements are n't around for firewire now , but that had a large part in its lack of mainstream adoption .
DisplayPort is royalty-free and as such does not have this problem .
Only time will tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DisplayPort seems like one of those technologies that have great mind share, as well as some advantages over the competing technology, but will never gain mainstream adoption (See: Firewire).
Firewire is not really an apples-to-apples comparison.
Not only did firewire have a $0.25/device royalty, it also required hardware to implement it, costing a couple dollars per device.
Those requirements aren't around for firewire now, but that had a large part in its lack of mainstream adoption.
DisplayPort is royalty-free and as such does not have this problem.
Only time will tell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821672</id>
	<title>Price matters</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1263927300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, I don't care what the max bandwidth is or what the standard is for that matter. Price defines what hardware &amp; cables I buy. If the combination of the hardware and cables is too much, the I regress to older tech. Yes, it would be nice to have one cable running to more than one monitor or an encrypted WiFi signal, but I'm not going to spend an arm &amp; a leg for the tech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I do n't care what the max bandwidth is or what the standard is for that matter .
Price defines what hardware &amp; cables I buy .
If the combination of the hardware and cables is too much , the I regress to older tech .
Yes , it would be nice to have one cable running to more than one monitor or an encrypted WiFi signal , but I 'm not going to spend an arm &amp; a leg for the tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I don't care what the max bandwidth is or what the standard is for that matter.
Price defines what hardware &amp; cables I buy.
If the combination of the hardware and cables is too much, the I regress to older tech.
Yes, it would be nice to have one cable running to more than one monitor or an encrypted WiFi signal, but I'm not going to spend an arm &amp; a leg for the tech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819994</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question but...</title>
	<author>StreetStealth</author>
	<datestamp>1263920220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a display. And it's a port.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a display .
And it 's a port .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a display.
And it's a port.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823366</id>
	<title>Re:Cable wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263933540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Monster's revenues are aren't increasing quickly enough because it has already saturated the market with expensive cables so it needed to develop a new cable standard to meet future revenue projections. Manufacturers in other segments of the industry are excited about the new cable standard because it means existing hardware is now obsolete so consumers will be forced to upgrade to compatible hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Monster 's revenues are are n't increasing quickly enough because it has already saturated the market with expensive cables so it needed to develop a new cable standard to meet future revenue projections .
Manufacturers in other segments of the industry are excited about the new cable standard because it means existing hardware is now obsolete so consumers will be forced to upgrade to compatible hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monster's revenues are aren't increasing quickly enough because it has already saturated the market with expensive cables so it needed to develop a new cable standard to meet future revenue projections.
Manufacturers in other segments of the industry are excited about the new cable standard because it means existing hardware is now obsolete so consumers will be forced to upgrade to compatible hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30829086</id>
	<title>Re:Doubt it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264018560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My work computer's graphics card (a NVIDIA Quadro) only has displayport on the back of it. It is a Windows machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My work computer 's graphics card ( a NVIDIA Quadro ) only has displayport on the back of it .
It is a Windows machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My work computer's graphics card (a NVIDIA Quadro) only has displayport on the back of it.
It is a Windows machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819058</id>
	<title>Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263915840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate Apple as much as the next guy, but not mentioning them at all in the summary is a bit... crude. Also, here's a list of all the new stuff (taken from <a href="http://www.hardmac.com/news/2010/01/11/displayport-1-2-validated" title="hardmac.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.hardmac.com/news/2010/01/11/displayport-1-2-validated</a> [hardmac.com]).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Doubling bandwidth mostly to support 3D: 21.6 Gbits/s.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Connect even more monitors from a single DisplayPort. Dedicated hubs should soon be available.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * As for the HDMI, transport USB data between a computer and a display, supporting Display USB functions such as a webcam and USB hub.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Connect to display with 3840 x 2400 resolution at 60Hz, or a 3D display (120Hz) at 2560 x 1600.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Audio Copy Protection and category codes<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * High definition audio formats (such as Dolby MAT, DTS HD, all BD formats,etc.)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Synchronization assist between audio and video, multiple audio channels, and multiple audio sink devices using Global Time Code (GTC)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate Apple as much as the next guy , but not mentioning them at all in the summary is a bit... crude. Also , here 's a list of all the new stuff ( taken from http : //www.hardmac.com/news/2010/01/11/displayport-1-2-validated [ hardmac.com ] ) .
        * Doubling bandwidth mostly to support 3D : 21.6 Gbits/s .
        * Connect even more monitors from a single DisplayPort .
Dedicated hubs should soon be available .
        * As for the HDMI , transport USB data between a computer and a display , supporting Display USB functions such as a webcam and USB hub .
        * Connect to display with 3840 x 2400 resolution at 60Hz , or a 3D display ( 120Hz ) at 2560 x 1600 .
        * Audio Copy Protection and category codes         * High definition audio formats ( such as Dolby MAT , DTS HD , all BD formats,etc .
)         * Synchronization assist between audio and video , multiple audio channels , and multiple audio sink devices using Global Time Code ( GTC )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate Apple as much as the next guy, but not mentioning them at all in the summary is a bit... crude. Also, here's a list of all the new stuff (taken from http://www.hardmac.com/news/2010/01/11/displayport-1-2-validated [hardmac.com]).
        * Doubling bandwidth mostly to support 3D: 21.6 Gbits/s.
        * Connect even more monitors from a single DisplayPort.
Dedicated hubs should soon be available.
        * As for the HDMI, transport USB data between a computer and a display, supporting Display USB functions such as a webcam and USB hub.
        * Connect to display with 3840 x 2400 resolution at 60Hz, or a 3D display (120Hz) at 2560 x 1600.
        * Audio Copy Protection and category codes
        * High definition audio formats (such as Dolby MAT, DTS HD, all BD formats,etc.
)
        * Synchronization assist between audio and video, multiple audio channels, and multiple audio sink devices using Global Time Code (GTC)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819156</id>
	<title>Nice try!</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1263916380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I doubt if it will gain traction....depends on if laptop/netbook maker.</p><p>I bet we would hardly see that in Desktop - because if it includes Video, Ethernet, USB, Sound so and so in a single cable, it must come from a single piece of hardware. Display card alone can only produce Video.  So only integrated Motherboard could squeeze all these in a single port, and it's unlikely to see ATI/Nvida to include USB, Ethernet and such on their standalone PCI-E display cards.</p><p>The multi-monitor over a single cable is a something I am looking forward to though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I doubt if it will gain traction....depends on if laptop/netbook maker.I bet we would hardly see that in Desktop - because if it includes Video , Ethernet , USB , Sound so and so in a single cable , it must come from a single piece of hardware .
Display card alone can only produce Video .
So only integrated Motherboard could squeeze all these in a single port , and it 's unlikely to see ATI/Nvida to include USB , Ethernet and such on their standalone PCI-E display cards.The multi-monitor over a single cable is a something I am looking forward to though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I doubt if it will gain traction....depends on if laptop/netbook maker.I bet we would hardly see that in Desktop - because if it includes Video, Ethernet, USB, Sound so and so in a single cable, it must come from a single piece of hardware.
Display card alone can only produce Video.
So only integrated Motherboard could squeeze all these in a single port, and it's unlikely to see ATI/Nvida to include USB, Ethernet and such on their standalone PCI-E display cards.The multi-monitor over a single cable is a something I am looking forward to though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823356</id>
	<title>Slashdot poll indicating 95\% or so are coders.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263933540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is it about computer science?  An article on encryption will have dozens of thoughtful answers.  Anything doing with electrical engineering will have lots of jokes and people assuming the world is all like the programs they write.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it about computer science ?
An article on encryption will have dozens of thoughtful answers .
Anything doing with electrical engineering will have lots of jokes and people assuming the world is all like the programs they write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it about computer science?
An article on encryption will have dozens of thoughtful answers.
Anything doing with electrical engineering will have lots of jokes and people assuming the world is all like the programs they write.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819478</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI is not fine though</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will you be able to connect DisplayPort to a 1080i/p TV and get full screen resolution because there is no HDCP?</p><p>If there is no HDCP for DisplayPort, will Windows Media player and others provide full HD output on a 1920x1200 screen?</p><p>Or will it scale back because the device is not authenticated?</p><p>If there is no HDCP, can you play BluRay movies over DisplayPort connected screens?</p><p>With HDMI in my laptop, I can connect it to any HDTV or any AVR that takes HDMI input.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will you be able to connect DisplayPort to a 1080i/p TV and get full screen resolution because there is no HDCP ? If there is no HDCP for DisplayPort , will Windows Media player and others provide full HD output on a 1920x1200 screen ? Or will it scale back because the device is not authenticated ? If there is no HDCP , can you play BluRay movies over DisplayPort connected screens ? With HDMI in my laptop , I can connect it to any HDTV or any AVR that takes HDMI input .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will you be able to connect DisplayPort to a 1080i/p TV and get full screen resolution because there is no HDCP?If there is no HDCP for DisplayPort, will Windows Media player and others provide full HD output on a 1920x1200 screen?Or will it scale back because the device is not authenticated?If there is no HDCP, can you play BluRay movies over DisplayPort connected screens?With HDMI in my laptop, I can connect it to any HDTV or any AVR that takes HDMI input.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819750</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>bkr1\_2k</author>
	<datestamp>1263919200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that one cable to rule them all requires a ridiculously expensive cable to replace when your ferret/gerbil/guinea pig/mouse/small child decides it tastes good.  It also makes a very fat cable that is generally harder to bury somewhere so that it isn't visible.  It also requires you replace an entire computer/monitor/whatever if a single connector goes bad, rather than pieces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that one cable to rule them all requires a ridiculously expensive cable to replace when your ferret/gerbil/guinea pig/mouse/small child decides it tastes good .
It also makes a very fat cable that is generally harder to bury somewhere so that it is n't visible .
It also requires you replace an entire computer/monitor/whatever if a single connector goes bad , rather than pieces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that one cable to rule them all requires a ridiculously expensive cable to replace when your ferret/gerbil/guinea pig/mouse/small child decides it tastes good.
It also makes a very fat cable that is generally harder to bury somewhere so that it isn't visible.
It also requires you replace an entire computer/monitor/whatever if a single connector goes bad, rather than pieces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30822334</id>
	<title>Re:Apple</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263929760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hate Apple as much as the next guy,</p></div><p>Nice trick to get us to swallow your following fanboyism!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate Apple as much as the next guy,Nice trick to get us to swallow your following fanboyism !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate Apple as much as the next guy,Nice trick to get us to swallow your following fanboyism!
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819010</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263915660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>um, hdmi is not fine.</p><p>hdmi doesnt have the bandwith, flexibility, or raw power computer users are going to need, and may need now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>um , hdmi is not fine.hdmi doesnt have the bandwith , flexibility , or raw power computer users are going to need , and may need now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um, hdmi is not fine.hdmi doesnt have the bandwith, flexibility, or raw power computer users are going to need, and may need now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819764</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263919320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The word is "fewer". You have less sand, or less water. You have fewer cables or fewer computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The word is " fewer " .
You have less sand , or less water .
You have fewer cables or fewer computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word is "fewer".
You have less sand, or less water.
You have fewer cables or fewer computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820460</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1263922140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;OTOH Less cables is good as well.</p><p>should be "OTOH, fewer cables is also good."</p><p>
&nbsp; It's "less" where you measure by volume, and "fewer" where you measure by quantity; if you can count 'em, it's "fewer".</p><p>[-1 grammar pedant.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; OTOH Less cables is good as well.should be " OTOH , fewer cables is also good .
"   It 's " less " where you measure by volume , and " fewer " where you measure by quantity ; if you can count 'em , it 's " fewer " .
[ -1 grammar pedant .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;OTOH Less cables is good as well.should be "OTOH, fewer cables is also good.
"
  It's "less" where you measure by volume, and "fewer" where you measure by quantity; if you can count 'em, it's "fewer".
[-1 grammar pedant.
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819090</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263916080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my day, all we had was plastic coated twisted-pair coat-hanger wire for all purposes, and it was good enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my day , all we had was plastic coated twisted-pair coat-hanger wire for all purposes , and it was good enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my day, all we had was plastic coated twisted-pair coat-hanger wire for all purposes, and it was good enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820782</id>
	<title>Re:Doubt it</title>
	<author>A Friendly Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1263923580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>DisplayPort seems like one of those technologies that have great mind share, as well as some advantages over the competing technology, but will never gain mainstream adoption (See: Firewire).</p></div><p>It's on the way.</p><p>Practically every new graphics card has DisplayPort output, and practically every new monitor has DisplayPort input. Give it a couple of years, and you'll be using DisplayPort, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DisplayPort seems like one of those technologies that have great mind share , as well as some advantages over the competing technology , but will never gain mainstream adoption ( See : Firewire ) .It 's on the way.Practically every new graphics card has DisplayPort output , and practically every new monitor has DisplayPort input .
Give it a couple of years , and you 'll be using DisplayPort , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DisplayPort seems like one of those technologies that have great mind share, as well as some advantages over the competing technology, but will never gain mainstream adoption (See: Firewire).It's on the way.Practically every new graphics card has DisplayPort output, and practically every new monitor has DisplayPort input.
Give it a couple of years, and you'll be using DisplayPort, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819600</id>
	<title>onetorulethemall</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1263918480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who looked at the "onetorulethemall" tag and couldn't decide whether it was a Tolkien reference, or a reference to the fact that I would have to buy something (go to the Mall) for this new port?</p><p>Not that it matters, I only have one device in my house with an HDMI connector.  It's the new computer I just built.  But my 24 inch monitor uses the VGA port, so the HDMI is covered up with the little plastic dustcover to keep it from getting dirty, just in case I ever decide to use it.  Same with the digital video plug.  The analog port easily supports 1080p output, and every frame looks like a work of art.  Why would I want to spend more?  I have audio out, and I have Ethernet.  Just on separate cables, which works just fine for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who looked at the " onetorulethemall " tag and could n't decide whether it was a Tolkien reference , or a reference to the fact that I would have to buy something ( go to the Mall ) for this new port ? Not that it matters , I only have one device in my house with an HDMI connector .
It 's the new computer I just built .
But my 24 inch monitor uses the VGA port , so the HDMI is covered up with the little plastic dustcover to keep it from getting dirty , just in case I ever decide to use it .
Same with the digital video plug .
The analog port easily supports 1080p output , and every frame looks like a work of art .
Why would I want to spend more ?
I have audio out , and I have Ethernet .
Just on separate cables , which works just fine for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who looked at the "onetorulethemall" tag and couldn't decide whether it was a Tolkien reference, or a reference to the fact that I would have to buy something (go to the Mall) for this new port?Not that it matters, I only have one device in my house with an HDMI connector.
It's the new computer I just built.
But my 24 inch monitor uses the VGA port, so the HDMI is covered up with the little plastic dustcover to keep it from getting dirty, just in case I ever decide to use it.
Same with the digital video plug.
The analog port easily supports 1080p output, and every frame looks like a work of art.
Why would I want to spend more?
I have audio out, and I have Ethernet.
Just on separate cables, which works just fine for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820134</id>
	<title>Both of them...</title>
	<author>Qubit</author>
	<datestamp>1263920760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are still <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#DRM\_protection" title="wikipedia.org">DRMed out</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdmi#HDCP" title="wikipedia.org">the wazzoo</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Computers are supposed to make life easier. Leave it to the soul-suckers to design computers that actively fight against their owners.</p><p>Whatever you do, please don't let these people team up with the military divisions of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irobot" title="wikipedia.org">iRobot</a> [wikipedia.org] or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster-Miller" title="wikipedia.org">Foster-Miller</a> [wikipedia.org]. The end result of <em>robots + guns + don't trust owners</em> could be deleterious to our health.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are still DRMed out [ wikipedia.org ] the wazzoo [ wikipedia.org ] .Computers are supposed to make life easier .
Leave it to the soul-suckers to design computers that actively fight against their owners.Whatever you do , please do n't let these people team up with the military divisions of iRobot [ wikipedia.org ] or Foster-Miller [ wikipedia.org ] .
The end result of robots + guns + do n't trust owners could be deleterious to our health .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are still DRMed out [wikipedia.org] the wazzoo [wikipedia.org].Computers are supposed to make life easier.
Leave it to the soul-suckers to design computers that actively fight against their owners.Whatever you do, please don't let these people team up with the military divisions of iRobot [wikipedia.org] or Foster-Miller [wikipedia.org].
The end result of robots + guns + don't trust owners could be deleterious to our health.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819188</id>
	<title>USB switch?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263916560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really hope that we'll finally get monitors that switch both the video and the USB at the same time, serving has a keyboard / mouse / video / speaker switch in one go. I hate that I need to have multiple keyboards and mice at work for all the computers around my desk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really hope that we 'll finally get monitors that switch both the video and the USB at the same time , serving has a keyboard / mouse / video / speaker switch in one go .
I hate that I need to have multiple keyboards and mice at work for all the computers around my desk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really hope that we'll finally get monitors that switch both the video and the USB at the same time, serving has a keyboard / mouse / video / speaker switch in one go.
I hate that I need to have multiple keyboards and mice at work for all the computers around my desk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30822202</id>
	<title>Re:Doubt it</title>
	<author>Orbijx</author>
	<datestamp>1263929340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Pardon the disjointed syntax - I do this between calls. Thanks.)</p><p>I think it'll make its move to mainstream, considering that Dell actively sells computers and monitors with built-in DisplayPort as standard features (See: Dell Optiplex 760/960 desktops, Dell's E-series docking station for Latitude E-Series and Precision Workstation Mobiles, the <em>adamo xps</em>, and a few others that elude me at the moment).</p><p>For the desktops that don't have it built in, they have started to offer them with video cards with DisplayPort (and DP-to-DVI adapters). I've seen this often enough on Dell's newer small form factor machines that use the low profile bracket cards.</p><p>It appears that HP is also following suit with similar offerings, but not Late^H^H^H^HGateway.</p><p>Computer monitors, on the other hand, are also starting to adopt DisplayPort, perhaps because of the lack of HDMI royalties, while offering features not present in preceding connector types.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Pardon the disjointed syntax - I do this between calls .
Thanks. ) I think it 'll make its move to mainstream , considering that Dell actively sells computers and monitors with built-in DisplayPort as standard features ( See : Dell Optiplex 760/960 desktops , Dell 's E-series docking station for Latitude E-Series and Precision Workstation Mobiles , the adamo xps , and a few others that elude me at the moment ) .For the desktops that do n't have it built in , they have started to offer them with video cards with DisplayPort ( and DP-to-DVI adapters ) .
I 've seen this often enough on Dell 's newer small form factor machines that use the low profile bracket cards.It appears that HP is also following suit with similar offerings , but not Late ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ HGateway.Computer monitors , on the other hand , are also starting to adopt DisplayPort , perhaps because of the lack of HDMI royalties , while offering features not present in preceding connector types .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Pardon the disjointed syntax - I do this between calls.
Thanks.)I think it'll make its move to mainstream, considering that Dell actively sells computers and monitors with built-in DisplayPort as standard features (See: Dell Optiplex 760/960 desktops, Dell's E-series docking station for Latitude E-Series and Precision Workstation Mobiles, the adamo xps, and a few others that elude me at the moment).For the desktops that don't have it built in, they have started to offer them with video cards with DisplayPort (and DP-to-DVI adapters).
I've seen this often enough on Dell's newer small form factor machines that use the low profile bracket cards.It appears that HP is also following suit with similar offerings, but not Late^H^H^H^HGateway.Computer monitors, on the other hand, are also starting to adopt DisplayPort, perhaps because of the lack of HDMI royalties, while offering features not present in preceding connector types.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819150</id>
	<title>Yuo aFail It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263916380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">consider that right a previously EFNet, and aap7y And piss cocktail.</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>consider that right a previously EFNet , and aap7y And piss cocktail .
[ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>consider that right a previously EFNet, and aap7y And piss cocktail.
[goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30822856</id>
	<title>Re:can somebody explain to me...</title>
	<author>whyde</author>
	<datestamp>1263931440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really think that intel/apple/microsoft/sony/moster want a technology ecosystem in which everything works cheaply, robustly, and for a long time without replacement?  Planned obsolescence has been a feature of the durable goods industries for a long time, otherwise there'd be no reason for you to spend any more money, ever.</p><p>Once the velocity of money slows, your economy tanks.</p><p>Sure, you could do this all over one fiber connection, but once you did, it would JUST WORK!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really think that intel/apple/microsoft/sony/moster want a technology ecosystem in which everything works cheaply , robustly , and for a long time without replacement ?
Planned obsolescence has been a feature of the durable goods industries for a long time , otherwise there 'd be no reason for you to spend any more money , ever.Once the velocity of money slows , your economy tanks.Sure , you could do this all over one fiber connection , but once you did , it would JUST WORK !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really think that intel/apple/microsoft/sony/moster want a technology ecosystem in which everything works cheaply, robustly, and for a long time without replacement?
Planned obsolescence has been a feature of the durable goods industries for a long time, otherwise there'd be no reason for you to spend any more money, ever.Once the velocity of money slows, your economy tanks.Sure, you could do this all over one fiber connection, but once you did, it would JUST WORK!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30825476</id>
	<title>one to rule the mall???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that a large pack of belligerent high school girls?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that a large pack of belligerent high school girls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that a large pack of belligerent high school girls?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30824478</id>
	<title>Re:Cable wars</title>
	<author>Nevynxxx</author>
	<datestamp>1263895500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well those same Dells have eSATA ports you can plug your USB memory stick into....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well those same Dells have eSATA ports you can plug your USB memory stick into... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well those same Dells have eSATA ports you can plug your USB memory stick into....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819272</id>
	<title>Re:Chicken and Egg</title>
	<author>stevelinton</author>
	<datestamp>1263916920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really nice for laptop users. Dump laptop on desk, plug in two cables (power and displayport) and have your whole desktop setup connected.<br>Be nice if displayport could also supply 100W or so of DC power.</p><p>Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really nice for laptop users .
Dump laptop on desk , plug in two cables ( power and displayport ) and have your whole desktop setup connected.Be nice if displayport could also supply 100W or so of DC power.Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really nice for laptop users.
Dump laptop on desk, plug in two cables (power and displayport) and have your whole desktop setup connected.Be nice if displayport could also supply 100W or so of DC power.Steve</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820422</id>
	<title>Light Peak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263921960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Displayport is already obsolete. Fiber optics will take over.<br>And Appl.. err. Intel calls it Light Peak (how appropriate).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Displayport is already obsolete .
Fiber optics will take over.And Appl.. err. Intel calls it Light Peak ( how appropriate ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Displayport is already obsolete.
Fiber optics will take over.And Appl.. err. Intel calls it Light Peak (how appropriate).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819252</id>
	<title>So, they've created a docking station cable?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263916860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds like nothing more than a standard for a docking station cable.  If they can't get the cable/connector price down to a real low level, I don't see it having any other use.  I guess it would be kind of neat to have your monitor act as your docking station, but that isn't exactly earth-shattering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like nothing more than a standard for a docking station cable .
If they ca n't get the cable/connector price down to a real low level , I do n't see it having any other use .
I guess it would be kind of neat to have your monitor act as your docking station , but that is n't exactly earth-shattering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like nothing more than a standard for a docking station cable.
If they can't get the cable/connector price down to a real low level, I don't see it having any other use.
I guess it would be kind of neat to have your monitor act as your docking station, but that isn't exactly earth-shattering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821344</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Syberz</author>
	<datestamp>1263925920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too many cables?</p><p><a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/11/19/" title="penny-arcade.com" rel="nofollow">Part 1</a> [penny-arcade.com]<br><a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/11/21/" title="penny-arcade.com" rel="nofollow">Part 2</a> [penny-arcade.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too many cables ? Part 1 [ penny-arcade.com ] Part 2 [ penny-arcade.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too many cables?Part 1 [penny-arcade.com]Part 2 [penny-arcade.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819588</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI is not fine though</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I defer to the other comments - with a drawer of USB 1.x and soon to be 2.x with 3.0 coming - I don't "want" another type of cable to feed the snakepit, just for the sake of something coming down the road. No wonder we've become a wasteful society, with old wires, charging devices, cords, batteries making their way into the garbage pits yearly -<br>There used to be a time when a plug was a plug and that was it - why can't electronics devices today do the same ( and because we "need" to isn't the answer)!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I defer to the other comments - with a drawer of USB 1.x and soon to be 2.x with 3.0 coming - I do n't " want " another type of cable to feed the snakepit , just for the sake of something coming down the road .
No wonder we 've become a wasteful society , with old wires , charging devices , cords , batteries making their way into the garbage pits yearly -There used to be a time when a plug was a plug and that was it - why ca n't electronics devices today do the same ( and because we " need " to is n't the answer ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I defer to the other comments - with a drawer of USB 1.x and soon to be 2.x with 3.0 coming - I don't "want" another type of cable to feed the snakepit, just for the sake of something coming down the road.
No wonder we've become a wasteful society, with old wires, charging devices, cords, batteries making their way into the garbage pits yearly -There used to be a time when a plug was a plug and that was it - why can't electronics devices today do the same ( and because we "need" to isn't the answer)!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30827420</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263912600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>OTOH Less cables is good as well. The cable mess is getting old pretty quick.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Which is why we dont need yet another display adapter. I bought a new mobo for a media centre, Gigabyte M85M-US2H. The back panel has 1 PS2 and 2 USB ports for input (even I'll admit the PS2 is kind of redundant these days) but I have a VGA, DVI and HDMI port for video output as well as 2 3.5 mm Headphone jacks and a S/PDIF output for sound. It's getting ridiculous.<br> <br>

Out of these I use the HDMI and 1 USB port.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH Less cables is good as well .
The cable mess is getting old pretty quick .
Which is why we dont need yet another display adapter .
I bought a new mobo for a media centre , Gigabyte M85M-US2H .
The back panel has 1 PS2 and 2 USB ports for input ( even I 'll admit the PS2 is kind of redundant these days ) but I have a VGA , DVI and HDMI port for video output as well as 2 3.5 mm Headphone jacks and a S/PDIF output for sound .
It 's getting ridiculous .
Out of these I use the HDMI and 1 USB port .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH Less cables is good as well.
The cable mess is getting old pretty quick.
Which is why we dont need yet another display adapter.
I bought a new mobo for a media centre, Gigabyte M85M-US2H.
The back panel has 1 PS2 and 2 USB ports for input (even I'll admit the PS2 is kind of redundant these days) but I have a VGA, DVI and HDMI port for video output as well as 2 3.5 mm Headphone jacks and a S/PDIF output for sound.
It's getting ridiculous.
Out of these I use the HDMI and 1 USB port.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819390</id>
	<title>Re:Doubt it</title>
	<author>kingofnexus</author>
	<datestamp>1263917640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but will never gain mainstream adoption (See: Firewire).</p></div><p>Possibly it won't get mainstream, but as it is DisplayPort seems a lot more feature packed and advantageous over what firewire was over usb. I reckon its got a good chance of breaking through, but I don't see it happening anytime in the next 2 years though.

I'm all for a 1-cable-that-does-everything deal so I may be a little bit blindly optimistic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but will never gain mainstream adoption ( See : Firewire ) .Possibly it wo n't get mainstream , but as it is DisplayPort seems a lot more feature packed and advantageous over what firewire was over usb .
I reckon its got a good chance of breaking through , but I do n't see it happening anytime in the next 2 years though .
I 'm all for a 1-cable-that-does-everything deal so I may be a little bit blindly optimistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but will never gain mainstream adoption (See: Firewire).Possibly it won't get mainstream, but as it is DisplayPort seems a lot more feature packed and advantageous over what firewire was over usb.
I reckon its got a good chance of breaking through, but I don't see it happening anytime in the next 2 years though.
I'm all for a 1-cable-that-does-everything deal so I may be a little bit blindly optimistic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819622</id>
	<title>needs more power.</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1263918660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it can throw enough power to support a decent sized LCD (You can run a 4 inch LCD or probably a medium sized OLED display on the 5v of a USB hub), it would be golden.</p><p>I quite like the idea of a monitor with a built in usb hub that has only one wire leading to the pc. No extra power cables to run, you can plug your mouse, keyboard, webcam and thumbdrive in to the monitor without all that wire clutter and having to bend over and move stuff out of the way to reach the box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it can throw enough power to support a decent sized LCD ( You can run a 4 inch LCD or probably a medium sized OLED display on the 5v of a USB hub ) , it would be golden.I quite like the idea of a monitor with a built in usb hub that has only one wire leading to the pc .
No extra power cables to run , you can plug your mouse , keyboard , webcam and thumbdrive in to the monitor without all that wire clutter and having to bend over and move stuff out of the way to reach the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it can throw enough power to support a decent sized LCD (You can run a 4 inch LCD or probably a medium sized OLED display on the 5v of a USB hub), it would be golden.I quite like the idea of a monitor with a built in usb hub that has only one wire leading to the pc.
No extra power cables to run, you can plug your mouse, keyboard, webcam and thumbdrive in to the monitor without all that wire clutter and having to bend over and move stuff out of the way to reach the box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30824472</id>
	<title>Several correct and good posts here.</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1263895500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, yes displayport is the better spec, no licensing fee, less complex. Awesome.<br>Infact I've even seen them on some newer PC's of late, this is great, it might just make it.<br>Problem is, we're going BACK to the bloody 1990's with different specs for the PC display and the TV display.<br>ARGH.<br>I want to see displayport on my PC and my PC LCD and my loungeroom 65" Plasma, when (ever?) will this happen.</p><p>I do not want 2 different standards (HDMI 1.4 'vs' DPort 1.2) it's just going to be a mess, again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , yes displayport is the better spec , no licensing fee , less complex .
Awesome.Infact I 've even seen them on some newer PC 's of late , this is great , it might just make it.Problem is , we 're going BACK to the bloody 1990 's with different specs for the PC display and the TV display.ARGH.I want to see displayport on my PC and my PC LCD and my loungeroom 65 " Plasma , when ( ever ?
) will this happen.I do not want 2 different standards ( HDMI 1.4 'vs ' DPort 1.2 ) it 's just going to be a mess , again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, yes displayport is the better spec, no licensing fee, less complex.
Awesome.Infact I've even seen them on some newer PC's of late, this is great, it might just make it.Problem is, we're going BACK to the bloody 1990's with different specs for the PC display and the TV display.ARGH.I want to see displayport on my PC and my PC LCD and my loungeroom 65" Plasma, when (ever?
) will this happen.I do not want 2 different standards (HDMI 1.4 'vs' DPort 1.2) it's just going to be a mess, again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820966</id>
	<title>DisplayPort supports HDCP</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1263924360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Version 1.1 of DisplayPort added <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#DRM\_protection" title="wikipedia.org">HDCP support</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Version 1.1 of DisplayPort added HDCP support [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Version 1.1 of DisplayPort added HDCP support [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821600</id>
	<title>Re:So, they've created a docking station cable?</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1263927060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This sounds like nothing more than a standard for a docking station cable.</i></p><p>Docking station cables are big bundles of wires, hooking up all manner of pre-determined gear.  Its definition is fixed.  DisplayPort and LightPeak offer packetized, addressable targets over simple serial connections.</p><p>In short, it's a network/bus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like nothing more than a standard for a docking station cable.Docking station cables are big bundles of wires , hooking up all manner of pre-determined gear .
Its definition is fixed .
DisplayPort and LightPeak offer packetized , addressable targets over simple serial connections.In short , it 's a network/bus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like nothing more than a standard for a docking station cable.Docking station cables are big bundles of wires, hooking up all manner of pre-determined gear.
Its definition is fixed.
DisplayPort and LightPeak offer packetized, addressable targets over simple serial connections.In short, it's a network/bus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823474</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263934020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to agree that fewer cable is a nice idea to reduce the tangled mess, but how is this going to work in reality? Most of us have sound, Ethernet, and USB on the motherboard and video in one or more PCIe slots. Intel's on-board video just isn't good enough and I don't foresee NVidia or AMD integrating Ethernet, audio, and USB on the video boards. It may be fine for notebooks, but I don't see this working for desktops without some weird adapter to combine all those connections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to agree that fewer cable is a nice idea to reduce the tangled mess , but how is this going to work in reality ?
Most of us have sound , Ethernet , and USB on the motherboard and video in one or more PCIe slots .
Intel 's on-board video just is n't good enough and I do n't foresee NVidia or AMD integrating Ethernet , audio , and USB on the video boards .
It may be fine for notebooks , but I do n't see this working for desktops without some weird adapter to combine all those connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to agree that fewer cable is a nice idea to reduce the tangled mess, but how is this going to work in reality?
Most of us have sound, Ethernet, and USB on the motherboard and video in one or more PCIe slots.
Intel's on-board video just isn't good enough and I don't foresee NVidia or AMD integrating Ethernet, audio, and USB on the video boards.
It may be fine for notebooks, but I don't see this working for desktops without some weird adapter to combine all those connections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30834384</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1264012200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Displayport has support for fiber optic cabling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Displayport has support for fiber optic cabling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Displayport has support for fiber optic cabling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819460</id>
	<title>HDI-45's Successor?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds familiar - some of the old PowerMacs had this crazy 45 pin connector that "...incorporated capabilities for video out, video in, audio out, audio in, and the Apple Desktop Bus (ADB)" (<a href="http://kan.org/6100/graphicshardware.html#hdi45" title="kan.org" rel="nofollow">http://kan.org/6100/graphicshardware.html#hdi45</a> [kan.org]).  The new Displayport sounds like a modern take on an old, er, classic?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds familiar - some of the old PowerMacs had this crazy 45 pin connector that " ...incorporated capabilities for video out , video in , audio out , audio in , and the Apple Desktop Bus ( ADB ) " ( http : //kan.org/6100/graphicshardware.html # hdi45 [ kan.org ] ) .
The new Displayport sounds like a modern take on an old , er , classic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds familiar - some of the old PowerMacs had this crazy 45 pin connector that "...incorporated capabilities for video out, video in, audio out, audio in, and the Apple Desktop Bus (ADB)" (http://kan.org/6100/graphicshardware.html#hdi45 [kan.org]).
The new Displayport sounds like a modern take on an old, er, classic?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820280</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263921300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In my day, all we had was plastic coated twisted-pair coat-hanger wire for all purposes, and it was good enough.</p></div><p>In my day, all we had was pickaxes, showels, hammers, anvils, some fire and a few natural resources... and it was good enough.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my day , all we had was plastic coated twisted-pair coat-hanger wire for all purposes , and it was good enough.In my day , all we had was pickaxes , showels , hammers , anvils , some fire and a few natural resources... and it was good enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my day, all we had was plastic coated twisted-pair coat-hanger wire for all purposes, and it was good enough.In my day, all we had was pickaxes, showels, hammers, anvils, some fire and a few natural resources... and it was good enough.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823824</id>
	<title>Re:can somebody explain to me...</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1263892380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Expenses. The Sony/Philips optical is about the only consumer optical in common use, but that's over plastic, driven by LEDs. Pretty cheap. For optical at these rates, you'd need real lasers (LEDs peak around 500Mb/s) something like 10GBASE-R or 10GBASE-SR cable (LOMMF/OM3). None of that's crazy expensive... unless you compare it to electrical. And in particular, the electrical that the equipment makers are actually paying for.</p><p>Keep in mind, these are the industry guys who got together to create DisplayPort, at least in part because they got bent out of shape having to pay US$0.04 per device to use HDMI. They're not likely to replace a $0.50 electrical connector with a $2.00 optical connector and $5.00+ laser. And of course, lasers go one way... you actually need a laser at each end, if you want 2-way traffic. Or a custom cable, with electrical backchannel.</p><p>Well, why not.. I have some video cables around here with integrated optical audio channel.</p><p>So this is the next one up, after DisplayPort, but designed as a general purpose standard: Light Peak. I think this started out as an optical answer to Firewire at Apple, but rather than do it themselves, change too much for the spec, and have Intel (and the rest of the PC industry) go and create an alternative, this time Apple brought it to Intel. Maybe.. at least that's one story.</p><p>Anyway, read more here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light\_Peak" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light\_Peak</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>The nice thing about Light Peak... it's fast enough to do the HDMI/DisplayPort thing. And replace SATA, USB, Firewire, anything else you want. Of course, like all optical interconnects, the connectors are an issue (dirt kills), and unless they go to some kind of FDM, they'll need one cable in each direction, just like 10Ge uses in its various optical forms. Then there's the issue of power... we're kind of used to USB and Firewire cables providing power for small devices. But it's still a work in progress, 10Gb/s on launch, up to 100Gb/s on the roadmap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Expenses .
The Sony/Philips optical is about the only consumer optical in common use , but that 's over plastic , driven by LEDs .
Pretty cheap .
For optical at these rates , you 'd need real lasers ( LEDs peak around 500Mb/s ) something like 10GBASE-R or 10GBASE-SR cable ( LOMMF/OM3 ) .
None of that 's crazy expensive... unless you compare it to electrical .
And in particular , the electrical that the equipment makers are actually paying for.Keep in mind , these are the industry guys who got together to create DisplayPort , at least in part because they got bent out of shape having to pay US $ 0.04 per device to use HDMI .
They 're not likely to replace a $ 0.50 electrical connector with a $ 2.00 optical connector and $ 5.00 + laser .
And of course , lasers go one way... you actually need a laser at each end , if you want 2-way traffic .
Or a custom cable , with electrical backchannel.Well , why not.. I have some video cables around here with integrated optical audio channel.So this is the next one up , after DisplayPort , but designed as a general purpose standard : Light Peak .
I think this started out as an optical answer to Firewire at Apple , but rather than do it themselves , change too much for the spec , and have Intel ( and the rest of the PC industry ) go and create an alternative , this time Apple brought it to Intel .
Maybe.. at least that 's one story.Anyway , read more here : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light \ _Peak [ wikipedia.org ] The nice thing about Light Peak... it 's fast enough to do the HDMI/DisplayPort thing .
And replace SATA , USB , Firewire , anything else you want .
Of course , like all optical interconnects , the connectors are an issue ( dirt kills ) , and unless they go to some kind of FDM , they 'll need one cable in each direction , just like 10Ge uses in its various optical forms .
Then there 's the issue of power... we 're kind of used to USB and Firewire cables providing power for small devices .
But it 's still a work in progress , 10Gb/s on launch , up to 100Gb/s on the roadmap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expenses.
The Sony/Philips optical is about the only consumer optical in common use, but that's over plastic, driven by LEDs.
Pretty cheap.
For optical at these rates, you'd need real lasers (LEDs peak around 500Mb/s) something like 10GBASE-R or 10GBASE-SR cable (LOMMF/OM3).
None of that's crazy expensive... unless you compare it to electrical.
And in particular, the electrical that the equipment makers are actually paying for.Keep in mind, these are the industry guys who got together to create DisplayPort, at least in part because they got bent out of shape having to pay US$0.04 per device to use HDMI.
They're not likely to replace a $0.50 electrical connector with a $2.00 optical connector and $5.00+ laser.
And of course, lasers go one way... you actually need a laser at each end, if you want 2-way traffic.
Or a custom cable, with electrical backchannel.Well, why not.. I have some video cables around here with integrated optical audio channel.So this is the next one up, after DisplayPort, but designed as a general purpose standard: Light Peak.
I think this started out as an optical answer to Firewire at Apple, but rather than do it themselves, change too much for the spec, and have Intel (and the rest of the PC industry) go and create an alternative, this time Apple brought it to Intel.
Maybe.. at least that's one story.Anyway, read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light\_Peak [wikipedia.org]The nice thing about Light Peak... it's fast enough to do the HDMI/DisplayPort thing.
And replace SATA, USB, Firewire, anything else you want.
Of course, like all optical interconnects, the connectors are an issue (dirt kills), and unless they go to some kind of FDM, they'll need one cable in each direction, just like 10Ge uses in its various optical forms.
Then there's the issue of power... we're kind of used to USB and Firewire cables providing power for small devices.
But it's still a work in progress, 10Gb/s on launch, up to 100Gb/s on the roadmap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1263915540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OTOH Less cables is good as well. The cable mess is getting old pretty quick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH Less cables is good as well .
The cable mess is getting old pretty quick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH Less cables is good as well.
The cable mess is getting old pretty quick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819608</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>dkuntz</author>
	<datestamp>1263918540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least you had plastic coated!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least you had plastic coated !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least you had plastic coated!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820470</id>
	<title>Re:Cable wars</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1263922260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Before VGA, CGA/EGA was good for 6 years.</i></p><p>What the hell were you doing with an IBM PC Compatible before 1987? There were much better machines out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before VGA , CGA/EGA was good for 6 years.What the hell were you doing with an IBM PC Compatible before 1987 ?
There were much better machines out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Before VGA, CGA/EGA was good for 6 years.What the hell were you doing with an IBM PC Compatible before 1987?
There were much better machines out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821888</id>
	<title>Re:Migration path?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263928260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Lenovo and had to buy a display-port to DVI adapter for my second monitor.  It cost $22 on Amazon.  While not dirt cheap, it's not overly expensive either.  It is a trivial adapter.  Either the laptop has built-in electronics to convert from Displayport to DVI or their isn't much of a signal difference between the two formats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Lenovo and had to buy a display-port to DVI adapter for my second monitor .
It cost $ 22 on Amazon .
While not dirt cheap , it 's not overly expensive either .
It is a trivial adapter .
Either the laptop has built-in electronics to convert from Displayport to DVI or their is n't much of a signal difference between the two formats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Lenovo and had to buy a display-port to DVI adapter for my second monitor.
It cost $22 on Amazon.
While not dirt cheap, it's not overly expensive either.
It is a trivial adapter.
Either the laptop has built-in electronics to convert from Displayport to DVI or their isn't much of a signal difference between the two formats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819562</id>
	<title>Migration path?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263918360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, I have a new rule:  You're not allowed to define a new standard until <i>after</i> you've thought about how people will migrate to it from their existing stuff.</p><p>
Once upon a time, we had VGA.  This was a pretty simple analogue signal, which was great for driving a CRT.  At high resolutions it got a bit blurry though and it was a bit silly to convert a digital signal to analogue and back for displaying on a TFT.  So then we had DVI.  The DVI connector incorporated the VGA signal as well as a new, digital, one.  If you got a new display that supported DVI then you could connect it to your old computer with a very cheap (i.e. containing no electronics) adaptor.  Then, when you got a new video card that supported DVI, you just threw away the adaptor and used the digital signal.</p><p>
After a while, most things used the digital signal, so you started getting DVI-D devices, where the analogue pins weren't connected to anything.  Then came HDMI, which used exactly the same signal as DVI-D.  You could, once again, connect HDMI devices to DVI-D devices with a trivial adaptor.  Because these adaptors are cheap, a few months after they're introduced you can usually find someone who has one if you need one and forget yours.</p><p>
But now we have DisplayPort.  It is digital, but it uses a completely different kind of signal to HDMI / DVI-D.  If you want to connect a DisplayPort device to something that only supports VGA or HDMI then you need an expensive adaptor that decodes a frame in one format into a buffer then reencodes it in the other format.  </p><p>
So the migration path from DVI to DisplayPort is for graphics cards to be able to produce both kinds of signal and for monitors to be able to accept both kind.  This immediately eliminates two of the big advantages of DisplayPort: no license fees and simpler electronics.  Add to that the fact that you have three kinds of connector for DisplayPort (DisplayPort, Mini DisplayPort and Micro DisplayPort), so you probably need an adaptor anyway, just to plug one DisplayPort device into another, and it's easier to just use HDMI.</p><p>
This is a shame, because DisplayPort is a much better spec than HDMI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , I have a new rule : You 're not allowed to define a new standard until after you 've thought about how people will migrate to it from their existing stuff .
Once upon a time , we had VGA .
This was a pretty simple analogue signal , which was great for driving a CRT .
At high resolutions it got a bit blurry though and it was a bit silly to convert a digital signal to analogue and back for displaying on a TFT .
So then we had DVI .
The DVI connector incorporated the VGA signal as well as a new , digital , one .
If you got a new display that supported DVI then you could connect it to your old computer with a very cheap ( i.e .
containing no electronics ) adaptor .
Then , when you got a new video card that supported DVI , you just threw away the adaptor and used the digital signal .
After a while , most things used the digital signal , so you started getting DVI-D devices , where the analogue pins were n't connected to anything .
Then came HDMI , which used exactly the same signal as DVI-D. You could , once again , connect HDMI devices to DVI-D devices with a trivial adaptor .
Because these adaptors are cheap , a few months after they 're introduced you can usually find someone who has one if you need one and forget yours .
But now we have DisplayPort .
It is digital , but it uses a completely different kind of signal to HDMI / DVI-D. If you want to connect a DisplayPort device to something that only supports VGA or HDMI then you need an expensive adaptor that decodes a frame in one format into a buffer then reencodes it in the other format .
So the migration path from DVI to DisplayPort is for graphics cards to be able to produce both kinds of signal and for monitors to be able to accept both kind .
This immediately eliminates two of the big advantages of DisplayPort : no license fees and simpler electronics .
Add to that the fact that you have three kinds of connector for DisplayPort ( DisplayPort , Mini DisplayPort and Micro DisplayPort ) , so you probably need an adaptor anyway , just to plug one DisplayPort device into another , and it 's easier to just use HDMI .
This is a shame , because DisplayPort is a much better spec than HDMI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, I have a new rule:  You're not allowed to define a new standard until after you've thought about how people will migrate to it from their existing stuff.
Once upon a time, we had VGA.
This was a pretty simple analogue signal, which was great for driving a CRT.
At high resolutions it got a bit blurry though and it was a bit silly to convert a digital signal to analogue and back for displaying on a TFT.
So then we had DVI.
The DVI connector incorporated the VGA signal as well as a new, digital, one.
If you got a new display that supported DVI then you could connect it to your old computer with a very cheap (i.e.
containing no electronics) adaptor.
Then, when you got a new video card that supported DVI, you just threw away the adaptor and used the digital signal.
After a while, most things used the digital signal, so you started getting DVI-D devices, where the analogue pins weren't connected to anything.
Then came HDMI, which used exactly the same signal as DVI-D.  You could, once again, connect HDMI devices to DVI-D devices with a trivial adaptor.
Because these adaptors are cheap, a few months after they're introduced you can usually find someone who has one if you need one and forget yours.
But now we have DisplayPort.
It is digital, but it uses a completely different kind of signal to HDMI / DVI-D.  If you want to connect a DisplayPort device to something that only supports VGA or HDMI then you need an expensive adaptor that decodes a frame in one format into a buffer then reencodes it in the other format.
So the migration path from DVI to DisplayPort is for graphics cards to be able to produce both kinds of signal and for monitors to be able to accept both kind.
This immediately eliminates two of the big advantages of DisplayPort: no license fees and simpler electronics.
Add to that the fact that you have three kinds of connector for DisplayPort (DisplayPort, Mini DisplayPort and Micro DisplayPort), so you probably need an adaptor anyway, just to plug one DisplayPort device into another, and it's easier to just use HDMI.
This is a shame, because DisplayPort is a much better spec than HDMI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820410</id>
	<title>how does it deal with long runs?</title>
	<author>Chirs</author>
	<datestamp>1263921900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is displayport any better than HDMI for long runs?  The maximum certified distance for HDMI 1.3 category 2 is around 40 feet (although real-world you might do better than that).</p><p>For those of us with front projectors, the ability to handle reasonable distances is a real factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is displayport any better than HDMI for long runs ?
The maximum certified distance for HDMI 1.3 category 2 is around 40 feet ( although real-world you might do better than that ) .For those of us with front projectors , the ability to handle reasonable distances is a real factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is displayport any better than HDMI for long runs?
The maximum certified distance for HDMI 1.3 category 2 is around 40 feet (although real-world you might do better than that).For those of us with front projectors, the ability to handle reasonable distances is a real factor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819202</id>
	<title>SCSI re-invented</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1263916680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember this mess, where SCSI devices would be connected as a series, and a single slow component would silently downgrade the chain to the slowest speed. I wonder if they've duplicated the stupid termination problems as well? And the dozen different types of connectors?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember this mess , where SCSI devices would be connected as a series , and a single slow component would silently downgrade the chain to the slowest speed .
I wonder if they 've duplicated the stupid termination problems as well ?
And the dozen different types of connectors ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember this mess, where SCSI devices would be connected as a series, and a single slow component would silently downgrade the chain to the slowest speed.
I wonder if they've duplicated the stupid termination problems as well?
And the dozen different types of connectors?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819816</id>
	<title>SiRkIt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263919440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>now if it also supplied around 60~90 watts of power we could have a standard cable for a laptop docking station</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>now if it also supplied around 60 ~ 90 watts of power we could have a standard cable for a laptop docking station</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now if it also supplied around 60~90 watts of power we could have a standard cable for a laptop docking station</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821680</id>
	<title>Re:Doubt it</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1263927360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firewire required extortionate royalties. Displayport is free.<br>I also like the way it's compatible to HDMI, making it easier for the connector to find it's way on consumer equipment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firewire required extortionate royalties .
Displayport is free.I also like the way it 's compatible to HDMI , making it easier for the connector to find it 's way on consumer equipment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firewire required extortionate royalties.
Displayport is free.I also like the way it's compatible to HDMI, making it easier for the connector to find it's way on consumer equipment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820608</id>
	<title>Re:Apple</title>
	<author>Hijacked Public</author>
	<datestamp>1263922920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd have left them out too, as punishment for putting mini-displayports on their MBPs years ago but still leaving their 30" monitor with two DVI inputs. Topping that off by selling a wonky cable for $99 as a workaround puts the issue beyond debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have left them out too , as punishment for putting mini-displayports on their MBPs years ago but still leaving their 30 " monitor with two DVI inputs .
Topping that off by selling a wonky cable for $ 99 as a workaround puts the issue beyond debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have left them out too, as punishment for putting mini-displayports on their MBPs years ago but still leaving their 30" monitor with two DVI inputs.
Topping that off by selling a wonky cable for $99 as a workaround puts the issue beyond debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823982</id>
	<title>Re:Cable wars</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1263893160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VGA was perpetually being replaced... only problem was, it didn't really need to be. So, while there were plenty of alternatives, none of them took hold.</p><p>Once monitors went digital, though, it was clearly time to nix the VGA. DVI was designed to be transitional... it's got all the VGA signals and digital signals. It was intended to let you put just the one connector on your digital video card and connector to either analog or digital monitors. Hey, it worked.. most video cards carry one or two DVI connectors these days.</p><p>HDMI was something else... this was not a computer industry standard, but one for the consumer electronics industry. They added audio, which is certainly important in CE applications, perhaps something they forgot to put into DVI. Also, the HDMI connector is more consumer friendly than the D-Sub inspired DVI connector. Though they do fall out, which is somewhat annoying. HDMIs are showing up in computer gear simply because the connector size is better for many applications (notebooks, multi-head display cards). It's also a bit of an upgrade from DVI, in terms of data speeds.</p><p>DisplayPort is the replacement for DVI.. all digital, with all of the goodies that computer industry folks want to find in their next generation video-specific port.</p><p>Next might be Light Peak, which will do video speeds, but will be a general purpose interconnect, not video specific. This will be interesting, since that might bring about smarter displays... they could negotiate not just on resolutions but encodings and other fun stuff (well, DVI and HDMI do a bit of this, negotiating YUV or YCrCb vs RGB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VGA was perpetually being replaced... only problem was , it did n't really need to be .
So , while there were plenty of alternatives , none of them took hold.Once monitors went digital , though , it was clearly time to nix the VGA .
DVI was designed to be transitional... it 's got all the VGA signals and digital signals .
It was intended to let you put just the one connector on your digital video card and connector to either analog or digital monitors .
Hey , it worked.. most video cards carry one or two DVI connectors these days.HDMI was something else... this was not a computer industry standard , but one for the consumer electronics industry .
They added audio , which is certainly important in CE applications , perhaps something they forgot to put into DVI .
Also , the HDMI connector is more consumer friendly than the D-Sub inspired DVI connector .
Though they do fall out , which is somewhat annoying .
HDMIs are showing up in computer gear simply because the connector size is better for many applications ( notebooks , multi-head display cards ) .
It 's also a bit of an upgrade from DVI , in terms of data speeds.DisplayPort is the replacement for DVI.. all digital , with all of the goodies that computer industry folks want to find in their next generation video-specific port.Next might be Light Peak , which will do video speeds , but will be a general purpose interconnect , not video specific .
This will be interesting , since that might bring about smarter displays... they could negotiate not just on resolutions but encodings and other fun stuff ( well , DVI and HDMI do a bit of this , negotiating YUV or YCrCb vs RGB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VGA was perpetually being replaced... only problem was, it didn't really need to be.
So, while there were plenty of alternatives, none of them took hold.Once monitors went digital, though, it was clearly time to nix the VGA.
DVI was designed to be transitional... it's got all the VGA signals and digital signals.
It was intended to let you put just the one connector on your digital video card and connector to either analog or digital monitors.
Hey, it worked.. most video cards carry one or two DVI connectors these days.HDMI was something else... this was not a computer industry standard, but one for the consumer electronics industry.
They added audio, which is certainly important in CE applications, perhaps something they forgot to put into DVI.
Also, the HDMI connector is more consumer friendly than the D-Sub inspired DVI connector.
Though they do fall out, which is somewhat annoying.
HDMIs are showing up in computer gear simply because the connector size is better for many applications (notebooks, multi-head display cards).
It's also a bit of an upgrade from DVI, in terms of data speeds.DisplayPort is the replacement for DVI.. all digital, with all of the goodies that computer industry folks want to find in their next generation video-specific port.Next might be Light Peak, which will do video speeds, but will be a general purpose interconnect, not video specific.
This will be interesting, since that might bring about smarter displays... they could negotiate not just on resolutions but encodings and other fun stuff (well, DVI and HDMI do a bit of this, negotiating YUV or YCrCb vs RGB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512</id>
	<title>Cable wars</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1263918180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is it that VGA was good for 15 years (1987-2002) and now we have, counting conservatively, three standards in 8 years (DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort)?  DVI itself has multiple incompatible sub-standards.  Before VGA, CGA/EGA was good for 6 years.<p>Is it a lack of engineering foresight, or is it a cable war with companies jockeying for position?</p><p>I've noticed that new Dells are now coming with DisplayPort, and discovered that Dell was one of the <a href="http://content.dell.com/us/en/corp/d/corp-comm/cto-display-port.aspx" title="dell.com">instigators</a> [dell.com].</p><p>Another unrelated observation: this could obsolete USB, and thus USB thumb drives, and thus yet another data storage format becomes oprhaned.  This was inevitable.  USB has had a good 14 year run so far.  It couldn't last forever, despite what people thought about USB "being different this time" regarding being able to access old data -- that somehow it was going to be different from floppies and tapes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is it that VGA was good for 15 years ( 1987-2002 ) and now we have , counting conservatively , three standards in 8 years ( DVI , HDMI , DisplayPort ) ?
DVI itself has multiple incompatible sub-standards .
Before VGA , CGA/EGA was good for 6 years.Is it a lack of engineering foresight , or is it a cable war with companies jockeying for position ? I 've noticed that new Dells are now coming with DisplayPort , and discovered that Dell was one of the instigators [ dell.com ] .Another unrelated observation : this could obsolete USB , and thus USB thumb drives , and thus yet another data storage format becomes oprhaned .
This was inevitable .
USB has had a good 14 year run so far .
It could n't last forever , despite what people thought about USB " being different this time " regarding being able to access old data -- that somehow it was going to be different from floppies and tapes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is it that VGA was good for 15 years (1987-2002) and now we have, counting conservatively, three standards in 8 years (DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort)?
DVI itself has multiple incompatible sub-standards.
Before VGA, CGA/EGA was good for 6 years.Is it a lack of engineering foresight, or is it a cable war with companies jockeying for position?I've noticed that new Dells are now coming with DisplayPort, and discovered that Dell was one of the instigators [dell.com].Another unrelated observation: this could obsolete USB, and thus USB thumb drives, and thus yet another data storage format becomes oprhaned.
This was inevitable.
USB has had a good 14 year run so far.
It couldn't last forever, despite what people thought about USB "being different this time" regarding being able to access old data -- that somehow it was going to be different from floppies and tapes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30824934</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>go grandpa!  and you used 2 cups &amp; a string as a telephone too? lol</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>go grandpa !
and you used 2 cups &amp; a string as a telephone too ?
lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>go grandpa!
and you used 2 cups &amp; a string as a telephone too?
lol</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819072</id>
	<title>Monster?</title>
	<author>MortenMW</author>
	<datestamp>1263915960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has Monster started producing these yet? I cant wait to get some high-quality cables!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Monster started producing these yet ?
I cant wait to get some high-quality cables !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Monster started producing these yet?
I cant wait to get some high-quality cables!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819570</id>
	<title>Every VESA connector since VGA has been a failure</title>
	<author>TimSee</author>
	<datestamp>1263918360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the laptop you buy in 2010 comes with a connector from 1987 you know your standards body isn't working.  Yet, VESA tries and tries again.  I expect DisplayPort to join DVI and VLB on the trash heap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the laptop you buy in 2010 comes with a connector from 1987 you know your standards body is n't working .
Yet , VESA tries and tries again .
I expect DisplayPort to join DVI and VLB on the trash heap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the laptop you buy in 2010 comes with a connector from 1987 you know your standards body isn't working.
Yet, VESA tries and tries again.
I expect DisplayPort to join DVI and VLB on the trash heap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819862</id>
	<title>Re:Cable wars</title>
	<author>leuk\_he</author>
	<datestamp>1263919680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VGA was not that holy ever. It has its share of problems too.<br>-Took a long way to standardize supported resolutions.. above 640x480.<br>-DCC (autodetect display capabilities) took even long.</p><p>Besides that , what is wrong with super 8 film?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VGA was not that holy ever .
It has its share of problems too.-Took a long way to standardize supported resolutions.. above 640x480.-DCC ( autodetect display capabilities ) took even long.Besides that , what is wrong with super 8 film ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VGA was not that holy ever.
It has its share of problems too.-Took a long way to standardize supported resolutions.. above 640x480.-DCC (autodetect display capabilities) took even long.Besides that , what is wrong with super 8 film?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821476</id>
	<title>Re:no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1263926460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It also makes a very fat cable that is generally harder to bury somewhere so that it isn't visible.</p></div><p>Nonsense. Suppose I connect a bluray player to my receiver. The analogue route would involve 3 75 ohm video cables, and six analogue cables, A professional quality video connection would probably involve RG-6 coaxial cables, preferably with BNC connectors. Think CATV lead-- quarter inch think. A comparably over-engineered audio solution would probably involve balanced interconnects with XLR connectors.</p><p>The digital route would be one HDMI cable. It doesn't have to be all that thick-- perhaps the diameter of a single RG-6 cable. If you wanted to you could probably get a flat version with similar transmission characteristics.</p><p>9 cables versus one. Your choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It also makes a very fat cable that is generally harder to bury somewhere so that it is n't visible.Nonsense .
Suppose I connect a bluray player to my receiver .
The analogue route would involve 3 75 ohm video cables , and six analogue cables , A professional quality video connection would probably involve RG-6 coaxial cables , preferably with BNC connectors .
Think CATV lead-- quarter inch think .
A comparably over-engineered audio solution would probably involve balanced interconnects with XLR connectors.The digital route would be one HDMI cable .
It does n't have to be all that thick-- perhaps the diameter of a single RG-6 cable .
If you wanted to you could probably get a flat version with similar transmission characteristics.9 cables versus one .
Your choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It also makes a very fat cable that is generally harder to bury somewhere so that it isn't visible.Nonsense.
Suppose I connect a bluray player to my receiver.
The analogue route would involve 3 75 ohm video cables, and six analogue cables, A professional quality video connection would probably involve RG-6 coaxial cables, preferably with BNC connectors.
Think CATV lead-- quarter inch think.
A comparably over-engineered audio solution would probably involve balanced interconnects with XLR connectors.The digital route would be one HDMI cable.
It doesn't have to be all that thick-- perhaps the diameter of a single RG-6 cable.
If you wanted to you could probably get a flat version with similar transmission characteristics.9 cables versus one.
Your choice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820936</id>
	<title>Re:can somebody explain to me...</title>
	<author>ciroknight</author>
	<datestamp>1263924180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though the price of optical equipment is drastically dropping, it's still quite a bit more expensive than your regular ol' Al/Cu-wire-to-chip solution. Until data volumes become so immense that the noise level for even those connections is unacceptable, so too will the price of optical connections.</p><p>Just look at the optical audio equipment; unless you're a middle-to-high end user, you probably still use the ol' copper wires to hook up your receiver rather than the fancy $20 optical digital audio cable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though the price of optical equipment is drastically dropping , it 's still quite a bit more expensive than your regular ol ' Al/Cu-wire-to-chip solution .
Until data volumes become so immense that the noise level for even those connections is unacceptable , so too will the price of optical connections.Just look at the optical audio equipment ; unless you 're a middle-to-high end user , you probably still use the ol ' copper wires to hook up your receiver rather than the fancy $ 20 optical digital audio cable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though the price of optical equipment is drastically dropping, it's still quite a bit more expensive than your regular ol' Al/Cu-wire-to-chip solution.
Until data volumes become so immense that the noise level for even those connections is unacceptable, so too will the price of optical connections.Just look at the optical audio equipment; unless you're a middle-to-high end user, you probably still use the ol' copper wires to hook up your receiver rather than the fancy $20 optical digital audio cable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938</id>
	<title>no no no no no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263915360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HDMI is fine<br>Ethernet is fine</p><p>No more "super cables" for the sake of another super cable so i have to replace everything i own just to run a damned super cable.</p><p>Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI is fineEthernet is fineNo more " super cables " for the sake of another super cable so i have to replace everything i own just to run a damned super cable.Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI is fineEthernet is fineNo more "super cables" for the sake of another super cable so i have to replace everything i own just to run a damned super cable.Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819350</id>
	<title>Stupid question but...</title>
	<author>Sir\_Lewk</author>
	<datestamp>1263917400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it called "<b>Display</b>port" if it's meant to do all of this other fancy stuff as well?  Did they just not look ahead at future applications when they named it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it called " Displayport " if it 's meant to do all of this other fancy stuff as well ?
Did they just not look ahead at future applications when they named it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it called "Displayport" if it's meant to do all of this other fancy stuff as well?
Did they just not look ahead at future applications when they named it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819238</id>
	<title>can somebody explain to me...</title>
	<author>pointbeing</author>
	<datestamp>1263916800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...why we don't just do all this crap over an optical link?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...why we do n't just do all this crap over an optical link ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...why we don't just do all this crap over an optical link?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823540</id>
	<title>Re:can somebody explain to me...</title>
	<author>pjtp</author>
	<datestamp>1263934200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what I thought was going to happen with "Light Peak".</p><p>


<a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/09/apple-inspiration-behind-light-peak-optical-connection-standard.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/09/apple-inspiration-behind-light-peak-optical-connection-standard.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]

</p><p>I guess it's going to be yet another format/standard war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I thought was going to happen with " Light Peak " .
http : //arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/09/apple-inspiration-behind-light-peak-optical-connection-standard.ars [ arstechnica.com ] I guess it 's going to be yet another format/standard war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I thought was going to happen with "Light Peak".
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/09/apple-inspiration-behind-light-peak-optical-connection-standard.ars [arstechnica.com]

I guess it's going to be yet another format/standard war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819238</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30825842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30829086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30822202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30824478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30822334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30826122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30830770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30834384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30824934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30824352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30822856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30827420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_1338205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30822856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30829086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30822202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30822334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30824352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30824478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30824472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30830770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30818980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30826122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819750
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821476
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30834384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30823474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30827420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30824934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819608
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30825842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819478
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30820966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30819884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_1338205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_1338205.30821638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
