<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_22_0731247</id>
	<title>OnLive Gaming Service Gets Lukewarm Approval</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264154820000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Vigile writes <i>"When the OnLive cloud-based gaming service was <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/03/24/135212/New-Service-Aims-To-Replace-Consoles-With-Cloud-Gaming">first announced</a> back in March of 2009, it was met with equal parts excitement and controversy.  While the idea of playing games on just about any kind of hardware thanks to remote rendering and streaming video was interesting, the larger issue remained of how OnLive planned to solve the latency problem.  With the closed beta currently underway, PC Perspective <a href="http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=859">put the OnLive gaming service to the test</a> by comparing the user experiences of the OnLive-based games to the experiences with the same locally installed titles.  The end result appears to be that while slower input-dependent games like <em>Burnout: Paradise</em> worked pretty well, games that require a fast twitch-based input scheme like <em>UT3</em> did not."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vigile writes " When the OnLive cloud-based gaming service was first announced back in March of 2009 , it was met with equal parts excitement and controversy .
While the idea of playing games on just about any kind of hardware thanks to remote rendering and streaming video was interesting , the larger issue remained of how OnLive planned to solve the latency problem .
With the closed beta currently underway , PC Perspective put the OnLive gaming service to the test by comparing the user experiences of the OnLive-based games to the experiences with the same locally installed titles .
The end result appears to be that while slower input-dependent games like Burnout : Paradise worked pretty well , games that require a fast twitch-based input scheme like UT3 did not .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vigile writes "When the OnLive cloud-based gaming service was first announced back in March of 2009, it was met with equal parts excitement and controversy.
While the idea of playing games on just about any kind of hardware thanks to remote rendering and streaming video was interesting, the larger issue remained of how OnLive planned to solve the latency problem.
With the closed beta currently underway, PC Perspective put the OnLive gaming service to the test by comparing the user experiences of the OnLive-based games to the experiences with the same locally installed titles.
The end result appears to be that while slower input-dependent games like Burnout: Paradise worked pretty well, games that require a fast twitch-based input scheme like UT3 did not.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857852</id>
	<title>I doubt this will catch on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264160760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really see this catching on if I'm honest.<br>
People that play graphically intensive games online are likely to also play those games in single player, or other single player games as well, and I doubt OnLive will be serving single player games in this way, and even if they do who is going to want to play a single player game with all the lag of a multiplayer? And most of these people will have higher-than-average spec computers anyway, so playing games wont be an issue.<br>
And games like WOW etc. aren't particularly demanding of hardware, any mid spec or even most low spec computers made in the last few years will be able to handle it no problem.<br> <br>
And what about people that want to play games over LAN sometimes? Having the game installed locally on your machine is much better than having it stored miles away on someone elses server that you don't have any real access to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really see this catching on if I 'm honest .
People that play graphically intensive games online are likely to also play those games in single player , or other single player games as well , and I doubt OnLive will be serving single player games in this way , and even if they do who is going to want to play a single player game with all the lag of a multiplayer ?
And most of these people will have higher-than-average spec computers anyway , so playing games wont be an issue .
And games like WOW etc .
are n't particularly demanding of hardware , any mid spec or even most low spec computers made in the last few years will be able to handle it no problem .
And what about people that want to play games over LAN sometimes ?
Having the game installed locally on your machine is much better than having it stored miles away on someone elses server that you do n't have any real access to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really see this catching on if I'm honest.
People that play graphically intensive games online are likely to also play those games in single player, or other single player games as well, and I doubt OnLive will be serving single player games in this way, and even if they do who is going to want to play a single player game with all the lag of a multiplayer?
And most of these people will have higher-than-average spec computers anyway, so playing games wont be an issue.
And games like WOW etc.
aren't particularly demanding of hardware, any mid spec or even most low spec computers made in the last few years will be able to handle it no problem.
And what about people that want to play games over LAN sometimes?
Having the game installed locally on your machine is much better than having it stored miles away on someone elses server that you don't have any real access to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859736</id>
	<title>Re:OnLive employee moderating posts.</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1264177440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First time I've seen such distinct bias in moderation (both promotion of posts and demotion)<br>Look out lads, metamoderatings gonna getcha!</p></div><p>Your UID is lower than mine, so you should have learned this by now, however:  While there are no +1 Agree and -1 Disagree mod options, metamods use the options they do have in this way all the time.  If you're shocked by this, you probably aren't going to be very happy posting here.</p><p>Your very best defense against this technique is to be cognisant of the opposing point of view and be tactful about it.  Then the "-1 Disagree" crowd will mostly skip your post, wishing they could argue with you instead.  But posting something with complete bias is a sure-fire way to get modded into oblivion.</p><p>Cue the music and the 'More you know...' graphics...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First time I 've seen such distinct bias in moderation ( both promotion of posts and demotion ) Look out lads , metamoderatings gon na getcha ! Your UID is lower than mine , so you should have learned this by now , however : While there are no + 1 Agree and -1 Disagree mod options , metamods use the options they do have in this way all the time .
If you 're shocked by this , you probably are n't going to be very happy posting here.Your very best defense against this technique is to be cognisant of the opposing point of view and be tactful about it .
Then the " -1 Disagree " crowd will mostly skip your post , wishing they could argue with you instead .
But posting something with complete bias is a sure-fire way to get modded into oblivion.Cue the music and the 'More you know... ' graphics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First time I've seen such distinct bias in moderation (both promotion of posts and demotion)Look out lads, metamoderatings gonna getcha!Your UID is lower than mine, so you should have learned this by now, however:  While there are no +1 Agree and -1 Disagree mod options, metamods use the options they do have in this way all the time.
If you're shocked by this, you probably aren't going to be very happy posting here.Your very best defense against this technique is to be cognisant of the opposing point of view and be tactful about it.
Then the "-1 Disagree" crowd will mostly skip your post, wishing they could argue with you instead.
But posting something with complete bias is a sure-fire way to get modded into oblivion.Cue the music and the 'More you know...' graphics...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858104</id>
	<title>Guess I won't be using it...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1264163580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... because I couldn't even stream the videos without jitter.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... because I could n't even stream the videos without jitter .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... because I couldn't even stream the videos without jitter.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858186</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>MetalAngel</author>
	<datestamp>1264164360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article itself states that the writer got warnings that the latency is not good.
The slashdot bottom line: "  The end result appears to be that while slower input-dependent games like Burnout: Paradise worked pretty well, games that require a fast twitch-based input scheme like UT3 did not."
is therefore complete utter nonsense.

Lots of Lag -&gt; of course UT3 does not work. Duh !

It would have been another story if there weren't any warnings...
It also would have been another story if this wasn't a beta and 50\% of the users get this warning.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but like this you can't conclude anything. Thinking before writing helps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article itself states that the writer got warnings that the latency is not good .
The slashdot bottom line : " The end result appears to be that while slower input-dependent games like Burnout : Paradise worked pretty well , games that require a fast twitch-based input scheme like UT3 did not .
" is therefore complete utter nonsense .
Lots of Lag - &gt; of course UT3 does not work .
Duh !
It would have been another story if there were n't any warnings.. . It also would have been another story if this was n't a beta and 50 \ % of the users get this warning .
... but like this you ca n't conclude anything .
Thinking before writing helps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article itself states that the writer got warnings that the latency is not good.
The slashdot bottom line: "  The end result appears to be that while slower input-dependent games like Burnout: Paradise worked pretty well, games that require a fast twitch-based input scheme like UT3 did not.
"
is therefore complete utter nonsense.
Lots of Lag -&gt; of course UT3 does not work.
Duh !
It would have been another story if there weren't any warnings...
It also would have been another story if this wasn't a beta and 50\% of the users get this warning.
... but like this you can't conclude anything.
Thinking before writing helps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857778</id>
	<title>As expected</title>
	<author>mseeger</author>
	<datestamp>1264159680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the results are as expected or even slightly better than expected (at least from my viewpoint). It shows that something like OnLive will be workable in the future with slightly faster interenet access.</p><p>My problems with OnLive are not related to the technical side. Even though i am mostly a casual gamer (at least since i gave up WoW) and i could profit from Pay-per-Hour, i am not sure i would like this. It would require a lot of trust from my side, OnLive has still to earn.</p><p>CU, Martin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the results are as expected or even slightly better than expected ( at least from my viewpoint ) .
It shows that something like OnLive will be workable in the future with slightly faster interenet access.My problems with OnLive are not related to the technical side .
Even though i am mostly a casual gamer ( at least since i gave up WoW ) and i could profit from Pay-per-Hour , i am not sure i would like this .
It would require a lot of trust from my side , OnLive has still to earn.CU , Martin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the results are as expected or even slightly better than expected (at least from my viewpoint).
It shows that something like OnLive will be workable in the future with slightly faster interenet access.My problems with OnLive are not related to the technical side.
Even though i am mostly a casual gamer (at least since i gave up WoW) and i could profit from Pay-per-Hour, i am not sure i would like this.
It would require a lot of trust from my side, OnLive has still to earn.CU, Martin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859932</id>
	<title>Re:concern about patches... hmpf</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264178340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me that's more a good thing than not. Even when a new patch has a serious issue (we all know it happens) it's a LOT harder to support a game when you have 16 levels of patch out there, and you never know whether your bug reports are coming from a completely unpatched instance or one with all the latest updates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me that 's more a good thing than not .
Even when a new patch has a serious issue ( we all know it happens ) it 's a LOT harder to support a game when you have 16 levels of patch out there , and you never know whether your bug reports are coming from a completely unpatched instance or one with all the latest updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me that's more a good thing than not.
Even when a new patch has a serious issue (we all know it happens) it's a LOT harder to support a game when you have 16 levels of patch out there, and you never know whether your bug reports are coming from a completely unpatched instance or one with all the latest updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30860258</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a realistic test to me</title>
	<author>Sobrique</author>
	<datestamp>1264179900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they can sell their service to enough customers within the same city, why exactly do they need to provide coverage for people in the middle of nowhere again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they can sell their service to enough customers within the same city , why exactly do they need to provide coverage for people in the middle of nowhere again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can sell their service to enough customers within the same city, why exactly do they need to provide coverage for people in the middle of nowhere again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858504</id>
	<title>Sounds like a realistic test to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264169580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because guess what? In the real world, people live all over. Onlive isn't going to be able to say "Just move closer to one of our data centers," at least not if they want to pitch themselves as the "cheaper than buying a graphics card" option. Sounds to me like they've been controlling who gets in to the beta to try and create an overly rosy impression. This guy was a more realistic test, a person who doesn't happen to be near their few locations.</p><p>That's just the reality of this. If it is to work well I can't only work well for a few people in a few locations.</p><p>Also the more revealing part was just how bad things look, just how much the compression degrades the image quality. The difference between the local and remote screenshots is almost the difference between SD and HD. While the Onlive stuff is 720p, technically, a ton of the detail is getting lost. That's just what you are going to get when you try and jam HD video in to a 1mbps stream. Only problem is that detracts from one of the supposed reasons to get the service. The lower the resolution and image quality, the lower end graphics card that could handle it on a local system. So Onlive isn't giving you the same experience as a $400-$600 graphics card, it is giving you maybe the same experience as a $50-100 graphics card. Well then, makes it much less worth while.</p><p>So initial results seem to show that the doubters were right:</p><p>1) Latency will be an issue. If you don't happen to live near their datacenters, your latency may make playing difficult to impossible.</p><p>2) Quality will suffer. They don't have some magic voodoo compression that makes everything look perfect, their compression is like everyone else's and trying to do 720p @ 60fps equals a good deal of detail loss.</p><p>3) Even if you have a good net connection, if there are problems or congestion, the service will be unusable, meaning you can't play your games whenever you want.</p><p>Makes it not so attractive as they hyped it to be, especially against powerful $100 graphics cards (the low-mid range of graphics is great these days) and $200 game consoles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because guess what ?
In the real world , people live all over .
Onlive is n't going to be able to say " Just move closer to one of our data centers , " at least not if they want to pitch themselves as the " cheaper than buying a graphics card " option .
Sounds to me like they 've been controlling who gets in to the beta to try and create an overly rosy impression .
This guy was a more realistic test , a person who does n't happen to be near their few locations.That 's just the reality of this .
If it is to work well I ca n't only work well for a few people in a few locations.Also the more revealing part was just how bad things look , just how much the compression degrades the image quality .
The difference between the local and remote screenshots is almost the difference between SD and HD .
While the Onlive stuff is 720p , technically , a ton of the detail is getting lost .
That 's just what you are going to get when you try and jam HD video in to a 1mbps stream .
Only problem is that detracts from one of the supposed reasons to get the service .
The lower the resolution and image quality , the lower end graphics card that could handle it on a local system .
So Onlive is n't giving you the same experience as a $ 400- $ 600 graphics card , it is giving you maybe the same experience as a $ 50-100 graphics card .
Well then , makes it much less worth while.So initial results seem to show that the doubters were right : 1 ) Latency will be an issue .
If you do n't happen to live near their datacenters , your latency may make playing difficult to impossible.2 ) Quality will suffer .
They do n't have some magic voodoo compression that makes everything look perfect , their compression is like everyone else 's and trying to do 720p @ 60fps equals a good deal of detail loss.3 ) Even if you have a good net connection , if there are problems or congestion , the service will be unusable , meaning you ca n't play your games whenever you want.Makes it not so attractive as they hyped it to be , especially against powerful $ 100 graphics cards ( the low-mid range of graphics is great these days ) and $ 200 game consoles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because guess what?
In the real world, people live all over.
Onlive isn't going to be able to say "Just move closer to one of our data centers," at least not if they want to pitch themselves as the "cheaper than buying a graphics card" option.
Sounds to me like they've been controlling who gets in to the beta to try and create an overly rosy impression.
This guy was a more realistic test, a person who doesn't happen to be near their few locations.That's just the reality of this.
If it is to work well I can't only work well for a few people in a few locations.Also the more revealing part was just how bad things look, just how much the compression degrades the image quality.
The difference between the local and remote screenshots is almost the difference between SD and HD.
While the Onlive stuff is 720p, technically, a ton of the detail is getting lost.
That's just what you are going to get when you try and jam HD video in to a 1mbps stream.
Only problem is that detracts from one of the supposed reasons to get the service.
The lower the resolution and image quality, the lower end graphics card that could handle it on a local system.
So Onlive isn't giving you the same experience as a $400-$600 graphics card, it is giving you maybe the same experience as a $50-100 graphics card.
Well then, makes it much less worth while.So initial results seem to show that the doubters were right:1) Latency will be an issue.
If you don't happen to live near their datacenters, your latency may make playing difficult to impossible.2) Quality will suffer.
They don't have some magic voodoo compression that makes everything look perfect, their compression is like everyone else's and trying to do 720p @ 60fps equals a good deal of detail loss.3) Even if you have a good net connection, if there are problems or congestion, the service will be unusable, meaning you can't play your games whenever you want.Makes it not so attractive as they hyped it to be, especially against powerful $100 graphics cards (the low-mid range of graphics is great these days) and $200 game consoles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858572</id>
	<title>Re:VNC like remote desktop client (similar to OnLi</title>
	<author>British</author>
	<datestamp>1264170300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did this back in 1996. I was wardialing, and found somebody's open PcAnywhere connection. So I connected to it and attempted to play Solitaire over 33.6 dialup. Needless to say, it was a pain dragging those cards around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did this back in 1996 .
I was wardialing , and found somebody 's open PcAnywhere connection .
So I connected to it and attempted to play Solitaire over 33.6 dialup .
Needless to say , it was a pain dragging those cards around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did this back in 1996.
I was wardialing, and found somebody's open PcAnywhere connection.
So I connected to it and attempted to play Solitaire over 33.6 dialup.
Needless to say, it was a pain dragging those cards around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857874</id>
	<title>I just gotta saaaaaayy the waaaaayyy I feeeeeeel.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264161060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is it with all this 'cloud' stuff?</p><p>I've got half a terabyte of storage, a pretty good graphics card with shader support and a nippy CPU.</p><p>When there are raytracing cards with inbuilt physics, I'll enjoy a slightly more realistic gaming experience on my local machine, thanks.</p><p>Until then, I'll have to go with pretty realistic and the only significant cause of latency being my old neurons.</p><p>GOML.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it with all this 'cloud ' stuff ? I 've got half a terabyte of storage , a pretty good graphics card with shader support and a nippy CPU.When there are raytracing cards with inbuilt physics , I 'll enjoy a slightly more realistic gaming experience on my local machine , thanks.Until then , I 'll have to go with pretty realistic and the only significant cause of latency being my old neurons.GOML .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it with all this 'cloud' stuff?I've got half a terabyte of storage, a pretty good graphics card with shader support and a nippy CPU.When there are raytracing cards with inbuilt physics, I'll enjoy a slightly more realistic gaming experience on my local machine, thanks.Until then, I'll have to go with pretty realistic and the only significant cause of latency being my old neurons.GOML.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859280</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>uncledrax</author>
	<datestamp>1264175160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The guy logged in using credentials 'borrowed' from an authorised beta tester,....</p></div><p>I know most people take Beta/OpenBeta NDAs as just 'who cares' documents, but there is a reason they exist, and assuming they were signed and stuff, they are (IANAL) binding.</p><p>
&nbsp; I'd be surprised if "PC Perspective" didn't get a C&amp;D already..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy logged in using credentials 'borrowed ' from an authorised beta tester,....I know most people take Beta/OpenBeta NDAs as just 'who cares ' documents , but there is a reason they exist , and assuming they were signed and stuff , they are ( IANAL ) binding .
  I 'd be surprised if " PC Perspective " did n't get a C&amp;D already. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy logged in using credentials 'borrowed' from an authorised beta tester,....I know most people take Beta/OpenBeta NDAs as just 'who cares' documents, but there is a reason they exist, and assuming they were signed and stuff, they are (IANAL) binding.
  I'd be surprised if "PC Perspective" didn't get a C&amp;D already..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858658</id>
	<title>Re:concern about patches... hmpf</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1264171080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also PC patching is becoming much easier in most cases. It is getting rather popular for games to have auto updaters, or a button you can click that will check and download what you need. Then of course if you buy a game from a digital service like Impulse or Steam, those will check automatically and keep your stuff up to date.</p><p>Really the patching thing is becoming largely a non-issue. I don't see no patches as a major selling point for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also PC patching is becoming much easier in most cases .
It is getting rather popular for games to have auto updaters , or a button you can click that will check and download what you need .
Then of course if you buy a game from a digital service like Impulse or Steam , those will check automatically and keep your stuff up to date.Really the patching thing is becoming largely a non-issue .
I do n't see no patches as a major selling point for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also PC patching is becoming much easier in most cases.
It is getting rather popular for games to have auto updaters, or a button you can click that will check and download what you need.
Then of course if you buy a game from a digital service like Impulse or Steam, those will check automatically and keep your stuff up to date.Really the patching thing is becoming largely a non-issue.
I don't see no patches as a major selling point for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30867226</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264183980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice way of putting spin on it, to twist in in your favor, OnLive CEO <strong>Steve Perlman</strong>!</p><p>But this single paragraph will make me <em>never ever come in contact with your company again</em>,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Please note that due to legal actions being taken against us including a DMCA notice given to our website hosting service, we have removed all of OnLive's logos from this article. I apologize that this screws up the preview just a bit, but the words are still 100\% the same as they were when originally published!</p> </div><p>That was obviously a complete dick move, to get the article off the net, because it shows what you like to hide:<br>That the service does not work in practice, that the lag kills it, and that it&rsquo;s utter crap.<br>Also I assume, that if you pull such shit on others, you would pull even worse shit on me, as soon as we would have a contract.</p><p>No. Freakin&rsquo;. Thanks!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice way of putting spin on it , to twist in in your favor , OnLive CEO Steve Perlman ! But this single paragraph will make me never ever come in contact with your company again,Please note that due to legal actions being taken against us including a DMCA notice given to our website hosting service , we have removed all of OnLive 's logos from this article .
I apologize that this screws up the preview just a bit , but the words are still 100 \ % the same as they were when originally published !
That was obviously a complete dick move , to get the article off the net , because it shows what you like to hide : That the service does not work in practice , that the lag kills it , and that it    s utter crap.Also I assume , that if you pull such shit on others , you would pull even worse shit on me , as soon as we would have a contract.No .
Freakin    . Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice way of putting spin on it, to twist in in your favor, OnLive CEO Steve Perlman!But this single paragraph will make me never ever come in contact with your company again,Please note that due to legal actions being taken against us including a DMCA notice given to our website hosting service, we have removed all of OnLive's logos from this article.
I apologize that this screws up the preview just a bit, but the words are still 100\% the same as they were when originally published!
That was obviously a complete dick move, to get the article off the net, because it shows what you like to hide:That the service does not work in practice, that the lag kills it, and that it’s utter crap.Also I assume, that if you pull such shit on others, you would pull even worse shit on me, as soon as we would have a contract.No.
Freakin’. Thanks!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858218</id>
	<title>1 MB/sec...</title>
	<author>V50</author>
	<datestamp>1264164840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are still large areas of North America stuck with either stone-age Dial-Up (in 20-freakin'-10) or slow expensive satellite. Like mine (I cry myself to sleep over my 1200ms latency) This is absolutely a no-go there. Obviously.</p><p>Now, in better places, I'm sort of out of the loop. Whenever I've spent time in cities, either visiting my brother in Ottawa or living in London (Ontario, not the good one) for a few months at a time, it's been my experience that even connections that are supposed to get up to 1MB/sec would be lucky to get that in practice, especially at peak times. Furthermore, the sheer amount of lagspikes, connection hiccups, or general time when the interrnet craps out for no apparent reason makes it seem like you'd be dealing with one frustration after another. The number of times I see people get DC'd on World of Warcraft seems to back up my theory that staying connected, and maintaining a constant connection at 5KB/s or so (for WoW) is difficult enough, doing the same for a (whopping?) 1/MB/s while keeping latency under 100ms would be hellish.</p><p>So is my experience with the Internet indicative of the general population, or have I just had the misfortune of having terrible service? Can people really keep 1MB/s sustained, without lag hiccups, DCs, lost packets, etc, while keeping under 100ms?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are still large areas of North America stuck with either stone-age Dial-Up ( in 20-freakin'-10 ) or slow expensive satellite .
Like mine ( I cry myself to sleep over my 1200ms latency ) This is absolutely a no-go there .
Obviously.Now , in better places , I 'm sort of out of the loop .
Whenever I 've spent time in cities , either visiting my brother in Ottawa or living in London ( Ontario , not the good one ) for a few months at a time , it 's been my experience that even connections that are supposed to get up to 1MB/sec would be lucky to get that in practice , especially at peak times .
Furthermore , the sheer amount of lagspikes , connection hiccups , or general time when the interrnet craps out for no apparent reason makes it seem like you 'd be dealing with one frustration after another .
The number of times I see people get DC 'd on World of Warcraft seems to back up my theory that staying connected , and maintaining a constant connection at 5KB/s or so ( for WoW ) is difficult enough , doing the same for a ( whopping ?
) 1/MB/s while keeping latency under 100ms would be hellish.So is my experience with the Internet indicative of the general population , or have I just had the misfortune of having terrible service ?
Can people really keep 1MB/s sustained , without lag hiccups , DCs , lost packets , etc , while keeping under 100ms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are still large areas of North America stuck with either stone-age Dial-Up (in 20-freakin'-10) or slow expensive satellite.
Like mine (I cry myself to sleep over my 1200ms latency) This is absolutely a no-go there.
Obviously.Now, in better places, I'm sort of out of the loop.
Whenever I've spent time in cities, either visiting my brother in Ottawa or living in London (Ontario, not the good one) for a few months at a time, it's been my experience that even connections that are supposed to get up to 1MB/sec would be lucky to get that in practice, especially at peak times.
Furthermore, the sheer amount of lagspikes, connection hiccups, or general time when the interrnet craps out for no apparent reason makes it seem like you'd be dealing with one frustration after another.
The number of times I see people get DC'd on World of Warcraft seems to back up my theory that staying connected, and maintaining a constant connection at 5KB/s or so (for WoW) is difficult enough, doing the same for a (whopping?
) 1/MB/s while keeping latency under 100ms would be hellish.So is my experience with the Internet indicative of the general population, or have I just had the misfortune of having terrible service?
Can people really keep 1MB/s sustained, without lag hiccups, DCs, lost packets, etc, while keeping under 100ms?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857940</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>Caue</author>
	<datestamp>1264161840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>mediocre = average, so enough for most people. that's a damn good result if you are going for the average user (not the nerdy pro-gamer).</htmltext>
<tokenext>mediocre = average , so enough for most people .
that 's a damn good result if you are going for the average user ( not the nerdy pro-gamer ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mediocre = average, so enough for most people.
that's a damn good result if you are going for the average user (not the nerdy pro-gamer).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858086</id>
	<title>Who didn't expect the "end result"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264163460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The end result appears to be that while slower input-dependent games like Burnout: Paradise worked pretty well, games that require a fast twitch-based input scheme like UT3 did not."</p></div><p>It was going to be pretty damn obvious that this would be the case.<br>Unless they invented some sort of tachyonic backwards compatible networking layer, it wouldn't have worked.</p><p>The only other potentially manageable solution would be servers at exchanges, but that will cost them their entire body several times over.<br>It still won't make things *that* pretty though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The end result appears to be that while slower input-dependent games like Burnout : Paradise worked pretty well , games that require a fast twitch-based input scheme like UT3 did not .
" It was going to be pretty damn obvious that this would be the case.Unless they invented some sort of tachyonic backwards compatible networking layer , it would n't have worked.The only other potentially manageable solution would be servers at exchanges , but that will cost them their entire body several times over.It still wo n't make things * that * pretty though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The end result appears to be that while slower input-dependent games like Burnout: Paradise worked pretty well, games that require a fast twitch-based input scheme like UT3 did not.
"It was going to be pretty damn obvious that this would be the case.Unless they invented some sort of tachyonic backwards compatible networking layer, it wouldn't have worked.The only other potentially manageable solution would be servers at exchanges, but that will cost them their entire body several times over.It still won't make things *that* pretty though.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857882</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264161180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, no connection to this at all; just that I comment so rarely on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. that there's no point having an account. I would have thought that the rest of your comment is blindingly obvious and didn't need to be stated. 'Serious' gamers are probably not the target market for this product, so again, no real need to mention it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , no connection to this at all ; just that I comment so rarely on / .
that there 's no point having an account .
I would have thought that the rest of your comment is blindingly obvious and did n't need to be stated .
'Serious ' gamers are probably not the target market for this product , so again , no real need to mention it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, no connection to this at all; just that I comment so rarely on /.
that there's no point having an account.
I would have thought that the rest of your comment is blindingly obvious and didn't need to be stated.
'Serious' gamers are probably not the target market for this product, so again, no real need to mention it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857764</id>
	<title>Technically competent gamers can sum this up.</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1264159320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With a single word.<br>"DUH!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With a single word. " DUH !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a single word."DUH!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857926</id>
	<title>OnLive employee moderating posts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264161600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on the posts in this topic and how many perfectly sensible posts are mod'd down it seems pretty obvious to me someone with some kind of interest in OnLive is moderating.<br>First time I've seen such distinct bias in moderation (both promotion of posts and demotion)<br>Look out lads, metamoderatings gonna getcha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on the posts in this topic and how many perfectly sensible posts are mod 'd down it seems pretty obvious to me someone with some kind of interest in OnLive is moderating.First time I 've seen such distinct bias in moderation ( both promotion of posts and demotion ) Look out lads , metamoderatings gon na getcha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on the posts in this topic and how many perfectly sensible posts are mod'd down it seems pretty obvious to me someone with some kind of interest in OnLive is moderating.First time I've seen such distinct bias in moderation (both promotion of posts and demotion)Look out lads, metamoderatings gonna getcha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858160</id>
	<title>I just don't see this working</title>
	<author>jbb999</author>
	<datestamp>1264164060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The major problem isn't overall latency, it's little spikes of latency on an otherwise good line.
A moment of 100ms lag on an otherwise good line doesn't matter for online games because of client prediction and at worst it's a tiny moment where the controls don't seem responsive. It's not a problem for normal video because they can buffer 250ms or 500ms or 1000ms of video without any problem.

But on this they can't do any significant buffering or the latency will be too much to play.And even 100ms of sudden latency will cause the picture to lag or freeze or jump. It might only happen occasionally but I suspect people won't put up with it.

And they can't do anything about it either, even if your ISP is only 10\% loaded on its lines and routers, there will be times when all that 10\% send packets at the same moment and they get queued in a router somewhere, just for a tiny time but tiny little amounts of jitter like this are normal and expected and to be honest I think will be the downfall of this project because there is no real way to deal with them.

But I guess we'll see<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The major problem is n't overall latency , it 's little spikes of latency on an otherwise good line .
A moment of 100ms lag on an otherwise good line does n't matter for online games because of client prediction and at worst it 's a tiny moment where the controls do n't seem responsive .
It 's not a problem for normal video because they can buffer 250ms or 500ms or 1000ms of video without any problem .
But on this they ca n't do any significant buffering or the latency will be too much to play.And even 100ms of sudden latency will cause the picture to lag or freeze or jump .
It might only happen occasionally but I suspect people wo n't put up with it .
And they ca n't do anything about it either , even if your ISP is only 10 \ % loaded on its lines and routers , there will be times when all that 10 \ % send packets at the same moment and they get queued in a router somewhere , just for a tiny time but tiny little amounts of jitter like this are normal and expected and to be honest I think will be the downfall of this project because there is no real way to deal with them .
But I guess we 'll see : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The major problem isn't overall latency, it's little spikes of latency on an otherwise good line.
A moment of 100ms lag on an otherwise good line doesn't matter for online games because of client prediction and at worst it's a tiny moment where the controls don't seem responsive.
It's not a problem for normal video because they can buffer 250ms or 500ms or 1000ms of video without any problem.
But on this they can't do any significant buffering or the latency will be too much to play.And even 100ms of sudden latency will cause the picture to lag or freeze or jump.
It might only happen occasionally but I suspect people won't put up with it.
And they can't do anything about it either, even if your ISP is only 10\% loaded on its lines and routers, there will be times when all that 10\% send packets at the same moment and they get queued in a router somewhere, just for a tiny time but tiny little amounts of jitter like this are normal and expected and to be honest I think will be the downfall of this project because there is no real way to deal with them.
But I guess we'll see :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857984</id>
	<title>Looks Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264162320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if the fps's didn't play as well - the video of the game playing looks really impressive.  I can understand the games playing better with a controller it's going to be smaller, more consistent movements which I imagine would be a lot easier to track.</p><p>Is this going to appeal to the hardcore, twitchy fingered, give me super graphics or I'll puke gamer? Nope; but for the rest of us it looks pretty impressive.</p><p>I for one am looking forward to seeing what they do with this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if the fps 's did n't play as well - the video of the game playing looks really impressive .
I can understand the games playing better with a controller it 's going to be smaller , more consistent movements which I imagine would be a lot easier to track.Is this going to appeal to the hardcore , twitchy fingered , give me super graphics or I 'll puke gamer ?
Nope ; but for the rest of us it looks pretty impressive.I for one am looking forward to seeing what they do with this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if the fps's didn't play as well - the video of the game playing looks really impressive.
I can understand the games playing better with a controller it's going to be smaller, more consistent movements which I imagine would be a lot easier to track.Is this going to appeal to the hardcore, twitchy fingered, give me super graphics or I'll puke gamer?
Nope; but for the rest of us it looks pretty impressive.I for one am looking forward to seeing what they do with this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859804</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264177740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's not forget his belief that "750,000 bps" = 1 Mbps, not 7.5Mbs (or closer to 1MB/sec, not 1Mb...) .  And to your point, there's a reason closed betas are closed.   In addition to latency due to distance, this is also still a beta - you can be assured that they are tweaking for performance and other issues on a regular basis.   Any numbers you get from such a beta are pretty meaningless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's not forget his belief that " 750,000 bps " = 1 Mbps , not 7.5Mbs ( or closer to 1MB/sec , not 1Mb... ) .
And to your point , there 's a reason closed betas are closed .
In addition to latency due to distance , this is also still a beta - you can be assured that they are tweaking for performance and other issues on a regular basis .
Any numbers you get from such a beta are pretty meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's not forget his belief that "750,000 bps" = 1 Mbps, not 7.5Mbs (or closer to 1MB/sec, not 1Mb...) .
And to your point, there's a reason closed betas are closed.
In addition to latency due to distance, this is also still a beta - you can be assured that they are tweaking for performance and other issues on a regular basis.
Any numbers you get from such a beta are pretty meaningless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30861842</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a realistic test to me</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1264188420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So Onlive isn't giving you the same experience as a $400-$600 graphics card, it is giving you maybe the same experience as a $50-100 graphics card. Well then, makes it much less worth while.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's giving you the same experience as the one-time cost of a $50-$100 graphics card, and you're paying $10-$20/month for the privilege.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Onlive is n't giving you the same experience as a $ 400- $ 600 graphics card , it is giving you maybe the same experience as a $ 50-100 graphics card .
Well then , makes it much less worth while.It 's giving you the same experience as the one-time cost of a $ 50- $ 100 graphics card , and you 're paying $ 10- $ 20/month for the privilege .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Onlive isn't giving you the same experience as a $400-$600 graphics card, it is giving you maybe the same experience as a $50-100 graphics card.
Well then, makes it much less worth while.It's giving you the same experience as the one-time cost of a $50-$100 graphics card, and you're paying $10-$20/month for the privilege.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30865204</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a realistic test to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264164660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Because guess what? In the real world, people live all over."</p><p>You are consistently one of the dumbest motherfuckers posting.</p><p>Kill yourself.</p><p>"Onlive isn't going to be able to say "Just move closer to one of our data centers,"</p><p>No you fucking buffoon, they'll say, "don't expect the stated performance if you don't follow the FUCKING INSTRUCTIONS"  just like <b>everyone who has ever made anything</b>.</p><p>God you're a fucking idiot, how could you think ANY of your moronic points were worth the time to splatter all over a screen?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Because guess what ?
In the real world , people live all over .
" You are consistently one of the dumbest motherfuckers posting.Kill yourself .
" Onlive is n't going to be able to say " Just move closer to one of our data centers , " No you fucking buffoon , they 'll say , " do n't expect the stated performance if you do n't follow the FUCKING INSTRUCTIONS " just like everyone who has ever made anything.God you 're a fucking idiot , how could you think ANY of your moronic points were worth the time to splatter all over a screen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Because guess what?
In the real world, people live all over.
"You are consistently one of the dumbest motherfuckers posting.Kill yourself.
"Onlive isn't going to be able to say "Just move closer to one of our data centers,"No you fucking buffoon, they'll say, "don't expect the stated performance if you don't follow the FUCKING INSTRUCTIONS"  just like everyone who has ever made anything.God you're a fucking idiot, how could you think ANY of your moronic points were worth the time to splatter all over a screen?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859536</id>
	<title>Re:1 MB/sec...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264176420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could, technically, but I'm on FiOS on a small business connection to my house. 20 down, 5 up (yes it tests out consistently at those speeds), 5 static IPs for $127/mo. I think I've seen less than 4 hours of downtime in the 3 years I've had it, and the latency is consistently excellent. It smokes T1s at 5 times the price, and is (in my experience) more reliable. Too bad it's not more widely available though.</p><p>And no, even with that connection I still wouldn't want a service like OnLive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could , technically , but I 'm on FiOS on a small business connection to my house .
20 down , 5 up ( yes it tests out consistently at those speeds ) , 5 static IPs for $ 127/mo .
I think I 've seen less than 4 hours of downtime in the 3 years I 've had it , and the latency is consistently excellent .
It smokes T1s at 5 times the price , and is ( in my experience ) more reliable .
Too bad it 's not more widely available though.And no , even with that connection I still would n't want a service like OnLive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could, technically, but I'm on FiOS on a small business connection to my house.
20 down, 5 up (yes it tests out consistently at those speeds), 5 static IPs for $127/mo.
I think I've seen less than 4 hours of downtime in the 3 years I've had it, and the latency is consistently excellent.
It smokes T1s at 5 times the price, and is (in my experience) more reliable.
Too bad it's not more widely available though.And no, even with that connection I still wouldn't want a service like OnLive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857890</id>
	<title>Correction: for "excitement and controversy"</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1264161240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read: "excitement (from clueless arts majors masquerading as tech journalists) and hilarity (from anyone with even a remote shred of knowledge of the technologies involved)".

</p><p>Look, this tech may - <em>may</em> - be workable for <em>SimWarConquer</em>, but for anything that's reaction based?  No.  Not going to happen.  There is no technobabble solution to latency, and anyone who tells you otherwise wants your credit card number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read : " excitement ( from clueless arts majors masquerading as tech journalists ) and hilarity ( from anyone with even a remote shred of knowledge of the technologies involved ) " .
Look , this tech may - may - be workable for SimWarConquer , but for anything that 's reaction based ?
No. Not going to happen .
There is no technobabble solution to latency , and anyone who tells you otherwise wants your credit card number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read: "excitement (from clueless arts majors masquerading as tech journalists) and hilarity (from anyone with even a remote shred of knowledge of the technologies involved)".
Look, this tech may - may - be workable for SimWarConquer, but for anything that's reaction based?
No.  Not going to happen.
There is no technobabble solution to latency, and anyone who tells you otherwise wants your credit card number.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30861894</id>
	<title>Re:"Burnout Paradise" is slow?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264188780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like good news to me; Burnout games are really, really fast. If it works for them, it's probably good enough for 95\% of the games out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like good news to me ; Burnout games are really , really fast .
If it works for them , it 's probably good enough for 95 \ % of the games out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like good news to me; Burnout games are really, really fast.
If it works for them, it's probably good enough for 95\% of the games out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858034</id>
	<title>concern about patches... hmpf</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1264162920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Gamers would also no longer have to worry about patches and software updates to their gaming titles - one of those annoyances that PC gamers often cite on their way to moving to a console.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I recently bought a PS3 with some games. When I started it I was welcomed with "You need to install the latest PS3 firmware now!". So I had to wait for it to install and reboot. Then I inserted a game and wanted to play, but I was welcomed with "Updates have been found for this game and need to be installed". Which is pretty much identical to the PC, but there you often have the option to install the patch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gamers would also no longer have to worry about patches and software updates to their gaming titles - one of those annoyances that PC gamers often cite on their way to moving to a console .
I recently bought a PS3 with some games .
When I started it I was welcomed with " You need to install the latest PS3 firmware now ! " .
So I had to wait for it to install and reboot .
Then I inserted a game and wanted to play , but I was welcomed with " Updates have been found for this game and need to be installed " .
Which is pretty much identical to the PC , but there you often have the option to install the patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gamers would also no longer have to worry about patches and software updates to their gaming titles - one of those annoyances that PC gamers often cite on their way to moving to a console.
I recently bought a PS3 with some games.
When I started it I was welcomed with "You need to install the latest PS3 firmware now!".
So I had to wait for it to install and reboot.
Then I inserted a game and wanted to play, but I was welcomed with "Updates have been found for this game and need to be installed".
Which is pretty much identical to the PC, but there you often have the option to install the patch.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857812</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264160280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's that? The beta tester was a regular guy who didn't get special treatment and his experience was mediocre, thereby more accurately representing the actual product!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's that ?
The beta tester was a regular guy who did n't get special treatment and his experience was mediocre , thereby more accurately representing the actual product !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's that?
The beta tester was a regular guy who didn't get special treatment and his experience was mediocre, thereby more accurately representing the actual product!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857820</id>
	<title>Slower input dependant? BURNOUT?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264160460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you kidding me? Of all the arcade racing games I've ever played in my life this series ranks up as one higher ones in terms of needing to have fast reflexes (thus, input delay would be a huge factor).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding me ?
Of all the arcade racing games I 've ever played in my life this series ranks up as one higher ones in terms of needing to have fast reflexes ( thus , input delay would be a huge factor ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding me?
Of all the arcade racing games I've ever played in my life this series ranks up as one higher ones in terms of needing to have fast reflexes (thus, input delay would be a huge factor).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859750</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264177500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>With cloud gaming, however, that will be entirely practical : if you're willing to pay a little more per hour, you'll be able to enjoy Crysis 4 maxxed out with smooth as glass, uber realistic graphics.</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...none of which will be ever be seen due to MPEG compression artifacts.  (Case in point - every nature documentary showing a predator chasing its prey through grasslands, or a thousand birds simultaneously taking flight, even on HD, now looks like ass.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With cloud gaming , however , that will be entirely practical : if you 're willing to pay a little more per hour , you 'll be able to enjoy Crysis 4 maxxed out with smooth as glass , uber realistic graphics .
...none of which will be ever be seen due to MPEG compression artifacts .
( Case in point - every nature documentary showing a predator chasing its prey through grasslands , or a thousand birds simultaneously taking flight , even on HD , now looks like ass .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With cloud gaming, however, that will be entirely practical : if you're willing to pay a little more per hour, you'll be able to enjoy Crysis 4 maxxed out with smooth as glass, uber realistic graphics.
...none of which will be ever be seen due to MPEG compression artifacts.
(Case in point - every nature documentary showing a predator chasing its prey through grasslands, or a thousand birds simultaneously taking flight, even on HD, now looks like ass.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858048</id>
	<title>80 KB/s</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1264163100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I told you so.<br><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1492974&amp;cid=30591584" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1492974&amp;cid=30591584</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p><a href="http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=859" title="pcper.com">http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=859</a> [pcper.com]<br><a href="http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/859/bw.jpg" title="pcper.com">http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/859/bw.jpg</a> [pcper.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I told you so.http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1492974&amp;cid = 30591584 [ slashdot.org ] http : //www.pcper.com/article.php ? aid = 859 [ pcper.com ] http : //www.pcper.com/images/reviews/859/bw.jpg [ pcper.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I told you so.http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1492974&amp;cid=30591584 [slashdot.org]http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=859 [pcper.com]http://www.pcper.com/images/reviews/859/bw.jpg [pcper.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858092</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1264163460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I predict that cloud gaming services will utterly dominate all gaming.  Within 5-10 years, virtually all new titles will be released exclusively for cloud gaming services, and will not be available at all otherwise.  Consoles as we know them will become totally extinct : the next generation of consoles will be the last.</p><p>The reason is economics.  It isn't hard to see the enormous forces that will push cloud gaming to domination.</p><p>1.  All game publishers will be paid for every hour of game played.  This increases their income, which will increase the supply of high quality games.  This is because with cloud gaming, piracy is basically impossible, yet the forces that drive pirates are also mostly eliminated.  You won't have to plunk down $60 to try out a game legally : you'll be able to play any game for $1 an hour or $40 or so a month.</p><p>2.  Instead of there being 3 console platforms + PC, there will be just one platform : the PCs in the cloud gaming data centers.  Most likely, the cloud gaming providers will soon release development kits that are a PC with the exact same hardware and OS image as they have running in their data centers.  PCs are already the easiest platform to get a game running on, with the best dev tools.  Now game publishers will be able to develop their games exclusively for this platform, with a fixed hardware base.</p><p>3.  The overall costs of gaming will be lower.  Instead of every gamer needing their own CPU + GPU, whether that be in a console box or a gaming PC, they'll just rent a portion of one from a central service.  Even after collecting profits, cloud gaming providers will be able to provide gamers with gaming services for much annual lower costs than buying a gaming system and games.</p><p>4.  The big criticisms in this article will be eliminated once there are more cloud gaming data centers, located all over the United States to put one close in terms of network switches to every ISP customer. (reducing latency to 30ms or so, enough to eliminate perceived lag)  Also, there are some tricks with the mouse input that could eliminate the overshoot described in the article.  (sync the mouse coordinates on the client with the server)  The other big critism : inferior graphics quality : will be mostly eliminated with more bandwidth dedicated to the video stream.  The author notes that the current beta client uses only about 1 megabit for the video.  5 megabits would greatly increase the image quality.</p><p>5.  Next generation games that blow your mind graphically will now be practical.  Right now, you can't develop and sell a game that requires cutting edge hardware to give photorealistic graphics.  Consoles are years behind, and you can't write a PC game to require a new $2000 PC that only a few gamers have at any given time.  With cloud gaming, however, that will be entirely practical : if you're willing to pay a little more per hour, you'll be able to enjoy Crysis 4 maxxed out with smooth as glass, uber realistic graphics.</p><p>6.  While one form of lag is introduced with cloud gaming, it eliminates another.  Since each game client is running in a data center with excellent internet connectivity, latency BETWEEN clients in a multiplayer game will be virtually eliminated.</p><p>7.  The tech support nightmare of supporting games due to hardware problems is mostly eliminated.  Games will also load far, far faster because the cloud gaming service can just switch your session to a PC that has already loaded the game.</p><p>8.  Eventually, enough hardware to support online will be integrated into new TVs and blu-ray players, so basically anyone with a TV and a spare USB mouse/keyboard or USB gamepad will be able to enjoy PC games in their full glory.</p><p>9.  The resurgence of mouse/keyboard using gamers will mean that PC game genres like RTS will make a big comeback.</p><p>And lots more reasons.</p><p>The reasons slowing down cloud gaming?</p><p>
       1.  ISPs have to have a contract with the cloud gaming provider, and to use QoS to</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I predict that cloud gaming services will utterly dominate all gaming .
Within 5-10 years , virtually all new titles will be released exclusively for cloud gaming services , and will not be available at all otherwise .
Consoles as we know them will become totally extinct : the next generation of consoles will be the last.The reason is economics .
It is n't hard to see the enormous forces that will push cloud gaming to domination.1 .
All game publishers will be paid for every hour of game played .
This increases their income , which will increase the supply of high quality games .
This is because with cloud gaming , piracy is basically impossible , yet the forces that drive pirates are also mostly eliminated .
You wo n't have to plunk down $ 60 to try out a game legally : you 'll be able to play any game for $ 1 an hour or $ 40 or so a month.2 .
Instead of there being 3 console platforms + PC , there will be just one platform : the PCs in the cloud gaming data centers .
Most likely , the cloud gaming providers will soon release development kits that are a PC with the exact same hardware and OS image as they have running in their data centers .
PCs are already the easiest platform to get a game running on , with the best dev tools .
Now game publishers will be able to develop their games exclusively for this platform , with a fixed hardware base.3 .
The overall costs of gaming will be lower .
Instead of every gamer needing their own CPU + GPU , whether that be in a console box or a gaming PC , they 'll just rent a portion of one from a central service .
Even after collecting profits , cloud gaming providers will be able to provide gamers with gaming services for much annual lower costs than buying a gaming system and games.4 .
The big criticisms in this article will be eliminated once there are more cloud gaming data centers , located all over the United States to put one close in terms of network switches to every ISP customer .
( reducing latency to 30ms or so , enough to eliminate perceived lag ) Also , there are some tricks with the mouse input that could eliminate the overshoot described in the article .
( sync the mouse coordinates on the client with the server ) The other big critism : inferior graphics quality : will be mostly eliminated with more bandwidth dedicated to the video stream .
The author notes that the current beta client uses only about 1 megabit for the video .
5 megabits would greatly increase the image quality.5 .
Next generation games that blow your mind graphically will now be practical .
Right now , you ca n't develop and sell a game that requires cutting edge hardware to give photorealistic graphics .
Consoles are years behind , and you ca n't write a PC game to require a new $ 2000 PC that only a few gamers have at any given time .
With cloud gaming , however , that will be entirely practical : if you 're willing to pay a little more per hour , you 'll be able to enjoy Crysis 4 maxxed out with smooth as glass , uber realistic graphics.6 .
While one form of lag is introduced with cloud gaming , it eliminates another .
Since each game client is running in a data center with excellent internet connectivity , latency BETWEEN clients in a multiplayer game will be virtually eliminated.7 .
The tech support nightmare of supporting games due to hardware problems is mostly eliminated .
Games will also load far , far faster because the cloud gaming service can just switch your session to a PC that has already loaded the game.8 .
Eventually , enough hardware to support online will be integrated into new TVs and blu-ray players , so basically anyone with a TV and a spare USB mouse/keyboard or USB gamepad will be able to enjoy PC games in their full glory.9 .
The resurgence of mouse/keyboard using gamers will mean that PC game genres like RTS will make a big comeback.And lots more reasons.The reasons slowing down cloud gaming ?
1. ISPs have to have a contract with the cloud gaming provider , and to use QoS to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predict that cloud gaming services will utterly dominate all gaming.
Within 5-10 years, virtually all new titles will be released exclusively for cloud gaming services, and will not be available at all otherwise.
Consoles as we know them will become totally extinct : the next generation of consoles will be the last.The reason is economics.
It isn't hard to see the enormous forces that will push cloud gaming to domination.1.
All game publishers will be paid for every hour of game played.
This increases their income, which will increase the supply of high quality games.
This is because with cloud gaming, piracy is basically impossible, yet the forces that drive pirates are also mostly eliminated.
You won't have to plunk down $60 to try out a game legally : you'll be able to play any game for $1 an hour or $40 or so a month.2.
Instead of there being 3 console platforms + PC, there will be just one platform : the PCs in the cloud gaming data centers.
Most likely, the cloud gaming providers will soon release development kits that are a PC with the exact same hardware and OS image as they have running in their data centers.
PCs are already the easiest platform to get a game running on, with the best dev tools.
Now game publishers will be able to develop their games exclusively for this platform, with a fixed hardware base.3.
The overall costs of gaming will be lower.
Instead of every gamer needing their own CPU + GPU, whether that be in a console box or a gaming PC, they'll just rent a portion of one from a central service.
Even after collecting profits, cloud gaming providers will be able to provide gamers with gaming services for much annual lower costs than buying a gaming system and games.4.
The big criticisms in this article will be eliminated once there are more cloud gaming data centers, located all over the United States to put one close in terms of network switches to every ISP customer.
(reducing latency to 30ms or so, enough to eliminate perceived lag)  Also, there are some tricks with the mouse input that could eliminate the overshoot described in the article.
(sync the mouse coordinates on the client with the server)  The other big critism : inferior graphics quality : will be mostly eliminated with more bandwidth dedicated to the video stream.
The author notes that the current beta client uses only about 1 megabit for the video.
5 megabits would greatly increase the image quality.5.
Next generation games that blow your mind graphically will now be practical.
Right now, you can't develop and sell a game that requires cutting edge hardware to give photorealistic graphics.
Consoles are years behind, and you can't write a PC game to require a new $2000 PC that only a few gamers have at any given time.
With cloud gaming, however, that will be entirely practical : if you're willing to pay a little more per hour, you'll be able to enjoy Crysis 4 maxxed out with smooth as glass, uber realistic graphics.6.
While one form of lag is introduced with cloud gaming, it eliminates another.
Since each game client is running in a data center with excellent internet connectivity, latency BETWEEN clients in a multiplayer game will be virtually eliminated.7.
The tech support nightmare of supporting games due to hardware problems is mostly eliminated.
Games will also load far, far faster because the cloud gaming service can just switch your session to a PC that has already loaded the game.8.
Eventually, enough hardware to support online will be integrated into new TVs and blu-ray players, so basically anyone with a TV and a spare USB mouse/keyboard or USB gamepad will be able to enjoy PC games in their full glory.9.
The resurgence of mouse/keyboard using gamers will mean that PC game genres like RTS will make a big comeback.And lots more reasons.The reasons slowing down cloud gaming?
1.  ISPs have to have a contract with the cloud gaming provider, and to use QoS to</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30861024</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>Guspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1264183620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently not as much as you think. Check out these measured latencies from XBox 360 games:</p><p><a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article?page=3" title="eurogamer.net">http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article?page=3</a> [eurogamer.net]</p><p>The lowest any game got was 67ms of latency, and Unreal Tournament 3 measured 100ms-133ms.</p><p>There's a *LOT* of leeway in there to account for 20ms of network latency.</p><p>The problem with the PC Perspective article, other than that he was using a borrowed account, was that the OnLive beta has a limited number of PoPs active; the beta is limited to the geographical areas near the PoPs.</p><p>The author of the article alternatively either had OnLive refuse to connect since the latency was too high, or received warnings that the latency was too high; he ignored them. It's obvious that that would seriously impact performance.</p><p>I'll do some math... I'm sitting on a fibre connection, pinging a fibre connection 1752 miles away, and getting peak latency of 60ms. Let's assume the user is on DSL and add 10ms of latency to account for that, 70ms. OnLive has a maximum range of 1000 miles, so they'd have 34+10ms of latency, or 44ms of network latency. You're already over one frame worth of latency, but this is worst-case for a user at the edge of the range of a PoP.</p><p>Now, if the author of the article was at least twice as far away, you'd be expecting him to get at least 78ms of latency or more... We're starting to talk about 2-3 frames of lag at least. And that is where responsiveness starts going down the tubes.</p><p>He complained about going half a screen past enemies in UT3; if we assume that a twitch action to rotate by 90 degrees takes one fifth of a second (which is probably slower than reality), and the author's ill-adviced "preview" of OnLive has added perhaps 50ms of latency over the intended experience. That would mean that he would overshoot his mark by about 23 degrees, which sounds about right from his experience.</p><p>OnLive will always have problems with twitch games; I suspect games like UT3 will work for users who are quite close to the PoP and experience good conditions. But most other games that are not latency sensitive should work fine for anyone in range of a PoP. The author, however, was far enough away that even those games start to have issues.</p><p>If the author had done all his previewing at the home of this "friend of a friend", we might have seen something more representative of what the final service will behave like!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently not as much as you think .
Check out these measured latencies from XBox 360 games : http : //www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article ? page = 3 [ eurogamer.net ] The lowest any game got was 67ms of latency , and Unreal Tournament 3 measured 100ms-133ms.There 's a * LOT * of leeway in there to account for 20ms of network latency.The problem with the PC Perspective article , other than that he was using a borrowed account , was that the OnLive beta has a limited number of PoPs active ; the beta is limited to the geographical areas near the PoPs.The author of the article alternatively either had OnLive refuse to connect since the latency was too high , or received warnings that the latency was too high ; he ignored them .
It 's obvious that that would seriously impact performance.I 'll do some math... I 'm sitting on a fibre connection , pinging a fibre connection 1752 miles away , and getting peak latency of 60ms .
Let 's assume the user is on DSL and add 10ms of latency to account for that , 70ms .
OnLive has a maximum range of 1000 miles , so they 'd have 34 + 10ms of latency , or 44ms of network latency .
You 're already over one frame worth of latency , but this is worst-case for a user at the edge of the range of a PoP.Now , if the author of the article was at least twice as far away , you 'd be expecting him to get at least 78ms of latency or more... We 're starting to talk about 2-3 frames of lag at least .
And that is where responsiveness starts going down the tubes.He complained about going half a screen past enemies in UT3 ; if we assume that a twitch action to rotate by 90 degrees takes one fifth of a second ( which is probably slower than reality ) , and the author 's ill-adviced " preview " of OnLive has added perhaps 50ms of latency over the intended experience .
That would mean that he would overshoot his mark by about 23 degrees , which sounds about right from his experience.OnLive will always have problems with twitch games ; I suspect games like UT3 will work for users who are quite close to the PoP and experience good conditions .
But most other games that are not latency sensitive should work fine for anyone in range of a PoP .
The author , however , was far enough away that even those games start to have issues.If the author had done all his previewing at the home of this " friend of a friend " , we might have seen something more representative of what the final service will behave like !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently not as much as you think.
Check out these measured latencies from XBox 360 games:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article?page=3 [eurogamer.net]The lowest any game got was 67ms of latency, and Unreal Tournament 3 measured 100ms-133ms.There's a *LOT* of leeway in there to account for 20ms of network latency.The problem with the PC Perspective article, other than that he was using a borrowed account, was that the OnLive beta has a limited number of PoPs active; the beta is limited to the geographical areas near the PoPs.The author of the article alternatively either had OnLive refuse to connect since the latency was too high, or received warnings that the latency was too high; he ignored them.
It's obvious that that would seriously impact performance.I'll do some math... I'm sitting on a fibre connection, pinging a fibre connection 1752 miles away, and getting peak latency of 60ms.
Let's assume the user is on DSL and add 10ms of latency to account for that, 70ms.
OnLive has a maximum range of 1000 miles, so they'd have 34+10ms of latency, or 44ms of network latency.
You're already over one frame worth of latency, but this is worst-case for a user at the edge of the range of a PoP.Now, if the author of the article was at least twice as far away, you'd be expecting him to get at least 78ms of latency or more... We're starting to talk about 2-3 frames of lag at least.
And that is where responsiveness starts going down the tubes.He complained about going half a screen past enemies in UT3; if we assume that a twitch action to rotate by 90 degrees takes one fifth of a second (which is probably slower than reality), and the author's ill-adviced "preview" of OnLive has added perhaps 50ms of latency over the intended experience.
That would mean that he would overshoot his mark by about 23 degrees, which sounds about right from his experience.OnLive will always have problems with twitch games; I suspect games like UT3 will work for users who are quite close to the PoP and experience good conditions.
But most other games that are not latency sensitive should work fine for anyone in range of a PoP.
The author, however, was far enough away that even those games start to have issues.If the author had done all his previewing at the home of this "friend of a friend", we might have seen something more representative of what the final service will behave like!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858000</id>
	<title>VNC like remote desktop client (similar to OnLive)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264162500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I've been mildly interested in OnLive, my biggest excitement over this was a confirmation that a streamed remote desktop session with real good responsiveness (say LAN) could be had soon. I even started poking around for similar systems that actually streamed the desktop in  2mbps or similar video stream with interactivity, but alas, it seems like no one is working on this issue.</p><p>So, I'm open to suggestions, is there any current existing remote desktop server/client system that actually streams the desktop in the OnLive fashion, or is anyone working on one similar to this? (And I do not mean in the old VNC fashion). I believe such a system is very feasible. Imagine being able to stream your desktop onto thin/mobile devices just like you were on it, being able to play video (at least) would be so much better than the current remote desktop offerings.</p><p>In a nutshell, I want this applied to remotely stream desktops with full control ala VNC but similar to OnLive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 've been mildly interested in OnLive , my biggest excitement over this was a confirmation that a streamed remote desktop session with real good responsiveness ( say LAN ) could be had soon .
I even started poking around for similar systems that actually streamed the desktop in 2mbps or similar video stream with interactivity , but alas , it seems like no one is working on this issue.So , I 'm open to suggestions , is there any current existing remote desktop server/client system that actually streams the desktop in the OnLive fashion , or is anyone working on one similar to this ?
( And I do not mean in the old VNC fashion ) .
I believe such a system is very feasible .
Imagine being able to stream your desktop onto thin/mobile devices just like you were on it , being able to play video ( at least ) would be so much better than the current remote desktop offerings.In a nutshell , I want this applied to remotely stream desktops with full control ala VNC but similar to OnLive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I've been mildly interested in OnLive, my biggest excitement over this was a confirmation that a streamed remote desktop session with real good responsiveness (say LAN) could be had soon.
I even started poking around for similar systems that actually streamed the desktop in  2mbps or similar video stream with interactivity, but alas, it seems like no one is working on this issue.So, I'm open to suggestions, is there any current existing remote desktop server/client system that actually streams the desktop in the OnLive fashion, or is anyone working on one similar to this?
(And I do not mean in the old VNC fashion).
I believe such a system is very feasible.
Imagine being able to stream your desktop onto thin/mobile devices just like you were on it, being able to play video (at least) would be so much better than the current remote desktop offerings.In a nutshell, I want this applied to remotely stream desktops with full control ala VNC but similar to OnLive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857918</id>
	<title>I am indeed dissapoint, Slashdot.</title>
	<author>EdZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264161540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I came here expecting to see a belated "First!" post followed by a joke about lag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I came here expecting to see a belated " First !
" post followed by a joke about lag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I came here expecting to see a belated "First!
" post followed by a joke about lag.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859852</id>
	<title>Re:As expected</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264177980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It would require a lot of trust from my side, OnLive has still to earn</p></div><p>Trust?  In what way, beyond what you would give *any* online merchant to whom you provide your credit card info?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would require a lot of trust from my side , OnLive has still to earnTrust ?
In what way , beyond what you would give * any * online merchant to whom you provide your credit card info ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would require a lot of trust from my side, OnLive has still to earnTrust?
In what way, beyond what you would give *any* online merchant to whom you provide your credit card info?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758</id>
	<title>Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264159200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy logged in using credentials 'borrowed' from an authorised beta tester, from more than twice the recommended distance from the server, acknowledged multiple high latency (due to distance) notifications, and the best he could do is damn the service with faint praise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy logged in using credentials 'borrowed ' from an authorised beta tester , from more than twice the recommended distance from the server , acknowledged multiple high latency ( due to distance ) notifications , and the best he could do is damn the service with faint praise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy logged in using credentials 'borrowed' from an authorised beta tester, from more than twice the recommended distance from the server, acknowledged multiple high latency (due to distance) notifications, and the best he could do is damn the service with faint praise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859548</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a realistic test to me</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1264176540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because guess what? In the real world, people live all over. Onlive isn't going to be able to say "Just move closer to one of our data centers," at least not if they want to pitch themselves as the "cheaper than buying a graphics card" option. Sounds to me like they've been controlling who gets in to the beta to try and create an overly rosy impression. This guy was a more realistic test, a person who doesn't happen to be near their few locations.</p><p>That's just the reality of this. If it is to work well I can't only work well for a few people in a few locations.</p></div><p>Imagine a movie-listings website for the greater New York City area.  Now imagine some from Wyoming complaining that the theater in Cheyenne isn't listed on that site.  The response that person would get is the same that your objection gets:</p><p>If you don't live with our covered-area, feel free to use another service.  We have plenty of customers within our area and we have decided not to cover yours.</p><p>Not every business on the planet expects to serve every customer one the planet, and yet somehow they can still turn profits.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Makes it not so attractive as they hyped it to be, especially against powerful $100 graphics cards (the low-mid range of graphics is great these days) and $200 game consoles.</p></div><p>I think one of us has missed something.  Either you're right, and OnLive expects this to kill all other gaming everywhere, or I'm right in that this is a supplemental service to gaming that adds a remote component for those customers that want it and can access it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because guess what ?
In the real world , people live all over .
Onlive is n't going to be able to say " Just move closer to one of our data centers , " at least not if they want to pitch themselves as the " cheaper than buying a graphics card " option .
Sounds to me like they 've been controlling who gets in to the beta to try and create an overly rosy impression .
This guy was a more realistic test , a person who does n't happen to be near their few locations.That 's just the reality of this .
If it is to work well I ca n't only work well for a few people in a few locations.Imagine a movie-listings website for the greater New York City area .
Now imagine some from Wyoming complaining that the theater in Cheyenne is n't listed on that site .
The response that person would get is the same that your objection gets : If you do n't live with our covered-area , feel free to use another service .
We have plenty of customers within our area and we have decided not to cover yours.Not every business on the planet expects to serve every customer one the planet , and yet somehow they can still turn profits.Makes it not so attractive as they hyped it to be , especially against powerful $ 100 graphics cards ( the low-mid range of graphics is great these days ) and $ 200 game consoles.I think one of us has missed something .
Either you 're right , and OnLive expects this to kill all other gaming everywhere , or I 'm right in that this is a supplemental service to gaming that adds a remote component for those customers that want it and can access it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because guess what?
In the real world, people live all over.
Onlive isn't going to be able to say "Just move closer to one of our data centers," at least not if they want to pitch themselves as the "cheaper than buying a graphics card" option.
Sounds to me like they've been controlling who gets in to the beta to try and create an overly rosy impression.
This guy was a more realistic test, a person who doesn't happen to be near their few locations.That's just the reality of this.
If it is to work well I can't only work well for a few people in a few locations.Imagine a movie-listings website for the greater New York City area.
Now imagine some from Wyoming complaining that the theater in Cheyenne isn't listed on that site.
The response that person would get is the same that your objection gets:If you don't live with our covered-area, feel free to use another service.
We have plenty of customers within our area and we have decided not to cover yours.Not every business on the planet expects to serve every customer one the planet, and yet somehow they can still turn profits.Makes it not so attractive as they hyped it to be, especially against powerful $100 graphics cards (the low-mid range of graphics is great these days) and $200 game consoles.I think one of us has missed something.
Either you're right, and OnLive expects this to kill all other gaming everywhere, or I'm right in that this is a supplemental service to gaming that adds a remote component for those customers that want it and can access it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30860370</id>
	<title>Re:"Burnout Paradise" is slow?!</title>
	<author>iainl</author>
	<datestamp>1264180500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alex Ward (smack-talking Creative Director at Criterion) is on record in the past saying is as many words that if it didn't run at 60fps, it wouldn't be Burnout. Which makes me very suspicious of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alex Ward ( smack-talking Creative Director at Criterion ) is on record in the past saying is as many words that if it did n't run at 60fps , it would n't be Burnout .
Which makes me very suspicious of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alex Ward (smack-talking Creative Director at Criterion) is on record in the past saying is as many words that if it didn't run at 60fps, it wouldn't be Burnout.
Which makes me very suspicious of this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857932</id>
	<title>"Burnout Paradise" is slow?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264161600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must admit, I've not actually played it, but if it's anything like the other Burnout games, millisecond reaction times are kind of important. It may be that he has having a hard time picking up on la instinctively because of the analogue controls but I doubt the reaction time increase would stand up in serious play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must admit , I 've not actually played it , but if it 's anything like the other Burnout games , millisecond reaction times are kind of important .
It may be that he has having a hard time picking up on la instinctively because of the analogue controls but I doubt the reaction time increase would stand up in serious play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must admit, I've not actually played it, but if it's anything like the other Burnout games, millisecond reaction times are kind of important.
It may be that he has having a hard time picking up on la instinctively because of the analogue controls but I doubt the reaction time increase would stand up in serious play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857810</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264160220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you work for OnLive? Then how do you fail to acknowledge that for games that are highly dependent on reaction speed even a few millis of latency may add up to a laggy experience? The problem may be exacerbated by the reporter's distance from the server, sure. But for serious gamers it is common knowledge that remote playing will not ever be as quick as a LAN frag fest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you work for OnLive ?
Then how do you fail to acknowledge that for games that are highly dependent on reaction speed even a few millis of latency may add up to a laggy experience ?
The problem may be exacerbated by the reporter 's distance from the server , sure .
But for serious gamers it is common knowledge that remote playing will not ever be as quick as a LAN frag fest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you work for OnLive?
Then how do you fail to acknowledge that for games that are highly dependent on reaction speed even a few millis of latency may add up to a laggy experience?
The problem may be exacerbated by the reporter's distance from the server, sure.
But for serious gamers it is common knowledge that remote playing will not ever be as quick as a LAN frag fest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858054</id>
	<title>Hope this doesn't start move away  from mouselook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264163160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading the original article it seems that using an Xbox controller is much less sensitive to lag than mouse and keyboard. Presumably this is because the input device itself is less precise and less responsive. I love mouse and keyboard control though so I really really hope this doesn't catch on and  start a move away from good old mouse-look.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading the original article it seems that using an Xbox controller is much less sensitive to lag than mouse and keyboard .
Presumably this is because the input device itself is less precise and less responsive .
I love mouse and keyboard control though so I really really hope this does n't catch on and start a move away from good old mouse-look .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading the original article it seems that using an Xbox controller is much less sensitive to lag than mouse and keyboard.
Presumably this is because the input device itself is less precise and less responsive.
I love mouse and keyboard control though so I really really hope this doesn't catch on and  start a move away from good old mouse-look.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859936</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a realistic test to me</title>
	<author>denton420</author>
	<datestamp>1264178340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think no matter what we can all agree that OnLive is not for your serious - regular gamers because they already have the hardware, even if it is outdated, and are used to playing on their local system.</p><p>Since the system has flaws it will likely not persuade them to try the service.</p><p>However, those who do not game due to the entry cost of a console or PC might find the idea neat and it could catch on.</p><p>Turn some casual/non gamers into regular gamers only knowing what the gaming experience is like through OnLive.</p><p>The important question to me is whether or not that specific market share is enough to make the company profitable. I have a feeling that the business model includes the large market of current gamers running on sub-par hardware as potential clients. Sorry, but I don't think you will be getting their business!</p><p>Who really knows? Everything is about marketing these days anyways, with the majority of America just repeating whatever was on American Idol last night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think no matter what we can all agree that OnLive is not for your serious - regular gamers because they already have the hardware , even if it is outdated , and are used to playing on their local system.Since the system has flaws it will likely not persuade them to try the service.However , those who do not game due to the entry cost of a console or PC might find the idea neat and it could catch on.Turn some casual/non gamers into regular gamers only knowing what the gaming experience is like through OnLive.The important question to me is whether or not that specific market share is enough to make the company profitable .
I have a feeling that the business model includes the large market of current gamers running on sub-par hardware as potential clients .
Sorry , but I do n't think you will be getting their business ! Who really knows ?
Everything is about marketing these days anyways , with the majority of America just repeating whatever was on American Idol last night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think no matter what we can all agree that OnLive is not for your serious - regular gamers because they already have the hardware, even if it is outdated, and are used to playing on their local system.Since the system has flaws it will likely not persuade them to try the service.However, those who do not game due to the entry cost of a console or PC might find the idea neat and it could catch on.Turn some casual/non gamers into regular gamers only knowing what the gaming experience is like through OnLive.The important question to me is whether or not that specific market share is enough to make the company profitable.
I have a feeling that the business model includes the large market of current gamers running on sub-par hardware as potential clients.
Sorry, but I don't think you will be getting their business!Who really knows?
Everything is about marketing these days anyways, with the majority of America just repeating whatever was on American Idol last night.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859446</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1264176000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1. All game publishers will be paid for every hour of game played. This increases their income,</i></p><p>This will decrease their income.  One of the great things about gaming is the entertainment hours/dollar value.  I can spend $50 on a game, and get hundreds of hours of entertainment out of it. Unless we're looking at less than $.25/hr it's simply not price competitive with local gaming.</p><p><i>2. Instead of there being 3 console platforms + PC, there will be just one platform : the PCs in the cloud gaming data centers.</i></p><p>And what incentive do the console makers have to just go away?</p><p><i>3. The overall costs of gaming will be lower.</i></p><p>Gaming is cheap as shit anyway. And when has renting ever been cheaper than owning?</p><p>I'll stop here.  It's not going to happen. There's always going to be a market for local games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
All game publishers will be paid for every hour of game played .
This increases their income,This will decrease their income .
One of the great things about gaming is the entertainment hours/dollar value .
I can spend $ 50 on a game , and get hundreds of hours of entertainment out of it .
Unless we 're looking at less than $ .25/hr it 's simply not price competitive with local gaming.2 .
Instead of there being 3 console platforms + PC , there will be just one platform : the PCs in the cloud gaming data centers.And what incentive do the console makers have to just go away ? 3 .
The overall costs of gaming will be lower.Gaming is cheap as shit anyway .
And when has renting ever been cheaper than owning ? I 'll stop here .
It 's not going to happen .
There 's always going to be a market for local games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
All game publishers will be paid for every hour of game played.
This increases their income,This will decrease their income.
One of the great things about gaming is the entertainment hours/dollar value.
I can spend $50 on a game, and get hundreds of hours of entertainment out of it.
Unless we're looking at less than $.25/hr it's simply not price competitive with local gaming.2.
Instead of there being 3 console platforms + PC, there will be just one platform : the PCs in the cloud gaming data centers.And what incentive do the console makers have to just go away?3.
The overall costs of gaming will be lower.Gaming is cheap as shit anyway.
And when has renting ever been cheaper than owning?I'll stop here.
It's not going to happen.
There's always going to be a market for local games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859912</id>
	<title>Re:80 KB/s</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1264178280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually we're looking at 800KB/s (7-8Mb).  The author is apparently confused in his writeup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually we 're looking at 800KB/s ( 7-8Mb ) .
The author is apparently confused in his writeup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually we're looking at 800KB/s (7-8Mb).
The author is apparently confused in his writeup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858974</id>
	<title>Re:Well</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1264173420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I predict none of that will come to pass, because it will take at least ten years for the infrastructure build out to make it feasible. I could see the next generation MMOs doing something like this, however. It might actually save bandwidth, since you could scale up the number of objects without having to send deltas for every single one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I predict none of that will come to pass , because it will take at least ten years for the infrastructure build out to make it feasible .
I could see the next generation MMOs doing something like this , however .
It might actually save bandwidth , since you could scale up the number of objects without having to send deltas for every single one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predict none of that will come to pass, because it will take at least ten years for the infrastructure build out to make it feasible.
I could see the next generation MMOs doing something like this, however.
It might actually save bandwidth, since you could scale up the number of objects without having to send deltas for every single one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857784</id>
	<title>Videos removed from YouTube already</title>
	<author>l\_bratch</author>
	<datestamp>1264159800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The menu video seems to be available, but the in game videos now give:</p><p>"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by OnLive, Inc..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The menu video seems to be available , but the in game videos now give : " This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by OnLive , Inc... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The menu video seems to be available, but the in game videos now give:"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by OnLive, Inc..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30862024</id>
	<title>Re:concern about patches... hmpf</title>
	<author>IKnwThePiecesFt</author>
	<datestamp>1264189500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next time your Playstation prompts you to install an update, hit circle.</p><p>You'll see that PS3 patches are optional as well.  As long as you don't intend to play online, but that applies to PC gaming as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next time your Playstation prompts you to install an update , hit circle.You 'll see that PS3 patches are optional as well .
As long as you do n't intend to play online , but that applies to PC gaming as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next time your Playstation prompts you to install an update, hit circle.You'll see that PS3 patches are optional as well.
As long as you don't intend to play online, but that applies to PC gaming as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857732</id>
	<title>Duuuuuh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264158780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was this really a surprise to <b>anyone</b> who knows anything about the technicalities of time critical mechanisms in games?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was this really a surprise to anyone who knows anything about the technicalities of time critical mechanisms in games ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was this really a surprise to anyone who knows anything about the technicalities of time critical mechanisms in games?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857840</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264160580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a stupid idea... it needs to be damned by damn...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a stupid idea... it needs to be damned by damn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a stupid idea... it needs to be damned by damn...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858008</id>
	<title>Re:Correction: for "excitement and controversy"</title>
	<author>PriyanPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1264162560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First off, broadly speaking, I agree with you. Latency is going to be too much of an issue for most people to jump on board without an (inevitable and arguably overdue) infrastructure upgrade.

However there are two types of latency OnLive is dealing with. The first is the obvious one from transmitting data back and forth over the internet. The second is the actual video encoding process server-side. That is where OnLive seems to have come up with a novel "technobabble solution" that actually works. It is, in all honesty, probably where their value lies rather than the service they are trying to offer which is almost certainly before its time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , broadly speaking , I agree with you .
Latency is going to be too much of an issue for most people to jump on board without an ( inevitable and arguably overdue ) infrastructure upgrade .
However there are two types of latency OnLive is dealing with .
The first is the obvious one from transmitting data back and forth over the internet .
The second is the actual video encoding process server-side .
That is where OnLive seems to have come up with a novel " technobabble solution " that actually works .
It is , in all honesty , probably where their value lies rather than the service they are trying to offer which is almost certainly before its time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, broadly speaking, I agree with you.
Latency is going to be too much of an issue for most people to jump on board without an (inevitable and arguably overdue) infrastructure upgrade.
However there are two types of latency OnLive is dealing with.
The first is the obvious one from transmitting data back and forth over the internet.
The second is the actual video encoding process server-side.
That is where OnLive seems to have come up with a novel "technobabble solution" that actually works.
It is, in all honesty, probably where their value lies rather than the service they are trying to offer which is almost certainly before its time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857952</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>tolan-b</author>
	<datestamp>1264161960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OnLive have clearly said that they think the latency isn't too much for most people if it's lower than 80ms, they've made a big deal about how far you have to be from the server and a reviewer dislikes it because the latency is too high when he's using it in a way that OnLive said would make the latency too high? What a surprise!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OnLive have clearly said that they think the latency is n't too much for most people if it 's lower than 80ms , they 've made a big deal about how far you have to be from the server and a reviewer dislikes it because the latency is too high when he 's using it in a way that OnLive said would make the latency too high ?
What a surprise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OnLive have clearly said that they think the latency isn't too much for most people if it's lower than 80ms, they've made a big deal about how far you have to be from the server and a reviewer dislikes it because the latency is too high when he's using it in a way that OnLive said would make the latency too high?
What a surprise!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30860726</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>anyGould</author>
	<datestamp>1264182240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do you work for OnLive? Then how do you fail to acknowledge that for games that are highly dependent on reaction speed even a few millis of latency may add up to a laggy experience? The problem may be exacerbated by the reporter's distance from the server, sure. But for serious gamers it is common knowledge that remote playing will not ever be as quick as a LAN frag fest.</p></div><p>Sadly, I'm at work and can't dig up the YouTube link, but there was a talk/tech demo given at Columbia where they seemed very upfront about the technical challenges. In particular, it was stated that the time budget from "push button" to "see result on screen" was 80 ms, and was then broken down in to the various categories (so much time for local routing, so much time for video processing, etc). IIRC, the budget for data transport was 24 ms (which worked out to 1000 miles client to server).</p><p>Can't say whether it's a good idea (I'd be more likely to go for it as a monthly subscription model rather than a "pay full price but don't get anything" system, myself), but the talk was remarkably frank about what the restrictions were and how they planned to work around them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you work for OnLive ?
Then how do you fail to acknowledge that for games that are highly dependent on reaction speed even a few millis of latency may add up to a laggy experience ?
The problem may be exacerbated by the reporter 's distance from the server , sure .
But for serious gamers it is common knowledge that remote playing will not ever be as quick as a LAN frag fest.Sadly , I 'm at work and ca n't dig up the YouTube link , but there was a talk/tech demo given at Columbia where they seemed very upfront about the technical challenges .
In particular , it was stated that the time budget from " push button " to " see result on screen " was 80 ms , and was then broken down in to the various categories ( so much time for local routing , so much time for video processing , etc ) .
IIRC , the budget for data transport was 24 ms ( which worked out to 1000 miles client to server ) .Ca n't say whether it 's a good idea ( I 'd be more likely to go for it as a monthly subscription model rather than a " pay full price but do n't get anything " system , myself ) , but the talk was remarkably frank about what the restrictions were and how they planned to work around them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you work for OnLive?
Then how do you fail to acknowledge that for games that are highly dependent on reaction speed even a few millis of latency may add up to a laggy experience?
The problem may be exacerbated by the reporter's distance from the server, sure.
But for serious gamers it is common knowledge that remote playing will not ever be as quick as a LAN frag fest.Sadly, I'm at work and can't dig up the YouTube link, but there was a talk/tech demo given at Columbia where they seemed very upfront about the technical challenges.
In particular, it was stated that the time budget from "push button" to "see result on screen" was 80 ms, and was then broken down in to the various categories (so much time for local routing, so much time for video processing, etc).
IIRC, the budget for data transport was 24 ms (which worked out to 1000 miles client to server).Can't say whether it's a good idea (I'd be more likely to go for it as a monthly subscription model rather than a "pay full price but don't get anything" system, myself), but the talk was remarkably frank about what the restrictions were and how they planned to work around them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857966</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264162080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OnLive knows all this. They set themselves a target of 80ms round-trip latency.</p><p>To achieve this, they set certain geographical limits. This journalist broke those limits. The software warning him about high latency. He observed high latency.</p><p>Note that some games are perceived as OK despite up to 200ms round-trip latency. <a href="http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article?page=3" title="eurogamer.net">GTA IV on the Xbox was measured to have 133-200ms latency</a> [eurogamer.net]. Nobody cared because it's not a twitch game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OnLive knows all this .
They set themselves a target of 80ms round-trip latency.To achieve this , they set certain geographical limits .
This journalist broke those limits .
The software warning him about high latency .
He observed high latency.Note that some games are perceived as OK despite up to 200ms round-trip latency .
GTA IV on the Xbox was measured to have 133-200ms latency [ eurogamer.net ] .
Nobody cared because it 's not a twitch game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OnLive knows all this.
They set themselves a target of 80ms round-trip latency.To achieve this, they set certain geographical limits.
This journalist broke those limits.
The software warning him about high latency.
He observed high latency.Note that some games are perceived as OK despite up to 200ms round-trip latency.
GTA IV on the Xbox was measured to have 133-200ms latency [eurogamer.net].
Nobody cared because it's not a twitch game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858188</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another infomation-free summary...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264164420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to have a poor understanding of the phrases 'information free' and 'damn with faint praise', as I see *neither* of those apply to the summary (for the former) or the article (for the latter).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to have a poor understanding of the phrases 'information free ' and 'damn with faint praise ' , as I see * neither * of those apply to the summary ( for the former ) or the article ( for the latter ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to have a poor understanding of the phrases 'information free' and 'damn with faint praise', as I see *neither* of those apply to the summary (for the former) or the article (for the latter).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858884</id>
	<title>Re:OnLive employee moderating posts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264173000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I moderated a couple of posts in this discussion and I didn't think that a lot of the anti-OnLive crowd was giving them a fair shake. I have no connection to OnLive and do not plan on using it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I moderated a couple of posts in this discussion and I did n't think that a lot of the anti-OnLive crowd was giving them a fair shake .
I have no connection to OnLive and do not plan on using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I moderated a couple of posts in this discussion and I didn't think that a lot of the anti-OnLive crowd was giving them a fair shake.
I have no connection to OnLive and do not plan on using it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30863306</id>
	<title>Re:Correction: for "excitement and controversy"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264153920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you come back and read this post in a few years and see it as being very short sighted.</p><p>I don't see any reasons why this couldn't work, this is a new service - whose to say in 10 years the majority of users won't have some sort of residential fiber?</p><p>I have fiber to my apartment building. I have 30mb down and 10mb up with latency to Google for example around 10-20ms on average.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you come back and read this post in a few years and see it as being very short sighted.I do n't see any reasons why this could n't work , this is a new service - whose to say in 10 years the majority of users wo n't have some sort of residential fiber ? I have fiber to my apartment building .
I have 30mb down and 10mb up with latency to Google for example around 10-20ms on average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you come back and read this post in a few years and see it as being very short sighted.I don't see any reasons why this couldn't work, this is a new service - whose to say in 10 years the majority of users won't have some sort of residential fiber?I have fiber to my apartment building.
I have 30mb down and 10mb up with latency to Google for example around 10-20ms on average.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857890</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30867226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30865204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30861894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30861024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30860726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30860370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30863306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30861842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30862024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30860258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_22_0731247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30860726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30861024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30867226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30860258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30865204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30861842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30863306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30862024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30859932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30857932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30861894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30860370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_22_0731247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_22_0731247.30858160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
