<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_23_001227</id>
	<title>Space Photos Taken From Shed Stun Astronomers</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264233780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>krou writes <i>"Amateur astronomer Peter Shah has stunned astronomers around the world with amazing <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7042005/Space-pictures-taken-from-garden-shed.html">photos of the universe taken from his garden shed</a>. Shah spent &pound;20,000 on the equipment, hooking up a telescope in his shed to his home computer, and the results are being compared to images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. 'Most men like to putter about in their garden shed,' said Shah, 'but mine is a bit more high tech than most. I have fitted it with a sliding roof so I can sit in comfort and look at the heavens. I have a very modest set up, but it just goes to show that a window to the universe is there for all of us &ndash; even with the smallest budgets. I had to be patient and take the images over a period of several months because the skies in Britain are often clouded over and you need clear conditions.' <a href="http://www.astropix.co.uk/ps/index.htm">His images</a> include the Monkey's head nebula, M33 Pinwheel Galaxy, Andromeda Galaxy and the Flaming Star Nebula, and are being put together for a book."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>krou writes " Amateur astronomer Peter Shah has stunned astronomers around the world with amazing photos of the universe taken from his garden shed .
Shah spent   20,000 on the equipment , hooking up a telescope in his shed to his home computer , and the results are being compared to images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope .
'Most men like to putter about in their garden shed, ' said Shah , 'but mine is a bit more high tech than most .
I have fitted it with a sliding roof so I can sit in comfort and look at the heavens .
I have a very modest set up , but it just goes to show that a window to the universe is there for all of us    even with the smallest budgets .
I had to be patient and take the images over a period of several months because the skies in Britain are often clouded over and you need clear conditions .
' His images include the Monkey 's head nebula , M33 Pinwheel Galaxy , Andromeda Galaxy and the Flaming Star Nebula , and are being put together for a book .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>krou writes "Amateur astronomer Peter Shah has stunned astronomers around the world with amazing photos of the universe taken from his garden shed.
Shah spent £20,000 on the equipment, hooking up a telescope in his shed to his home computer, and the results are being compared to images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.
'Most men like to putter about in their garden shed,' said Shah, 'but mine is a bit more high tech than most.
I have fitted it with a sliding roof so I can sit in comfort and look at the heavens.
I have a very modest set up, but it just goes to show that a window to the universe is there for all of us – even with the smallest budgets.
I had to be patient and take the images over a period of several months because the skies in Britain are often clouded over and you need clear conditions.
' His images include the Monkey's head nebula, M33 Pinwheel Galaxy, Andromeda Galaxy and the Flaming Star Nebula, and are being put together for a book.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869238</id>
	<title>Small nit with summary</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1264258140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Amateur astronomer Peter Shah has stunned astronomers around the world with amazing photos of the universe taken from his garden shed.</p></div><p>As remarkable an accomplishment as these photos are, it would have been even <em>more</em> remarkable if he'd managed to take pictures of something <em>other</em> than the universe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amateur astronomer Peter Shah has stunned astronomers around the world with amazing photos of the universe taken from his garden shed.As remarkable an accomplishment as these photos are , it would have been even more remarkable if he 'd managed to take pictures of something other than the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amateur astronomer Peter Shah has stunned astronomers around the world with amazing photos of the universe taken from his garden shed.As remarkable an accomplishment as these photos are, it would have been even more remarkable if he'd managed to take pictures of something other than the universe.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867980</id>
	<title>My God...</title>
	<author>He Who Has No Name</author>
	<datestamp>1264239300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...it's full of stars.</p><p>Gorgeous pics, and nice work giving an orbital observatory a run for its money, partner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...it 's full of stars.Gorgeous pics , and nice work giving an orbital observatory a run for its money , partner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it's full of stars.Gorgeous pics, and nice work giving an orbital observatory a run for its money, partner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867938</id>
	<title>Google says...</title>
	<author>reverendbeer</author>
	<datestamp>1264238760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>...go here for more pic of his setup. I can totally see where that &pound;20k went.

<a href="http://www.opticstar.com/Run/Astronomy/Astro-Editorial-Articles-General.asp?p=0\_10\_19\_1\_6\_10" title="opticstar.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.opticstar.com/Run/Astronomy/Astro-Editorial-Articles-General.asp?p=0\_10\_19\_1\_6\_10</a> [opticstar.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>...go here for more pic of his setup .
I can totally see where that   20k went .
http : //www.opticstar.com/Run/Astronomy/Astro-Editorial-Articles-General.asp ? p = 0 \ _10 \ _19 \ _1 \ _6 \ _10 [ opticstar.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...go here for more pic of his setup.
I can totally see where that £20k went.
http://www.opticstar.com/Run/Astronomy/Astro-Editorial-Articles-General.asp?p=0\_10\_19\_1\_6\_10 [opticstar.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868946</id>
	<title>Well, eight inches ought to be enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264254660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>/obscure?</htmltext>
<tokenext>/obscure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/obscure?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868150</id>
	<title>Cuts to UK astronomy</title>
	<author>Saboo</author>
	<datestamp>1264242420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The UK Science and Technologies Facilities Council is busily slashing funding to much of UK astronomy. I guess this article is great for the powers that be to point out the UK doesn't need to spend money to e.g. stay as a partner in the Gemini Observatory when they can get results comparable to Hubble for 20 grand!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK Science and Technologies Facilities Council is busily slashing funding to much of UK astronomy .
I guess this article is great for the powers that be to point out the UK does n't need to spend money to e.g .
stay as a partner in the Gemini Observatory when they can get results comparable to Hubble for 20 grand !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK Science and Technologies Facilities Council is busily slashing funding to much of UK astronomy.
I guess this article is great for the powers that be to point out the UK doesn't need to spend money to e.g.
stay as a partner in the Gemini Observatory when they can get results comparable to Hubble for 20 grand!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868008</id>
	<title>Cool project and all...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264239660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>... but the article is rather light on quotes from actual, stunned astronomers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but the article is rather light on quotes from actual , stunned astronomers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but the article is rather light on quotes from actual, stunned astronomers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868090</id>
	<title>Is it bad...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264241160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if I was more interested in pictures of the shed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if I was more interested in pictures of the shed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if I was more interested in pictures of the shed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868884</id>
	<title>Re:Beautiful pictures</title>
	<author>netcruiser</author>
	<datestamp>1264254000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just visit his web site. It's all there.

<a href="http://www.astropix.co.uk/equipment.html" title="astropix.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.astropix.co.uk/equipment.html</a> [astropix.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just visit his web site .
It 's all there .
http : //www.astropix.co.uk/equipment.html [ astropix.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just visit his web site.
It's all there.
http://www.astropix.co.uk/equipment.html [astropix.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868014</id>
	<title>Even with the smallest budgets?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264239840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> &pound;20,000?  Was I the only one who thought this was NOT a small budget?</p><p>I know it's small in relation to a NASA budget but to compare it to "all of us" makes me wonder what the writer actually gets paid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  20,000 ?
Was I the only one who thought this was NOT a small budget ? I know it 's small in relation to a NASA budget but to compare it to " all of us " makes me wonder what the writer actually gets paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> £20,000?
Was I the only one who thought this was NOT a small budget?I know it's small in relation to a NASA budget but to compare it to "all of us" makes me wonder what the writer actually gets paid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868028</id>
	<title>Stunning?</title>
	<author>Sperbels</author>
	<datestamp>1264240140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, those are very nice pictures for an 8 inch scope.  But stunning???  Did he do anything else besides getting a scope with good optics, a steady mount, and a high resolution CCD?  Any special processing?  What software?  Did he have to stack a whole lot of images and toss out bad ones where the atmosphere messed the image up too much?  Details!  We need the gritty details!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , those are very nice pictures for an 8 inch scope .
But stunning ? ? ?
Did he do anything else besides getting a scope with good optics , a steady mount , and a high resolution CCD ?
Any special processing ?
What software ?
Did he have to stack a whole lot of images and toss out bad ones where the atmosphere messed the image up too much ?
Details ! We need the gritty details !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, those are very nice pictures for an 8 inch scope.
But stunning???
Did he do anything else besides getting a scope with good optics, a steady mount, and a high resolution CCD?
Any special processing?
What software?
Did he have to stack a whole lot of images and toss out bad ones where the atmosphere messed the image up too much?
Details!  We need the gritty details!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867936</id>
	<title>Re:Beautiful pictures</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1264238760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Information found:</p><p>He used an ORION OPTICS UK AG8 Astrograph and a STARLIGHT XPRESS SXV-H16 CCD.</p><p><a href="http://www.astropix.co.uk/equipment.html" title="astropix.co.uk">http://www.astropix.co.uk/equipment.html</a> [astropix.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Information found : He used an ORION OPTICS UK AG8 Astrograph and a STARLIGHT XPRESS SXV-H16 CCD.http : //www.astropix.co.uk/equipment.html [ astropix.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information found:He used an ORION OPTICS UK AG8 Astrograph and a STARLIGHT XPRESS SXV-H16 CCD.http://www.astropix.co.uk/equipment.html [astropix.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869734</id>
	<title>Re:Beautiful pictures</title>
	<author>burris</author>
	<datestamp>1264262940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dobs are not "useless" for photography.  People do manage to capture some pretty good images of the moon and planets with nice stable dobs that have tracking and a video camera.  Check out Wes Higgin's images of <a href="http://www.higginsandsons.com/astro/images/Mars\_A13\_Reg\_Mars\_s467\_08-23-03.jpg" title="higginsandsons.com">Mars</a> [higginsandsons.com], <a href="http://www.higginsandsons.com/astro/images/Jupiter-2-Io-S275-06-07-06.jpg" title="higginsandsons.com">Jupiter</a> [higginsandsons.com], and  <a href="http://www.higginsandsons.com/astro/images/Saturn-10-23-04.jpg" title="higginsandsons.com">Saturn</a> [higginsandsons.com] captured with an 14.5" Starmaster Dob.  Judging by his page, he is fairly seriously into lunar imaging.  Far from useless...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dobs are not " useless " for photography .
People do manage to capture some pretty good images of the moon and planets with nice stable dobs that have tracking and a video camera .
Check out Wes Higgin 's images of Mars [ higginsandsons.com ] , Jupiter [ higginsandsons.com ] , and Saturn [ higginsandsons.com ] captured with an 14.5 " Starmaster Dob .
Judging by his page , he is fairly seriously into lunar imaging .
Far from useless.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dobs are not "useless" for photography.
People do manage to capture some pretty good images of the moon and planets with nice stable dobs that have tracking and a video camera.
Check out Wes Higgin's images of Mars [higginsandsons.com], Jupiter [higginsandsons.com], and  Saturn [higginsandsons.com] captured with an 14.5" Starmaster Dob.
Judging by his page, he is fairly seriously into lunar imaging.
Far from useless...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869958</id>
	<title>20 000 British pounds = 34 127.25 Canadian dollars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264265400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This amount would allow me to live for more than three years (apartment, food, electricity, phone, internet, car expenses).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This amount would allow me to live for more than three years ( apartment , food , electricity , phone , internet , car expenses ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This amount would allow me to live for more than three years (apartment, food, electricity, phone, internet, car expenses).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867898</id>
	<title>Oh my...</title>
	<author>linuxgeek64</author>
	<datestamp>1264238100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amazing!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868200</id>
	<title>Not THAT stunning.</title>
	<author>tumutbound</author>
	<datestamp>1264243560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice images but hardly Hubble.
There are other amateurs doing work that is just as good or better.
Check out this guy <a href="http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002" title="pbase.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002</a> [pbase.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice images but hardly Hubble .
There are other amateurs doing work that is just as good or better .
Check out this guy http : //www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002 [ pbase.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice images but hardly Hubble.
There are other amateurs doing work that is just as good or better.
Check out this guy http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002 [pbase.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868662</id>
	<title>Brilliant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264251300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those pictures are awesome.</p><p>What a load of whiney tossers there are on Slashdot. Yes, I already knew that's what the majority of readers were before I read this, and yes, I keep coming back and reading more of their drivel, so more fool me.</p><p>I know Hubble takes amazing photos. But you can't have a hubble in your back garden. I think it's amazing that you can get photos of stuff like that from your shed. It's quite inspiring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those pictures are awesome.What a load of whiney tossers there are on Slashdot .
Yes , I already knew that 's what the majority of readers were before I read this , and yes , I keep coming back and reading more of their drivel , so more fool me.I know Hubble takes amazing photos .
But you ca n't have a hubble in your back garden .
I think it 's amazing that you can get photos of stuff like that from your shed .
It 's quite inspiring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those pictures are awesome.What a load of whiney tossers there are on Slashdot.
Yes, I already knew that's what the majority of readers were before I read this, and yes, I keep coming back and reading more of their drivel, so more fool me.I know Hubble takes amazing photos.
But you can't have a hubble in your back garden.
I think it's amazing that you can get photos of stuff like that from your shed.
It's quite inspiring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868312</id>
	<title>Science!</title>
	<author>Matrix14</author>
	<datestamp>1264245420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering what sort of more scientific data one could get from a setup like this.  Not for actual science purposes, but for my or his own fun.  Do the CCDs used have enough intensity granularity that one could detect the red and blue shift differences in spinning galaxies, for instance, and do some dark matter calculations for oneself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering what sort of more scientific data one could get from a setup like this .
Not for actual science purposes , but for my or his own fun .
Do the CCDs used have enough intensity granularity that one could detect the red and blue shift differences in spinning galaxies , for instance , and do some dark matter calculations for oneself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering what sort of more scientific data one could get from a setup like this.
Not for actual science purposes, but for my or his own fun.
Do the CCDs used have enough intensity granularity that one could detect the red and blue shift differences in spinning galaxies, for instance, and do some dark matter calculations for oneself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869020</id>
	<title>Yes they can be compared to Hubble's pictures</title>
	<author>HuguesT</author>
	<datestamp>1264255500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can indeed be compared to HST pictures, as in, they are not as good.</p><p>They are pretty, an impressive achievement for an amateur using a 8" telescope, an inspiration to many, but the pictures not as detailed or scientifically interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can indeed be compared to HST pictures , as in , they are not as good.They are pretty , an impressive achievement for an amateur using a 8 " telescope , an inspiration to many , but the pictures not as detailed or scientifically interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can indeed be compared to HST pictures, as in, they are not as good.They are pretty, an impressive achievement for an amateur using a 8" telescope, an inspiration to many, but the pictures not as detailed or scientifically interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868138</id>
	<title>Re:Cool project and all...</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1264242180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many astronomers were stunned to make these pictures.  Was it done humanely?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many astronomers were stunned to make these pictures .
Was it done humanely ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many astronomers were stunned to make these pictures.
Was it done humanely?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30883212</id>
	<title>Re:Beautiful pictures</title>
	<author>PeterAitch</author>
	<datestamp>1264334400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an Orion Optics 8" Newtonian AND an equatorial mount and could not hope to match these amazing captures, even if I worked at it for years.  Then again, I don't have a dedicated CCD camera (except for the sensor on my SLR body, of course).  Great stuff.</p><p>As far as "doing weddings" goes, obviously he only turns out for the stars! (Binaries mainly, with the odd kinky trinary+)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an Orion Optics 8 " Newtonian AND an equatorial mount and could not hope to match these amazing captures , even if I worked at it for years .
Then again , I do n't have a dedicated CCD camera ( except for the sensor on my SLR body , of course ) .
Great stuff.As far as " doing weddings " goes , obviously he only turns out for the stars !
( Binaries mainly , with the odd kinky trinary + )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an Orion Optics 8" Newtonian AND an equatorial mount and could not hope to match these amazing captures, even if I worked at it for years.
Then again, I don't have a dedicated CCD camera (except for the sensor on my SLR body, of course).
Great stuff.As far as "doing weddings" goes, obviously he only turns out for the stars!
(Binaries mainly, with the odd kinky trinary+)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30871360</id>
	<title>You're joking, right?</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1264276680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sorry to be negative, but this Slashdot post reads like it was written by someone with absolutely no experience in astronomy.  </p><p>While the gentleman certainly takes high-quality pictures, he is solidly in the amateur category and no different from the thousands of other committed amateur astronomers that have a minimum of $20K in equipment to be able to observe and image the stars.  There are amateurs who take much better pictures and have far more spectacular (and expensive) equipment out there.  </p><p>Furthermore, it is absolutely ridiculous and insulting to compare his images to that of the Hubble Space Telescope.  His telescope has a smaller aperature (8 inches versus 95 inches), his CCD resolution is much lower and has a much higher operating temperature.  Furthermore, he has to contend with the effects of atmospheric distortion. Just because the object shapes and colors look similar to a layperson, his images achieve nowhere near the resolution and detail of the Hubble.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sorry to be negative , but this Slashdot post reads like it was written by someone with absolutely no experience in astronomy .
While the gentleman certainly takes high-quality pictures , he is solidly in the amateur category and no different from the thousands of other committed amateur astronomers that have a minimum of $ 20K in equipment to be able to observe and image the stars .
There are amateurs who take much better pictures and have far more spectacular ( and expensive ) equipment out there .
Furthermore , it is absolutely ridiculous and insulting to compare his images to that of the Hubble Space Telescope .
His telescope has a smaller aperature ( 8 inches versus 95 inches ) , his CCD resolution is much lower and has a much higher operating temperature .
Furthermore , he has to contend with the effects of atmospheric distortion .
Just because the object shapes and colors look similar to a layperson , his images achieve nowhere near the resolution and detail of the Hubble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sorry to be negative, but this Slashdot post reads like it was written by someone with absolutely no experience in astronomy.
While the gentleman certainly takes high-quality pictures, he is solidly in the amateur category and no different from the thousands of other committed amateur astronomers that have a minimum of $20K in equipment to be able to observe and image the stars.
There are amateurs who take much better pictures and have far more spectacular (and expensive) equipment out there.
Furthermore, it is absolutely ridiculous and insulting to compare his images to that of the Hubble Space Telescope.
His telescope has a smaller aperature (8 inches versus 95 inches), his CCD resolution is much lower and has a much higher operating temperature.
Furthermore, he has to contend with the effects of atmospheric distortion.
Just because the object shapes and colors look similar to a layperson, his images achieve nowhere near the resolution and detail of the Hubble.  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868068</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble? I don't think so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264240740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bright, close objects. Hubble has several things on this guy: angular resolution, atmospheric distortion, optics, and camera quality are notable ones. These are just... pretty Amateur astronomy photos. Nothing particularly new or spectacular here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bright , close objects .
Hubble has several things on this guy : angular resolution , atmospheric distortion , optics , and camera quality are notable ones .
These are just... pretty Amateur astronomy photos .
Nothing particularly new or spectacular here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bright, close objects.
Hubble has several things on this guy: angular resolution, atmospheric distortion, optics, and camera quality are notable ones.
These are just... pretty Amateur astronomy photos.
Nothing particularly new or spectacular here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869956</id>
	<title>Re:Cool project and all...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264265340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How many astronomers were stunned to make these pictures.  Was it done humanely?</p></div><p>DON'T STUN ME, BRO!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many astronomers were stunned to make these pictures .
Was it done humanely ? DO N'T STUN ME , BRO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many astronomers were stunned to make these pictures.
Was it done humanely?DON'T STUN ME, BRO!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869276</id>
	<title>Comparing the results.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264258560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Silly hyperbole. &ldquo;[A]nd the results are being compared to images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.&rdquo; Yes, you could also compare Honda Civics to Formula-1 Supercars. Both use ICE, burn fuel, have wheels, and may transport at least one person from point A to B.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Silly hyperbole .
   [ A ] nd the results are being compared to images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.    Yes , you could also compare Honda Civics to Formula-1 Supercars .
Both use ICE , burn fuel , have wheels , and may transport at least one person from point A to B .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silly hyperbole.
“[A]nd the results are being compared to images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope.” Yes, you could also compare Honda Civics to Formula-1 Supercars.
Both use ICE, burn fuel, have wheels, and may transport at least one person from point A to B.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869102</id>
	<title>Comparison</title>
	<author>HuguesT</author>
	<datestamp>1264256520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry for duplicated post</p><p>Compare the referred author picture of NGC 6888 <a href="http://www.astropix.co.uk/ps/pages/ngc-6888.htm" title="astropix.co.uk">here</a> [astropix.co.uk] to a professional job <a href="http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090915.html" title="nasa.gov">there</a> [nasa.gov]. The former is still very impressive for an amateur, indeed this is the verbatim comment from  <a href="http://www.iac.es/telescopes/IAM/Jul09\_ing.html" title="www.iac.es">the IAC site</a> [www.iac.es] (where the professional picture was taken):</p><blockquote><div><p>NGC 6888 is out of the reach of an amateur telescope. The nebula can only be observed in deep images. Large telescopes like the 2.5-m Isaac Newton Telescope on La Palma and narrow-band filters are needed to image the intricate structure of the gas shells.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry for duplicated postCompare the referred author picture of NGC 6888 here [ astropix.co.uk ] to a professional job there [ nasa.gov ] .
The former is still very impressive for an amateur , indeed this is the verbatim comment from the IAC site [ www.iac.es ] ( where the professional picture was taken ) : NGC 6888 is out of the reach of an amateur telescope .
The nebula can only be observed in deep images .
Large telescopes like the 2.5-m Isaac Newton Telescope on La Palma and narrow-band filters are needed to image the intricate structure of the gas shells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry for duplicated postCompare the referred author picture of NGC 6888 here [astropix.co.uk] to a professional job there [nasa.gov].
The former is still very impressive for an amateur, indeed this is the verbatim comment from  the IAC site [www.iac.es] (where the professional picture was taken):NGC 6888 is out of the reach of an amateur telescope.
The nebula can only be observed in deep images.
Large telescopes like the 2.5-m Isaac Newton Telescope on La Palma and narrow-band filters are needed to image the intricate structure of the gas shells.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868166</id>
	<title>Re:Beautiful pictures</title>
	<author>pedestrian crossing</author>
	<datestamp>1264242840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dobs are useless for photography.  You would have to use an equatorial mount.</p><p>It would me even more interesting to know his digital process.  That's where the magic happens.  Of course you have to start with a good set of the right kind of exposures, but it's the processing that brings out the sort of details you see in the photos.  The images that come out of the hardware don't look anything like the photos.</p><p>In fact, with a fairly modest mount/tracking setup, a DSLR, and the right processing (also a healthy dose of patience), you can get surprisingly good astrophotos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dobs are useless for photography .
You would have to use an equatorial mount.It would me even more interesting to know his digital process .
That 's where the magic happens .
Of course you have to start with a good set of the right kind of exposures , but it 's the processing that brings out the sort of details you see in the photos .
The images that come out of the hardware do n't look anything like the photos.In fact , with a fairly modest mount/tracking setup , a DSLR , and the right processing ( also a healthy dose of patience ) , you can get surprisingly good astrophotos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dobs are useless for photography.
You would have to use an equatorial mount.It would me even more interesting to know his digital process.
That's where the magic happens.
Of course you have to start with a good set of the right kind of exposures, but it's the processing that brings out the sort of details you see in the photos.
The images that come out of the hardware don't look anything like the photos.In fact, with a fairly modest mount/tracking setup, a DSLR, and the right processing (also a healthy dose of patience), you can get surprisingly good astrophotos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904</id>
	<title>Beautiful pictures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264238220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing, I would like to see some more details of his setup, particularly which telescope and CCD he used.</p><p>I personally have a 6" Dobsonian, but without an equatorial mount it's nearly impossible to replicate his results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing , I would like to see some more details of his setup , particularly which telescope and CCD he used.I personally have a 6 " Dobsonian , but without an equatorial mount it 's nearly impossible to replicate his results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing, I would like to see some more details of his setup, particularly which telescope and CCD he used.I personally have a 6" Dobsonian, but without an equatorial mount it's nearly impossible to replicate his results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869638</id>
	<title>stunning starbursts?</title>
	<author>Walter White</author>
	<datestamp>1264262040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The starbursts are aesthetically pleasing (stunning) but I suspect they would be detrimental to any scientific use of the images. Their presence is most likely the result of post processing that favors artistic appearance over scientific accuracy. IANAA but I doubt that the images have any scientific relevance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The starbursts are aesthetically pleasing ( stunning ) but I suspect they would be detrimental to any scientific use of the images .
Their presence is most likely the result of post processing that favors artistic appearance over scientific accuracy .
IANAA but I doubt that the images have any scientific relevance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The starbursts are aesthetically pleasing (stunning) but I suspect they would be detrimental to any scientific use of the images.
Their presence is most likely the result of post processing that favors artistic appearance over scientific accuracy.
IANAA but I doubt that the images have any scientific relevance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868484</id>
	<title>Re:Beautiful pictures</title>
	<author>saisuman</author>
	<datestamp>1264247940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm also assuming that he has some sort of tracking mount. The exposure times listed ran into hours, and I don't think you can produce images this sharp without tracking mounts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also assuming that he has some sort of tracking mount .
The exposure times listed ran into hours , and I do n't think you can produce images this sharp without tracking mounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also assuming that he has some sort of tracking mount.
The exposure times listed ran into hours, and I don't think you can produce images this sharp without tracking mounts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868156</id>
	<title>Computer ?</title>
	<author>Lorens</author>
	<datestamp>1264242600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't say what he uses on his computer, though, or how much time he needs to process a picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't say what he uses on his computer , though , or how much time he needs to process a picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't say what he uses on his computer, though, or how much time he needs to process a picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868310</id>
	<title>Pretty pics, but not research grade</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1264245420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What NASA releases for general consumption are highly filtered, highly photoshopped images that are promoted for their vivid colours and "cosmic" impressions. That's not what Hubble is used for. If that was all it did then yes, this guy (and the thousands of others around the world like him) could fill the media with colourful images all day long.
<p>
However, none of them is worth a dam' for research use: where calibration is much more important that prettiness and resolution, low noise and even the spectrum of light used (not all light makes it through the atmosphere - esp. IR) are the sole reasons for spening all that money getting Hubble up there.
</p><p>While I applaud the <i>Telegraph</i> for publicising this, it not what professional astronomers do - nor is it even close to what Hubble does to earn it's money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What NASA releases for general consumption are highly filtered , highly photoshopped images that are promoted for their vivid colours and " cosmic " impressions .
That 's not what Hubble is used for .
If that was all it did then yes , this guy ( and the thousands of others around the world like him ) could fill the media with colourful images all day long .
However , none of them is worth a dam ' for research use : where calibration is much more important that prettiness and resolution , low noise and even the spectrum of light used ( not all light makes it through the atmosphere - esp .
IR ) are the sole reasons for spening all that money getting Hubble up there .
While I applaud the Telegraph for publicising this , it not what professional astronomers do - nor is it even close to what Hubble does to earn it 's money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What NASA releases for general consumption are highly filtered, highly photoshopped images that are promoted for their vivid colours and "cosmic" impressions.
That's not what Hubble is used for.
If that was all it did then yes, this guy (and the thousands of others around the world like him) could fill the media with colourful images all day long.
However, none of them is worth a dam' for research use: where calibration is much more important that prettiness and resolution, low noise and even the spectrum of light used (not all light makes it through the atmosphere - esp.
IR) are the sole reasons for spening all that money getting Hubble up there.
While I applaud the Telegraph for publicising this, it not what professional astronomers do - nor is it even close to what Hubble does to earn it's money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868192</id>
	<title>That's Nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264243440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should see the pictures of his voluptuous neighbor. It took months of patience to get those, as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should see the pictures of his voluptuous neighbor .
It took months of patience to get those , as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should see the pictures of his voluptuous neighbor.
It took months of patience to get those, as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30878162</id>
	<title>Love the story, thought it was a dupe/old but...</title>
	<author>celerityfm</author>
	<datestamp>1264347900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read this and thought, haven't I seen this before? But no, apparently The Telegraph published a similar story in 2008 about another gentleman, living in england, who has also taken some amazing space photographs from his "garden shed." <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/3526362/Amateur-astronomer-captures-dawn-of-the-universe-from-back-garden-observatory.html" title="telegraph.co.uk">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/3526362/Amateur-astronomer-captures-dawn-of-the-universe-from-back-garden-observatory.html</a> [telegraph.co.uk] - interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this and thought , have n't I seen this before ?
But no , apparently The Telegraph published a similar story in 2008 about another gentleman , living in england , who has also taken some amazing space photographs from his " garden shed .
" http : //www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/3526362/Amateur-astronomer-captures-dawn-of-the-universe-from-back-garden-observatory.html [ telegraph.co.uk ] - interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read this and thought, haven't I seen this before?
But no, apparently The Telegraph published a similar story in 2008 about another gentleman, living in england, who has also taken some amazing space photographs from his "garden shed.
" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/3526362/Amateur-astronomer-captures-dawn-of-the-universe-from-back-garden-observatory.html [telegraph.co.uk] - interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868604</id>
	<title>Re:Cool project and all...</title>
	<author>Trapezium Artist</author>
	<datestamp>1264250400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IAAPA (I am a professional astronomer), and I'm not stunned. Sorry. Nice work for a back-garden job, but any comparison with Hubble or any of our 4, 8, 10m class telescopes is utterly specious.

</p><p>
What's he and many other (admittedly very dedicated) amateurs are benefitting from is the enormous improvement in detectors (in this case, CCDs) over the past 20-odd years, plus the not-unrelated improvement in computer processing power to align, stack, and mosaic digital images. Obviously, professional astronomers have access to all that in spades, as well as much larger telescopes / telescopes above the atmosphere as well.

</p><p>
So yes, superficially similar and impressive coming from an amateur with limited resources, but to compare this with Hubble is completely lame-brained. Indeed, the cynic in me notes that TFA is puffing a book of his images: what a coincidence. A sidebar link takes you to a similar article in 2008 about another amateur who's "seeing the beginning of the Universe" from his shed: surprise, surprise, that article also puffs a book of his pictures. Of course, the article's in the Torygraph, which delights in celebrating a fifty years out of date vision of Britain populated by toffs, proles, and eccentric back garden amateur boffins, so hardly unexpected.

</p><p>
Going back to the point about better detectors, however, it's interesting to note that although we've built bigger and bigger telescopes over the past twenty years (as well as developing adaptive optics, space telescopes, broader wavelength coverage, etc.), the main gain we've experienced in terms of scientific performance has come from the vastly improved detectors. Problem is, we're now pretty close to detecting every photon that falls on the detectors and we can build detector arrays that almost fill the available focal plane.

</p><p>
To go further in ground-based astronomy then, we need much (much) larger telescopes, such as the E-ELT, TMT, and GMT. With their much larger collecting area and higher spatial resolution, you can expect truly fabulous things in the next ten years. From space, it's JWST, of course<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IAAPA ( I am a professional astronomer ) , and I 'm not stunned .
Sorry. Nice work for a back-garden job , but any comparison with Hubble or any of our 4 , 8 , 10m class telescopes is utterly specious .
What 's he and many other ( admittedly very dedicated ) amateurs are benefitting from is the enormous improvement in detectors ( in this case , CCDs ) over the past 20-odd years , plus the not-unrelated improvement in computer processing power to align , stack , and mosaic digital images .
Obviously , professional astronomers have access to all that in spades , as well as much larger telescopes / telescopes above the atmosphere as well .
So yes , superficially similar and impressive coming from an amateur with limited resources , but to compare this with Hubble is completely lame-brained .
Indeed , the cynic in me notes that TFA is puffing a book of his images : what a coincidence .
A sidebar link takes you to a similar article in 2008 about another amateur who 's " seeing the beginning of the Universe " from his shed : surprise , surprise , that article also puffs a book of his pictures .
Of course , the article 's in the Torygraph , which delights in celebrating a fifty years out of date vision of Britain populated by toffs , proles , and eccentric back garden amateur boffins , so hardly unexpected .
Going back to the point about better detectors , however , it 's interesting to note that although we 've built bigger and bigger telescopes over the past twenty years ( as well as developing adaptive optics , space telescopes , broader wavelength coverage , etc .
) , the main gain we 've experienced in terms of scientific performance has come from the vastly improved detectors .
Problem is , we 're now pretty close to detecting every photon that falls on the detectors and we can build detector arrays that almost fill the available focal plane .
To go further in ground-based astronomy then , we need much ( much ) larger telescopes , such as the E-ELT , TMT , and GMT .
With their much larger collecting area and higher spatial resolution , you can expect truly fabulous things in the next ten years .
From space , it 's JWST , of course .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IAAPA (I am a professional astronomer), and I'm not stunned.
Sorry. Nice work for a back-garden job, but any comparison with Hubble or any of our 4, 8, 10m class telescopes is utterly specious.
What's he and many other (admittedly very dedicated) amateurs are benefitting from is the enormous improvement in detectors (in this case, CCDs) over the past 20-odd years, plus the not-unrelated improvement in computer processing power to align, stack, and mosaic digital images.
Obviously, professional astronomers have access to all that in spades, as well as much larger telescopes / telescopes above the atmosphere as well.
So yes, superficially similar and impressive coming from an amateur with limited resources, but to compare this with Hubble is completely lame-brained.
Indeed, the cynic in me notes that TFA is puffing a book of his images: what a coincidence.
A sidebar link takes you to a similar article in 2008 about another amateur who's "seeing the beginning of the Universe" from his shed: surprise, surprise, that article also puffs a book of his pictures.
Of course, the article's in the Torygraph, which delights in celebrating a fifty years out of date vision of Britain populated by toffs, proles, and eccentric back garden amateur boffins, so hardly unexpected.
Going back to the point about better detectors, however, it's interesting to note that although we've built bigger and bigger telescopes over the past twenty years (as well as developing adaptive optics, space telescopes, broader wavelength coverage, etc.
), the main gain we've experienced in terms of scientific performance has come from the vastly improved detectors.
Problem is, we're now pretty close to detecting every photon that falls on the detectors and we can build detector arrays that almost fill the available focal plane.
To go further in ground-based astronomy then, we need much (much) larger telescopes, such as the E-ELT, TMT, and GMT.
With their much larger collecting area and higher spatial resolution, you can expect truly fabulous things in the next ten years.
From space, it's JWST, of course ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868488</id>
	<title>Re:Stunning?</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1264248000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article: "....The superb photos, each made up of about 30 frames..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " ....The superb photos , each made up of about 30 frames... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "....The superb photos, each made up of about 30 frames..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867892</id>
	<title>Fooooosh....</title>
	<author>reverendbeer</author>
	<datestamp>1264237980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My God....it's full of stars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My God....it 's full of stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My God....it's full of stars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869402</id>
	<title>Re:Beautiful pictures</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1264259880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By definition a Dobsonian is a cheap alt-az mount that provides steady and smooth operation by hand, so  yes they are useless for any kind of photography that requires long exposures.</p><p>It doesn't follow that you need an equatorial mount to do anything. I've seen some very nice photos made by stacking short exposures of bright objects that were hand tracked using an alt-az mount.  And of course professional instruments these days use computer controlled alt-az mounts, but that's a different story.  Possibly an amateur with a fixed observatory might be able to build a good enough alt-az setup to do long exposures, but there's no reason to.  An equatorial mount is bound to be a better investment of time given the size instrument he's likely to have.  The big advantage of the alt-az mount is that it is simple, stable, and lightweight for those observers who want to haul the scope out of the garage to do some visual observations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By definition a Dobsonian is a cheap alt-az mount that provides steady and smooth operation by hand , so yes they are useless for any kind of photography that requires long exposures.It does n't follow that you need an equatorial mount to do anything .
I 've seen some very nice photos made by stacking short exposures of bright objects that were hand tracked using an alt-az mount .
And of course professional instruments these days use computer controlled alt-az mounts , but that 's a different story .
Possibly an amateur with a fixed observatory might be able to build a good enough alt-az setup to do long exposures , but there 's no reason to .
An equatorial mount is bound to be a better investment of time given the size instrument he 's likely to have .
The big advantage of the alt-az mount is that it is simple , stable , and lightweight for those observers who want to haul the scope out of the garage to do some visual observations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By definition a Dobsonian is a cheap alt-az mount that provides steady and smooth operation by hand, so  yes they are useless for any kind of photography that requires long exposures.It doesn't follow that you need an equatorial mount to do anything.
I've seen some very nice photos made by stacking short exposures of bright objects that were hand tracked using an alt-az mount.
And of course professional instruments these days use computer controlled alt-az mounts, but that's a different story.
Possibly an amateur with a fixed observatory might be able to build a good enough alt-az setup to do long exposures, but there's no reason to.
An equatorial mount is bound to be a better investment of time given the size instrument he's likely to have.
The big advantage of the alt-az mount is that it is simple, stable, and lightweight for those observers who want to haul the scope out of the garage to do some visual observations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30870424</id>
	<title>Re:Fooooosh....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264269420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Try this at home, kids!</i> <br> <br>
I'm kind of old to be considered a kid, though I still think I qualify.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br> <br>
I'd love to try this at home, but my sheds (plural) are full of all sorts of other toys: blacksmith's workshop (that used to be my job), woodworking studio for building renaissance lutes, silver/goldsmithing stuff, various mechanical projects...<br> <br>
I suspect the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) would play a large part in my hasty demise if I started building an observatory as well.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try this at home , kids !
I 'm kind of old to be considered a kid , though I still think I qualify .
: - ) I 'd love to try this at home , but my sheds ( plural ) are full of all sorts of other toys : blacksmith 's workshop ( that used to be my job ) , woodworking studio for building renaissance lutes , silver/goldsmithing stuff , various mechanical projects.. . I suspect the WAF ( Wife Acceptance Factor ) would play a large part in my hasty demise if I started building an observatory as well .
; -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try this at home, kids!
I'm kind of old to be considered a kid, though I still think I qualify.
:-) 
I'd love to try this at home, but my sheds (plural) are full of all sorts of other toys: blacksmith's workshop (that used to be my job), woodworking studio for building renaissance lutes, silver/goldsmithing stuff, various mechanical projects... 
I suspect the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) would play a large part in my hasty demise if I started building an observatory as well.
;-P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868920</id>
	<title>Re:Beautiful pictures</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264254420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I personally have a 6" Dobsonian, but without an equatorial mount it's nearly impossible to replicate his results.</p></div><p>Dobs are useless for photography. You would have to use an equatorial mount.</p></div><p>(-1, Redundant)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally have a 6 " Dobsonian , but without an equatorial mount it 's nearly impossible to replicate his results.Dobs are useless for photography .
You would have to use an equatorial mount .
( -1 , Redundant )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally have a 6" Dobsonian, but without an equatorial mount it's nearly impossible to replicate his results.Dobs are useless for photography.
You would have to use an equatorial mount.
(-1, Redundant)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868412</id>
	<title>Any astrophotographer here?</title>
	<author>kanguro</author>
	<datestamp>1264246920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very good amateur pics, but sorry, just another amateur here. It looks like an act of propaganda for non-initiated.

check for instance:

<a href="http://www.licha.de/astro\_gallery\_top.php" title="licha.de" rel="nofollow">http://www.licha.de/astro\_gallery\_top.php</a> [licha.de]

or

<a href="http://www.darkskyimages.com/categories.php" title="darkskyimages.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.darkskyimages.com/categories.php</a> [darkskyimages.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very good amateur pics , but sorry , just another amateur here .
It looks like an act of propaganda for non-initiated .
check for instance : http : //www.licha.de/astro \ _gallery \ _top.php [ licha.de ] or http : //www.darkskyimages.com/categories.php [ darkskyimages.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very good amateur pics, but sorry, just another amateur here.
It looks like an act of propaganda for non-initiated.
check for instance:

http://www.licha.de/astro\_gallery\_top.php [licha.de]

or

http://www.darkskyimages.com/categories.php [darkskyimages.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984</id>
	<title>Hubble? I don't think so</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264239360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They may resemble some of the aesthetics of Hubble, but not the resolution. Thus, the comparison is potentially misleading. The photos in the gallery are of relatively near or bright objects. It's more about careful timing, planning, and processing that brings out details of such objects. Major observatories often don't have the budget or motivation to spend the time to carefully process images of common astronomical objects.</p><p>One amateur reprocessed images from Soviet Venus landers and brought out some amazing detail, finding landscape features that weren't spotted before. It's simply the case that sometimes amateurs are simply <b>motivated to spend the necessary time</b> and attention to detail more so than "professionals", who normally have full in-boxes. Amateurs can decide to be as anal as they want. Call it open-source astronomy.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They may resemble some of the aesthetics of Hubble , but not the resolution .
Thus , the comparison is potentially misleading .
The photos in the gallery are of relatively near or bright objects .
It 's more about careful timing , planning , and processing that brings out details of such objects .
Major observatories often do n't have the budget or motivation to spend the time to carefully process images of common astronomical objects.One amateur reprocessed images from Soviet Venus landers and brought out some amazing detail , finding landscape features that were n't spotted before .
It 's simply the case that sometimes amateurs are simply motivated to spend the necessary time and attention to detail more so than " professionals " , who normally have full in-boxes .
Amateurs can decide to be as anal as they want .
Call it open-source astronomy .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>They may resemble some of the aesthetics of Hubble, but not the resolution.
Thus, the comparison is potentially misleading.
The photos in the gallery are of relatively near or bright objects.
It's more about careful timing, planning, and processing that brings out details of such objects.
Major observatories often don't have the budget or motivation to spend the time to carefully process images of common astronomical objects.One amateur reprocessed images from Soviet Venus landers and brought out some amazing detail, finding landscape features that weren't spotted before.
It's simply the case that sometimes amateurs are simply motivated to spend the necessary time and attention to detail more so than "professionals", who normally have full in-boxes.
Amateurs can decide to be as anal as they want.
Call it open-source astronomy.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867960</id>
	<title>Re:Fooooosh....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264239120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try this at home, kids!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try this at home , kids !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try this at home, kids!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868612</id>
	<title>These are great pictures!</title>
	<author>cvtan</author>
	<datestamp>1264250520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The basic implication from this article is that real scientists are idiots who waste money building expensive toys when a regular person with a modest budget can get the same results.  (Similar to endless homemade electric car articles about how a guy in his garage made something better than a Prius.)  These photos are wonderful, but not like those from the Hubble.  Also, there is a notable lack of quotes from "stunned" astronomers as others have pointed out.  Shah is a talented amateur who spent $32000 on his advanced hobby.  How many of us have spent that much on a hobby?  [Nevermind...]  He IS an astronomer.  The photos were not taken with a "garden shed" but with $32k of equipment.  I have no problem with Shah, but this is borderline anti-scientist propaganda.  And no I am not paranoid!  Wait, I just had to turn around to see if that scary splicer from BioShock was standing behind me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The basic implication from this article is that real scientists are idiots who waste money building expensive toys when a regular person with a modest budget can get the same results .
( Similar to endless homemade electric car articles about how a guy in his garage made something better than a Prius .
) These photos are wonderful , but not like those from the Hubble .
Also , there is a notable lack of quotes from " stunned " astronomers as others have pointed out .
Shah is a talented amateur who spent $ 32000 on his advanced hobby .
How many of us have spent that much on a hobby ?
[ Nevermind... ] He IS an astronomer .
The photos were not taken with a " garden shed " but with $ 32k of equipment .
I have no problem with Shah , but this is borderline anti-scientist propaganda .
And no I am not paranoid !
Wait , I just had to turn around to see if that scary splicer from BioShock was standing behind me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The basic implication from this article is that real scientists are idiots who waste money building expensive toys when a regular person with a modest budget can get the same results.
(Similar to endless homemade electric car articles about how a guy in his garage made something better than a Prius.
)  These photos are wonderful, but not like those from the Hubble.
Also, there is a notable lack of quotes from "stunned" astronomers as others have pointed out.
Shah is a talented amateur who spent $32000 on his advanced hobby.
How many of us have spent that much on a hobby?
[Nevermind...]  He IS an astronomer.
The photos were not taken with a "garden shed" but with $32k of equipment.
I have no problem with Shah, but this is borderline anti-scientist propaganda.
And no I am not paranoid!
Wait, I just had to turn around to see if that scary splicer from BioShock was standing behind me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30891158</id>
	<title>Good but not as good as the article indicates</title>
	<author>jridley</author>
	<datestamp>1264439100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I looked through his gallery, and although he certainly has done a good job, it's not really any better than the work of hundreds of other amateurs.</p><p>With modern SLRs, digital image stacking and a decent scope, a lot of people are doing this level of work.  It takes some level of talent and a lot of patience, but it's nothing all that extraordinary.</p><p>It's CERTAINLY not up to the level of the current HST.  None of those images  show anything like the level of detail the Hubble has achieved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked through his gallery , and although he certainly has done a good job , it 's not really any better than the work of hundreds of other amateurs.With modern SLRs , digital image stacking and a decent scope , a lot of people are doing this level of work .
It takes some level of talent and a lot of patience , but it 's nothing all that extraordinary.It 's CERTAINLY not up to the level of the current HST .
None of those images show anything like the level of detail the Hubble has achieved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked through his gallery, and although he certainly has done a good job, it's not really any better than the work of hundreds of other amateurs.With modern SLRs, digital image stacking and a decent scope, a lot of people are doing this level of work.
It takes some level of talent and a lot of patience, but it's nothing all that extraordinary.It's CERTAINLY not up to the level of the current HST.
None of those images  show anything like the level of detail the Hubble has achieved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867866</id>
	<title>Stunning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264237740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely stunning.  NT</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely stunning .
NT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely stunning.
NT</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868134</id>
	<title>Nah</title>
	<author>fph il quozientatore</author>
	<datestamp>1264242120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nah. Clearly photoshopped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah .
Clearly photoshopped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah.
Clearly photoshopped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868106</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble? I don't think so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264241580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure the resolution of his images that we see posted are not the full extent of the resolution he captured.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure the resolution of his images that we see posted are not the full extent of the resolution he captured .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure the resolution of his images that we see posted are not the full extent of the resolution he captured.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869582</id>
	<title>Not Impressive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264261440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but his pics just aren't that great compared to other amateur imagers.</p><p>Compare <a href="http://www.astropix.co.uk/ps/pages/9.htm" title="astropix.co.uk">Peter Shah's image</a> [astropix.co.uk] of M42 with <a href="http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/OrionSwordMosaic.html" title="robgendlerastropics.com">Rob Gendler's</a> [robgendlerastropics.com].  Or how about <a href="http://www.astrophoto.com/M42N.htm" title="astrophoto.com">this even more stunning one</a> [astrophoto.com] captured by Tony and Daphne Hallas with a 6" refractor at the Winter Star Party.</p><p>IMHO, Peter Shah's self promotion is more impressive than his images.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but his pics just are n't that great compared to other amateur imagers.Compare Peter Shah 's image [ astropix.co.uk ] of M42 with Rob Gendler 's [ robgendlerastropics.com ] .
Or how about this even more stunning one [ astrophoto.com ] captured by Tony and Daphne Hallas with a 6 " refractor at the Winter Star Party.IMHO , Peter Shah 's self promotion is more impressive than his images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but his pics just aren't that great compared to other amateur imagers.Compare Peter Shah's image [astropix.co.uk] of M42 with Rob Gendler's [robgendlerastropics.com].
Or how about this even more stunning one [astrophoto.com] captured by Tony and Daphne Hallas with a 6" refractor at the Winter Star Party.IMHO, Peter Shah's self promotion is more impressive than his images.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30870108</id>
	<title>Re:Beautiful pictures</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1264266780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The impression I get is now the guide scope either have their own camera and is monitored by a computer or the main camera is sample for guidance correction via software. His  <a href="http://www.losmandy.com/g-11.html" title="losmandy.com">equatorial mount</a> [losmandy.com] accepts auto-guider systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The impression I get is now the guide scope either have their own camera and is monitored by a computer or the main camera is sample for guidance correction via software .
His equatorial mount [ losmandy.com ] accepts auto-guider systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The impression I get is now the guide scope either have their own camera and is monitored by a computer or the main camera is sample for guidance correction via software.
His  equatorial mount [losmandy.com] accepts auto-guider systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30871370</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble? I don't think so</title>
	<author>floateyedumpi</author>
	<datestamp>1264276680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a comparison:
</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://www.astropix.co.uk/ps/pages/new-101.htm" title="astropix.co.uk">His</a> [astropix.co.uk] M101</li>
<li> <a href="http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2006-10-a-full\_jpg.jpg" title="hubblesite.org">Hubble's</a> [hubblesite.org] M101 (Warning!!! 58MB JPEG)
</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a comparison : His [ astropix.co.uk ] M101 Hubble 's [ hubblesite.org ] M101 ( Warning ! ! !
58MB JPEG )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a comparison:

 His [astropix.co.uk] M101
 Hubble's [hubblesite.org] M101 (Warning!!!
58MB JPEG)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868040</id>
	<title>Conspiracy, I tell ya!</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264240380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NGC1499 is also known as the "California Nebula". Most of the other nebulas are identified by their colloquial name, so why did they skip California? Bloody Brits still pissed about 1776!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NGC1499 is also known as the " California Nebula " .
Most of the other nebulas are identified by their colloquial name , so why did they skip California ?
Bloody Brits still pissed about 1776 !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NGC1499 is also known as the "California Nebula".
Most of the other nebulas are identified by their colloquial name, so why did they skip California?
Bloody Brits still pissed about 1776!
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30875644</id>
	<title>His entire book is online at his publisher.</title>
	<author>ZeroNullVoid</author>
	<datestamp>1264268100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>You can see and read his entire book online from the publishers site.<br><br>http://www.blurb.com/books/917436<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can see and read his entire book online from the publishers site.http : //www.blurb.com/books/917436</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can see and read his entire book online from the publishers site.http://www.blurb.com/books/917436</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868162</id>
	<title>Re:Beautiful pictures</title>
	<author>serbanp</author>
	<datestamp>1264242780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is impressive is how accurate and stable the tracking mount must be. Some exposures are 4 hour long yet in the resulting photo the brightest spots don't have any trail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is impressive is how accurate and stable the tracking mount must be .
Some exposures are 4 hour long yet in the resulting photo the brightest spots do n't have any trail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is impressive is how accurate and stable the tracking mount must be.
Some exposures are 4 hour long yet in the resulting photo the brightest spots don't have any trail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30877474</id>
	<title>thanks for taking the time to comment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264338780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hello everybody, thanks for taking the time to have a look at my images, and i have to agree with a lot of you, there are many many other far better imagers than myself, Rob Gendler, Adam Block, Russell Crowman just to name a few. I am baffled as to why this has gotten so much press, im guessing its nothing more than media spin. Its embarrassing for my images to be compared to the HST.....i mean that is just a no brainer!!<br>im just a normal guy with a day job that enjoys Astronomy.....i dont pretend to know alot about the science i just get a lot of satisfaction doing what i do.</p><p>the only thing i hope is i inspire just a few!</p><p>best regards peter shah</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hello everybody , thanks for taking the time to have a look at my images , and i have to agree with a lot of you , there are many many other far better imagers than myself , Rob Gendler , Adam Block , Russell Crowman just to name a few .
I am baffled as to why this has gotten so much press , im guessing its nothing more than media spin .
Its embarrassing for my images to be compared to the HST.....i mean that is just a no brainer !
! im just a normal guy with a day job that enjoys Astronomy.....i dont pretend to know alot about the science i just get a lot of satisfaction doing what i do.the only thing i hope is i inspire just a few ! best regards peter shah</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hello everybody, thanks for taking the time to have a look at my images, and i have to agree with a lot of you, there are many many other far better imagers than myself, Rob Gendler, Adam Block, Russell Crowman just to name a few.
I am baffled as to why this has gotten so much press, im guessing its nothing more than media spin.
Its embarrassing for my images to be compared to the HST.....i mean that is just a no brainer!
!im just a normal guy with a day job that enjoys Astronomy.....i dont pretend to know alot about the science i just get a lot of satisfaction doing what i do.the only thing i hope is i inspire just a few!best regards peter shah</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868874</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble? I don't think so</title>
	<author>bundaegi</author>
	<datestamp>1264253880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>
One amateur reprocessed images from Soviet Venus landers and brought out some amazing detail, finding landscape features that weren't spotted before. It's simply the case that sometimes amateurs are simply motivated to spend the necessary time and attention to detail more so than "professionals", who normally have full in-boxes. Amateurs can decide to be as anal as they want. Call it open-source astronomy.
</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

Thanks! I looked it up, and if you are referring to Don Mitchell's story, it is indeed well worth reading.
<a href="http://www.mentallandscape.com/C\_CatalogVenus.htm" title="mentallandscape.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mentallandscape.com/C\_CatalogVenus.htm</a> [mentallandscape.com] </p><p>

Even better, the re-processing pipeline for each of the <a href="http://www.mentallandscape.com/V\_Venus.htm" title="mentallandscape.com" rel="nofollow">Venera mission</a> [mentallandscape.com] datasets is explained in great detail. For instance, about the Venera-9 mission images (from <a href="http://www.mentallandscape.com/V\_DigitalImages.htm" title="mentallandscape.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mentallandscape.com/V\_DigitalImages.htm</a> [mentallandscape.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>The upper image is the raw 6-bit telemetry, about 115 by 512 pixels. Automatic gain control and logarithmic quantization were used to handle the unknown dynamic range of illumination. Previously published images from these probes suffered from severe analog generation loss, so it is fortunate that the original data was found.

The raw image was converted to optical density according to Russian calibration data, then to linear radiance for image processing. It was interpolated with windowed sinc filter to avoid post-aliasing (a "pixilated" appearance), and the modulation transfer function ("aperture") of the camera was corrected with a 1 + 0.2*frequency**2 emphasis. This was then written out as 8-bit gamma-corrected values, using the sRGB standard gamma of 2.2. Some of the telemetry bars on the right were replaced with data from the 124 panorama.

The bottom image is digitally in-painted, using Bertalmio's isophote-flow algorithm, to fill in missing data.</p></div>
</blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and for a BBC coverage of the story:
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3387895.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3387895.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One amateur reprocessed images from Soviet Venus landers and brought out some amazing detail , finding landscape features that were n't spotted before .
It 's simply the case that sometimes amateurs are simply motivated to spend the necessary time and attention to detail more so than " professionals " , who normally have full in-boxes .
Amateurs can decide to be as anal as they want .
Call it open-source astronomy .
Thanks ! I looked it up , and if you are referring to Don Mitchell 's story , it is indeed well worth reading .
http : //www.mentallandscape.com/C \ _CatalogVenus.htm [ mentallandscape.com ] Even better , the re-processing pipeline for each of the Venera mission [ mentallandscape.com ] datasets is explained in great detail .
For instance , about the Venera-9 mission images ( from http : //www.mentallandscape.com/V \ _DigitalImages.htm [ mentallandscape.com ] : The upper image is the raw 6-bit telemetry , about 115 by 512 pixels .
Automatic gain control and logarithmic quantization were used to handle the unknown dynamic range of illumination .
Previously published images from these probes suffered from severe analog generation loss , so it is fortunate that the original data was found .
The raw image was converted to optical density according to Russian calibration data , then to linear radiance for image processing .
It was interpolated with windowed sinc filter to avoid post-aliasing ( a " pixilated " appearance ) , and the modulation transfer function ( " aperture " ) of the camera was corrected with a 1 + 0.2 * frequency * * 2 emphasis .
This was then written out as 8-bit gamma-corrected values , using the sRGB standard gamma of 2.2 .
Some of the telemetry bars on the right were replaced with data from the 124 panorama .
The bottom image is digitally in-painted , using Bertalmio 's isophote-flow algorithm , to fill in missing data .
... and for a BBC coverage of the story : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3387895.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 
One amateur reprocessed images from Soviet Venus landers and brought out some amazing detail, finding landscape features that weren't spotted before.
It's simply the case that sometimes amateurs are simply motivated to spend the necessary time and attention to detail more so than "professionals", who normally have full in-boxes.
Amateurs can decide to be as anal as they want.
Call it open-source astronomy.
Thanks! I looked it up, and if you are referring to Don Mitchell's story, it is indeed well worth reading.
http://www.mentallandscape.com/C\_CatalogVenus.htm [mentallandscape.com] 

Even better, the re-processing pipeline for each of the Venera mission [mentallandscape.com] datasets is explained in great detail.
For instance, about the Venera-9 mission images (from http://www.mentallandscape.com/V\_DigitalImages.htm [mentallandscape.com]:The upper image is the raw 6-bit telemetry, about 115 by 512 pixels.
Automatic gain control and logarithmic quantization were used to handle the unknown dynamic range of illumination.
Previously published images from these probes suffered from severe analog generation loss, so it is fortunate that the original data was found.
The raw image was converted to optical density according to Russian calibration data, then to linear radiance for image processing.
It was interpolated with windowed sinc filter to avoid post-aliasing (a "pixilated" appearance), and the modulation transfer function ("aperture") of the camera was corrected with a 1 + 0.2*frequency**2 emphasis.
This was then written out as 8-bit gamma-corrected values, using the sRGB standard gamma of 2.2.
Some of the telemetry bars on the right were replaced with data from the 124 panorama.
The bottom image is digitally in-painted, using Bertalmio's isophote-flow algorithm, to fill in missing data.
... and for a BBC coverage of the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3387895.stm [bbc.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30872734</id>
	<title>Hubble</title>
	<author>kobiashi maru</author>
	<datestamp>1264242900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In order to gain more accurate photographs, they should put the Hubble Space Telescope in a garden shed and pour coffee on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to gain more accurate photographs , they should put the Hubble Space Telescope in a garden shed and pour coffee on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to gain more accurate photographs, they should put the Hubble Space Telescope in a garden shed and pour coffee on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30870812</id>
	<title>Impressive, but there are even better examples...</title>
	<author>Arguendo</author>
	<datestamp>1264272540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't even come close to replicating these photographs myself, but there are even more incredible examples of amateurs doing amazing space photography with relatively simple equipment.  There are a couple of these geniuses in the SF Bay Area.  One I'm familiar with is Rogelio Bernal Andreo.  He is a fixture at astro sites around the Bay, and his photographs are simply jaw dropping.  I believe most of his magic happens on the back end in the digital processing.  His set up easily packs into his car.</p><p>Check some of these out:  <a href="http://blog.deepskycolors.com/nebulas.html" title="deepskycolors.com">http://blog.deepskycolors.com/nebulas.html</a> [deepskycolors.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't even come close to replicating these photographs myself , but there are even more incredible examples of amateurs doing amazing space photography with relatively simple equipment .
There are a couple of these geniuses in the SF Bay Area .
One I 'm familiar with is Rogelio Bernal Andreo .
He is a fixture at astro sites around the Bay , and his photographs are simply jaw dropping .
I believe most of his magic happens on the back end in the digital processing .
His set up easily packs into his car.Check some of these out : http : //blog.deepskycolors.com/nebulas.html [ deepskycolors.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't even come close to replicating these photographs myself, but there are even more incredible examples of amateurs doing amazing space photography with relatively simple equipment.
There are a couple of these geniuses in the SF Bay Area.
One I'm familiar with is Rogelio Bernal Andreo.
He is a fixture at astro sites around the Bay, and his photographs are simply jaw dropping.
I believe most of his magic happens on the back end in the digital processing.
His set up easily packs into his car.Check some of these out:  http://blog.deepskycolors.com/nebulas.html [deepskycolors.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868092</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble? I don't think so</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1264241220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's also worth pointing out that the <i>scientific</i> value of an astronomical picture has nothing to do with how pretty it is. And it was science that justified the huge sums spent on Hubble, not pretty pictures. We're just used to seeing spectacular Hubble photos because NASA, ever mindful of PR, keeps pushing them out, often "enhancing" them to make the skies more photogenic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also worth pointing out that the scientific value of an astronomical picture has nothing to do with how pretty it is .
And it was science that justified the huge sums spent on Hubble , not pretty pictures .
We 're just used to seeing spectacular Hubble photos because NASA , ever mindful of PR , keeps pushing them out , often " enhancing " them to make the skies more photogenic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also worth pointing out that the scientific value of an astronomical picture has nothing to do with how pretty it is.
And it was science that justified the huge sums spent on Hubble, not pretty pictures.
We're just used to seeing spectacular Hubble photos because NASA, ever mindful of PR, keeps pushing them out, often "enhancing" them to make the skies more photogenic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868072</id>
	<title>Re:Cool project and all...</title>
	<author>Stephan Schulz</author>
	<datestamp>1264240740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, they are obviously too baffled to comment! Or maybe too flummoxed. Or the Daily Telegraph is the kind of newspaper that thinks "<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/7037574/Lara-Croft-picks-up-six-Guinness-world-records.html" title="telegraph.co.uk">Lara Croft picks up six Guinness world records</a> [telegraph.co.uk]" is related to astronomy and just pulls headlines out of its...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , they are obviously too baffled to comment !
Or maybe too flummoxed .
Or the Daily Telegraph is the kind of newspaper that thinks " Lara Croft picks up six Guinness world records [ telegraph.co.uk ] " is related to astronomy and just pulls headlines out of its.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, they are obviously too baffled to comment!
Or maybe too flummoxed.
Or the Daily Telegraph is the kind of newspaper that thinks "Lara Croft picks up six Guinness world records [telegraph.co.uk]" is related to astronomy and just pulls headlines out of its...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30870948</id>
	<title>Re:Hubble? I don't think so</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264273680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with amateur anal is they often don't have enough experience so it's awkward.  I don't know about you, but I don't want to see a cock covered in shit.  Pros know to clean out their asshole first and don't freak out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with amateur anal is they often do n't have enough experience so it 's awkward .
I do n't know about you , but I do n't want to see a cock covered in shit .
Pros know to clean out their asshole first and do n't freak out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with amateur anal is they often don't have enough experience so it's awkward.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to see a cock covered in shit.
Pros know to clean out their asshole first and don't freak out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867942</id>
	<title>Re:Beautiful pictures</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1264238820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's info on the telescope and CCD <a href="http://www.astropix.co.uk/equipment.html" title="astropix.co.uk">here</a> [astropix.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's info on the telescope and CCD here [ astropix.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's info on the telescope and CCD here [astropix.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30870108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30871370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30883212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30870424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30870948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_23_001227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30870424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30883212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30870108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30869956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_23_001227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30867984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30871370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30870948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_23_001227.30868068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
