<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_25_193251</id>
	<title>SETI Founder Outlines Ambitious Future Plans</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1264411680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Lanxon writes <i>"'In the universe there is intelligent life, I'm confident about that,' SETI founder Dr Frank Drake (of the Drake Equation) affirmed earlier today during a talk at the Royal Society in London, 50 years after SETI was founded.  One of his visions to prove this, and to show that the last five decades were not a waste of time, is to station a radio observatory not in near-Earth orbit, but <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-01/25/seti-founder-outlines-ambitious-plans-for-future.aspx">on the far side of the moon</a>. He also suggests that another craft could later be stationed 500 times further away from the Sun than the Earth, using the Sun itself as a giant magnifying lens to resolve alien worlds."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lanxon writes " 'In the universe there is intelligent life , I 'm confident about that, ' SETI founder Dr Frank Drake ( of the Drake Equation ) affirmed earlier today during a talk at the Royal Society in London , 50 years after SETI was founded .
One of his visions to prove this , and to show that the last five decades were not a waste of time , is to station a radio observatory not in near-Earth orbit , but on the far side of the moon .
He also suggests that another craft could later be stationed 500 times further away from the Sun than the Earth , using the Sun itself as a giant magnifying lens to resolve alien worlds .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lanxon writes "'In the universe there is intelligent life, I'm confident about that,' SETI founder Dr Frank Drake (of the Drake Equation) affirmed earlier today during a talk at the Royal Society in London, 50 years after SETI was founded.
One of his visions to prove this, and to show that the last five decades were not a waste of time, is to station a radio observatory not in near-Earth orbit, but on the far side of the moon.
He also suggests that another craft could later be stationed 500 times further away from the Sun than the Earth, using the Sun itself as a giant magnifying lens to resolve alien worlds.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897412</id>
	<title>Maybe "they" don't WANT to be found</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264421100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if all of these supposed intelligent extra-terrestrial lifeforms ARE communicating with with the ordinary EM Spectrum but they're encrypting their communications such that it would all appear, even to the avid observer, as little more than mere background noise?</p><p>What then???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if all of these supposed intelligent extra-terrestrial lifeforms ARE communicating with with the ordinary EM Spectrum but they 're encrypting their communications such that it would all appear , even to the avid observer , as little more than mere background noise ? What then ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if all of these supposed intelligent extra-terrestrial lifeforms ARE communicating with with the ordinary EM Spectrum but they're encrypting their communications such that it would all appear, even to the avid observer, as little more than mere background noise?What then??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30898900</id>
	<title>How is this different from intelligent design?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264428600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flying pasta monsters aside, how is SETI different from ID?  ID does not assert any preconception regarding the nature of the designer, so you can't pull the natural, super-natural distinction.  In fact, ID has the advantage of a signal to inspect, that of DNA.  SETI has no signal to apply "intelligence" detection algorithms to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flying pasta monsters aside , how is SETI different from ID ?
ID does not assert any preconception regarding the nature of the designer , so you ca n't pull the natural , super-natural distinction .
In fact , ID has the advantage of a signal to inspect , that of DNA .
SETI has no signal to apply " intelligence " detection algorithms to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flying pasta monsters aside, how is SETI different from ID?
ID does not assert any preconception regarding the nature of the designer, so you can't pull the natural, super-natural distinction.
In fact, ID has the advantage of a signal to inspect, that of DNA.
SETI has no signal to apply "intelligence" detection algorithms to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897292</id>
	<title>Re:What if there is no FTL?</title>
	<author>orkysoft</author>
	<datestamp>1264420440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll probably be cheaper to just manufacture those elements in nuclear reactors than to exchange them with an alien civilization hundreds of lightyears away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll probably be cheaper to just manufacture those elements in nuclear reactors than to exchange them with an alien civilization hundreds of lightyears away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll probably be cheaper to just manufacture those elements in nuclear reactors than to exchange them with an alien civilization hundreds of lightyears away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30904384</id>
	<title>Re:Laudable, but misguided</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1264521480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why are they "likely" to be more intelligent than us?</i></p><p>If we detect radio signals from 10k light years away, that means that they would likely be 10,000 years ahead of us. That long ago agriculture was brand new to us.</p><p><i>About them possibly being hostile... is that any reason to be Xenophobic?</i></p><p>Do you walk down dark alleys in the worst part of your city at midnight? Why not?</p><p><i>Also, it'd be obvious that we are sentient if we attempted to make contact... Isn't that a behavior that only a sentient being would exhibit?</i></p><p>A dog has never barked at you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are they " likely " to be more intelligent than us ? If we detect radio signals from 10k light years away , that means that they would likely be 10,000 years ahead of us .
That long ago agriculture was brand new to us.About them possibly being hostile... is that any reason to be Xenophobic ? Do you walk down dark alleys in the worst part of your city at midnight ?
Why not ? Also , it 'd be obvious that we are sentient if we attempted to make contact... Is n't that a behavior that only a sentient being would exhibit ? A dog has never barked at you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are they "likely" to be more intelligent than us?If we detect radio signals from 10k light years away, that means that they would likely be 10,000 years ahead of us.
That long ago agriculture was brand new to us.About them possibly being hostile... is that any reason to be Xenophobic?Do you walk down dark alleys in the worst part of your city at midnight?
Why not?Also, it'd be obvious that we are sentient if we attempted to make contact... Isn't that a behavior that only a sentient being would exhibit?A dog has never barked at you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896320</id>
	<title>On the far side of the moon?</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1264416060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't that be like crossing the street?</p><p>Actually, wouldn't that be like staying on one 6 inch stretch of asphalt on a small block on a small street in a tiny neighborhood in a small city in a huge state in a huge country on a huge planet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't that be like crossing the street ? Actually , would n't that be like staying on one 6 inch stretch of asphalt on a small block on a small street in a tiny neighborhood in a small city in a huge state in a huge country on a huge planet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't that be like crossing the street?Actually, wouldn't that be like staying on one 6 inch stretch of asphalt on a small block on a small street in a tiny neighborhood in a small city in a huge state in a huge country on a huge planet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896670</id>
	<title>Re:Not the best use of resources right now...</title>
	<author>ivan\_w</author>
	<datestamp>1264417320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Earth *WILL* remain habitable (maybe not by us though) probably for at least the next 1B years. Earth has sustained numerous catastrophic life annihilating events (major meteor strikes, giants volcanoes, etc..) and *YET* life remained. I very much doubt the amounts of CO2 we release or how much we curtail biodiversity (it will recover once we are gone) will be more threatening than a global instantaneous event.</p><p>Look at how hard we try to eradicate some basic forms of life (and some say they aren't even "alive") like viruses - and fail miserably.</p><p>Life is *WAY* more resilient that you might think. However, the human race might not be (although I just read some recent study showing that the Homo family was reduced to ~18.000 individual some 1.2 M years ago and yet did manage to survive..)</p><p>--Ivan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Earth * WILL * remain habitable ( maybe not by us though ) probably for at least the next 1B years .
Earth has sustained numerous catastrophic life annihilating events ( major meteor strikes , giants volcanoes , etc.. ) and * YET * life remained .
I very much doubt the amounts of CO2 we release or how much we curtail biodiversity ( it will recover once we are gone ) will be more threatening than a global instantaneous event.Look at how hard we try to eradicate some basic forms of life ( and some say they are n't even " alive " ) like viruses - and fail miserably.Life is * WAY * more resilient that you might think .
However , the human race might not be ( although I just read some recent study showing that the Homo family was reduced to ~ 18.000 individual some 1.2 M years ago and yet did manage to survive.. ) --Ivan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earth *WILL* remain habitable (maybe not by us though) probably for at least the next 1B years.
Earth has sustained numerous catastrophic life annihilating events (major meteor strikes, giants volcanoes, etc..) and *YET* life remained.
I very much doubt the amounts of CO2 we release or how much we curtail biodiversity (it will recover once we are gone) will be more threatening than a global instantaneous event.Look at how hard we try to eradicate some basic forms of life (and some say they aren't even "alive") like viruses - and fail miserably.Life is *WAY* more resilient that you might think.
However, the human race might not be (although I just read some recent study showing that the Homo family was reduced to ~18.000 individual some 1.2 M years ago and yet did manage to survive..)--Ivan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30902202</id>
	<title>Re:Laudable, but misguided</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1264508100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You seem to share Hawking's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species.</p></div> </blockquote><p>It is. However, please note that the effective intelligence of an individual doesn't necessarily equal his <em>inherent</em> intelligence, but the combined intelligence of him and all the gear he has available to him. For example, a human with a pocket calculator is effectively more intelligent than the same human without the calculator; and our pocket calculators are getting <em>much</em> more capable.</p><p>I + Internet &gt; just me.</p><blockquote><div><p>Alas, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for that. Once you're intelligent enough, in general, to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with, the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates. After all, how much intelligence does it really take to do 95+\% of all the things required to make a technological civilization work?</p></div> </blockquote><p>And yet we seem to have a constant drive to improve our technology, which in turn makes us more capable - or do you really think that anyone, no matter how intelligent, could layout modern computer chips with their close to billion of transistors (774 million for i5 - and I just looked that up from the Web) by hand? It is deceptive to just compare brain capacities, just like it would be absurd to declare modern civilizations as weaker than ancient ones, since people tend to be in worse shape.</p><p>The main trust of human evolution has simply switched from genetic to memetic, that's all. Some people talk about "technological singularity", where technology increases intelligence which in turn increases technology at ever-increasing rate; well, this is it. The Internet provides instant access to pretty much all information one would want; the processing power available to the average individual (of industrial world, obviously) makes supercomputers of yesterday seem like abacuses in comparison; new magic-like technology from invisibility cloaks to nanotechnological engines/transistors/whatever to 3D object printers are announced weekly. In fact our technology is advancing so fast it's unstabilizing our economy, causing massive unemployment and stock market crashes.</p><p>We are far more intelligent than any previous generation has been, if intelligence is defined as the ability to get information and process it. And the future generations will only keep getting more so, especially as computers get greater bandwidth into our brains. That's the next step: integrating all this technology into ourselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to share Hawking 's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species .
It is .
However , please note that the effective intelligence of an individual does n't necessarily equal his inherent intelligence , but the combined intelligence of him and all the gear he has available to him .
For example , a human with a pocket calculator is effectively more intelligent than the same human without the calculator ; and our pocket calculators are getting much more capable.I + Internet &gt; just me.Alas , there really does n't seem to be much evidence for that .
Once you 're intelligent enough , in general , to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with , the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates .
After all , how much intelligence does it really take to do 95 + \ % of all the things required to make a technological civilization work ?
And yet we seem to have a constant drive to improve our technology , which in turn makes us more capable - or do you really think that anyone , no matter how intelligent , could layout modern computer chips with their close to billion of transistors ( 774 million for i5 - and I just looked that up from the Web ) by hand ?
It is deceptive to just compare brain capacities , just like it would be absurd to declare modern civilizations as weaker than ancient ones , since people tend to be in worse shape.The main trust of human evolution has simply switched from genetic to memetic , that 's all .
Some people talk about " technological singularity " , where technology increases intelligence which in turn increases technology at ever-increasing rate ; well , this is it .
The Internet provides instant access to pretty much all information one would want ; the processing power available to the average individual ( of industrial world , obviously ) makes supercomputers of yesterday seem like abacuses in comparison ; new magic-like technology from invisibility cloaks to nanotechnological engines/transistors/whatever to 3D object printers are announced weekly .
In fact our technology is advancing so fast it 's unstabilizing our economy , causing massive unemployment and stock market crashes.We are far more intelligent than any previous generation has been , if intelligence is defined as the ability to get information and process it .
And the future generations will only keep getting more so , especially as computers get greater bandwidth into our brains .
That 's the next step : integrating all this technology into ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to share Hawking's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species.
It is.
However, please note that the effective intelligence of an individual doesn't necessarily equal his inherent intelligence, but the combined intelligence of him and all the gear he has available to him.
For example, a human with a pocket calculator is effectively more intelligent than the same human without the calculator; and our pocket calculators are getting much more capable.I + Internet &gt; just me.Alas, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for that.
Once you're intelligent enough, in general, to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with, the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates.
After all, how much intelligence does it really take to do 95+\% of all the things required to make a technological civilization work?
And yet we seem to have a constant drive to improve our technology, which in turn makes us more capable - or do you really think that anyone, no matter how intelligent, could layout modern computer chips with their close to billion of transistors (774 million for i5 - and I just looked that up from the Web) by hand?
It is deceptive to just compare brain capacities, just like it would be absurd to declare modern civilizations as weaker than ancient ones, since people tend to be in worse shape.The main trust of human evolution has simply switched from genetic to memetic, that's all.
Some people talk about "technological singularity", where technology increases intelligence which in turn increases technology at ever-increasing rate; well, this is it.
The Internet provides instant access to pretty much all information one would want; the processing power available to the average individual (of industrial world, obviously) makes supercomputers of yesterday seem like abacuses in comparison; new magic-like technology from invisibility cloaks to nanotechnological engines/transistors/whatever to 3D object printers are announced weekly.
In fact our technology is advancing so fast it's unstabilizing our economy, causing massive unemployment and stock market crashes.We are far more intelligent than any previous generation has been, if intelligence is defined as the ability to get information and process it.
And the future generations will only keep getting more so, especially as computers get greater bandwidth into our brains.
That's the next step: integrating all this technology into ourselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896272</id>
	<title>We're more likely to hear nowt...</title>
	<author>Omnipotent\_Radish</author>
	<datestamp>1264415880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Then there&rsquo;s the ongoing shift from broadcast (which necessarily uses a small number of very powerful transmitters) to unicast media like cellphones; there isn&rsquo;t the slightest chance you could even tell there was a cellphone network on the ground from space, since the frequencies are reused on a radius of less than 25 km; from a lightyear away picking out a single base station would require an unfeasibly large aperture (which would be no good for a sky search unless you had a ridiculously long time to perform it)."</p></div><p>Copied verbatim from <a href="http://www.electronpusher.org/?p=622" title="electronpusher.org" rel="nofollow">Electron Pusher, Fermi's Non-Paradox</a> [electronpusher.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Then there    s the ongoing shift from broadcast ( which necessarily uses a small number of very powerful transmitters ) to unicast media like cellphones ; there isn    t the slightest chance you could even tell there was a cellphone network on the ground from space , since the frequencies are reused on a radius of less than 25 km ; from a lightyear away picking out a single base station would require an unfeasibly large aperture ( which would be no good for a sky search unless you had a ridiculously long time to perform it ) .
" Copied verbatim from Electron Pusher , Fermi 's Non-Paradox [ electronpusher.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Then there’s the ongoing shift from broadcast (which necessarily uses a small number of very powerful transmitters) to unicast media like cellphones; there isn’t the slightest chance you could even tell there was a cellphone network on the ground from space, since the frequencies are reused on a radius of less than 25 km; from a lightyear away picking out a single base station would require an unfeasibly large aperture (which would be no good for a sky search unless you had a ridiculously long time to perform it).
"Copied verbatim from Electron Pusher, Fermi's Non-Paradox [electronpusher.org]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30922490</id>
	<title>The way I see it..</title>
	<author>Rexdude</author>
	<datestamp>1264624560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..as long as we're hobbled by the speed of light, we're not going anywhere or receiving any ET signals. What we know of exoplanets is due to mass spectroscopy. We can figure out the gaseous composition at best, not more than that.<br>The fastest manmade object currently is Voyager 1, traveling at 17km/s, or about 0.000056c. Either we break the speed of light or invent warp drive, without that we're just going to be stuck within our system, at best with trips to Mars and Europa (whenever that happens)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..as long as we 're hobbled by the speed of light , we 're not going anywhere or receiving any ET signals .
What we know of exoplanets is due to mass spectroscopy .
We can figure out the gaseous composition at best , not more than that.The fastest manmade object currently is Voyager 1 , traveling at 17km/s , or about 0.000056c .
Either we break the speed of light or invent warp drive , without that we 're just going to be stuck within our system , at best with trips to Mars and Europa ( whenever that happens )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..as long as we're hobbled by the speed of light, we're not going anywhere or receiving any ET signals.
What we know of exoplanets is due to mass spectroscopy.
We can figure out the gaseous composition at best, not more than that.The fastest manmade object currently is Voyager 1, traveling at 17km/s, or about 0.000056c.
Either we break the speed of light or invent warp drive, without that we're just going to be stuck within our system, at best with trips to Mars and Europa (whenever that happens)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896450</id>
	<title>Intelligence in galactic context means extinction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264416480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with intelligent civilizations is that a few decades after they achieve a technological level where they can make powerful radios to talk to galactic neighbors, they also invariably build particle accelerators. These accelerators soon make micro black holes that eat up the planet and the not-so-intelligent civilization with it.  Only 0.1\% of intelligent civilizations survive by colonizing a nearby planet before the particle accelerator is turned on.</p><p>So instead of finding a strong community of star systems in a 50 lightyear radius, we will probably have to look 500 l.y. away and wait 1000 years with the hadron collider turned off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with intelligent civilizations is that a few decades after they achieve a technological level where they can make powerful radios to talk to galactic neighbors , they also invariably build particle accelerators .
These accelerators soon make micro black holes that eat up the planet and the not-so-intelligent civilization with it .
Only 0.1 \ % of intelligent civilizations survive by colonizing a nearby planet before the particle accelerator is turned on.So instead of finding a strong community of star systems in a 50 lightyear radius , we will probably have to look 500 l.y .
away and wait 1000 years with the hadron collider turned off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with intelligent civilizations is that a few decades after they achieve a technological level where they can make powerful radios to talk to galactic neighbors, they also invariably build particle accelerators.
These accelerators soon make micro black holes that eat up the planet and the not-so-intelligent civilization with it.
Only 0.1\% of intelligent civilizations survive by colonizing a nearby planet before the particle accelerator is turned on.So instead of finding a strong community of star systems in a 50 lightyear radius, we will probably have to look 500 l.y.
away and wait 1000 years with the hadron collider turned off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112</id>
	<title>Laudable, but misguided</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264415400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally think SETI is misguided, even though its aims are commendable. There probably is intelligent life out there, but it is a possibility that earth could have been the first planet on which it developed.</p><p>But I see two very great problems with SETI.</p><p>First is the limited range; nobody more than around 150 light years away would be able to detect intelligent life on earth.</p><p>If we do find them they're likely to be more intelligent than us, they  may turn out to be hostile, and they may discover that we are tasty, or good speceship fuel, etc. They may be intelligent enough that we don't even appear sentient to them. I'm not sure I want us to find intelligent extraterrestrials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally think SETI is misguided , even though its aims are commendable .
There probably is intelligent life out there , but it is a possibility that earth could have been the first planet on which it developed.But I see two very great problems with SETI.First is the limited range ; nobody more than around 150 light years away would be able to detect intelligent life on earth.If we do find them they 're likely to be more intelligent than us , they may turn out to be hostile , and they may discover that we are tasty , or good speceship fuel , etc .
They may be intelligent enough that we do n't even appear sentient to them .
I 'm not sure I want us to find intelligent extraterrestrials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally think SETI is misguided, even though its aims are commendable.
There probably is intelligent life out there, but it is a possibility that earth could have been the first planet on which it developed.But I see two very great problems with SETI.First is the limited range; nobody more than around 150 light years away would be able to detect intelligent life on earth.If we do find them they're likely to be more intelligent than us, they  may turn out to be hostile, and they may discover that we are tasty, or good speceship fuel, etc.
They may be intelligent enough that we don't even appear sentient to them.
I'm not sure I want us to find intelligent extraterrestrials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897948</id>
	<title>Re:Laudable, but misguided</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1264423680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can actually see artificial selection taking over at that point. Right now, with our species, we have people attempting to boost their effective intelligence through pharmaceuticals - it's certainly extremely likely that once we really get cooking with genetic modification and the melding of our brains with technology (and assuming we don't wipe ourselves out, I'd say it's extremely unlikely that we WON'T do those things), our intelligence would be in our own hands and there would be motivation to keep getting smarter.</p><p>I do agree that evolution, in and of itself, will not necessarily favor more and more intelligence, but once we take our destiny as a species into our own hands, things change fundamentally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can actually see artificial selection taking over at that point .
Right now , with our species , we have people attempting to boost their effective intelligence through pharmaceuticals - it 's certainly extremely likely that once we really get cooking with genetic modification and the melding of our brains with technology ( and assuming we do n't wipe ourselves out , I 'd say it 's extremely unlikely that we WO N'T do those things ) , our intelligence would be in our own hands and there would be motivation to keep getting smarter.I do agree that evolution , in and of itself , will not necessarily favor more and more intelligence , but once we take our destiny as a species into our own hands , things change fundamentally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can actually see artificial selection taking over at that point.
Right now, with our species, we have people attempting to boost their effective intelligence through pharmaceuticals - it's certainly extremely likely that once we really get cooking with genetic modification and the melding of our brains with technology (and assuming we don't wipe ourselves out, I'd say it's extremely unlikely that we WON'T do those things), our intelligence would be in our own hands and there would be motivation to keep getting smarter.I do agree that evolution, in and of itself, will not necessarily favor more and more intelligence, but once we take our destiny as a species into our own hands, things change fundamentally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30900044</id>
	<title>Re:What if there is no FTL?</title>
	<author>Old Flatulent 1</author>
	<datestamp>1264438680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Communication at ftl speeds might be all that is necessary. If it turns out that there are other forms of waves other than emr for example graviton waves then just perhaps we are looking with the wrong equipment. After all Seti is only examining emr that is moving at C.<p> It is interesting that as more and more satellites are place in far earth orbit the possibility of finding signals longer wave lengths could occur using the communication beams between satellites themselves as a form of antenna.</p><p>I suspect that matter will not move faster than light but some form of long wave lengths just might based on the destruction of small quantities of matter and if sub particles reduced to almost strings form waves. The LHC is investigating the possibility of long wave creation, the problem is how do you detect them except at extreme distance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Communication at ftl speeds might be all that is necessary .
If it turns out that there are other forms of waves other than emr for example graviton waves then just perhaps we are looking with the wrong equipment .
After all Seti is only examining emr that is moving at C. It is interesting that as more and more satellites are place in far earth orbit the possibility of finding signals longer wave lengths could occur using the communication beams between satellites themselves as a form of antenna.I suspect that matter will not move faster than light but some form of long wave lengths just might based on the destruction of small quantities of matter and if sub particles reduced to almost strings form waves .
The LHC is investigating the possibility of long wave creation , the problem is how do you detect them except at extreme distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Communication at ftl speeds might be all that is necessary.
If it turns out that there are other forms of waves other than emr for example graviton waves then just perhaps we are looking with the wrong equipment.
After all Seti is only examining emr that is moving at C. It is interesting that as more and more satellites are place in far earth orbit the possibility of finding signals longer wave lengths could occur using the communication beams between satellites themselves as a form of antenna.I suspect that matter will not move faster than light but some form of long wave lengths just might based on the destruction of small quantities of matter and if sub particles reduced to almost strings form waves.
The LHC is investigating the possibility of long wave creation, the problem is how do you detect them except at extreme distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897532</id>
	<title>To Serve Man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264421580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cookbook</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cookbook</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cookbook</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896576</id>
	<title>wrong approach</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264416960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMO, we shouldn't be trying to prove life exists anywhere else, we should be trying to prove it doesn't exist everywhere else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO , we should n't be trying to prove life exists anywhere else , we should be trying to prove it does n't exist everywhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO, we shouldn't be trying to prove life exists anywhere else, we should be trying to prove it doesn't exist everywhere else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897354</id>
	<title>500 AU?</title>
	<author>DavidYaw</author>
	<datestamp>1264420800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...500 times further away from the Sun than the Earth...</p></div></blockquote><p>An observatory at 500 AU? Really? Considering the two farthest man-made objects, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, are only at 94 and 84 AU, this seems overambitious to the point of completely unrealistic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...500 times further away from the Sun than the Earth...An observatory at 500 AU ?
Really ? Considering the two farthest man-made objects , Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 , are only at 94 and 84 AU , this seems overambitious to the point of completely unrealistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...500 times further away from the Sun than the Earth...An observatory at 500 AU?
Really? Considering the two farthest man-made objects, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, are only at 94 and 84 AU, this seems overambitious to the point of completely unrealistic.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30902054</id>
	<title>Re:Not the best use of resources right now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264506360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps we may find alien intelligence that has been through what we are going through, and will be able to offer solutions on how to cope with our global problems, based on their experience?</p><p>When I think of alien intelligence, I am really thinking of the 'intelligence' part. Finding a race that is more intelligent than us is, in a way, like finding ourselves at a point in the future. We may be able to realize several notions that if left to ourselves would take us too much time, effort and irreconcilable damage due to our experimentations - like we are doing with our planet now. It is an inevitable trapping of knowledge that is largely heuristic.</p></div><p>This is one of the funnier replies on Slashdot escay.... We know full well how to cope with our global "problems", its just that the 10\% of the world who want more, more, more at the expense of the other 90\% aren't ever going to be interested in changing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps we may find alien intelligence that has been through what we are going through , and will be able to offer solutions on how to cope with our global problems , based on their experience ? When I think of alien intelligence , I am really thinking of the 'intelligence ' part .
Finding a race that is more intelligent than us is , in a way , like finding ourselves at a point in the future .
We may be able to realize several notions that if left to ourselves would take us too much time , effort and irreconcilable damage due to our experimentations - like we are doing with our planet now .
It is an inevitable trapping of knowledge that is largely heuristic.This is one of the funnier replies on Slashdot escay.... We know full well how to cope with our global " problems " , its just that the 10 \ % of the world who want more , more , more at the expense of the other 90 \ % are n't ever going to be interested in changing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps we may find alien intelligence that has been through what we are going through, and will be able to offer solutions on how to cope with our global problems, based on their experience?When I think of alien intelligence, I am really thinking of the 'intelligence' part.
Finding a race that is more intelligent than us is, in a way, like finding ourselves at a point in the future.
We may be able to realize several notions that if left to ourselves would take us too much time, effort and irreconcilable damage due to our experimentations - like we are doing with our planet now.
It is an inevitable trapping of knowledge that is largely heuristic.This is one of the funnier replies on Slashdot escay.... We know full well how to cope with our global "problems", its just that the 10\% of the world who want more, more, more at the expense of the other 90\% aren't ever going to be interested in changing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896538</id>
	<title>Where would you look?</title>
	<author>DeLukas</author>
	<datestamp>1264416900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was going to say "Of course there is intelligent life in the universe, it's right here on Earth!" but I couldn't do it with a straight face.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to say " Of course there is intelligent life in the universe , it 's right here on Earth !
" but I could n't do it with a straight face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to say "Of course there is intelligent life in the universe, it's right here on Earth!
" but I couldn't do it with a straight face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897284</id>
	<title>Re:Laudable, but misguided</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264420380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You seem to share Hawking's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species. Alas, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for that.</p></div></blockquote><p>As long as you think of intelligence as "that which is measured by a IQ test", then yes. However, if you think of intelligence as being the entire spectrum of mental activity (including such other, non&ndash; or poorly&ndash;tested factors such as memory building or new concept synthesis) then our current pace of technological change is indeed a evolutionary force pushing for greater intelligence.</p><p>
Our grandfathers could hold a job for 50 years and not have a single tool used change in that time period; yet today, office workers have their tools [PC software] change in varying ways every three to four years. Mental adaptiveness is still being selected for (just in different ways than before).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to share Hawking 's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species .
Alas , there really does n't seem to be much evidence for that.As long as you think of intelligence as " that which is measured by a IQ test " , then yes .
However , if you think of intelligence as being the entire spectrum of mental activity ( including such other , non    or poorly    tested factors such as memory building or new concept synthesis ) then our current pace of technological change is indeed a evolutionary force pushing for greater intelligence .
Our grandfathers could hold a job for 50 years and not have a single tool used change in that time period ; yet today , office workers have their tools [ PC software ] change in varying ways every three to four years .
Mental adaptiveness is still being selected for ( just in different ways than before ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to share Hawking's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species.
Alas, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for that.As long as you think of intelligence as "that which is measured by a IQ test", then yes.
However, if you think of intelligence as being the entire spectrum of mental activity (including such other, non– or poorly–tested factors such as memory building or new concept synthesis) then our current pace of technological change is indeed a evolutionary force pushing for greater intelligence.
Our grandfathers could hold a job for 50 years and not have a single tool used change in that time period; yet today, office workers have their tools [PC software] change in varying ways every three to four years.
Mental adaptiveness is still being selected for (just in different ways than before).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896766</id>
	<title>Oblig quote/unrelated observation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264417740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The surest sign that intelligent life exists is that none of it has tried to contact us."<br>
--Calvin and Hobbes<br>
<br>
Let's see here:<br>
Believing in other power/advanced being - check<br>
Lack of observable scientific evidence supporting it - check<br>
Only evidence we have = legends and word-of-mouth stories about strange encounters - check<br>
See? Religion and science can co-exist!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The surest sign that intelligent life exists is that none of it has tried to contact us .
" --Calvin and Hobbes Let 's see here : Believing in other power/advanced being - check Lack of observable scientific evidence supporting it - check Only evidence we have = legends and word-of-mouth stories about strange encounters - check See ?
Religion and science can co-exist !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The surest sign that intelligent life exists is that none of it has tried to contact us.
"
--Calvin and Hobbes

Let's see here:
Believing in other power/advanced being - check
Lack of observable scientific evidence supporting it - check
Only evidence we have = legends and word-of-mouth stories about strange encounters - check
See?
Religion and science can co-exist!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668</id>
	<title>What if there is no FTL?</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1264417320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it turns out there is no possible way that we can move faster than light would there be any purpose to contact alien worlds?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it turns out there is no possible way that we can move faster than light would there be any purpose to contact alien worlds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it turns out there is no possible way that we can move faster than light would there be any purpose to contact alien worlds?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896792</id>
	<title>Re:What if there is no FTL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264417800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say simply answering the question "Are we alone in the universe?" would be noteworthy enough for both civilizations to make the whole thing worthwhile. It's not often you get an answer to one of the fundamental mystery questions like that.</p><p>It's up there with "What happens to us after we die?" and "Is there a God?" Sure, people have their beliefs and opinions, but to actually KNOW...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say simply answering the question " Are we alone in the universe ?
" would be noteworthy enough for both civilizations to make the whole thing worthwhile .
It 's not often you get an answer to one of the fundamental mystery questions like that.It 's up there with " What happens to us after we die ?
" and " Is there a God ?
" Sure , people have their beliefs and opinions , but to actually KNOW.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say simply answering the question "Are we alone in the universe?
" would be noteworthy enough for both civilizations to make the whole thing worthwhile.
It's not often you get an answer to one of the fundamental mystery questions like that.It's up there with "What happens to us after we die?
" and "Is there a God?
" Sure, people have their beliefs and opinions, but to actually KNOW...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896814</id>
	<title>Re:What if there is no FTL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264417860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are broadcasting their wikipedia so that the universe may benefit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are broadcasting their wikipedia so that the universe may benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are broadcasting their wikipedia so that the universe may benefit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896462</id>
	<title>Re:Not the best use of resources right now...</title>
	<author>escay</author>
	<datestamp>1264416540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps we may find alien intelligence that has been through what we are going through, and will be able to offer solutions on how to cope with our global problems, based on their experience?
<p>
When I think of alien intelligence, I am really thinking of the 'intelligence' part. Finding a race that is more intelligent than us is, in a way, like finding ourselves at a point in the future. We may be able to realize several notions that if left to ourselves would take us too much time, effort and irreconcilable damage due to our experimentations - like we are doing with our planet now. It is an inevitable trapping of knowledge that is largely heuristic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps we may find alien intelligence that has been through what we are going through , and will be able to offer solutions on how to cope with our global problems , based on their experience ?
When I think of alien intelligence , I am really thinking of the 'intelligence ' part .
Finding a race that is more intelligent than us is , in a way , like finding ourselves at a point in the future .
We may be able to realize several notions that if left to ourselves would take us too much time , effort and irreconcilable damage due to our experimentations - like we are doing with our planet now .
It is an inevitable trapping of knowledge that is largely heuristic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps we may find alien intelligence that has been through what we are going through, and will be able to offer solutions on how to cope with our global problems, based on their experience?
When I think of alien intelligence, I am really thinking of the 'intelligence' part.
Finding a race that is more intelligent than us is, in a way, like finding ourselves at a point in the future.
We may be able to realize several notions that if left to ourselves would take us too much time, effort and irreconcilable damage due to our experimentations - like we are doing with our planet now.
It is an inevitable trapping of knowledge that is largely heuristic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896962</id>
	<title>An idea</title>
	<author>palmerj3</author>
	<datestamp>1264418520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any amateur rocket scientists want to help me launch a solar powered radio into space that simply repeats, "I am Rosie O'Donnell from the planet 61752-percion.  I have come for your Cheetos.  Surrender now or I'll wear sweatpants in public!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any amateur rocket scientists want to help me launch a solar powered radio into space that simply repeats , " I am Rosie O'Donnell from the planet 61752-percion .
I have come for your Cheetos .
Surrender now or I 'll wear sweatpants in public !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any amateur rocket scientists want to help me launch a solar powered radio into space that simply repeats, "I am Rosie O'Donnell from the planet 61752-percion.
I have come for your Cheetos.
Surrender now or I'll wear sweatpants in public!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896916</id>
	<title>Blah</title>
	<author>Windwraith</author>
	<datestamp>1264418280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just the result of seeing too many movies with UFOs.<br>And what's the reason to find that anyway? If someone is so hellbent on discovering alien life, it has to be more than discovery.<br>An alien fetishist? Someone who desires enslavement of Earth like in movies? What's the use of alien life?<br>I hope this person doesn't think that aliens are really going to help us. So selfish.<br>Mankind can not even get along with itself, do you expect space opera styled interplanetary relationships? Universal federations? Hah.</p><p>There are way, way more useful things in our planet that are awaiting for discovery, yet we use the power of A LOT OF PEOPLE to discover alien life, that might be useless as even if they exist, we might be unable to even communicate with them.<br>Those who collaborate with SETI are just neckbeards with too many scifi movies on their mind. Aliens might exist but if they do, they are too far away, because we make a lot of noise and no one noticed yet. Your best alien might be a bacteria from Mars and not a Predator.</p><p>Oh yes now someone will reply about the power of beliefs, I don't care, if I said I believed in faeries you'd say the same so shut up before saying anything about respecting other's beliefs. SETI is useless for mankind, we need to focus on something that is tangible and has a potentially useful result, not finding E.T. calling home.</p><p>Nerds. SETI should have died years ago, but people keeps that childish hope and defends it like a religion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just the result of seeing too many movies with UFOs.And what 's the reason to find that anyway ?
If someone is so hellbent on discovering alien life , it has to be more than discovery.An alien fetishist ?
Someone who desires enslavement of Earth like in movies ?
What 's the use of alien life ? I hope this person does n't think that aliens are really going to help us .
So selfish.Mankind can not even get along with itself , do you expect space opera styled interplanetary relationships ?
Universal federations ?
Hah.There are way , way more useful things in our planet that are awaiting for discovery , yet we use the power of A LOT OF PEOPLE to discover alien life , that might be useless as even if they exist , we might be unable to even communicate with them.Those who collaborate with SETI are just neckbeards with too many scifi movies on their mind .
Aliens might exist but if they do , they are too far away , because we make a lot of noise and no one noticed yet .
Your best alien might be a bacteria from Mars and not a Predator.Oh yes now someone will reply about the power of beliefs , I do n't care , if I said I believed in faeries you 'd say the same so shut up before saying anything about respecting other 's beliefs .
SETI is useless for mankind , we need to focus on something that is tangible and has a potentially useful result , not finding E.T .
calling home.Nerds .
SETI should have died years ago , but people keeps that childish hope and defends it like a religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just the result of seeing too many movies with UFOs.And what's the reason to find that anyway?
If someone is so hellbent on discovering alien life, it has to be more than discovery.An alien fetishist?
Someone who desires enslavement of Earth like in movies?
What's the use of alien life?I hope this person doesn't think that aliens are really going to help us.
So selfish.Mankind can not even get along with itself, do you expect space opera styled interplanetary relationships?
Universal federations?
Hah.There are way, way more useful things in our planet that are awaiting for discovery, yet we use the power of A LOT OF PEOPLE to discover alien life, that might be useless as even if they exist, we might be unable to even communicate with them.Those who collaborate with SETI are just neckbeards with too many scifi movies on their mind.
Aliens might exist but if they do, they are too far away, because we make a lot of noise and no one noticed yet.
Your best alien might be a bacteria from Mars and not a Predator.Oh yes now someone will reply about the power of beliefs, I don't care, if I said I believed in faeries you'd say the same so shut up before saying anything about respecting other's beliefs.
SETI is useless for mankind, we need to focus on something that is tangible and has a potentially useful result, not finding E.T.
calling home.Nerds.
SETI should have died years ago, but people keeps that childish hope and defends it like a religion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896998</id>
	<title>Re:Not the best use of resources right now...</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1264418700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Besides, it'll be a lot less embarrassing if, when we find alien intelligence, we don't have to explain to them why we're committing collective suicide.</p></div></blockquote><p>Once they look at what we're like as a species, they'll understand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , it 'll be a lot less embarrassing if , when we find alien intelligence , we do n't have to explain to them why we 're committing collective suicide.Once they look at what we 're like as a species , they 'll understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, it'll be a lot less embarrassing if, when we find alien intelligence, we don't have to explain to them why we're committing collective suicide.Once they look at what we're like as a species, they'll understand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897660</id>
	<title>Re:Not the best use of resources right now...</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1264422120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This always gets me.  The answer is that no matter how much you spend, or don't spend on space exploration, you will not effect how habitable the earth is.  Virtually every single environmental problem we have is a direct result of over population.  Over population is not a problem caused by underfunding.  It is cause by a lack of will to solve the problem.<br> <br>

So, since you think that we should abandon space research in favor of spending resources to improve our habitat, I have to ask... Do YOU have the will to solve our environmental problems?  And would you take the path of mass sterilization, or killing huge portions of the population?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This always gets me .
The answer is that no matter how much you spend , or do n't spend on space exploration , you will not effect how habitable the earth is .
Virtually every single environmental problem we have is a direct result of over population .
Over population is not a problem caused by underfunding .
It is cause by a lack of will to solve the problem .
So , since you think that we should abandon space research in favor of spending resources to improve our habitat , I have to ask... Do YOU have the will to solve our environmental problems ?
And would you take the path of mass sterilization , or killing huge portions of the population ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This always gets me.
The answer is that no matter how much you spend, or don't spend on space exploration, you will not effect how habitable the earth is.
Virtually every single environmental problem we have is a direct result of over population.
Over population is not a problem caused by underfunding.
It is cause by a lack of will to solve the problem.
So, since you think that we should abandon space research in favor of spending resources to improve our habitat, I have to ask... Do YOU have the will to solve our environmental problems?
And would you take the path of mass sterilization, or killing huge portions of the population?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896706</id>
	<title>Re:Laudable, but misguided</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264417500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>If we do find them they're likely to be more intelligent than us, they may turn out to be hostile, and they may discover that we are tasty, or good speceship fuel, etc. They may be intelligent enough that we don't even appear sentient to them. I'm not sure I want us to find intelligent extraterrestrials.</p></div></blockquote><p>You seem to share Hawking's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species.</p></div><p>Which is clearly wrong. Crocodiles, for example are as smart as they need to be. I think early humans were trapped into a (say) software intensive architecture. They had these tools (fingers, eyes, etc) which could only be used for survival by a powerful brain. So there was selection pressure for intelligence, but only because our peripherals (so to speak) had previously developed into general purpose tools.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we do find them they 're likely to be more intelligent than us , they may turn out to be hostile , and they may discover that we are tasty , or good speceship fuel , etc .
They may be intelligent enough that we do n't even appear sentient to them .
I 'm not sure I want us to find intelligent extraterrestrials.You seem to share Hawking 's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species.Which is clearly wrong .
Crocodiles , for example are as smart as they need to be .
I think early humans were trapped into a ( say ) software intensive architecture .
They had these tools ( fingers , eyes , etc ) which could only be used for survival by a powerful brain .
So there was selection pressure for intelligence , but only because our peripherals ( so to speak ) had previously developed into general purpose tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we do find them they're likely to be more intelligent than us, they may turn out to be hostile, and they may discover that we are tasty, or good speceship fuel, etc.
They may be intelligent enough that we don't even appear sentient to them.
I'm not sure I want us to find intelligent extraterrestrials.You seem to share Hawking's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species.Which is clearly wrong.
Crocodiles, for example are as smart as they need to be.
I think early humans were trapped into a (say) software intensive architecture.
They had these tools (fingers, eyes, etc) which could only be used for survival by a powerful brain.
So there was selection pressure for intelligence, but only because our peripherals (so to speak) had previously developed into general purpose tools.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897058</id>
	<title>Re:Laudable, but misguided</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1264419060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Alas, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for that. Once you're intelligent enough, in general, to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with, the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates. After all, how much intelligence does it really take to do 95+\% of all the things required to make a technological civilization work?</p></div><p>Actually work tends to require much more intelligence than before, before doing manual labor was an typical way to make a living with hardly no education or intelligence. Most of that is gone, replaced by things like operating advanced tractors and lumber machines and whatnot. But there's no reproduction pressure, in fact the poorest and lowest educated (not necessarily the same as intelligence, but bright people don't usually end up that way) are the ones breeding the most.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alas , there really does n't seem to be much evidence for that .
Once you 're intelligent enough , in general , to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with , the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates .
After all , how much intelligence does it really take to do 95 + \ % of all the things required to make a technological civilization work ? Actually work tends to require much more intelligence than before , before doing manual labor was an typical way to make a living with hardly no education or intelligence .
Most of that is gone , replaced by things like operating advanced tractors and lumber machines and whatnot .
But there 's no reproduction pressure , in fact the poorest and lowest educated ( not necessarily the same as intelligence , but bright people do n't usually end up that way ) are the ones breeding the most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alas, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for that.
Once you're intelligent enough, in general, to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with, the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates.
After all, how much intelligence does it really take to do 95+\% of all the things required to make a technological civilization work?Actually work tends to require much more intelligence than before, before doing manual labor was an typical way to make a living with hardly no education or intelligence.
Most of that is gone, replaced by things like operating advanced tractors and lumber machines and whatnot.
But there's no reproduction pressure, in fact the poorest and lowest educated (not necessarily the same as intelligence, but bright people don't usually end up that way) are the ones breeding the most.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896652</id>
	<title>Re:Not the best use of resources right now...</title>
	<author>flaming error</author>
	<datestamp>1264417260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; the vast resources we'd need to put a radio telescope<br>&gt; on the far side of the moon would probably better be<br>&gt; devoted to making sure that the Earth remains habitable</p><p>I think you're right, but R&amp;D must go on.</p><p>Why is it that we (even slashdotters) tend to pit funding space exploration against funding wholesome projects like feeding the hungry or saving the environment?  Why don't we argue that it would be better to spend money on space exploration than to, say, wage elective wars, or bail out failing mega corporations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; the vast resources we 'd need to put a radio telescope &gt; on the far side of the moon would probably better be &gt; devoted to making sure that the Earth remains habitableI think you 're right , but R&amp;D must go on.Why is it that we ( even slashdotters ) tend to pit funding space exploration against funding wholesome projects like feeding the hungry or saving the environment ?
Why do n't we argue that it would be better to spend money on space exploration than to , say , wage elective wars , or bail out failing mega corporations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; the vast resources we'd need to put a radio telescope&gt; on the far side of the moon would probably better be&gt; devoted to making sure that the Earth remains habitableI think you're right, but R&amp;D must go on.Why is it that we (even slashdotters) tend to pit funding space exploration against funding wholesome projects like feeding the hungry or saving the environment?
Why don't we argue that it would be better to spend money on space exploration than to, say, wage elective wars, or bail out failing mega corporations?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897200</id>
	<title>Maybe they're using the wrong tools?</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1264419840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>...the question of contact with extraterrestrials is a kind of red herring premised upon a number of assumptions that a moment's reflection will show are completely false. To search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is probably as culture bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant. And yet, this has been chosen as the avenue by which it is assumed contact is likely to occur. Meanwhile, there are people all over the world - psychics, shamans, mystics, schizophrenics - whose heads are filled with information, but it has been ruled a priori irrelevant, incoherent, or mad. Only that which is validated through consensus via certain sanctioned instrumentalities will be accepted as a signal. The problem is that we are so inundated by these signals - these other dimensions - that there is a great deal of noise in the circuit.</i>" - Terence McKenna.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...the question of contact with extraterrestrials is a kind of red herring premised upon a number of assumptions that a moment 's reflection will show are completely false .
To search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is probably as culture bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant .
And yet , this has been chosen as the avenue by which it is assumed contact is likely to occur .
Meanwhile , there are people all over the world - psychics , shamans , mystics , schizophrenics - whose heads are filled with information , but it has been ruled a priori irrelevant , incoherent , or mad .
Only that which is validated through consensus via certain sanctioned instrumentalities will be accepted as a signal .
The problem is that we are so inundated by these signals - these other dimensions - that there is a great deal of noise in the circuit .
" - Terence McKenna .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...the question of contact with extraterrestrials is a kind of red herring premised upon a number of assumptions that a moment's reflection will show are completely false.
To search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is probably as culture bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant.
And yet, this has been chosen as the avenue by which it is assumed contact is likely to occur.
Meanwhile, there are people all over the world - psychics, shamans, mystics, schizophrenics - whose heads are filled with information, but it has been ruled a priori irrelevant, incoherent, or mad.
Only that which is validated through consensus via certain sanctioned instrumentalities will be accepted as a signal.
The problem is that we are so inundated by these signals - these other dimensions - that there is a great deal of noise in the circuit.
" - Terence McKenna.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30902148</id>
	<title>Timing is a problem</title>
	<author>Tom Creo</author>
	<datestamp>1264507440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think intelligent life most certainly exists out there, but it is highly improbable that we are looking back exactly at the time that they discovered radio.
There is a small window of time in which there is exponential growth in technological discoveries, after that total annihilation.
Look at us, it's been a hundred-something years since the discovery of radio and if somebody would've been pointing their radio telescopes at our solar system for millions of years there would have been total silence and they would eventually give up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think intelligent life most certainly exists out there , but it is highly improbable that we are looking back exactly at the time that they discovered radio .
There is a small window of time in which there is exponential growth in technological discoveries , after that total annihilation .
Look at us , it 's been a hundred-something years since the discovery of radio and if somebody would 've been pointing their radio telescopes at our solar system for millions of years there would have been total silence and they would eventually give up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think intelligent life most certainly exists out there, but it is highly improbable that we are looking back exactly at the time that they discovered radio.
There is a small window of time in which there is exponential growth in technological discoveries, after that total annihilation.
Look at us, it's been a hundred-something years since the discovery of radio and if somebody would've been pointing their radio telescopes at our solar system for millions of years there would have been total silence and they would eventually give up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30899328</id>
	<title>Why we'll never find intelligent aliens:</title>
	<author>Tibia1</author>
	<datestamp>1264432140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any other intelligent civilization that is even 100 years further than us in the evolution of A.I. would have already became so dense with supermatter that it had created a black hole and swallowed them. This will happen to us too, if we don't destroy ourselves sooner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any other intelligent civilization that is even 100 years further than us in the evolution of A.I .
would have already became so dense with supermatter that it had created a black hole and swallowed them .
This will happen to us too , if we do n't destroy ourselves sooner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any other intelligent civilization that is even 100 years further than us in the evolution of A.I.
would have already became so dense with supermatter that it had created a black hole and swallowed them.
This will happen to us too, if we don't destroy ourselves sooner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897920</id>
	<title>Re:Not the best use of resources right now...</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1264423500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would it really be *that* expensive?  The cost is certainly non-negligable, but we can put probes on the moon with fairly high precision.  It seems to me that a bunch of (relatively) inexpensive probes could land and unfurl radio dishes.  By themselves, this wouldn't do much, but if you have enough of them spread out over a large enough area, and networked them (via lunar-orbiting satellite), they would effectively operate as one large radio antenna.  That's the idea behind stuff behind the Very Large Array and so forth.  <br>
<br>
Again, not exactly cheap to do, but probably not nearly as expensive as one might think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it really be * that * expensive ?
The cost is certainly non-negligable , but we can put probes on the moon with fairly high precision .
It seems to me that a bunch of ( relatively ) inexpensive probes could land and unfurl radio dishes .
By themselves , this would n't do much , but if you have enough of them spread out over a large enough area , and networked them ( via lunar-orbiting satellite ) , they would effectively operate as one large radio antenna .
That 's the idea behind stuff behind the Very Large Array and so forth .
Again , not exactly cheap to do , but probably not nearly as expensive as one might think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it really be *that* expensive?
The cost is certainly non-negligable, but we can put probes on the moon with fairly high precision.
It seems to me that a bunch of (relatively) inexpensive probes could land and unfurl radio dishes.
By themselves, this wouldn't do much, but if you have enough of them spread out over a large enough area, and networked them (via lunar-orbiting satellite), they would effectively operate as one large radio antenna.
That's the idea behind stuff behind the Very Large Array and so forth.
Again, not exactly cheap to do, but probably not nearly as expensive as one might think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30899188</id>
	<title>Re:What if there is no FTL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264430820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could share our cultures with one another, they could give us alien operas and poetry, 8 fugue concertos, and their great works of literature.</p><p>And we could introduce them to Facebook, 4chan, Jersey Shore, and all the other things we've been working on lately.</p><p>No but seriously - any alien race watching us right now waiting for the right moment for first contact - is probably waiting for a significant trigger. Like the day when the uneducated, retarded masses can no longer produce offspring by mating with the fistful of non-retards left in western civilization. Until they recognize an intelligent species - they probably won't risk introducing themselves - and all that it would mean - to a species so simultaneously intelligent and cultured, and retarded and infantile.</p><p>(l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could share our cultures with one another , they could give us alien operas and poetry , 8 fugue concertos , and their great works of literature.And we could introduce them to Facebook , 4chan , Jersey Shore , and all the other things we 've been working on lately.No but seriously - any alien race watching us right now waiting for the right moment for first contact - is probably waiting for a significant trigger .
Like the day when the uneducated , retarded masses can no longer produce offspring by mating with the fistful of non-retards left in western civilization .
Until they recognize an intelligent species - they probably wo n't risk introducing themselves - and all that it would mean - to a species so simultaneously intelligent and cultured , and retarded and infantile .
( l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could share our cultures with one another, they could give us alien operas and poetry, 8 fugue concertos, and their great works of literature.And we could introduce them to Facebook, 4chan, Jersey Shore, and all the other things we've been working on lately.No but seriously - any alien race watching us right now waiting for the right moment for first contact - is probably waiting for a significant trigger.
Like the day when the uneducated, retarded masses can no longer produce offspring by mating with the fistful of non-retards left in western civilization.
Until they recognize an intelligent species - they probably won't risk introducing themselves - and all that it would mean - to a species so simultaneously intelligent and cultured, and retarded and infantile.
(l</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896802</id>
	<title>Even if they exist...</title>
	<author>ntipouan</author>
	<datestamp>1264417800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if they exist somewhere, a very probable hypothesis if one considers the billions of galaxies with billions of stars,<br>how are we sure that the timing will be proper, so that we'll make a contact?</p><p>I'm afraid that even if they are somewhere, we might never learn for each others existence, if the distance which seperates us is<br>bigger than the time we can afford to wait without destroying our race. A similar case stands for "them".</p><p>So maybe this answers the "Fermi question", namely the simple question posed by E.Fermi :</p><p>"If they exist, where are they?" (why haven't they showed themselves?)</p><p>Maybe we'll receive a broadcast of their life,long after their extinction, but I find it improbable to get a direct contact..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they exist somewhere , a very probable hypothesis if one considers the billions of galaxies with billions of stars,how are we sure that the timing will be proper , so that we 'll make a contact ? I 'm afraid that even if they are somewhere , we might never learn for each others existence , if the distance which seperates us isbigger than the time we can afford to wait without destroying our race .
A similar case stands for " them " .So maybe this answers the " Fermi question " , namely the simple question posed by E.Fermi : " If they exist , where are they ?
" ( why have n't they showed themselves ?
) Maybe we 'll receive a broadcast of their life,long after their extinction , but I find it improbable to get a direct contact. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they exist somewhere, a very probable hypothesis if one considers the billions of galaxies with billions of stars,how are we sure that the timing will be proper, so that we'll make a contact?I'm afraid that even if they are somewhere, we might never learn for each others existence, if the distance which seperates us isbigger than the time we can afford to wait without destroying our race.
A similar case stands for "them".So maybe this answers the "Fermi question", namely the simple question posed by E.Fermi :"If they exist, where are they?
" (why haven't they showed themselves?
)Maybe we'll receive a broadcast of their life,long after their extinction, but I find it improbable to get a direct contact..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897106</id>
	<title>Searching for intelligent life on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264419240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the Internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the Internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the Internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896432</id>
	<title>Yeah but what if we're alone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264416420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if we're alone, and we really can't travel faster than the speed of light eh? Ever thought of that.</p><p>Just because one grain of sand on the beach has your signature on it, doesn't mean there must be another just like it.</p><p>Believing in extra terrestrials before we have the proof seems very much like believing in God before... oh hold on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if we 're alone , and we really ca n't travel faster than the speed of light eh ?
Ever thought of that.Just because one grain of sand on the beach has your signature on it , does n't mean there must be another just like it.Believing in extra terrestrials before we have the proof seems very much like believing in God before... oh hold on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if we're alone, and we really can't travel faster than the speed of light eh?
Ever thought of that.Just because one grain of sand on the beach has your signature on it, doesn't mean there must be another just like it.Believing in extra terrestrials before we have the proof seems very much like believing in God before... oh hold on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896292</id>
	<title>I'd hope so.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264415940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there <i>any<i> intelligent life in the universe? Maybe we'll find some on the planet that the radio observatory will be orbiting...</i></i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any intelligent life in the universe ?
Maybe we 'll find some on the planet that the radio observatory will be orbiting.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any intelligent life in the universe?
Maybe we'll find some on the planet that the radio observatory will be orbiting...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896892</id>
	<title>Re:Not the best use of resources right now...</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1264418160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it would be a lot funnier if we made the huge investment, made contact, and sent them a message--only to get back the reply "Leave us alone."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it would be a lot funnier if we made the huge investment , made contact , and sent them a message--only to get back the reply " Leave us alone .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it would be a lot funnier if we made the huge investment, made contact, and sent them a message--only to get back the reply "Leave us alone.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896824</id>
	<title>Re:If wishes were horses...</title>
	<author>Vohar</author>
	<datestamp>1264417920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same as anyone else with an idea--Pitch it as elegantly and emotionally as possible and hope some rich dudes like the sound of it enough to invest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same as anyone else with an idea--Pitch it as elegantly and emotionally as possible and hope some rich dudes like the sound of it enough to invest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same as anyone else with an idea--Pitch it as elegantly and emotionally as possible and hope some rich dudes like the sound of it enough to invest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897878</id>
	<title>Re:Ambitious Plans</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1264423260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the ambitious plan is to TRIPLE the number of sentient life forms discovered by SETI with five years.</p></div></blockquote><p>Good work! Check is in the mail, straight from Nigerian Prince Bank.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the ambitious plan is to TRIPLE the number of sentient life forms discovered by SETI with five years.Good work !
Check is in the mail , straight from Nigerian Prince Bank .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>the ambitious plan is to TRIPLE the number of sentient life forms discovered by SETI with five years.Good work!
Check is in the mail, straight from Nigerian Prince Bank.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30900458</id>
	<title>Re:Ambitious Plans</title>
	<author>DiEx-15</author>
	<datestamp>1264442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We don't have intelligent life <b>here</b>, how are we suppose to find it out there?<br>

I guess just listen to them laugh at us?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't have intelligent life here , how are we suppose to find it out there ?
I guess just listen to them laugh at us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't have intelligent life here, how are we suppose to find it out there?
I guess just listen to them laugh at us?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300</id>
	<title>Re:Laudable, but misguided</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1264416000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If we do find them they're likely to be more intelligent than us, they may turn out to be hostile, and they may discover that we are tasty, or good speceship fuel, etc. They may be intelligent enough that we don't even appear sentient to them. I'm not sure I want us to find intelligent extraterrestrials.</p></div></blockquote><p>You seem to share Hawking's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species.
</p><p>Alas, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for that.  Once you're intelligent enough, in general, to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with, the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates.  After all, how much intelligence does it really take to do 95+\% of all the things required to make a technological civilization work?
</p><p>That said, there's no particularly good reason that ET should be friendly, even if they're no more intelligent than we are.  Or that they'd not find us just another tasty piece of livestock.
</p><p>Note, of course, that the reverse is also true.  I've heard reliable rumours that your average ET tastes like chicken....;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we do find them they 're likely to be more intelligent than us , they may turn out to be hostile , and they may discover that we are tasty , or good speceship fuel , etc .
They may be intelligent enough that we do n't even appear sentient to them .
I 'm not sure I want us to find intelligent extraterrestrials.You seem to share Hawking 's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species .
Alas , there really does n't seem to be much evidence for that .
Once you 're intelligent enough , in general , to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with , the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates .
After all , how much intelligence does it really take to do 95 + \ % of all the things required to make a technological civilization work ?
That said , there 's no particularly good reason that ET should be friendly , even if they 're no more intelligent than we are .
Or that they 'd not find us just another tasty piece of livestock .
Note , of course , that the reverse is also true .
I 've heard reliable rumours that your average ET tastes like chicken.... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we do find them they're likely to be more intelligent than us, they may turn out to be hostile, and they may discover that we are tasty, or good speceship fuel, etc.
They may be intelligent enough that we don't even appear sentient to them.
I'm not sure I want us to find intelligent extraterrestrials.You seem to share Hawking's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species.
Alas, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for that.
Once you're intelligent enough, in general, to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with, the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates.
After all, how much intelligence does it really take to do 95+\% of all the things required to make a technological civilization work?
That said, there's no particularly good reason that ET should be friendly, even if they're no more intelligent than we are.
Or that they'd not find us just another tasty piece of livestock.
Note, of course, that the reverse is also true.
I've heard reliable rumours that your average ET tastes like chicken....;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897658</id>
	<title>Re:What if there is no FTL?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1264422120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To find out how many water parks they have. (I hear in the future that Earth will have the most water parks of any civilization we communicate with!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To find out how many water parks they have .
( I hear in the future that Earth will have the most water parks of any civilization we communicate with !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To find out how many water parks they have.
(I hear in the future that Earth will have the most water parks of any civilization we communicate with!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896532</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>molo</author>
	<datestamp>1264416840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>500AU = 69.3 light-hours.  The orbit of pluto is "only" 49.3AU at its furthest, and it takes pluto 248 years to orbit the sun.  Indeed, 500 AU is quite far, and it will only be able to view stars on the opposite side of the sun.  So to see much of the sky, it will have to wait for it to come into view.  The orbit will take millennia.</p><p>-molo</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>500AU = 69.3 light-hours .
The orbit of pluto is " only " 49.3AU at its furthest , and it takes pluto 248 years to orbit the sun .
Indeed , 500 AU is quite far , and it will only be able to view stars on the opposite side of the sun .
So to see much of the sky , it will have to wait for it to come into view .
The orbit will take millennia.-molo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>500AU = 69.3 light-hours.
The orbit of pluto is "only" 49.3AU at its furthest, and it takes pluto 248 years to orbit the sun.
Indeed, 500 AU is quite far, and it will only be able to view stars on the opposite side of the sun.
So to see much of the sky, it will have to wait for it to come into view.
The orbit will take millennia.-molo</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896252</id>
	<title>Mixed feelings</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1264415820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have mixed feelings about that 500AU telescope. Using our own sun as a gravitational lens is very clever... but 500AU... even getting a telescope out that far (within a reasonable amount of time) would be an enormous challenge. By the time we have the technology to build such a thing, and be able to aim it arbitrarily, I'm confident we'll already have sent probes to nearby stars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have mixed feelings about that 500AU telescope .
Using our own sun as a gravitational lens is very clever... but 500AU... even getting a telescope out that far ( within a reasonable amount of time ) would be an enormous challenge .
By the time we have the technology to build such a thing , and be able to aim it arbitrarily , I 'm confident we 'll already have sent probes to nearby stars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have mixed feelings about that 500AU telescope.
Using our own sun as a gravitational lens is very clever... but 500AU... even getting a telescope out that far (within a reasonable amount of time) would be an enormous challenge.
By the time we have the technology to build such a thing, and be able to aim it arbitrarily, I'm confident we'll already have sent probes to nearby stars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30898192</id>
	<title>Why Aliens are likely to be more intelligent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264424640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(Other than the Calvin&amp;Hobbes explanation that they've been smart enough not to bother talking to us, of course<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</i> </p><p>If aliens are less intelligent than humans, it's highly unlikely that they'll have the technology to talk to us.   So if we can talk to them at all, they're likely to be at least human-level intelligent, possibly more.   That doesn't mean that they'll be weakly godlike entities, just that they're not going to be dumber than us.  Doesn't really matter if we're talking to the original biologically evolved aliens or their post-singularity successor machines, if they have any of those around.</p><p>By the way, <i>Homo sapiens</i> don't appear to have been the brightest hominids ever to walk the planet; there are some older fossils that have been found in southern Africa with larger skulls than we have, in shapes that mean they probably had average IQs around 150-200.  But they're fossilized, i.e. long dead, and don't seem to have developed advanced enough technology to survive whatever climate changes happened or avoid getting eaten by less intelligent animals that had big nasty pointy teeth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Other than the Calvin&amp;Hobbes explanation that they 've been smart enough not to bother talking to us , of course ; - ) If aliens are less intelligent than humans , it 's highly unlikely that they 'll have the technology to talk to us .
So if we can talk to them at all , they 're likely to be at least human-level intelligent , possibly more .
That does n't mean that they 'll be weakly godlike entities , just that they 're not going to be dumber than us .
Does n't really matter if we 're talking to the original biologically evolved aliens or their post-singularity successor machines , if they have any of those around.By the way , Homo sapiens do n't appear to have been the brightest hominids ever to walk the planet ; there are some older fossils that have been found in southern Africa with larger skulls than we have , in shapes that mean they probably had average IQs around 150-200 .
But they 're fossilized , i.e .
long dead , and do n't seem to have developed advanced enough technology to survive whatever climate changes happened or avoid getting eaten by less intelligent animals that had big nasty pointy teeth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Other than the Calvin&amp;Hobbes explanation that they've been smart enough not to bother talking to us, of course ;-) If aliens are less intelligent than humans, it's highly unlikely that they'll have the technology to talk to us.
So if we can talk to them at all, they're likely to be at least human-level intelligent, possibly more.
That doesn't mean that they'll be weakly godlike entities, just that they're not going to be dumber than us.
Doesn't really matter if we're talking to the original biologically evolved aliens or their post-singularity successor machines, if they have any of those around.By the way, Homo sapiens don't appear to have been the brightest hominids ever to walk the planet; there are some older fossils that have been found in southern Africa with larger skulls than we have, in shapes that mean they probably had average IQs around 150-200.
But they're fossilized, i.e.
long dead, and don't seem to have developed advanced enough technology to survive whatever climate changes happened or avoid getting eaten by less intelligent animals that had big nasty pointy teeth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266</id>
	<title>Not the best use of resources right now...</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1264415820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I <i>never</i> thought I'd be one of the people who'd say this, but the vast resources we'd need to put a radio telescope on the far side of the moon would probably better be devoted to making sure that the Earth remains habitable. Later, when we're not at risk of drowning in our own pollutants, <i>then</i> let's go back to looking for aliens.</p><p>Besides, it'll be a lot less embarrassing if, when we find alien intelligence, we don't have to explain to them why we're committing collective suicide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never thought I 'd be one of the people who 'd say this , but the vast resources we 'd need to put a radio telescope on the far side of the moon would probably better be devoted to making sure that the Earth remains habitable .
Later , when we 're not at risk of drowning in our own pollutants , then let 's go back to looking for aliens.Besides , it 'll be a lot less embarrassing if , when we find alien intelligence , we do n't have to explain to them why we 're committing collective suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never thought I'd be one of the people who'd say this, but the vast resources we'd need to put a radio telescope on the far side of the moon would probably better be devoted to making sure that the Earth remains habitable.
Later, when we're not at risk of drowning in our own pollutants, then let's go back to looking for aliens.Besides, it'll be a lot less embarrassing if, when we find alien intelligence, we don't have to explain to them why we're committing collective suicide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896242</id>
	<title>Re:Laudable, but misguided</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264415760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, even if other forms come before us, looking at the damage humans do to each other and the environment, I think it's fair to say that there's a good chance that other intelligent species that have already arisen may indeed be extinct if and when we discover them.
<br> <br>
Wouldn't it be sad if we discovered a signal, and we got enough data to analyze it semantically and came up with a translation similar to, "Help; our planet is dying."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , even if other forms come before us , looking at the damage humans do to each other and the environment , I think it 's fair to say that there 's a good chance that other intelligent species that have already arisen may indeed be extinct if and when we discover them .
Would n't it be sad if we discovered a signal , and we got enough data to analyze it semantically and came up with a translation similar to , " Help ; our planet is dying .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, even if other forms come before us, looking at the damage humans do to each other and the environment, I think it's fair to say that there's a good chance that other intelligent species that have already arisen may indeed be extinct if and when we discover them.
Wouldn't it be sad if we discovered a signal, and we got enough data to analyze it semantically and came up with a translation similar to, "Help; our planet is dying.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897382</id>
	<title>Re:Laudable, but misguided</title>
	<author>WalksOnDirt</author>
	<datestamp>1264420980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You seem to share Hawking's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species.</p><p>Alas, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for that. Once you're intelligent enough, in general, to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with, the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates. After all, how much intelligence does it really take to do 95+\% of all the things required to make a technological civilization work?</p></div></blockquote><p>You seem to be under the delusion that the only way for a species to become more intelligent is through Darwinian evolution.  In a relatively short time, if we want to be more intelligent we'll design ourselves to be more intelligent.</p><p>If ETs are interested in finding us they will have been monitoring all the promising planets within range for eons.  They either already know about us, the message about us is still on its way to them, or we're too far away for them to care.  Barring the extremely unlikely chance that they are also new in the neighborhood.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to share Hawking 's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species.Alas , there really does n't seem to be much evidence for that .
Once you 're intelligent enough , in general , to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with , the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates .
After all , how much intelligence does it really take to do 95 + \ % of all the things required to make a technological civilization work ? You seem to be under the delusion that the only way for a species to become more intelligent is through Darwinian evolution .
In a relatively short time , if we want to be more intelligent we 'll design ourselves to be more intelligent.If ETs are interested in finding us they will have been monitoring all the promising planets within range for eons .
They either already know about us , the message about us is still on its way to them , or we 're too far away for them to care .
Barring the extremely unlikely chance that they are also new in the neighborhood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to share Hawking's delusion that more intelligence is an inevitable part of the progression of an intelligent species.Alas, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for that.
Once you're intelligent enough, in general, to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with, the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates.
After all, how much intelligence does it really take to do 95+\% of all the things required to make a technological civilization work?You seem to be under the delusion that the only way for a species to become more intelligent is through Darwinian evolution.
In a relatively short time, if we want to be more intelligent we'll design ourselves to be more intelligent.If ETs are interested in finding us they will have been monitoring all the promising planets within range for eons.
They either already know about us, the message about us is still on its way to them, or we're too far away for them to care.
Barring the extremely unlikely chance that they are also new in the neighborhood.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30900654</id>
	<title>Re:Laudable, but misguided</title>
	<author>oakgrove</author>
	<datestamp>1264444500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Alas, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for that. Once you're intelligent enough, in general, to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with, the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates.</p></div><p>Hogwash.  The very minute technology advances to the point permitting artificial cognitive augmentation via direct computer/machine interface (and it will, it's just too compelling a scenario to not happen), undergoing the procedure will become a necessity to remain socially competitive thus ushering in an era of ever accelerating levels of intelligence as successive generations of the technology is refined by previous generations thus completely short-circuiting and rendering moot the evolutionary process.  </p><p>
Furthermore, if we <i>do</i> discover alien species transmitting messages into the universe, it is almost certain they will be vastly advanced compared to ourselves as we have only been capable of that particular feat here on earth for a few decades, what are the chances that any E.T.'s we stumble upon will be anywhere inside of that very short envelope of time we are in now given the possibilities?  They are as likely to have had the technology for 10's of thousands of years of longer.  Statistically speaking, it's virtually certain they will be much more advanced than we are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alas , there really does n't seem to be much evidence for that .
Once you 're intelligent enough , in general , to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with , the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates.Hogwash .
The very minute technology advances to the point permitting artificial cognitive augmentation via direct computer/machine interface ( and it will , it 's just too compelling a scenario to not happen ) , undergoing the procedure will become a necessity to remain socially competitive thus ushering in an era of ever accelerating levels of intelligence as successive generations of the technology is refined by previous generations thus completely short-circuiting and rendering moot the evolutionary process .
Furthermore , if we do discover alien species transmitting messages into the universe , it is almost certain they will be vastly advanced compared to ourselves as we have only been capable of that particular feat here on earth for a few decades , what are the chances that any E.T .
's we stumble upon will be anywhere inside of that very short envelope of time we are in now given the possibilities ?
They are as likely to have had the technology for 10 's of thousands of years of longer .
Statistically speaking , it 's virtually certain they will be much more advanced than we are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alas, there really doesn't seem to be much evidence for that.
Once you're intelligent enough, in general, to use the machines that your tiny fraction of geniuses comes up with, the impetus towards more intelligence pretty much evaporates.Hogwash.
The very minute technology advances to the point permitting artificial cognitive augmentation via direct computer/machine interface (and it will, it's just too compelling a scenario to not happen), undergoing the procedure will become a necessity to remain socially competitive thus ushering in an era of ever accelerating levels of intelligence as successive generations of the technology is refined by previous generations thus completely short-circuiting and rendering moot the evolutionary process.
Furthermore, if we do discover alien species transmitting messages into the universe, it is almost certain they will be vastly advanced compared to ourselves as we have only been capable of that particular feat here on earth for a few decades, what are the chances that any E.T.
's we stumble upon will be anywhere inside of that very short envelope of time we are in now given the possibilities?
They are as likely to have had the technology for 10's of thousands of years of longer.
Statistically speaking, it's virtually certain they will be much more advanced than we are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896556</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>drkamil</author>
	<datestamp>1264416900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>'In the universe there is intelligent life, I'm confident about that,'

i am not so sure when i turn on the tv</htmltext>
<tokenext>'In the universe there is intelligent life , I 'm confident about that, ' i am not so sure when i turn on the tv</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'In the universe there is intelligent life, I'm confident about that,'

i am not so sure when i turn on the tv</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896944</id>
	<title>Re:What if there is no FTL?</title>
	<author>Skal Tura</author>
	<datestamp>1264418400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Definitely, to exchange information and resources, ie. trade. Albeit likely in our respective cultures already ancient when it arrives to them, and vice-versa, there is still very high chance we both have something of value to exchange, even technologically.</p><p>Nevermind resources, maybe they have a severe lack of gold, but have plenty of titanium to exchange. Eventually the transport will be cheap enough to justify such an huge distance trade. And how about the chance just to understand other life forms?</p><p>Saying there won't be any purpose is a bit like hating curiosity and seeking understanding of the universe, say just like taking as an absolute truth something called creationism, or christianity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely , to exchange information and resources , ie .
trade. Albeit likely in our respective cultures already ancient when it arrives to them , and vice-versa , there is still very high chance we both have something of value to exchange , even technologically.Nevermind resources , maybe they have a severe lack of gold , but have plenty of titanium to exchange .
Eventually the transport will be cheap enough to justify such an huge distance trade .
And how about the chance just to understand other life forms ? Saying there wo n't be any purpose is a bit like hating curiosity and seeking understanding of the universe , say just like taking as an absolute truth something called creationism , or christianity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely, to exchange information and resources, ie.
trade. Albeit likely in our respective cultures already ancient when it arrives to them, and vice-versa, there is still very high chance we both have something of value to exchange, even technologically.Nevermind resources, maybe they have a severe lack of gold, but have plenty of titanium to exchange.
Eventually the transport will be cheap enough to justify such an huge distance trade.
And how about the chance just to understand other life forms?Saying there won't be any purpose is a bit like hating curiosity and seeking understanding of the universe, say just like taking as an absolute truth something called creationism, or christianity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897730</id>
	<title>What I think we need to do</title>
	<author>moozoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264422480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want to find a needle in a haystack you need a needle finder (metal detector).

Almost all of the existing radio telescopes have too narrow a field of view and/or too long a integration time.

What we need is "An L-Band All-Sky Astronomical Surveillance System" as per the Ohio Argus (http://argus.naapo.org/).
5(?) of them would cover the whole sky. Each sees ~100 degree's of sky.

They would need to be located in space to cut down the large amount ground thermal noise and perhaps use superconducting antennas..
e.g. <a href="http://www.esa.int/esaLP/ESAQGA2VMOC\_LPsmos\_0.html" title="esa.int" rel="nofollow">http://www.esa.int/esaLP/ESAQGA2VMOC\_LPsmos\_0.html</a> [esa.int] but pointing out into space (it is at this very moment as apart of its calibration).

It needs to be able to spot 10 millisecond transients and have a real-time bandwidth of ~20 MHz (i.e. a real time 20 MHz of spectrum display with 0.1 hz of resolution for each image pixel in the sky).
It initially would have a low sensitivity and would be upgraded over time with more antennas and more advanced digital processing (needed to cross correlate all the antennas for all angles)
The technology to attempt this type of device has only recently come available (40nm and under FPGAs/GPUs).

What if "Argus sees a brief, narrowband pulse at 1420.8807 MHz near NGC 752" (http://argus.naapo.org/~rchilders/) was actually coming from the sky. The chances of any radio telescope being pointed at exactly the right spot an being able to see 1400Jy). What if that pulse is only sent once every 5 months? What if there where other pulses outside of the Argus's 60khz bandwidth?

I believe that any SETI beacon ("look here with a bigger telescope") would be a large phased array cycling though a large target list and sending a short burst of pulses on a number of special frequencies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to find a needle in a haystack you need a needle finder ( metal detector ) .
Almost all of the existing radio telescopes have too narrow a field of view and/or too long a integration time .
What we need is " An L-Band All-Sky Astronomical Surveillance System " as per the Ohio Argus ( http : //argus.naapo.org/ ) .
5 ( ? ) of them would cover the whole sky .
Each sees ~ 100 degree 's of sky .
They would need to be located in space to cut down the large amount ground thermal noise and perhaps use superconducting antennas. . e.g. http : //www.esa.int/esaLP/ESAQGA2VMOC \ _LPsmos \ _0.html [ esa.int ] but pointing out into space ( it is at this very moment as apart of its calibration ) .
It needs to be able to spot 10 millisecond transients and have a real-time bandwidth of ~ 20 MHz ( i.e .
a real time 20 MHz of spectrum display with 0.1 hz of resolution for each image pixel in the sky ) .
It initially would have a low sensitivity and would be upgraded over time with more antennas and more advanced digital processing ( needed to cross correlate all the antennas for all angles ) The technology to attempt this type of device has only recently come available ( 40nm and under FPGAs/GPUs ) .
What if " Argus sees a brief , narrowband pulse at 1420.8807 MHz near NGC 752 " ( http : //argus.naapo.org/ ~ rchilders/ ) was actually coming from the sky .
The chances of any radio telescope being pointed at exactly the right spot an being able to see 1400Jy ) .
What if that pulse is only sent once every 5 months ?
What if there where other pulses outside of the Argus 's 60khz bandwidth ?
I believe that any SETI beacon ( " look here with a bigger telescope " ) would be a large phased array cycling though a large target list and sending a short burst of pulses on a number of special frequencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to find a needle in a haystack you need a needle finder (metal detector).
Almost all of the existing radio telescopes have too narrow a field of view and/or too long a integration time.
What we need is "An L-Band All-Sky Astronomical Surveillance System" as per the Ohio Argus (http://argus.naapo.org/).
5(?) of them would cover the whole sky.
Each sees ~100 degree's of sky.
They would need to be located in space to cut down the large amount ground thermal noise and perhaps use superconducting antennas..
e.g. http://www.esa.int/esaLP/ESAQGA2VMOC\_LPsmos\_0.html [esa.int] but pointing out into space (it is at this very moment as apart of its calibration).
It needs to be able to spot 10 millisecond transients and have a real-time bandwidth of ~20 MHz (i.e.
a real time 20 MHz of spectrum display with 0.1 hz of resolution for each image pixel in the sky).
It initially would have a low sensitivity and would be upgraded over time with more antennas and more advanced digital processing (needed to cross correlate all the antennas for all angles)
The technology to attempt this type of device has only recently come available (40nm and under FPGAs/GPUs).
What if "Argus sees a brief, narrowband pulse at 1420.8807 MHz near NGC 752" (http://argus.naapo.org/~rchilders/) was actually coming from the sky.
The chances of any radio telescope being pointed at exactly the right spot an being able to see 1400Jy).
What if that pulse is only sent once every 5 months?
What if there where other pulses outside of the Argus's 60khz bandwidth?
I believe that any SETI beacon ("look here with a bigger telescope") would be a large phased array cycling though a large target list and sending a short burst of pulses on a number of special frequencies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897172</id>
	<title>Re:What if there is no FTL?</title>
	<author>city</author>
	<datestamp>1264419600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now if there was only some advanced civilization we could reach out to and ask if FTL is possible...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if there was only some advanced civilization we could reach out to and ask if FTL is possible.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if there was only some advanced civilization we could reach out to and ask if FTL is possible...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30900790</id>
	<title>How about setting up a legal defense fund..</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1264446060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for people who got in trouble using SETI@home?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for people who got in trouble using SETI @ home ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for people who got in trouble using SETI@home?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896280</id>
	<title>If wishes were horses...</title>
	<author>Third Position</author>
	<datestamp>1264415880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's certainly not lacking in ambition. But I'm wondering where he thinks he's going to get the money to finance some of these ambitious ideas. Somehow, I doubt the private sector is going to be interested in a project that will never show a profit, and the government isn't really in a position to be funding frivolous projects with marginal chances of success. Maybe he can talk the Chinese into footing the bill?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's certainly not lacking in ambition .
But I 'm wondering where he thinks he 's going to get the money to finance some of these ambitious ideas .
Somehow , I doubt the private sector is going to be interested in a project that will never show a profit , and the government is n't really in a position to be funding frivolous projects with marginal chances of success .
Maybe he can talk the Chinese into footing the bill ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's certainly not lacking in ambition.
But I'm wondering where he thinks he's going to get the money to finance some of these ambitious ideas.
Somehow, I doubt the private sector is going to be interested in a project that will never show a profit, and the government isn't really in a position to be funding frivolous projects with marginal chances of success.
Maybe he can talk the Chinese into footing the bill?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896336</id>
	<title>Ambitious Plans</title>
	<author>MyLongNickName</author>
	<datestamp>1264416120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the ambitious plan is to TRIPLE the number of sentient life forms discovered by SETI with five years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the ambitious plan is to TRIPLE the number of sentient life forms discovered by SETI with five years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the ambitious plan is to TRIPLE the number of sentient life forms discovered by SETI with five years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897720</id>
	<title>Solar Sail</title>
	<author>brilanon</author>
	<datestamp>1264422420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a benevolent entity with a million IQ piloting Earth-sized ships around the sun as recently as two days ago, see <a href="http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message970474/pg1" title="godlikeproductions.com" rel="nofollow">this paranoid forum</a> [godlikeproductions.com] for more</p><p>I came in there a bunch of times just to remind them we should try to trade, not beg, and that these things haven't given any indication of intending to do harm, since the trolls there said all kinds of dark and creepy shit. Maybe these are just amputated from current SOHO photos but I think they've gone away til the 2012 uplift because we're still warlike and crazy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:3</p><p>Now Obama says Space is Good and SETI is excited about the sun, WTF I say</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a benevolent entity with a million IQ piloting Earth-sized ships around the sun as recently as two days ago , see this paranoid forum [ godlikeproductions.com ] for moreI came in there a bunch of times just to remind them we should try to trade , not beg , and that these things have n't given any indication of intending to do harm , since the trolls there said all kinds of dark and creepy shit .
Maybe these are just amputated from current SOHO photos but I think they 've gone away til the 2012 uplift because we 're still warlike and crazy : 3Now Obama says Space is Good and SETI is excited about the sun , WTF I say</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a benevolent entity with a million IQ piloting Earth-sized ships around the sun as recently as two days ago, see this paranoid forum [godlikeproductions.com] for moreI came in there a bunch of times just to remind them we should try to trade, not beg, and that these things haven't given any indication of intending to do harm, since the trolls there said all kinds of dark and creepy shit.
Maybe these are just amputated from current SOHO photos but I think they've gone away til the 2012 uplift because we're still warlike and crazy :3Now Obama says Space is Good and SETI is excited about the sun, WTF I say</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897162</id>
	<title>Re:What if there is no FTL?</title>
	<author>Jeng</author>
	<datestamp>1264419540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That could prove interesting, but what if we have the same problem with language that we have when trying to communicate with other animals?</p><p>Why even to understand ancient Egyptian we needed a cheat sheet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That could prove interesting , but what if we have the same problem with language that we have when trying to communicate with other animals ? Why even to understand ancient Egyptian we needed a cheat sheet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That could prove interesting, but what if we have the same problem with language that we have when trying to communicate with other animals?Why even to understand ancient Egyptian we needed a cheat sheet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896476</id>
	<title>Re:Laudable, but misguided</title>
	<author>ViViDboarder</author>
	<datestamp>1264416600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are they "likely" to be more intelligent than us?  I see there no reason that is likely.
<br> <br>
Also, I believe range of the universe is a variable in the Drake equation, so I'm not sure if it's misguided.
<br> <br>
About them possibly being hostile... is that any reason to be Xenophobic?  Also, it'd be obvious that we are sentient if we attempted to make contact...  Isn't that a behavior that only a sentient being would exhibit?  Reaching out into the unknown in hopes of a response back?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are they " likely " to be more intelligent than us ?
I see there no reason that is likely .
Also , I believe range of the universe is a variable in the Drake equation , so I 'm not sure if it 's misguided .
About them possibly being hostile... is that any reason to be Xenophobic ?
Also , it 'd be obvious that we are sentient if we attempted to make contact... Is n't that a behavior that only a sentient being would exhibit ?
Reaching out into the unknown in hopes of a response back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are they "likely" to be more intelligent than us?
I see there no reason that is likely.
Also, I believe range of the universe is a variable in the Drake equation, so I'm not sure if it's misguided.
About them possibly being hostile... is that any reason to be Xenophobic?
Also, it'd be obvious that we are sentient if we attempted to make contact...  Isn't that a behavior that only a sentient being would exhibit?
Reaching out into the unknown in hopes of a response back?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30931912</id>
	<title>The galaxy song!</title>
	<author>Terrasque</author>
	<datestamp>1264685760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sing along if you want to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving<br>And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,<br>That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,<br>A sun that is the source of all our power.<br>The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see<br>Are moving at a million miles a day<br>In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,<br>Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.<br>Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.<br>It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.<br>It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,<br>But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.<br>We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.<br>We go 'round every two hundred million years,<br>And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions<br>In this amazing and expanding universe.</p><p>The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding<br>In all of the directions it can whizz<br>As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,<br>Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.<br>So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,<br>How amazingly unlikely is your birth,<br>And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,<br>'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.</p></div><p>-Monty Python's galaxy song.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sing along if you want to : ) Just remember that you 're standing on a planet that 's evolvingAnd revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,That 's orbiting at nineteen miles a second , so it 's reckoned,A sun that is the source of all our power.The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can seeAre moving at a million miles a dayIn an outer spiral arm , at forty thousand miles an hour,Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.It 's a hundred thousand light years side to side.It bulges in the middle , sixteen thousand light years thick,But out by us , it 's just three thousand light years wide.We 're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.We go 'round every two hundred million years,And our galaxy is only one of millions of billionsIn this amazing and expanding universe.The universe itself keeps on expanding and expandingIn all of the directions it can whizzAs fast as it can go , at the speed of light , you know,Twelve million miles a minute , and that 's the fastest speed there is.So remember , when you 're feeling very small and insecure,How amazingly unlikely is your birth,And pray that there 's intelligent life somewhere up in space,'Cause there 's bugger all down here on Earth.-Monty Python 's galaxy song .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sing along if you want to :)Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolvingAnd revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,A sun that is the source of all our power.The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can seeAre moving at a million miles a dayIn an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.We go 'round every two hundred million years,And our galaxy is only one of millions of billionsIn this amazing and expanding universe.The universe itself keeps on expanding and expandingIn all of the directions it can whizzAs fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,How amazingly unlikely is your birth,And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.-Monty Python's galaxy song.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897206</id>
	<title>Sometimes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264419900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you don't know its a waste of time until you go for it.  but then again, how much time is enough before we consider it wasted...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you do n't know its a waste of time until you go for it .
but then again , how much time is enough before we consider it wasted.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you don't know its a waste of time until you go for it.
but then again, how much time is enough before we consider it wasted...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30913906</id>
	<title>By Neruos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264530600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Look at what has happened in the past, when two cultures of the same species met on our planet. Group A sails over the ocean, and discovers a strange culture B on another continent. Despite the fact that this was a meeting between members of the same species, group A doesn't recognize that group B is even human. Group A proceeds to enslave, kidnap, kill, and steal the land and resources of group B.</p><p>This pattern has been repeated a bunch of times in our own history. So, when humans meet aliens, the inferior group will be lunch."</p><p>When you're ancestors are viruses and bacteria, what do you expect? It's in your design to do such things. To think anything else proves at lack of understanding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Look at what has happened in the past , when two cultures of the same species met on our planet .
Group A sails over the ocean , and discovers a strange culture B on another continent .
Despite the fact that this was a meeting between members of the same species , group A does n't recognize that group B is even human .
Group A proceeds to enslave , kidnap , kill , and steal the land and resources of group B.This pattern has been repeated a bunch of times in our own history .
So , when humans meet aliens , the inferior group will be lunch .
" When you 're ancestors are viruses and bacteria , what do you expect ?
It 's in your design to do such things .
To think anything else proves at lack of understanding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Look at what has happened in the past, when two cultures of the same species met on our planet.
Group A sails over the ocean, and discovers a strange culture B on another continent.
Despite the fact that this was a meeting between members of the same species, group A doesn't recognize that group B is even human.
Group A proceeds to enslave, kidnap, kill, and steal the land and resources of group B.This pattern has been repeated a bunch of times in our own history.
So, when humans meet aliens, the inferior group will be lunch.
"When you're ancestors are viruses and bacteria, what do you expect?
It's in your design to do such things.
To think anything else proves at lack of understanding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897164</id>
	<title>SETI's filters 100\% effective against ET spam.</title>
	<author>rdmiller3</author>
	<datestamp>1264419540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the plus side, SETI's record for filtering extraterrestrial spam has been flawless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the plus side , SETI 's record for filtering extraterrestrial spam has been flawless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the plus side, SETI's record for filtering extraterrestrial spam has been flawless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30900654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30900044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30898192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30902202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30904384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30899188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30902054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_25_193251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30900458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_193251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_193251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_193251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30904384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30900654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30898192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30902202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_193251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_193251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_193251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30902054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_193251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896450
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_193251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30898900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_193251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_193251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30900458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_193251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30899188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30900044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30897162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_25_193251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_25_193251.30896320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
