<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_30_0022239</id>
	<title>Video Review of Hivision's $100 ARM-Based Android Laptop</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264858440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Charbax writes <i>"The Android laptops are coming. Thanks to cheap ARM-powered laptops made in China, and the latest, most optimized Android software, we can soon buy usable $100 laptops in all the supermarkets. In this video, I test the web browsing speed on the <a href="http://armdevices.net/2010/01/29/android-laptop-review-hivision-pws700ca/">new Rockchip rk2808 ARM9-based PWS700CA laptop</a> by Shenzhen-based Hivision Co Ltd. Web browsing on AJAX-heavy websites is surprisingly snappy, and could only be even faster if ARM11, ARM Cortex A8 or A9 processors were used and if it was configured with slightly more than 128MB RAM. How soon will Google release the $100 Google laptop?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charbax writes " The Android laptops are coming .
Thanks to cheap ARM-powered laptops made in China , and the latest , most optimized Android software , we can soon buy usable $ 100 laptops in all the supermarkets .
In this video , I test the web browsing speed on the new Rockchip rk2808 ARM9-based PWS700CA laptop by Shenzhen-based Hivision Co Ltd. Web browsing on AJAX-heavy websites is surprisingly snappy , and could only be even faster if ARM11 , ARM Cortex A8 or A9 processors were used and if it was configured with slightly more than 128MB RAM .
How soon will Google release the $ 100 Google laptop ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charbax writes "The Android laptops are coming.
Thanks to cheap ARM-powered laptops made in China, and the latest, most optimized Android software, we can soon buy usable $100 laptops in all the supermarkets.
In this video, I test the web browsing speed on the new Rockchip rk2808 ARM9-based PWS700CA laptop by Shenzhen-based Hivision Co Ltd. Web browsing on AJAX-heavy websites is surprisingly snappy, and could only be even faster if ARM11, ARM Cortex A8 or A9 processors were used and if it was configured with slightly more than 128MB RAM.
How soon will Google release the $100 Google laptop?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958606</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop vs Cellphone Costs</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1264779060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quick guess, cheaper but bigger and heavier components. Same reason desktops are relatively cheaper than laptops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick guess , cheaper but bigger and heavier components .
Same reason desktops are relatively cheaper than laptops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick guess, cheaper but bigger and heavier components.
Same reason desktops are relatively cheaper than laptops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958706</id>
	<title>Re:Milestone</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1264780080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only if it can do what people want.  I would love to have such a cheap option for my kids, but they'll only use it they can play flash games and watch video on the web, and do their homework on it.  But you can't run flash on there, and OpenOffice wouldn't run well with 128 MB RAM.  Getting closer though!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if it can do what people want .
I would love to have such a cheap option for my kids , but they 'll only use it they can play flash games and watch video on the web , and do their homework on it .
But you ca n't run flash on there , and OpenOffice would n't run well with 128 MB RAM .
Getting closer though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if it can do what people want.
I would love to have such a cheap option for my kids, but they'll only use it they can play flash games and watch video on the web, and do their homework on it.
But you can't run flash on there, and OpenOffice wouldn't run well with 128 MB RAM.
Getting closer though!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961180</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264855260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's too bad for competition. Except they will be eaten alive if they don't compete with the iPad. I don't want a gen1 or probably a gen2 iPad, but gen3 will be there, or will force gen2 into the price range.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's too bad for competition .
Except they will be eaten alive if they do n't compete with the iPad .
I do n't want a gen1 or probably a gen2 iPad , but gen3 will be there , or will force gen2 into the price range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's too bad for competition.
Except they will be eaten alive if they don't compete with the iPad.
I don't want a gen1 or probably a gen2 iPad, but gen3 will be there, or will force gen2 into the price range.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30965592</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it.</title>
	<author>Reaperducer</author>
	<datestamp>1264846920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FWIW, I bought my eeePC 700 from Overstock.com for $129.</p><p>Runs Linux and fits in my coat pocket, but the battery life is pretty awful (2-3 hours max).  Still, Firefox works pretty well.  That's about all that works well, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , I bought my eeePC 700 from Overstock.com for $ 129.Runs Linux and fits in my coat pocket , but the battery life is pretty awful ( 2-3 hours max ) .
Still , Firefox works pretty well .
That 's about all that works well , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, I bought my eeePC 700 from Overstock.com for $129.Runs Linux and fits in my coat pocket, but the battery life is pretty awful (2-3 hours max).
Still, Firefox works pretty well.
That's about all that works well, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959014</id>
	<title>$100 ??? You get what you pay for.</title>
	<author>ChunderDownunder</author>
	<datestamp>1264782360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>News for nerds, hardly - it's a toy. With all the hype over the iPad, here are a few pointers for something some of us would actually buy:

<ol> <li>Pick a standard LCD size that can display 720p content, e.g. 1366x768 seen in some 11" netbooks.</li><li>Use a mainstream distro like Ubuntu on it but allow those in the know to install distro-of-choice. e.g. Ubuntu is hinting at support for android's software stack</li><li>Stick a decent amount of RAM in it. 4GB seems to be the limit on 32bit, make it an option.</li><li>Mini HDMI so we can plug into our 1080 TVs</li><li>Touch screen, xorg has multitouch now. But allow choice, some prefer styluses...</li><li>A camera, if only for skypeing relatives</li><li>Bluetooth, wifi, 3G, usb, ethernet</li><li>keyboard optional, iPad will show there's a market for both</li></ol><p>

In short a real competitor to both the iPad and Atom Netbooks. Cut out the Windows tax and Apple DRM and there's your niche. All these things are possible today with a decent dual core SoC like Tegra 2. Wake me up when such a device actually exists but be warned it won't be for $100.
</p><p>
Yes I know there's a detachable machine with beagleboard specs but let's see the next-gen that doesn't feel as sluggish as a desktop from 1999.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News for nerds , hardly - it 's a toy .
With all the hype over the iPad , here are a few pointers for something some of us would actually buy : Pick a standard LCD size that can display 720p content , e.g .
1366x768 seen in some 11 " netbooks.Use a mainstream distro like Ubuntu on it but allow those in the know to install distro-of-choice .
e.g. Ubuntu is hinting at support for android 's software stackStick a decent amount of RAM in it .
4GB seems to be the limit on 32bit , make it an option.Mini HDMI so we can plug into our 1080 TVsTouch screen , xorg has multitouch now .
But allow choice , some prefer styluses...A camera , if only for skypeing relativesBluetooth , wifi , 3G , usb , ethernetkeyboard optional , iPad will show there 's a market for both In short a real competitor to both the iPad and Atom Netbooks .
Cut out the Windows tax and Apple DRM and there 's your niche .
All these things are possible today with a decent dual core SoC like Tegra 2 .
Wake me up when such a device actually exists but be warned it wo n't be for $ 100 .
Yes I know there 's a detachable machine with beagleboard specs but let 's see the next-gen that does n't feel as sluggish as a desktop from 1999 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News for nerds, hardly - it's a toy.
With all the hype over the iPad, here are a few pointers for something some of us would actually buy:

 Pick a standard LCD size that can display 720p content, e.g.
1366x768 seen in some 11" netbooks.Use a mainstream distro like Ubuntu on it but allow those in the know to install distro-of-choice.
e.g. Ubuntu is hinting at support for android's software stackStick a decent amount of RAM in it.
4GB seems to be the limit on 32bit, make it an option.Mini HDMI so we can plug into our 1080 TVsTouch screen, xorg has multitouch now.
But allow choice, some prefer styluses...A camera, if only for skypeing relativesBluetooth, wifi, 3G, usb, ethernetkeyboard optional, iPad will show there's a market for both

In short a real competitor to both the iPad and Atom Netbooks.
Cut out the Windows tax and Apple DRM and there's your niche.
All these things are possible today with a decent dual core SoC like Tegra 2.
Wake me up when such a device actually exists but be warned it won't be for $100.
Yes I know there's a detachable machine with beagleboard specs but let's see the next-gen that doesn't feel as sluggish as a desktop from 1999.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962520</id>
	<title>Re:Other distros?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264869540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gentoo should also support ARM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gentoo should also support ARM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gentoo should also support ARM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30963082</id>
	<title>Re:Other distros?</title>
	<author>BartholomewBernsteyn</author>
	<datestamp>1264873560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I can put ubuntu on it I will be interested.</p></div><p>To a limited extend, Ubuntu is already available for the ARM architecture; see <a href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM" title="ubuntu.com" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM</a> [ubuntu.com] for reference. I have a ARM based BeagleBoard which runs Ubuntu *nicely* (I don't do fancy GUI stuff, though). Installing Ubuntu on ARM is not hard, but it's not (yet) as trivial as on PC - I'm confident this will improve once more ARM based netbooks, etc. become more common. Also, some of the packages are (yet) missing, but like my previous point, that is only a matter of time too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I can put ubuntu on it I will be interested.To a limited extend , Ubuntu is already available for the ARM architecture ; see https : //wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM [ ubuntu.com ] for reference .
I have a ARM based BeagleBoard which runs Ubuntu * nicely * ( I do n't do fancy GUI stuff , though ) .
Installing Ubuntu on ARM is not hard , but it 's not ( yet ) as trivial as on PC - I 'm confident this will improve once more ARM based netbooks , etc .
become more common .
Also , some of the packages are ( yet ) missing , but like my previous point , that is only a matter of time too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I can put ubuntu on it I will be interested.To a limited extend, Ubuntu is already available for the ARM architecture; see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM [ubuntu.com] for reference.
I have a ARM based BeagleBoard which runs Ubuntu *nicely* (I don't do fancy GUI stuff, though).
Installing Ubuntu on ARM is not hard, but it's not (yet) as trivial as on PC - I'm confident this will improve once more ARM based netbooks, etc.
become more common.
Also, some of the packages are (yet) missing, but like my previous point, that is only a matter of time too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30967794</id>
	<title>Re:Not a $100 laptop</title>
	<author>ElAurian</author>
	<datestamp>1264868640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay. So why can I buy a perfectly good calculator for 5 bucks, if there's all these external costs that you mentioned?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay .
So why can I buy a perfectly good calculator for 5 bucks , if there 's all these external costs that you mentioned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay.
So why can I buy a perfectly good calculator for 5 bucks, if there's all these external costs that you mentioned?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394</id>
	<title>Re:Other distros?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264776960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other distros? Sure would be nice, but the fact that they're ARM means it probably won't be ready just yet. This, by the way, is fantastic news.</p><p>The greatest thing about these laptops is, if they're as good as the article claims, the fact that they're ARM processors means that there won't be a version of Windows out for them for ages/ever.</p><p>That means that Microsoft can't just use its market share to bury the Linux versions by heavily discounting the OS, while using their deals with retailers to make sure they only stock the Windows versions, all the while pressuring the laptop manufacturers to increase the specs on them so they can run Windows 7 instead of XP which they're selling for so cheap (to compete with 'free') they're not making any money off it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other distros ?
Sure would be nice , but the fact that they 're ARM means it probably wo n't be ready just yet .
This , by the way , is fantastic news.The greatest thing about these laptops is , if they 're as good as the article claims , the fact that they 're ARM processors means that there wo n't be a version of Windows out for them for ages/ever.That means that Microsoft ca n't just use its market share to bury the Linux versions by heavily discounting the OS , while using their deals with retailers to make sure they only stock the Windows versions , all the while pressuring the laptop manufacturers to increase the specs on them so they can run Windows 7 instead of XP which they 're selling for so cheap ( to compete with 'free ' ) they 're not making any money off it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other distros?
Sure would be nice, but the fact that they're ARM means it probably won't be ready just yet.
This, by the way, is fantastic news.The greatest thing about these laptops is, if they're as good as the article claims, the fact that they're ARM processors means that there won't be a version of Windows out for them for ages/ever.That means that Microsoft can't just use its market share to bury the Linux versions by heavily discounting the OS, while using their deals with retailers to make sure they only stock the Windows versions, all the while pressuring the laptop manufacturers to increase the specs on them so they can run Windows 7 instead of XP which they're selling for so cheap (to compete with 'free') they're not making any money off it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958812</id>
	<title>"...most websites suck..."</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264780920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got that right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got that right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got that right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961214</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, the web browsing may be snappy...</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1264855980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh, I don't care if the retards make assumptions about the display while writing in a markup language originally intended to let the browser sort out how best to fit elements on its display.</p><p>If the data I want is there, I can scroll for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , I do n't care if the retards make assumptions about the display while writing in a markup language originally intended to let the browser sort out how best to fit elements on its display.If the data I want is there , I can scroll for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh, I don't care if the retards make assumptions about the display while writing in a markup language originally intended to let the browser sort out how best to fit elements on its display.If the data I want is there, I can scroll for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960814</id>
	<title>Re:720p playback on a 800x480 screen??</title>
	<author>bazorg</author>
	<datestamp>1264849440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While we are at it, someone care to enlighten me as to why everytime there is a discussion about blueray, cinema and HDTV Slashdot turns into a whinge party on how HD content all sucks, there is not enough HD content on TV, in the shops, and you'd have to be stupid to spend a penny upgrading your screen; but whenever people are talking about any new computer - or anything with a screen on it actually -  there's always someone who wants to play HD films on it?<p>same on gizmodo, engadget,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we are at it , someone care to enlighten me as to why everytime there is a discussion about blueray , cinema and HDTV Slashdot turns into a whinge party on how HD content all sucks , there is not enough HD content on TV , in the shops , and you 'd have to be stupid to spend a penny upgrading your screen ; but whenever people are talking about any new computer - or anything with a screen on it actually - there 's always someone who wants to play HD films on it ? same on gizmodo , engadget , .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we are at it, someone care to enlighten me as to why everytime there is a discussion about blueray, cinema and HDTV Slashdot turns into a whinge party on how HD content all sucks, there is not enough HD content on TV, in the shops, and you'd have to be stupid to spend a penny upgrading your screen; but whenever people are talking about any new computer - or anything with a screen on it actually -  there's always someone who wants to play HD films on it?same on gizmodo, engadget, ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960014</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop vs Cellphone Costs</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1264794660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same reason you're going to be able to buy an iPad for 30\% less than an iPhone costs, and you can buy an iPod Touch for less than half the price.</p><p>As soon as you involve a telecom company things suddenly get really expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same reason you 're going to be able to buy an iPad for 30 \ % less than an iPhone costs , and you can buy an iPod Touch for less than half the price.As soon as you involve a telecom company things suddenly get really expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same reason you're going to be able to buy an iPad for 30\% less than an iPhone costs, and you can buy an iPod Touch for less than half the price.As soon as you involve a telecom company things suddenly get really expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959988</id>
	<title>Re:Other distros?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264794420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's got 128MB ram, Ubuntu is going to run like ass on it. Perhaps it is time for a port of Puppylinux or Damn Small Linux to ARM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's got 128MB ram , Ubuntu is going to run like ass on it .
Perhaps it is time for a port of Puppylinux or Damn Small Linux to ARM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's got 128MB ram, Ubuntu is going to run like ass on it.
Perhaps it is time for a port of Puppylinux or Damn Small Linux to ARM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959620</id>
	<title>I don't want it</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1264788960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The end goal of the "net-book"/<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:net-device" fad is this....they are trying to steal your right to anything you do with a computer. You write a song? No hard-drive, no personal storage, no personal storage, no proof it was ever yours! You design a new piece of software? The geek on the dark side of you desktop already has it compiled and sitting in front of several potential buyers. The fad is meant to bring about the dissolution of personal ownership (at least ownership by the unclean masses anyway) and materialism itself. Serfdom unlike any before, where  a minor glitch can turn a prince to a pauper, and personal failure in EVERYTHING can not only be internally conditioned, but externally manufactured as well. In other words, 1984 is nothing compared to what they have in mind. I for one will have nothing to do with it (if I can avoid it). It might be a little harder to play computer games while in-flight, but I think I can live with that knowing that I won't have to be online just to check my available drive-storage (and paying some schmuck $29 a month for the right to access it!).
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>The end goal of the " net-book " / : net-device " fad is this....they are trying to steal your right to anything you do with a computer .
You write a song ?
No hard-drive , no personal storage , no personal storage , no proof it was ever yours !
You design a new piece of software ?
The geek on the dark side of you desktop already has it compiled and sitting in front of several potential buyers .
The fad is meant to bring about the dissolution of personal ownership ( at least ownership by the unclean masses anyway ) and materialism itself .
Serfdom unlike any before , where a minor glitch can turn a prince to a pauper , and personal failure in EVERYTHING can not only be internally conditioned , but externally manufactured as well .
In other words , 1984 is nothing compared to what they have in mind .
I for one will have nothing to do with it ( if I can avoid it ) .
It might be a little harder to play computer games while in-flight , but I think I can live with that knowing that I wo n't have to be online just to check my available drive-storage ( and paying some schmuck $ 29 a month for the right to access it ! ) .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The end goal of the "net-book"/ :net-device" fad is this....they are trying to steal your right to anything you do with a computer.
You write a song?
No hard-drive, no personal storage, no personal storage, no proof it was ever yours!
You design a new piece of software?
The geek on the dark side of you desktop already has it compiled and sitting in front of several potential buyers.
The fad is meant to bring about the dissolution of personal ownership (at least ownership by the unclean masses anyway) and materialism itself.
Serfdom unlike any before, where  a minor glitch can turn a prince to a pauper, and personal failure in EVERYTHING can not only be internally conditioned, but externally manufactured as well.
In other words, 1984 is nothing compared to what they have in mind.
I for one will have nothing to do with it (if I can avoid it).
It might be a little harder to play computer games while in-flight, but I think I can live with that knowing that I won't have to be online just to check my available drive-storage (and paying some schmuck $29 a month for the right to access it!).
-Oz</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961578</id>
	<title>Re:Not a $100 laptop</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264861260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>NEC was still selling V30s into the late '90s (they might still sell them, not sure).  These were both hardware and software compatible with the 8086.  My first PC and my first palmtop both used them as their CPU.  The palmtop had similar specs to the PC (although no hard disk), but cost a about a tenth of the amount and came in a much smaller form factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>NEC was still selling V30s into the late '90s ( they might still sell them , not sure ) .
These were both hardware and software compatible with the 8086 .
My first PC and my first palmtop both used them as their CPU .
The palmtop had similar specs to the PC ( although no hard disk ) , but cost a about a tenth of the amount and came in a much smaller form factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NEC was still selling V30s into the late '90s (they might still sell them, not sure).
These were both hardware and software compatible with the 8086.
My first PC and my first palmtop both used them as their CPU.
The palmtop had similar specs to the PC (although no hard disk), but cost a about a tenth of the amount and came in a much smaller form factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961476</id>
	<title>Re:Android really fit for Netbooks?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1264860120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ok, so Android is pretty resource saving. It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.</p></div><p>No it isn't.  Well, it's impressive that something that small can play H.264 (hell, I'm old enough that I still think it's impressive that it can store and play full-motion videos at any resolution), but it has nothing to do with Android.  Pretty much all ARM SoCs come with a dedicated coprocessor for video decoding.  It's all offloaded here (which has the nice side effect that you can play back videos without stealing CPU cycles from other tasks), so it will work with any OS that has drivers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so Android is pretty resource saving .
It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.No it is n't .
Well , it 's impressive that something that small can play H.264 ( hell , I 'm old enough that I still think it 's impressive that it can store and play full-motion videos at any resolution ) , but it has nothing to do with Android .
Pretty much all ARM SoCs come with a dedicated coprocessor for video decoding .
It 's all offloaded here ( which has the nice side effect that you can play back videos without stealing CPU cycles from other tasks ) , so it will work with any OS that has drivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so Android is pretty resource saving.
It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.No it isn't.
Well, it's impressive that something that small can play H.264 (hell, I'm old enough that I still think it's impressive that it can store and play full-motion videos at any resolution), but it has nothing to do with Android.
Pretty much all ARM SoCs come with a dedicated coprocessor for video decoding.
It's all offloaded here (which has the nice side effect that you can play back videos without stealing CPU cycles from other tasks), so it will work with any OS that has drivers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959746</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264790880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, Apple hasn't advertised anything about the A4 other than it runs at 1 GHz and "screams," but I have to imagine that sooner or later a webpage&mdash;as was done for the G5&mdash;with a modest ARM logo will appear extolling the A4 virtues. The iPad's enormous mindshare and market position just above netbooks may legitimize less expensive ARM netbooks and tablets in the consumer market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Apple has n't advertised anything about the A4 other than it runs at 1 GHz and " screams , " but I have to imagine that sooner or later a webpage    as was done for the G5    with a modest ARM logo will appear extolling the A4 virtues .
The iPad 's enormous mindshare and market position just above netbooks may legitimize less expensive ARM netbooks and tablets in the consumer market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Apple hasn't advertised anything about the A4 other than it runs at 1 GHz and "screams," but I have to imagine that sooner or later a webpage—as was done for the G5—with a modest ARM logo will appear extolling the A4 virtues.
The iPad's enormous mindshare and market position just above netbooks may legitimize less expensive ARM netbooks and tablets in the consumer market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959306</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop vs Cellphone Costs</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1264785360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's harder to make things smaller, in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's harder to make things smaller , in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's harder to make things smaller, in general.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961452</id>
	<title>Re:Not a $100 laptop</title>
	<author>logixoul</author>
	<datestamp>1264859460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now you've got me dreamin'...<br>
I would so love a crappy but dirt cheap machine.
$5 for a Pentium II, 32MB RAM laptop with ethernet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>
Put Firefox 1 and Windows 98 on it, and I'd get a few, if only to play NFS2 and chat on skype<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you 've got me dreamin'.. . I would so love a crappy but dirt cheap machine .
$ 5 for a Pentium II , 32MB RAM laptop with ethernet : ) Put Firefox 1 and Windows 98 on it , and I 'd get a few , if only to play NFS2 and chat on skype : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you've got me dreamin'...
I would so love a crappy but dirt cheap machine.
$5 for a Pentium II, 32MB RAM laptop with ethernet :)
Put Firefox 1 and Windows 98 on it, and I'd get a few, if only to play NFS2 and chat on skype :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30971030</id>
	<title>Re:Not a $100 laptop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264959300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course it's not going to be $100.  Just look at the Nexus One.  Did Google really sell that at cost or below cost?  Nope.  No way it's going to sell a bigger, more powerful device for 1/5 the cost!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it 's not going to be $ 100 .
Just look at the Nexus One .
Did Google really sell that at cost or below cost ?
Nope. No way it 's going to sell a bigger , more powerful device for 1/5 the cost !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it's not going to be $100.
Just look at the Nexus One.
Did Google really sell that at cost or below cost?
Nope.  No way it's going to sell a bigger, more powerful device for 1/5 the cost!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30963908</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but not the iPad-killer</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1264878120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once the iPad is released, I bet we'll have an "iPad killer" announced once a month. After about a week, everyone will forget about it, until next month's "iPad killer"....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once the iPad is released , I bet we 'll have an " iPad killer " announced once a month .
After about a week , everyone will forget about it , until next month 's " iPad killer " ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once the iPad is released, I bet we'll have an "iPad killer" announced once a month.
After about a week, everyone will forget about it, until next month's "iPad killer"....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958604</id>
	<title>gPad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264779060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>netbooks suck the air out of a room, I have a drawer full.  Not as good as a laptop, not as portable as a phone.</p><p>Rip the display off the laptop, stuff the electronics into it, replace the keyboard/base with a snap-on bluetooth keyboard, speakers, extended battery, slot DVD drive base.  When I want a tablet, I snap the computer off the base.  When I want a laptop, I snap it together and it closes like a normal laptop.</p><p>Think macbook air that comes apart.  It's *so* doable with very little additional cost or engineering over what it currently is.  All the connectors are in the lid/display/computer, so when it snaps off, you can connect it somewhere else. (eg: display and audio out, USB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>netbooks suck the air out of a room , I have a drawer full .
Not as good as a laptop , not as portable as a phone.Rip the display off the laptop , stuff the electronics into it , replace the keyboard/base with a snap-on bluetooth keyboard , speakers , extended battery , slot DVD drive base .
When I want a tablet , I snap the computer off the base .
When I want a laptop , I snap it together and it closes like a normal laptop.Think macbook air that comes apart .
It 's * so * doable with very little additional cost or engineering over what it currently is .
All the connectors are in the lid/display/computer , so when it snaps off , you can connect it somewhere else .
( eg : display and audio out , USB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>netbooks suck the air out of a room, I have a drawer full.
Not as good as a laptop, not as portable as a phone.Rip the display off the laptop, stuff the electronics into it, replace the keyboard/base with a snap-on bluetooth keyboard, speakers, extended battery, slot DVD drive base.
When I want a tablet, I snap the computer off the base.
When I want a laptop, I snap it together and it closes like a normal laptop.Think macbook air that comes apart.
It's *so* doable with very little additional cost or engineering over what it currently is.
All the connectors are in the lid/display/computer, so when it snaps off, you can connect it somewhere else.
(eg: display and audio out, USB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958704</id>
	<title>Not the right question...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264780020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is not when the $100 Google Laptop is coming, but when the "Ad-Supported" Free Google Laptop is coming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is not when the $ 100 Google Laptop is coming , but when the " Ad-Supported " Free Google Laptop is coming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is not when the $100 Google Laptop is coming, but when the "Ad-Supported" Free Google Laptop is coming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959390</id>
	<title>Re:Other distros?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264786260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gentoo Linux supports arm processors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gentoo Linux supports arm processors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gentoo Linux supports arm processors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958640</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, the web browsing may be snappy...</title>
	<author>dada21</author>
	<datestamp>1264779360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have 3 Android devices and all of them do a fairly good job of rendering websites for "Mobile" display.  In fact, I am currently working on porting my Wordpress sites to a mobile friendly auto-switching theme bases on visits from mobile devices.</p><p>Just because it's laptop shaped doesn't mean it will display websites like a full PC would.  It'll display mobile versions, which are still perfect for that resolution.</p><p>I just want Cyanogen to make a mod for this sucker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have 3 Android devices and all of them do a fairly good job of rendering websites for " Mobile " display .
In fact , I am currently working on porting my Wordpress sites to a mobile friendly auto-switching theme bases on visits from mobile devices.Just because it 's laptop shaped does n't mean it will display websites like a full PC would .
It 'll display mobile versions , which are still perfect for that resolution.I just want Cyanogen to make a mod for this sucker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have 3 Android devices and all of them do a fairly good job of rendering websites for "Mobile" display.
In fact, I am currently working on porting my Wordpress sites to a mobile friendly auto-switching theme bases on visits from mobile devices.Just because it's laptop shaped doesn't mean it will display websites like a full PC would.
It'll display mobile versions, which are still perfect for that resolution.I just want Cyanogen to make a mod for this sucker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958422</id>
	<title>Sure, the web browsing may be snappy...</title>
	<author>Dragoniz3r</author>
	<datestamp>1264777200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... but that doesn't change the fact that most websites suck when viewed on an 800x480 screen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but that does n't change the fact that most websites suck when viewed on an 800x480 screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... but that doesn't change the fact that most websites suck when viewed on an 800x480 screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30964862</id>
	<title>Re:$100 ??? You get what you pay for.</title>
	<author>sowth</author>
	<datestamp>1264884780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are rich and spoiled, so you don't get the point of why someone would buy a $100 laptop. There are plenty of people who can't afford or aren't willing to pay for a more expensive one, so this would be their only choice.

</p><p>It is a computer. It browses the web. It will do word processing and edit photos. It works. That is what they need. They may not even have anything resembling broadband to watch HD videos anyway.

</p><p>Though, I agree they should use a mainstream distro. Xandros on the Asus EEE sucks! They don't even supply upgrades (last time I checked there were not any updates in their repository and the kernel, vulnerable samba, and etc were outdated), and anyone who wants to fix all the security flaws needs a lot of Linux knowledge.

</p><p>The hardware they chose doesn't seem to be fully compatible with the generic kernel. (however, recent ones may work with the wireless --haven't been able to try it out easily because of their layered filesystem scheme.) I wonder how many of those netbooks are now part of a botnet? There is no way a lay person or their MCSE friend could fix the security problems with it, and no, installing a warez windows 98 on it isn't going to improve the security situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are rich and spoiled , so you do n't get the point of why someone would buy a $ 100 laptop .
There are plenty of people who ca n't afford or are n't willing to pay for a more expensive one , so this would be their only choice .
It is a computer .
It browses the web .
It will do word processing and edit photos .
It works .
That is what they need .
They may not even have anything resembling broadband to watch HD videos anyway .
Though , I agree they should use a mainstream distro .
Xandros on the Asus EEE sucks !
They do n't even supply upgrades ( last time I checked there were not any updates in their repository and the kernel , vulnerable samba , and etc were outdated ) , and anyone who wants to fix all the security flaws needs a lot of Linux knowledge .
The hardware they chose does n't seem to be fully compatible with the generic kernel .
( however , recent ones may work with the wireless --have n't been able to try it out easily because of their layered filesystem scheme .
) I wonder how many of those netbooks are now part of a botnet ?
There is no way a lay person or their MCSE friend could fix the security problems with it , and no , installing a warez windows 98 on it is n't going to improve the security situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are rich and spoiled, so you don't get the point of why someone would buy a $100 laptop.
There are plenty of people who can't afford or aren't willing to pay for a more expensive one, so this would be their only choice.
It is a computer.
It browses the web.
It will do word processing and edit photos.
It works.
That is what they need.
They may not even have anything resembling broadband to watch HD videos anyway.
Though, I agree they should use a mainstream distro.
Xandros on the Asus EEE sucks!
They don't even supply upgrades (last time I checked there were not any updates in their repository and the kernel, vulnerable samba, and etc were outdated), and anyone who wants to fix all the security flaws needs a lot of Linux knowledge.
The hardware they chose doesn't seem to be fully compatible with the generic kernel.
(however, recent ones may work with the wireless --haven't been able to try it out easily because of their layered filesystem scheme.
) I wonder how many of those netbooks are now part of a botnet?
There is no way a lay person or their MCSE friend could fix the security problems with it, and no, installing a warez windows 98 on it isn't going to improve the security situation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958718</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop vs Cellphone Costs</title>
	<author>dada21</author>
	<datestamp>1264780260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Licensing for 3G and 2G and other cell phone chip hardware is expensive.</p><p>Also, you have to add additional interfaces (SIM card interface, internal antenna, etc) that increase the cost of delivery and design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Licensing for 3G and 2G and other cell phone chip hardware is expensive.Also , you have to add additional interfaces ( SIM card interface , internal antenna , etc ) that increase the cost of delivery and design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Licensing for 3G and 2G and other cell phone chip hardware is expensive.Also, you have to add additional interfaces (SIM card interface, internal antenna, etc) that increase the cost of delivery and design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958408</id>
	<title>Android really fit for Netbooks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264777140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so Android is pretty resource saving. It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.<br>But now to the problem. Android is optimised for a touch screen. So, just to give an example, as also shown in the video in the article: When scrolling while browsing, you have to grab the page and "throw" it upwards. Also, there are buttons for zooming in and out.</p><p>So it will be interesting to see how some other minimal linuxes would fare.</p><p>But anyway, for that price, it is probably still worth it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so Android is pretty resource saving .
It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.But now to the problem .
Android is optimised for a touch screen .
So , just to give an example , as also shown in the video in the article : When scrolling while browsing , you have to grab the page and " throw " it upwards .
Also , there are buttons for zooming in and out.So it will be interesting to see how some other minimal linuxes would fare.But anyway , for that price , it is probably still worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so Android is pretty resource saving.
It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.But now to the problem.
Android is optimised for a touch screen.
So, just to give an example, as also shown in the video in the article: When scrolling while browsing, you have to grab the page and "throw" it upwards.
Also, there are buttons for zooming in and out.So it will be interesting to see how some other minimal linuxes would fare.But anyway, for that price, it is probably still worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958268</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264776000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those! Better yet, imagine a free Beowulf cluster of Google Adsense(tm)-supported laptops<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those !
Better yet , imagine a free Beowulf cluster of Google Adsense ( tm ) -supported laptops : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!
Better yet, imagine a free Beowulf cluster of Google Adsense(tm)-supported laptops :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498</id>
	<title>Laptop vs Cellphone Costs</title>
	<author>Foo2rama</author>
	<datestamp>1264778100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok can someone please explain why a cell phone with less power then this laptop costs around 300 bucks and that apparently still does not cover the mfg costs of the device hence the locked in contracts to recoup phone costs?  Yet this laptop with an arm proc and a larger screen and more moving parts can be sold at 100???  The iPhone costs $179 to mfg.. Pre $138... g1 $140</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok can someone please explain why a cell phone with less power then this laptop costs around 300 bucks and that apparently still does not cover the mfg costs of the device hence the locked in contracts to recoup phone costs ?
Yet this laptop with an arm proc and a larger screen and more moving parts can be sold at 100 ? ? ?
The iPhone costs $ 179 to mfg.. Pre $ 138... g1 $ 140</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok can someone please explain why a cell phone with less power then this laptop costs around 300 bucks and that apparently still does not cover the mfg costs of the device hence the locked in contracts to recoup phone costs?
Yet this laptop with an arm proc and a larger screen and more moving parts can be sold at 100???
The iPhone costs $179 to mfg.. Pre $138... g1 $140</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30965100</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it.</title>
	<author>jmorris42</author>
	<datestamp>1264843260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; As a result MS priced windows for netbooks at $8..</p><p>The lowest pricing I have ever heard from anyone halfway reliable is $15 but that isn't the whole story.  If they ship Windows they also get to ship the bundleware which means they probably actually make a profit.</p><p>&gt; So you ask what killed the Arm Netbook?</p><p>You forgot two other major players in killing the netbook.  The OEMs and the retailers.  So sit right down and I'll tell 'yall the rest of the story.</p><p>Netbooks were originally imagined as inexpensive, small and oriented towards a network centric view of the world.  EVERYONE wanted that idea dead.  The original eeePC was supposed to start at $200, remember?  Lets imagine someone hitting that target now, not a black friday dump, $200 MSRP for a useful netbook in the original definition, i.e. no need to run Photoshop (how did this become the one everyone whines about?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....anyway).  What retailer wants to put that on the shelf beside units that can make them twice the money before considering the better odds of followon sales with a traditional laptop/modern netbook?  Software, service contracts, crapware removal services, accessories, all are better sales opportunities with a notebook/modern netbook running Windows.  The OEMs realized they were risking cannibalization of a huge chunk of their more profitable lines.  Then Microsoft came unto the OEMs, who were already afraid and said, "So lemme help you guys out of this mess.  Ship XP at little or no upcharge and customers will demand the upsized specs to run it well."  So the 7 and 9 inch displays vanished along with the slow Celerons and by the time ASUS had their supply chain issues sorted out demand for anything that would have hit their original $200 target had gone away.  The industry was saved.</p><p>Let me now pronounce unto you what will be.  Because Apple announced the iPad there will be a flurry of tablets, all intended to compete with it so price will be high, HD video will be the one spec on all of em (1080p so as to beat Apple) and they will all fail, Apple included.  When that happens the interest in ARM and Android (beyond the smartphone space) will end with it.  ARM+Linux and/or Android on inexpensive ARM netbooks will never really be tried.  Today's product won't ever be seen in qualtity outside Asia any more than the dozen ARM/Mips units announced in the past or the dozens to be announced in the future will be.  Last year I believed some Chinese OEM with no ties to the existing Intel/Microsoft/Notebook ecosystem existed and one of them would eventually get the idea to make an end run around the Walmart/BestBuy roadblock and distribute through non-traditional channels.  Now I have studied the matter more and realized that won't likely happen.</p><p>The problem is the $100 disposable netbook would represent a fundamental upheaval in the computing ecosystem.  It could be done in a way to benefit the consumer but all the incentives are against it.  There is zero upside for any of the established players though, nothing but pain and downsizing.  It will happen eventually but they intend to put that day off as long as possible.  What we will probably end up with is subsidized locked down crap eventually marginalizing traditional computing to the point computing as a mind lever is relegated to expensive specialty stuff while most stuff is glorified TV with carefully approved interraction.   All government approved, child safe and perfectly non offensive.  Do we really want to hasten that world or do we join Intel/Microsoft/Dell/BestBuy is pushing that nightmare off in the hope we can find a better solution?</p><p>Or we fight like hell right now for the better more open future that is possible but won't happen if evolution takes its dismal course.  If we can get a standard bootloader on those ARM netbooks so we can offer the OEMs the choice of expensive internal OS development and ongoing security patching vs offloading most of that to the community we have a shot at enough of the next generation of cheap hardwa</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; As a result MS priced windows for netbooks at $ 8..The lowest pricing I have ever heard from anyone halfway reliable is $ 15 but that is n't the whole story .
If they ship Windows they also get to ship the bundleware which means they probably actually make a profit. &gt; So you ask what killed the Arm Netbook ? You forgot two other major players in killing the netbook .
The OEMs and the retailers .
So sit right down and I 'll tell 'yall the rest of the story.Netbooks were originally imagined as inexpensive , small and oriented towards a network centric view of the world .
EVERYONE wanted that idea dead .
The original eeePC was supposed to start at $ 200 , remember ?
Lets imagine someone hitting that target now , not a black friday dump , $ 200 MSRP for a useful netbook in the original definition , i.e .
no need to run Photoshop ( how did this become the one everyone whines about ?
....anyway ) . What retailer wants to put that on the shelf beside units that can make them twice the money before considering the better odds of followon sales with a traditional laptop/modern netbook ?
Software , service contracts , crapware removal services , accessories , all are better sales opportunities with a notebook/modern netbook running Windows .
The OEMs realized they were risking cannibalization of a huge chunk of their more profitable lines .
Then Microsoft came unto the OEMs , who were already afraid and said , " So lem me help you guys out of this mess .
Ship XP at little or no upcharge and customers will demand the upsized specs to run it well .
" So the 7 and 9 inch displays vanished along with the slow Celerons and by the time ASUS had their supply chain issues sorted out demand for anything that would have hit their original $ 200 target had gone away .
The industry was saved.Let me now pronounce unto you what will be .
Because Apple announced the iPad there will be a flurry of tablets , all intended to compete with it so price will be high , HD video will be the one spec on all of em ( 1080p so as to beat Apple ) and they will all fail , Apple included .
When that happens the interest in ARM and Android ( beyond the smartphone space ) will end with it .
ARM + Linux and/or Android on inexpensive ARM netbooks will never really be tried .
Today 's product wo n't ever be seen in qualtity outside Asia any more than the dozen ARM/Mips units announced in the past or the dozens to be announced in the future will be .
Last year I believed some Chinese OEM with no ties to the existing Intel/Microsoft/Notebook ecosystem existed and one of them would eventually get the idea to make an end run around the Walmart/BestBuy roadblock and distribute through non-traditional channels .
Now I have studied the matter more and realized that wo n't likely happen.The problem is the $ 100 disposable netbook would represent a fundamental upheaval in the computing ecosystem .
It could be done in a way to benefit the consumer but all the incentives are against it .
There is zero upside for any of the established players though , nothing but pain and downsizing .
It will happen eventually but they intend to put that day off as long as possible .
What we will probably end up with is subsidized locked down crap eventually marginalizing traditional computing to the point computing as a mind lever is relegated to expensive specialty stuff while most stuff is glorified TV with carefully approved interraction .
All government approved , child safe and perfectly non offensive .
Do we really want to hasten that world or do we join Intel/Microsoft/Dell/BestBuy is pushing that nightmare off in the hope we can find a better solution ? Or we fight like hell right now for the better more open future that is possible but wo n't happen if evolution takes its dismal course .
If we can get a standard bootloader on those ARM netbooks so we can offer the OEMs the choice of expensive internal OS development and ongoing security patching vs offloading most of that to the community we have a shot at enough of the next generation of cheap hardwa</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; As a result MS priced windows for netbooks at $8..The lowest pricing I have ever heard from anyone halfway reliable is $15 but that isn't the whole story.
If they ship Windows they also get to ship the bundleware which means they probably actually make a profit.&gt; So you ask what killed the Arm Netbook?You forgot two other major players in killing the netbook.
The OEMs and the retailers.
So sit right down and I'll tell 'yall the rest of the story.Netbooks were originally imagined as inexpensive, small and oriented towards a network centric view of the world.
EVERYONE wanted that idea dead.
The original eeePC was supposed to start at $200, remember?
Lets imagine someone hitting that target now, not a black friday dump, $200 MSRP for a useful netbook in the original definition, i.e.
no need to run Photoshop (how did this become the one everyone whines about?
....anyway).  What retailer wants to put that on the shelf beside units that can make them twice the money before considering the better odds of followon sales with a traditional laptop/modern netbook?
Software, service contracts, crapware removal services, accessories, all are better sales opportunities with a notebook/modern netbook running Windows.
The OEMs realized they were risking cannibalization of a huge chunk of their more profitable lines.
Then Microsoft came unto the OEMs, who were already afraid and said, "So lemme help you guys out of this mess.
Ship XP at little or no upcharge and customers will demand the upsized specs to run it well.
"  So the 7 and 9 inch displays vanished along with the slow Celerons and by the time ASUS had their supply chain issues sorted out demand for anything that would have hit their original $200 target had gone away.
The industry was saved.Let me now pronounce unto you what will be.
Because Apple announced the iPad there will be a flurry of tablets, all intended to compete with it so price will be high, HD video will be the one spec on all of em (1080p so as to beat Apple) and they will all fail, Apple included.
When that happens the interest in ARM and Android (beyond the smartphone space) will end with it.
ARM+Linux and/or Android on inexpensive ARM netbooks will never really be tried.
Today's product won't ever be seen in qualtity outside Asia any more than the dozen ARM/Mips units announced in the past or the dozens to be announced in the future will be.
Last year I believed some Chinese OEM with no ties to the existing Intel/Microsoft/Notebook ecosystem existed and one of them would eventually get the idea to make an end run around the Walmart/BestBuy roadblock and distribute through non-traditional channels.
Now I have studied the matter more and realized that won't likely happen.The problem is the $100 disposable netbook would represent a fundamental upheaval in the computing ecosystem.
It could be done in a way to benefit the consumer but all the incentives are against it.
There is zero upside for any of the established players though, nothing but pain and downsizing.
It will happen eventually but they intend to put that day off as long as possible.
What we will probably end up with is subsidized locked down crap eventually marginalizing traditional computing to the point computing as a mind lever is relegated to expensive specialty stuff while most stuff is glorified TV with carefully approved interraction.
All government approved, child safe and perfectly non offensive.
Do we really want to hasten that world or do we join Intel/Microsoft/Dell/BestBuy is pushing that nightmare off in the hope we can find a better solution?Or we fight like hell right now for the better more open future that is possible but won't happen if evolution takes its dismal course.
If we can get a standard bootloader on those ARM netbooks so we can offer the OEMs the choice of expensive internal OS development and ongoing security patching vs offloading most of that to the community we have a shot at enough of the next generation of cheap hardwa</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959860</id>
	<title>OLPC?</title>
	<author>spiffworks</author>
	<datestamp>1264792560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can somebody show this to Nicholas Negroponte? Put sugar on this and you have your OLPC laptop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can somebody show this to Nicholas Negroponte ?
Put sugar on this and you have your OLPC laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can somebody show this to Nicholas Negroponte?
Put sugar on this and you have your OLPC laptop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958392</id>
	<title>Re:720p playback on a 800x480 screen??</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1264776960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>External monitor connector? Just a guess, far be it for me to read TFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>External monitor connector ?
Just a guess , far be it for me to read TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>External monitor connector?
Just a guess, far be it for me to read TFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959838</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop vs Cellphone Costs</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1264792260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ok can someone please explain why a cell phone with less power then this laptop costs around 300 bucks</p></div> </blockquote><p>

How do you know those cellphones "cost" 300 bucks? Because your cellphone provider tells you that when selling you a "discounted" cellphone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok can someone please explain why a cell phone with less power then this laptop costs around 300 bucks How do you know those cellphones " cost " 300 bucks ?
Because your cellphone provider tells you that when selling you a " discounted " cellphone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok can someone please explain why a cell phone with less power then this laptop costs around 300 bucks 

How do you know those cellphones "cost" 300 bucks?
Because your cellphone provider tells you that when selling you a "discounted" cellphone?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961034</id>
	<title>Other distros!</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1264852920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are aware of Debian, which has supported ARM for ages, yes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are aware of Debian , which has supported ARM for ages , yes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are aware of Debian, which has supported ARM for ages, yes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it.</title>
	<author>rahvin112</author>
	<datestamp>1264780980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought everyone knew what happened in 2008. At the 2008 CES dozens of ARM "netbooks" running Linux were displayed and a big hit at the show. They were produced on ARM and Linux because Intel didn't have Atom yet so no cheap x86 processor with any horsepower, and Microsoft charged $89 for XP. The Linux netbook was heavily hyped at CES that year and MS took notice. They went to the netbook makers and asked what they needed to do to make sure every netbook came with windows. The Netbook makers said give us windows for $10 and we won't produce the Linux Netbooks. As a result MS priced windows for netbooks at $8 (ask for a windows refund on a netbook, they will offer $8, this has been documented). Intel at the same time produced the atom because they didn't want mass market ARM netbooks hitting the streets and eroding the x86 monopoly. They were able to produce it so quickly because all they did was basically die shrink the original pentium processor (didn't want it to be fast or it could erode regular notebook sales).</p><p>So you ask what killed the Arm Netbook? The answer is the WinTel duopoly got involved and killed it to prevent it from eroding the X86 Windows monopoly. MS and Intel work VERY hard to make sure ARM/Linux Netbooks aren't produced in volume or at prices that will hurt them. Cash incentives, marketing help and all sorts of bad behavior is going on to prevent this market from developing because they KNOW everyone wants a $100 cheap little web tablet/netbook that doesn't weigh much and gets great battery life and that the first one to market will set sales records. Hell the half-assed netbook that has crappy performance set sales records because of price, weight and battery life. The first person to hit good performance, under $200 and with at least 8 hours of battery is going to sell hundreds of millions of them. MS and Intel will do almost anything to make sure that it's not an ARM netbook (MS because the only OS they have that runs on ARM is windowsCE and Mobile, which are both very dated and very crappy compared to Android or Moblin) that's the first one to that goal.</p><p>Mark my words, you won't see mass market ARM netbooks produced unless a large government gets involved in an Anti-Trust action against both MS and Intel at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought everyone knew what happened in 2008 .
At the 2008 CES dozens of ARM " netbooks " running Linux were displayed and a big hit at the show .
They were produced on ARM and Linux because Intel did n't have Atom yet so no cheap x86 processor with any horsepower , and Microsoft charged $ 89 for XP .
The Linux netbook was heavily hyped at CES that year and MS took notice .
They went to the netbook makers and asked what they needed to do to make sure every netbook came with windows .
The Netbook makers said give us windows for $ 10 and we wo n't produce the Linux Netbooks .
As a result MS priced windows for netbooks at $ 8 ( ask for a windows refund on a netbook , they will offer $ 8 , this has been documented ) .
Intel at the same time produced the atom because they did n't want mass market ARM netbooks hitting the streets and eroding the x86 monopoly .
They were able to produce it so quickly because all they did was basically die shrink the original pentium processor ( did n't want it to be fast or it could erode regular notebook sales ) .So you ask what killed the Arm Netbook ?
The answer is the WinTel duopoly got involved and killed it to prevent it from eroding the X86 Windows monopoly .
MS and Intel work VERY hard to make sure ARM/Linux Netbooks are n't produced in volume or at prices that will hurt them .
Cash incentives , marketing help and all sorts of bad behavior is going on to prevent this market from developing because they KNOW everyone wants a $ 100 cheap little web tablet/netbook that does n't weigh much and gets great battery life and that the first one to market will set sales records .
Hell the half-assed netbook that has crappy performance set sales records because of price , weight and battery life .
The first person to hit good performance , under $ 200 and with at least 8 hours of battery is going to sell hundreds of millions of them .
MS and Intel will do almost anything to make sure that it 's not an ARM netbook ( MS because the only OS they have that runs on ARM is windowsCE and Mobile , which are both very dated and very crappy compared to Android or Moblin ) that 's the first one to that goal.Mark my words , you wo n't see mass market ARM netbooks produced unless a large government gets involved in an Anti-Trust action against both MS and Intel at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought everyone knew what happened in 2008.
At the 2008 CES dozens of ARM "netbooks" running Linux were displayed and a big hit at the show.
They were produced on ARM and Linux because Intel didn't have Atom yet so no cheap x86 processor with any horsepower, and Microsoft charged $89 for XP.
The Linux netbook was heavily hyped at CES that year and MS took notice.
They went to the netbook makers and asked what they needed to do to make sure every netbook came with windows.
The Netbook makers said give us windows for $10 and we won't produce the Linux Netbooks.
As a result MS priced windows for netbooks at $8 (ask for a windows refund on a netbook, they will offer $8, this has been documented).
Intel at the same time produced the atom because they didn't want mass market ARM netbooks hitting the streets and eroding the x86 monopoly.
They were able to produce it so quickly because all they did was basically die shrink the original pentium processor (didn't want it to be fast or it could erode regular notebook sales).So you ask what killed the Arm Netbook?
The answer is the WinTel duopoly got involved and killed it to prevent it from eroding the X86 Windows monopoly.
MS and Intel work VERY hard to make sure ARM/Linux Netbooks aren't produced in volume or at prices that will hurt them.
Cash incentives, marketing help and all sorts of bad behavior is going on to prevent this market from developing because they KNOW everyone wants a $100 cheap little web tablet/netbook that doesn't weigh much and gets great battery life and that the first one to market will set sales records.
Hell the half-assed netbook that has crappy performance set sales records because of price, weight and battery life.
The first person to hit good performance, under $200 and with at least 8 hours of battery is going to sell hundreds of millions of them.
MS and Intel will do almost anything to make sure that it's not an ARM netbook (MS because the only OS they have that runs on ARM is windowsCE and Mobile, which are both very dated and very crappy compared to Android or Moblin) that's the first one to that goal.Mark my words, you won't see mass market ARM netbooks produced unless a large government gets involved in an Anti-Trust action against both MS and Intel at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959986</id>
	<title>May be over $100 by now.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264794420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From http://armdevices.net/2010/01/29/android-laptop-review-hivision-pws700ca/</p><p>"<i>The price has not yet been announced officially because Hivision is looking for worldwide distributors who will then decide how much it will be sold for to end consumers. But you can understand that if Hivision was able to sell those types of laptops for $98 to distributors more than a year ago (when I filmed my popular video from IFA 2008), then surely the mass manufacturing price has not gone up since then.</i>"</p><p>Sorry, the author of the article <b>may have</b> made a big boo-boo.</p><p>The 2008 price was $98, the 2010 price may have to be over $100.</p><p>1. Price of RAM has shot up since 2008.</p><p>2. Price of LCD has also increased somewhat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From http : //armdevices.net/2010/01/29/android-laptop-review-hivision-pws700ca/ " The price has not yet been announced officially because Hivision is looking for worldwide distributors who will then decide how much it will be sold for to end consumers .
But you can understand that if Hivision was able to sell those types of laptops for $ 98 to distributors more than a year ago ( when I filmed my popular video from IFA 2008 ) , then surely the mass manufacturing price has not gone up since then .
" Sorry , the author of the article may have made a big boo-boo.The 2008 price was $ 98 , the 2010 price may have to be over $ 100.1 .
Price of RAM has shot up since 2008.2 .
Price of LCD has also increased somewhat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From http://armdevices.net/2010/01/29/android-laptop-review-hivision-pws700ca/"The price has not yet been announced officially because Hivision is looking for worldwide distributors who will then decide how much it will be sold for to end consumers.
But you can understand that if Hivision was able to sell those types of laptops for $98 to distributors more than a year ago (when I filmed my popular video from IFA 2008), then surely the mass manufacturing price has not gone up since then.
"Sorry, the author of the article may have made a big boo-boo.The 2008 price was $98, the 2010 price may have to be over $100.1.
Price of RAM has shot up since 2008.2.
Price of LCD has also increased somewhat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961060</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it.</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1264853400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This theory is nice an dandy, but Intel did not just churn out a completely new product line in a few months.</p><p>I am among the most zealous ARM \_Note\_book supporters, but let's stick to facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This theory is nice an dandy , but Intel did not just churn out a completely new product line in a few months.I am among the most zealous ARM \ _Note \ _book supporters , but let 's stick to facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This theory is nice an dandy, but Intel did not just churn out a completely new product line in a few months.I am among the most zealous ARM \_Note\_book supporters, but let's stick to facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962038</id>
	<title>Re:Not a $100 laptop</title>
	<author>Charbax</author>
	<datestamp>1264865640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely if Google designs a perfect one and launches manufacturing of 10 million units, they can make them at $60 a piece and sell them on google.com/laptop for less than $100 also subsidized further by Google's online ads. The biggest cost of the laptop is the screen, using <a href="http://armdevices.net/2010/01/08/charbax-tests-pixel-qi-at-ces-2010/" title="armdevices.net">Pixel Qi</a> [armdevices.net] the battery life can be upwards more than 20 hours even with a small cheap Laptop battery.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely if Google designs a perfect one and launches manufacturing of 10 million units , they can make them at $ 60 a piece and sell them on google.com/laptop for less than $ 100 also subsidized further by Google 's online ads .
The biggest cost of the laptop is the screen , using Pixel Qi [ armdevices.net ] the battery life can be upwards more than 20 hours even with a small cheap Laptop battery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely if Google designs a perfect one and launches manufacturing of 10 million units, they can make them at $60 a piece and sell them on google.com/laptop for less than $100 also subsidized further by Google's online ads.
The biggest cost of the laptop is the screen, using Pixel Qi [armdevices.net] the battery life can be upwards more than 20 hours even with a small cheap Laptop battery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958662</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop vs Cellphone Costs</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1264779600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Ok can someone please explain why a cell phone with less power then this laptop costs around 300 bucks and that apparently still does not cover the mfg costs of the device hence the locked in contracts to recoup phone costs? Yet this laptop with an arm proc and a larger screen and more moving parts can be sold at 100??? The iPhone costs $179 to mfg.. Pre $138... g1 $140</i> <br> <br>
Very good question there. $100 seems almost too cheap, though I agree with other people's comments that this price point is a game changer - that's an impulse buy for a lot of people, and something attainable for many,many more with some planning and saving. So how can this work for the manufacturers? Does it have anything to do with GSM/CDMA licensing/development/hardware, or the lack thereof in this case? <br>
I still dig my G1, but if I could get something else with a bigger, better screen and that smokes the phone but is still highly portable for only $100, I'd buy one immediately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok can someone please explain why a cell phone with less power then this laptop costs around 300 bucks and that apparently still does not cover the mfg costs of the device hence the locked in contracts to recoup phone costs ?
Yet this laptop with an arm proc and a larger screen and more moving parts can be sold at 100 ? ? ?
The iPhone costs $ 179 to mfg.. Pre $ 138... g1 $ 140 Very good question there .
$ 100 seems almost too cheap , though I agree with other people 's comments that this price point is a game changer - that 's an impulse buy for a lot of people , and something attainable for many,many more with some planning and saving .
So how can this work for the manufacturers ?
Does it have anything to do with GSM/CDMA licensing/development/hardware , or the lack thereof in this case ?
I still dig my G1 , but if I could get something else with a bigger , better screen and that smokes the phone but is still highly portable for only $ 100 , I 'd buy one immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok can someone please explain why a cell phone with less power then this laptop costs around 300 bucks and that apparently still does not cover the mfg costs of the device hence the locked in contracts to recoup phone costs?
Yet this laptop with an arm proc and a larger screen and more moving parts can be sold at 100???
The iPhone costs $179 to mfg.. Pre $138... g1 $140  
Very good question there.
$100 seems almost too cheap, though I agree with other people's comments that this price point is a game changer - that's an impulse buy for a lot of people, and something attainable for many,many more with some planning and saving.
So how can this work for the manufacturers?
Does it have anything to do with GSM/CDMA licensing/development/hardware, or the lack thereof in this case?
I still dig my G1, but if I could get something else with a bigger, better screen and that smokes the phone but is still highly portable for only $100, I'd buy one immediately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958356</id>
	<title>Cheap Enough</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1264776720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My $350 netbook is still expensive enough for me to be somewhat protective of it it. At $100, it becomes something that is tossed somewhat casually into a backpack, or if it's small enough, a coat pocket. I'd buy a couple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My $ 350 netbook is still expensive enough for me to be somewhat protective of it it .
At $ 100 , it becomes something that is tossed somewhat casually into a backpack , or if it 's small enough , a coat pocket .
I 'd buy a couple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My $350 netbook is still expensive enough for me to be somewhat protective of it it.
At $100, it becomes something that is tossed somewhat casually into a backpack, or if it's small enough, a coat pocket.
I'd buy a couple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959146</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it.</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1264783560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can't wait to slap down $200 to $300 for an ultralight, long-battery life, ARM-based netbook running Linux</p></div></blockquote><p>Nintendo DSi once somebody cracks it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>DS Linux works on the DS but the low memory and WEP WiFi limits what you can do with it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait to slap down $ 200 to $ 300 for an ultralight , long-battery life , ARM-based netbook running LinuxNintendo DSi once somebody cracks it : ) DS Linux works on the DS but the low memory and WEP WiFi limits what you can do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait to slap down $200 to $300 for an ultralight, long-battery life, ARM-based netbook running LinuxNintendo DSi once somebody cracks it :)DS Linux works on the DS but the low memory and WEP WiFi limits what you can do with it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390</id>
	<title>I'll believe it when I can buy it.</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1264776960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've been hearing about ARM laptops/netbooks/smartbooks for over a year now. They were demoed at CES 2009, and promised to be delivered during 2009. Nothing came. They were demoed at CES 2010, and promised to be delivered during 2010.</p><p>I can't wait to slap down $200 to $300 for an ultralight, long-battery life, ARM-based netbook running Linux. But until they make it out of video reviews and trade shows and into stores or online for purchase, what good are they?</p><p>Lenovo Skylight is pretty much the first firm offering we've seen, but it ain't cheap. The Touchbook seems to be a Beagleboard in a nice case, and isn't being mass-produced like other netbooks. Now that the iPad is out (with an ARM-based processor) and MSI et al. have ARM offerings in the pipeline, with manufacturers finally grow some balls, realize they can offer a non-Intel machine and still use Intel on their other machines, and offer us some cheap ARM netbooks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've been hearing about ARM laptops/netbooks/smartbooks for over a year now .
They were demoed at CES 2009 , and promised to be delivered during 2009 .
Nothing came .
They were demoed at CES 2010 , and promised to be delivered during 2010.I ca n't wait to slap down $ 200 to $ 300 for an ultralight , long-battery life , ARM-based netbook running Linux .
But until they make it out of video reviews and trade shows and into stores or online for purchase , what good are they ? Lenovo Skylight is pretty much the first firm offering we 've seen , but it ai n't cheap .
The Touchbook seems to be a Beagleboard in a nice case , and is n't being mass-produced like other netbooks .
Now that the iPad is out ( with an ARM-based processor ) and MSI et al .
have ARM offerings in the pipeline , with manufacturers finally grow some balls , realize they can offer a non-Intel machine and still use Intel on their other machines , and offer us some cheap ARM netbooks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've been hearing about ARM laptops/netbooks/smartbooks for over a year now.
They were demoed at CES 2009, and promised to be delivered during 2009.
Nothing came.
They were demoed at CES 2010, and promised to be delivered during 2010.I can't wait to slap down $200 to $300 for an ultralight, long-battery life, ARM-based netbook running Linux.
But until they make it out of video reviews and trade shows and into stores or online for purchase, what good are they?Lenovo Skylight is pretty much the first firm offering we've seen, but it ain't cheap.
The Touchbook seems to be a Beagleboard in a nice case, and isn't being mass-produced like other netbooks.
Now that the iPad is out (with an ARM-based processor) and MSI et al.
have ARM offerings in the pipeline, with manufacturers finally grow some balls, realize they can offer a non-Intel machine and still use Intel on their other machines, and offer us some cheap ARM netbooks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958486</id>
	<title>Make mine a slate, please!</title>
	<author>dokebi</author>
	<datestamp>1264777980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I see all the limitations of a tablet. But as an internet consumption device, it is an ideal form factor. And at $100, I can replace it every 6 months.</p><p>Finally, something I want to buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I see all the limitations of a tablet .
But as an internet consumption device , it is an ideal form factor .
And at $ 100 , I can replace it every 6 months.Finally , something I want to buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I see all the limitations of a tablet.
But as an internet consumption device, it is an ideal form factor.
And at $100, I can replace it every 6 months.Finally, something I want to buy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958530</id>
	<title>A comment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264778400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is one fugly netbook with very limited memory. I might buy one as a play computer for my two year old. Otherwise - its a fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is one fugly netbook with very limited memory .
I might buy one as a play computer for my two year old .
Otherwise - its a fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is one fugly netbook with very limited memory.
I might buy one as a play computer for my two year old.
Otherwise - its a fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959398</id>
	<title>where can i buy it?</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1264786440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA is only speculating at the price. really, let's see this article when there's a link where this device can be purchased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA is only speculating at the price .
really , let 's see this article when there 's a link where this device can be purchased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA is only speculating at the price.
really, let's see this article when there's a link where this device can be purchased.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958610</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop vs Cellphone Costs</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1264779120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Miniaturization and 'i am so cool now cause i own one of these'-prize inflation come to mind here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Miniaturization and 'i am so cool now cause i own one of these'-prize inflation come to mind here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Miniaturization and 'i am so cool now cause i own one of these'-prize inflation come to mind here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958574</id>
	<title>Re:720p playback on a 800x480 screen??</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1264778820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>800 &gt; 720, so turn it sideways. And now for the humor impaired...</htmltext>
<tokenext>800 &gt; 720 , so turn it sideways .
And now for the humor impaired.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>800 &gt; 720, so turn it sideways.
And now for the humor impaired...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960128</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap Enough</title>
	<author>oztiks</author>
	<datestamp>1264882620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here we go<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/IDP-MULTIMEDIA-NOTEBOOK-COMPUTER-FMA862-48MB-2GB-WIN-95\_W0QQitemZ310180530773QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLaptops\_Nov05?hash=item4838334a55" title="ebay.com">IDP Multimedia Notebook</a> [ebay.com]</p><p>Cheaper enough for you? Plus this one is built to last<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go ...IDP Multimedia Notebook [ ebay.com ] Cheaper enough for you ?
Plus this one is built to last : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we go ...IDP Multimedia Notebook [ebay.com]Cheaper enough for you?
Plus this one is built to last :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959542</id>
	<title>Re:Milestone</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1264788000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, "I would buy too, if it just had<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...".</p><p>It will be missing good quality keyboard, 1280x720 display, 200gig SSD drive, 4gig memory, quad cores, OpenCL, 1000 hour battery life, weight less than 1kg, WiFi and 3G. And will be too expensive - I'd pay only 50.</p><p>Translation: What it will miss is mass appeal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , " I would buy too , if it just had ... " .It will be missing good quality keyboard , 1280x720 display , 200gig SSD drive , 4gig memory , quad cores , OpenCL , 1000 hour battery life , weight less than 1kg , WiFi and 3G .
And will be too expensive - I 'd pay only 50.Translation : What it will miss is mass appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, "I would buy too, if it just had ...".It will be missing good quality keyboard, 1280x720 display, 200gig SSD drive, 4gig memory, quad cores, OpenCL, 1000 hour battery life, weight less than 1kg, WiFi and 3G.
And will be too expensive - I'd pay only 50.Translation: What it will miss is mass appeal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958386</id>
	<title>Re:720p playback on a 800x480 screen??</title>
	<author>fredjh</author>
	<datestamp>1264776960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>External output?  That would be incredible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>External output ?
That would be incredible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>External output?
That would be incredible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958700</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but not the iPad-killer</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1264779900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has 1 USB port and an SD slot.  It looks like it has space for a second USB port, but the specs don't mention it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has 1 USB port and an SD slot .
It looks like it has space for a second USB port , but the specs do n't mention it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has 1 USB port and an SD slot.
It looks like it has space for a second USB port, but the specs don't mention it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958578</id>
	<title>Re:Other distros?</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264778880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Other distros? Sure would be nice, but the fact that they're ARM means it probably won't be ready just yet.</p></div><p> <a href="http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/SHR" title="openmoko.org">SHR</a> [openmoko.org] would probably work with a bit of kernel tweaking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other distros ?
Sure would be nice , but the fact that they 're ARM means it probably wo n't be ready just yet .
SHR [ openmoko.org ] would probably work with a bit of kernel tweaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other distros?
Sure would be nice, but the fact that they're ARM means it probably won't be ready just yet.
SHR [openmoko.org] would probably work with a bit of kernel tweaking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354</id>
	<title>720p playback on a 800x480 screen??</title>
	<author>ashitaka</author>
	<datestamp>1264776720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article: "800&#215;480 screen, 720p Video playback support"</p><p>Someone care to enlighten me as to how you get a 720 progressive-scan image on a screen that is only 480 pixels high?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " 800   480 screen , 720p Video playback support " Someone care to enlighten me as to how you get a 720 progressive-scan image on a screen that is only 480 pixels high ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "800×480 screen, 720p Video playback support"Someone care to enlighten me as to how you get a 720 progressive-scan image on a screen that is only 480 pixels high?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30967776</id>
	<title>$100 laptop?  I'll bet!</title>
	<author>ALeader71</author>
	<datestamp>1264868340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still waiting for my $50 Star Trek type pad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still waiting for my $ 50 Star Trek type pad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still waiting for my $50 Star Trek type pad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30965276</id>
	<title>Re:Not a $100 laptop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264844580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that you can probably get ARM based SoCs with more embedded memory than the original 8086 PC, running 100x faster, with all the other things you need in a computer, probably for under $10 (for an older ARM design), I think that you're not too far off being able to build a (relatively rubbish) computer for $20/$30. Not quite the $2 you said, but indeed there are fixed costs to making PCs that need to be taken into account.</p><p>It's probably possible to take all the components on the original PC, create a single chip containing them all (on a cheap older process it would probably still be a tiny chip) and sell that. Nobody would want it, of course, but if it could sell millions, someone would do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that you can probably get ARM based SoCs with more embedded memory than the original 8086 PC , running 100x faster , with all the other things you need in a computer , probably for under $ 10 ( for an older ARM design ) , I think that you 're not too far off being able to build a ( relatively rubbish ) computer for $ 20/ $ 30 .
Not quite the $ 2 you said , but indeed there are fixed costs to making PCs that need to be taken into account.It 's probably possible to take all the components on the original PC , create a single chip containing them all ( on a cheap older process it would probably still be a tiny chip ) and sell that .
Nobody would want it , of course , but if it could sell millions , someone would do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that you can probably get ARM based SoCs with more embedded memory than the original 8086 PC, running 100x faster, with all the other things you need in a computer, probably for under $10 (for an older ARM design), I think that you're not too far off being able to build a (relatively rubbish) computer for $20/$30.
Not quite the $2 you said, but indeed there are fixed costs to making PCs that need to be taken into account.It's probably possible to take all the components on the original PC, create a single chip containing them all (on a cheap older process it would probably still be a tiny chip) and sell that.
Nobody would want it, of course, but if it could sell millions, someone would do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961814</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264863600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>At the 2008 CES dozens of ARM "netbooks" running Linux were displayed and a big hit at the show. They were produced on ARM and Linux because Intel didn't have Atom yet so no cheap x86 processor with any horsepower, and Microsoft charged $89 for XP.</i> </p><p>$89 as the wholesale price - the OEM price - for XP?</p><p>Quoted for purchases of 10,000 units? 100,000? A million? To put this in perspective, the brand-name Win 7 netbook has already broken the $300 price point. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mini-210-1010NR-10-1-Inch-Black-Netbook/dp/B00318CGBO#OSTag" title="amazon.com">HP Mini 210-1010NR 10.1-Inch Black Netbook</a> [amazon.com] </p><p><i>So you ask what killed the Arm Netbook?</i> </p><p>Sales.</p><p>No one in big box retail fought longer and harder to make a go of Linux than WalMart.</p><p>Nothing came of it.</p><p>Walmart.com currently lists 111 laptops, 48 desktops, all Windows, and all but a bare handful running Win 7 Home Premium.</p><p>What I find most surprising - and significant - is the disappearance of the netbook from WalMart's retail shelves.</p><p>Down to a lone Dell <a href="http://www.walmart.com/ip/Dell-10.1-160-GB-IM10-3067SWH/12456228" title="walmart.com">Nickelodeon</a> [walmart.com] branded laptop for kids.</p><p>It could just be that WalMart's customers are finding other products more compelling: <a href="http://www.walmart.com/ip/Kodak-Zi8/12516418" title="walmart.com">Kodak Zi8 Aqua Pocket 1080p Video Camera</a> [walmart.com] $180.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the 2008 CES dozens of ARM " netbooks " running Linux were displayed and a big hit at the show .
They were produced on ARM and Linux because Intel did n't have Atom yet so no cheap x86 processor with any horsepower , and Microsoft charged $ 89 for XP .
$ 89 as the wholesale price - the OEM price - for XP ? Quoted for purchases of 10,000 units ?
100,000 ? A million ?
To put this in perspective , the brand-name Win 7 netbook has already broken the $ 300 price point .
HP Mini 210-1010NR 10.1-Inch Black Netbook [ amazon.com ] So you ask what killed the Arm Netbook ?
Sales.No one in big box retail fought longer and harder to make a go of Linux than WalMart.Nothing came of it.Walmart.com currently lists 111 laptops , 48 desktops , all Windows , and all but a bare handful running Win 7 Home Premium.What I find most surprising - and significant - is the disappearance of the netbook from WalMart 's retail shelves.Down to a lone Dell Nickelodeon [ walmart.com ] branded laptop for kids.It could just be that WalMart 's customers are finding other products more compelling : Kodak Zi8 Aqua Pocket 1080p Video Camera [ walmart.com ] $ 180 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the 2008 CES dozens of ARM "netbooks" running Linux were displayed and a big hit at the show.
They were produced on ARM and Linux because Intel didn't have Atom yet so no cheap x86 processor with any horsepower, and Microsoft charged $89 for XP.
$89 as the wholesale price - the OEM price - for XP?Quoted for purchases of 10,000 units?
100,000? A million?
To put this in perspective, the brand-name Win 7 netbook has already broken the $300 price point.
HP Mini 210-1010NR 10.1-Inch Black Netbook [amazon.com] So you ask what killed the Arm Netbook?
Sales.No one in big box retail fought longer and harder to make a go of Linux than WalMart.Nothing came of it.Walmart.com currently lists 111 laptops, 48 desktops, all Windows, and all but a bare handful running Win 7 Home Premium.What I find most surprising - and significant - is the disappearance of the netbook from WalMart's retail shelves.Down to a lone Dell Nickelodeon [walmart.com] branded laptop for kids.It could just be that WalMart's customers are finding other products more compelling: Kodak Zi8 Aqua Pocket 1080p Video Camera [walmart.com] $180.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960614</id>
	<title>Re:Other distros?</title>
	<author>deniable</author>
	<datestamp>1264845780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't you Get the Facts before you post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you Get the Facts before you post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you Get the Facts before you post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960404</id>
	<title>Where's the mutant love?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264842480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, laptop designers. I'm part of a small class people kind of similar to the mutants from xmen.</p><p>We have this uncanny ability. It's called "typing by touch." We need full sized shift, backspace, and backslash keys in order to exercise our abilities.</p><p>Now, we don't expect you to change your product just to suit a small group like us, but it would be nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , laptop designers .
I 'm part of a small class people kind of similar to the mutants from xmen.We have this uncanny ability .
It 's called " typing by touch .
" We need full sized shift , backspace , and backslash keys in order to exercise our abilities.Now , we do n't expect you to change your product just to suit a small group like us , but it would be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, laptop designers.
I'm part of a small class people kind of similar to the mutants from xmen.We have this uncanny ability.
It's called "typing by touch.
" We need full sized shift, backspace, and backslash keys in order to exercise our abilities.Now, we don't expect you to change your product just to suit a small group like us, but it would be nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959834</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but not the iPad-killer</title>
	<author>Thud457</author>
	<datestamp>1264792200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the iPad was the iPad-killer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the iPad was the iPad-killer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the iPad was the iPad-killer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30971438</id>
	<title>Re:Not a $100 laptop</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1264962420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If that were true, IBM would still be making 8088-based PCs and selling them for a few bucks. (Take the $2K 1981 price and divide by 2 about 15 times.)</p></div></blockquote><p>The fact that nobody wants 8088s is quite relevant.  Nobody uses 5.25" floppies.  Instead, people who need something with specs similar to an 8088 DO buy boards with microcontrollers and solid-state storage for a couple bucks.</p><blockquote><div><p>Instead, you can't buy a new 8088-based system for any price -- it's not worth Intel's while to even manufacture the chip, never mind somebody else to build a system around it.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ummm...  Z-80 anyone?  Still cranking 'em out.</p><blockquote><div><p>There's always a certain minimum cost to any manufacturing process. Scaling up reduces costs, and so does Moore's law, but only to a point. You'll always have to pay for materials, factory space, workers, shipping, marketing, etc. Some of these things are cheaper outside the U.S., but again, only to a point.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, but I can buy a calculator for $5...  A very low-spec computer, which also needs all of the things you've listed.</p><blockquote><div><p>Of course, even a $200 laptop would be damned popular. And a couple years after they come out, you'll be able to buy used ones on eBay for a pittance.</p></div></blockquote><p>There are low-end laptops all over the place now for $200.  The fact you haven't noticed suggests they really haven't taken the world by storm.</p><p>IMHO, $100 computers are perfectly feasible.  In fact I'd love to have little $20 handheld with tiny character-based B&amp;W LCD screen, bubble keyboard, running a stripped version of Unix.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If that were true , IBM would still be making 8088-based PCs and selling them for a few bucks .
( Take the $ 2K 1981 price and divide by 2 about 15 times .
) The fact that nobody wants 8088s is quite relevant .
Nobody uses 5.25 " floppies .
Instead , people who need something with specs similar to an 8088 DO buy boards with microcontrollers and solid-state storage for a couple bucks.Instead , you ca n't buy a new 8088-based system for any price -- it 's not worth Intel 's while to even manufacture the chip , never mind somebody else to build a system around it.Ummm... Z-80 anyone ?
Still cranking 'em out.There 's always a certain minimum cost to any manufacturing process .
Scaling up reduces costs , and so does Moore 's law , but only to a point .
You 'll always have to pay for materials , factory space , workers , shipping , marketing , etc .
Some of these things are cheaper outside the U.S. , but again , only to a point.Yes , but I can buy a calculator for $ 5... A very low-spec computer , which also needs all of the things you 've listed.Of course , even a $ 200 laptop would be damned popular .
And a couple years after they come out , you 'll be able to buy used ones on eBay for a pittance.There are low-end laptops all over the place now for $ 200 .
The fact you have n't noticed suggests they really have n't taken the world by storm.IMHO , $ 100 computers are perfectly feasible .
In fact I 'd love to have little $ 20 handheld with tiny character-based B&amp;W LCD screen , bubble keyboard , running a stripped version of Unix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that were true, IBM would still be making 8088-based PCs and selling them for a few bucks.
(Take the $2K 1981 price and divide by 2 about 15 times.
)The fact that nobody wants 8088s is quite relevant.
Nobody uses 5.25" floppies.
Instead, people who need something with specs similar to an 8088 DO buy boards with microcontrollers and solid-state storage for a couple bucks.Instead, you can't buy a new 8088-based system for any price -- it's not worth Intel's while to even manufacture the chip, never mind somebody else to build a system around it.Ummm...  Z-80 anyone?
Still cranking 'em out.There's always a certain minimum cost to any manufacturing process.
Scaling up reduces costs, and so does Moore's law, but only to a point.
You'll always have to pay for materials, factory space, workers, shipping, marketing, etc.
Some of these things are cheaper outside the U.S., but again, only to a point.Yes, but I can buy a calculator for $5...  A very low-spec computer, which also needs all of the things you've listed.Of course, even a $200 laptop would be damned popular.
And a couple years after they come out, you'll be able to buy used ones on eBay for a pittance.There are low-end laptops all over the place now for $200.
The fact you haven't noticed suggests they really haven't taken the world by storm.IMHO, $100 computers are perfectly feasible.
In fact I'd love to have little $20 handheld with tiny character-based B&amp;W LCD screen, bubble keyboard, running a stripped version of Unix.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958656</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap Enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264779540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meh.  Buy one, and if it breaks in six months, buy one with better specs to replace it.  There are a few devices with similar specs hitting the market at around this price at the moment, so I'll probably pick one up before the summer.  Ideally something with a screen that works outside, so I can use it in the park.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh .
Buy one , and if it breaks in six months , buy one with better specs to replace it .
There are a few devices with similar specs hitting the market at around this price at the moment , so I 'll probably pick one up before the summer .
Ideally something with a screen that works outside , so I can use it in the park .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh.
Buy one, and if it breaks in six months, buy one with better specs to replace it.
There are a few devices with similar specs hitting the market at around this price at the moment, so I'll probably pick one up before the summer.
Ideally something with a screen that works outside, so I can use it in the park.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959228</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop vs Cellphone Costs</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1264784460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given two devices that do the same thing:</p><p>1)  The bigger one will cost more<br>2)  The one with less battery life will cost more<br>3)  The effects of #1 and #2 compound dramatically.</p><p>As in, small batteries holding lots of charge are expensive.  Working well on less charge is expensive.  Smaller components are generally more expensive.</p><p>Oh, and custom processors are more expensive than off-the-shelf ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given two devices that do the same thing : 1 ) The bigger one will cost more2 ) The one with less battery life will cost more3 ) The effects of # 1 and # 2 compound dramatically.As in , small batteries holding lots of charge are expensive .
Working well on less charge is expensive .
Smaller components are generally more expensive.Oh , and custom processors are more expensive than off-the-shelf ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given two devices that do the same thing:1)  The bigger one will cost more2)  The one with less battery life will cost more3)  The effects of #1 and #2 compound dramatically.As in, small batteries holding lots of charge are expensive.
Working well on less charge is expensive.
Smaller components are generally more expensive.Oh, and custom processors are more expensive than off-the-shelf ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960136</id>
	<title>Re:A comment</title>
	<author>randallman</author>
	<datestamp>1264882680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Windows Vista/7 has really warped peoples notion of useful memory size.  There are many uses for a device like this that don't require gigabytes of RAM.  The applications that run on a Nokia N800/N810 with 128Mb of RAM are a testament to that.  I would certainly have a use for a sub-notebook sized device with the power and power consumption of my N800.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Windows Vista/7 has really warped peoples notion of useful memory size .
There are many uses for a device like this that do n't require gigabytes of RAM .
The applications that run on a Nokia N800/N810 with 128Mb of RAM are a testament to that .
I would certainly have a use for a sub-notebook sized device with the power and power consumption of my N800 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Windows Vista/7 has really warped peoples notion of useful memory size.
There are many uses for a device like this that don't require gigabytes of RAM.
The applications that run on a Nokia N800/N810 with 128Mb of RAM are a testament to that.
I would certainly have a use for a sub-notebook sized device with the power and power consumption of my N800.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958530</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958414</id>
	<title>Interesting, but not the iPad-killer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264777140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite an interesting device. I might even want one myself, but only if it gets support for YouTube. I didn't see any mention of how much storage it comes with, but I would hope that it at least comes with a couple of USB ports and an SD card slot -- and isn't hampered by the limitations of built-in storage like the G1. I would also hope that it would support PDF (which might make it a reasonable e-book reader).</p><p>The demo showed the virtual keyboard, which I thought was a bit of a waste, especially since it was not clear that the display was touch-sensitive.</p><p>As for the hope that a company like WalMart would pick this up and sell it for $100 or less, I don't think that will happen. Most of the folks that shop at WalMart are not techies, and in its present form, this is a netbook only a techie would put up with. It's certainly not the iPad-killer, even though I personally would not buy an iPad (or Kindle, or any other platform that allows the vendor to "repossess" content).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite an interesting device .
I might even want one myself , but only if it gets support for YouTube .
I did n't see any mention of how much storage it comes with , but I would hope that it at least comes with a couple of USB ports and an SD card slot -- and is n't hampered by the limitations of built-in storage like the G1 .
I would also hope that it would support PDF ( which might make it a reasonable e-book reader ) .The demo showed the virtual keyboard , which I thought was a bit of a waste , especially since it was not clear that the display was touch-sensitive.As for the hope that a company like WalMart would pick this up and sell it for $ 100 or less , I do n't think that will happen .
Most of the folks that shop at WalMart are not techies , and in its present form , this is a netbook only a techie would put up with .
It 's certainly not the iPad-killer , even though I personally would not buy an iPad ( or Kindle , or any other platform that allows the vendor to " repossess " content ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite an interesting device.
I might even want one myself, but only if it gets support for YouTube.
I didn't see any mention of how much storage it comes with, but I would hope that it at least comes with a couple of USB ports and an SD card slot -- and isn't hampered by the limitations of built-in storage like the G1.
I would also hope that it would support PDF (which might make it a reasonable e-book reader).The demo showed the virtual keyboard, which I thought was a bit of a waste, especially since it was not clear that the display was touch-sensitive.As for the hope that a company like WalMart would pick this up and sell it for $100 or less, I don't think that will happen.
Most of the folks that shop at WalMart are not techies, and in its present form, this is a netbook only a techie would put up with.
It's certainly not the iPad-killer, even though I personally would not buy an iPad (or Kindle, or any other platform that allows the vendor to "repossess" content).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958428</id>
	<title>Milestone</title>
	<author>sonicmerlin</author>
	<datestamp>1264777320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always felt that $100 was the magic barrier for turning a netbook into an impulse buy, and that if the barrier was ever reached it would truly become a mass market phenomenon.

What I want to see now is an attempt to make the screens a little larger and obviously specs a little faster over time, all while maintaining that same price point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always felt that $ 100 was the magic barrier for turning a netbook into an impulse buy , and that if the barrier was ever reached it would truly become a mass market phenomenon .
What I want to see now is an attempt to make the screens a little larger and obviously specs a little faster over time , all while maintaining that same price point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always felt that $100 was the magic barrier for turning a netbook into an impulse buy, and that if the barrier was ever reached it would truly become a mass market phenomenon.
What I want to see now is an attempt to make the screens a little larger and obviously specs a little faster over time, all while maintaining that same price point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958384</id>
	<title>Re:720p playback on a 800x480 screen??</title>
	<author>tchuladdiass</author>
	<datestamp>1264776900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure.  You can download a 720p video, and play it on the device.  You don't have to pre-convert it to 800x480 (or 400x240, like I have to for my n810).  That's all that spec means, is the source video can be 720p.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
You can download a 720p video , and play it on the device .
You do n't have to pre-convert it to 800x480 ( or 400x240 , like I have to for my n810 ) .
That 's all that spec means , is the source video can be 720p .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
You can download a 720p video, and play it on the device.
You don't have to pre-convert it to 800x480 (or 400x240, like I have to for my n810).
That's all that spec means, is the source video can be 720p.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959866</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264792740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're saying that Microsoft is so powerful that they will be able to defeat the price pressure of the entire market indefinitely.</p><p>Not bloody likely. Just look at what's happened to their control of the Web. They fought very hard to keep a monoculture and hold back browser innovation to preserve Windows as the core of the computer, and not the browser, and they still got fended off in the end. It just took over a decade to do so. With hardware it may actually go faster, now that the browser has the central role. The only company that really stands in the way these days is Adobe, and they don't seem exactly eager to dominate the ecosystem; they want to have a presence on all platforms regardless of the specific OS or hardware, and they want to stay ahead of the in-browser technology to remain relevant, but they're doing a horrible job at the first even as they have moderate success at the second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're saying that Microsoft is so powerful that they will be able to defeat the price pressure of the entire market indefinitely.Not bloody likely .
Just look at what 's happened to their control of the Web .
They fought very hard to keep a monoculture and hold back browser innovation to preserve Windows as the core of the computer , and not the browser , and they still got fended off in the end .
It just took over a decade to do so .
With hardware it may actually go faster , now that the browser has the central role .
The only company that really stands in the way these days is Adobe , and they do n't seem exactly eager to dominate the ecosystem ; they want to have a presence on all platforms regardless of the specific OS or hardware , and they want to stay ahead of the in-browser technology to remain relevant , but they 're doing a horrible job at the first even as they have moderate success at the second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're saying that Microsoft is so powerful that they will be able to defeat the price pressure of the entire market indefinitely.Not bloody likely.
Just look at what's happened to their control of the Web.
They fought very hard to keep a monoculture and hold back browser innovation to preserve Windows as the core of the computer, and not the browser, and they still got fended off in the end.
It just took over a decade to do so.
With hardware it may actually go faster, now that the browser has the central role.
The only company that really stands in the way these days is Adobe, and they don't seem exactly eager to dominate the ecosystem; they want to have a presence on all platforms regardless of the specific OS or hardware, and they want to stay ahead of the in-browser technology to remain relevant, but they're doing a horrible job at the first even as they have moderate success at the second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961090</id>
	<title>Re:$100 ??? You get what you pay for.</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1264853820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want a long-lasting working horse. Agreed on the resolution and 1-2 GiB of RAM would be nice, but other than that, make it small and durable.</p><p>Oh, and add a TrackStick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want a long-lasting working horse .
Agreed on the resolution and 1-2 GiB of RAM would be nice , but other than that , make it small and durable.Oh , and add a TrackStick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want a long-lasting working horse.
Agreed on the resolution and 1-2 GiB of RAM would be nice, but other than that, make it small and durable.Oh, and add a TrackStick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961272</id>
	<title>No need for a conspiracy</title>
	<author>A Pressbutton</author>
	<datestamp>1264856820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Netbook makers will maximise their profits.<br>

If this is through selling windows / intel they will do just that.<br>

I personally think wintel came along with appropriate inducements.<br>

I also think that they asked themselves - does it play BB Iplayer HD / Youtube HD without stuttering at that price
- and decided to come back when it does.<br>

No point in a 100usd device if it does not work (whatever you define work to mean).<br>

In the UK, if something like this does not work with Iplayer, it will be thought to be broken (ipad).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Netbook makers will maximise their profits .
If this is through selling windows / intel they will do just that .
I personally think wintel came along with appropriate inducements .
I also think that they asked themselves - does it play BB Iplayer HD / Youtube HD without stuttering at that price - and decided to come back when it does .
No point in a 100usd device if it does not work ( whatever you define work to mean ) .
In the UK , if something like this does not work with Iplayer , it will be thought to be broken ( ipad ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netbook makers will maximise their profits.
If this is through selling windows / intel they will do just that.
I personally think wintel came along with appropriate inducements.
I also think that they asked themselves - does it play BB Iplayer HD / Youtube HD without stuttering at that price
- and decided to come back when it does.
No point in a 100usd device if it does not work (whatever you define work to mean).
In the UK, if something like this does not work with Iplayer, it will be thought to be broken (ipad).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958898</id>
	<title>Re:Milestone</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1264781580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At $100, I'm going to buy it for the pickers in the warehouse I work for.  I've been wanting to switch to a digital pick system, but the devices are either to fragile to drop from 20' up in a lift or too expensive to buy.</p><p>This is probably still too fragile and not quite so cheap that I'd be entirely cavalier about breakage, but I could buy 3 of these instead of a netbook(or 1 Office license!), cover them in spray foam and cannibalize the first break to fix the next.</p><p>If only I could buy them now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At $ 100 , I 'm going to buy it for the pickers in the warehouse I work for .
I 've been wanting to switch to a digital pick system , but the devices are either to fragile to drop from 20 ' up in a lift or too expensive to buy.This is probably still too fragile and not quite so cheap that I 'd be entirely cavalier about breakage , but I could buy 3 of these instead of a netbook ( or 1 Office license !
) , cover them in spray foam and cannibalize the first break to fix the next.If only I could buy them now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At $100, I'm going to buy it for the pickers in the warehouse I work for.
I've been wanting to switch to a digital pick system, but the devices are either to fragile to drop from 20' up in a lift or too expensive to buy.This is probably still too fragile and not quite so cheap that I'd be entirely cavalier about breakage, but I could buy 3 of these instead of a netbook(or 1 Office license!
), cover them in spray foam and cannibalize the first break to fix the next.If only I could buy them now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962126</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>SimonTheSoundMan</author>
	<datestamp>1264866420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Acorn computers did demo a <a href="http://www.acornuser.com/acornuser/year18/issue210.html" title="acornuser.com">32 x 600MHz ARM board</a> [acornuser.com] using these processors in 1999. It has already been done, 11 years before this article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Acorn computers did demo a 32 x 600MHz ARM board [ acornuser.com ] using these processors in 1999 .
It has already been done , 11 years before this article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Acorn computers did demo a 32 x 600MHz ARM board [acornuser.com] using these processors in 1999.
It has already been done, 11 years before this article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30964622</id>
	<title>Re:I don't want it</title>
	<author>sowth</author>
	<datestamp>1264883220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, that is the goal of <b>DRM</b>, not netbooks. You can do all those things with a netbook. 10 or 20 years ago, even the fastest computers where no more powerful and had no more storage than todays netbooks, yet people still managed to do all those things without relying on a special "network service." Flash cards hold gigabytes of data, unless you are making high-def really long movies or something, you won't run out of space.

</p><p>The problem is with commercial developers creating bloatware (how else are they going to get people to rebuy the same product? more features!), and their idiot wannabes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that is the goal of DRM , not netbooks .
You can do all those things with a netbook .
10 or 20 years ago , even the fastest computers where no more powerful and had no more storage than todays netbooks , yet people still managed to do all those things without relying on a special " network service .
" Flash cards hold gigabytes of data , unless you are making high-def really long movies or something , you wo n't run out of space .
The problem is with commercial developers creating bloatware ( how else are they going to get people to rebuy the same product ?
more features !
) , and their idiot wannabes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that is the goal of DRM, not netbooks.
You can do all those things with a netbook.
10 or 20 years ago, even the fastest computers where no more powerful and had no more storage than todays netbooks, yet people still managed to do all those things without relying on a special "network service.
" Flash cards hold gigabytes of data, unless you are making high-def really long movies or something, you won't run out of space.
The problem is with commercial developers creating bloatware (how else are they going to get people to rebuy the same product?
more features!
), and their idiot wannabes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958978</id>
	<title>Re:Sure, the web browsing may be snappy...</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1264782120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The iPhone has far lower resolution that that and some folks seem to like it for browsing..</htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPhone has far lower resolution that that and some folks seem to like it for browsing. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPhone has far lower resolution that that and some folks seem to like it for browsing..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959428</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264786800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>h incentives, marketing help and all sorts of bad behavior is going on to prevent this market from developing because they KNOW everyone wants a $100 cheap little web tablet/netbook that doesn't weigh much and gets great battery life [...]</i>
</p><p>I don't.  Much like tablet computers, I have never been able to figure out what I'd use a netbook for (especially an ARM-based one).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>h incentives , marketing help and all sorts of bad behavior is going on to prevent this market from developing because they KNOW everyone wants a $ 100 cheap little web tablet/netbook that does n't weigh much and gets great battery life [ ... ] I do n't .
Much like tablet computers , I have never been able to figure out what I 'd use a netbook for ( especially an ARM-based one ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> h incentives, marketing help and all sorts of bad behavior is going on to prevent this market from developing because they KNOW everyone wants a $100 cheap little web tablet/netbook that doesn't weigh much and gets great battery life [...]
I don't.
Much like tablet computers, I have never been able to figure out what I'd use a netbook for (especially an ARM-based one).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959786</id>
	<title>Re:Other distros?</title>
	<author>Air-conditioned cowh</author>
	<datestamp>1264791420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The greatest thing about these laptops is, if they're as good as the article claims, the fact that they're ARM processors means that there won't be a version of Windows out for them for ages/ever.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=257308&amp;source=1" title="maplin.co.uk">Oops....</a> [maplin.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The greatest thing about these laptops is , if they 're as good as the article claims , the fact that they 're ARM processors means that there wo n't be a version of Windows out for them for ages/ever .
Oops.... [ maplin.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The greatest thing about these laptops is, if they're as good as the article claims, the fact that they're ARM processors means that there won't be a version of Windows out for them for ages/ever.
Oops.... [maplin.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959496</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but not the iPad-killer</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264787640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As for the hope that a company like WalMart would pick this up and sell it for $100 or less</i> </p><p>WalMart needs product to fill 2500 stores.</p><p><a href="http://hvsco.com/ProductsView.asp?articleid=789HiVision" title="hvsco.com">Hivision's </a> [hvsco.com] site doesn't quote a retail price. It doesn't quote a wholesale price.</p><p>Their English language contacts use Hotmail and Skype. The company has been around for about ten years. Mostly they seem to make digital photo frames and Win CE netbooks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for the hope that a company like WalMart would pick this up and sell it for $ 100 or less WalMart needs product to fill 2500 stores.Hivision 's [ hvsco.com ] site does n't quote a retail price .
It does n't quote a wholesale price.Their English language contacts use Hotmail and Skype .
The company has been around for about ten years .
Mostly they seem to make digital photo frames and Win CE netbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for the hope that a company like WalMart would pick this up and sell it for $100 or less WalMart needs product to fill 2500 stores.Hivision's  [hvsco.com] site doesn't quote a retail price.
It doesn't quote a wholesale price.Their English language contacts use Hotmail and Skype.
The company has been around for about ten years.
Mostly they seem to make digital photo frames and Win CE netbooks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962468</id>
	<title>Re:Cheap Enough</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264869060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I already thought about stacking up a Beowulf-cluster of them for $2000! That sure would be a cool &ldquo;tower&rdquo; below your desk.<br>And think about the screen space!</p><p>If only one could easily detach the screens from the rest...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I already thought about stacking up a Beowulf-cluster of them for $ 2000 !
That sure would be a cool    tower    below your desk.And think about the screen space ! If only one could easily detach the screens from the rest.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already thought about stacking up a Beowulf-cluster of them for $2000!
That sure would be a cool “tower” below your desk.And think about the screen space!If only one could easily detach the screens from the rest...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959296</id>
	<title>Re:Other distros?</title>
	<author>fat\_mike</author>
	<datestamp>1264785300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No offense but Microsoft doesn't have to use their market share because Linux doesn't have any at all.  I've never seen an anti-linux commercial from Microsoft.  Again, why should they spend money on fighting something that for the majority of the world's population doesn't exist?
<br> <br>
Remember all those awesome Flash ads for Android that ran on CNN's website and were all over the television three weeks ago?  Yeah, I haven't seen one since.<br> <br>
One more time Slashdot.  You encompass about 0.0000001\% of the population that actually spends money on things.  Nobody cares.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No offense but Microsoft does n't have to use their market share because Linux does n't have any at all .
I 've never seen an anti-linux commercial from Microsoft .
Again , why should they spend money on fighting something that for the majority of the world 's population does n't exist ?
Remember all those awesome Flash ads for Android that ran on CNN 's website and were all over the television three weeks ago ?
Yeah , I have n't seen one since .
One more time Slashdot .
You encompass about 0.0000001 \ % of the population that actually spends money on things .
Nobody cares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No offense but Microsoft doesn't have to use their market share because Linux doesn't have any at all.
I've never seen an anti-linux commercial from Microsoft.
Again, why should they spend money on fighting something that for the majority of the world's population doesn't exist?
Remember all those awesome Flash ads for Android that ran on CNN's website and were all over the television three weeks ago?
Yeah, I haven't seen one since.
One more time Slashdot.
You encompass about 0.0000001\% of the population that actually spends money on things.
Nobody cares.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30966234</id>
	<title>Re:Other distros?</title>
	<author>speculatrix</author>
	<datestamp>1264852320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's been done, there's been ubuntu for the zaurus for quite some time, it got the nickname zubuntu, and is still undergoing casual development, it can also be used to run android on zaurus
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=zubuntu+zaurus" title="google.co.uk">http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=zubuntu+zaurus</a> [google.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's been done , there 's been ubuntu for the zaurus for quite some time , it got the nickname zubuntu , and is still undergoing casual development , it can also be used to run android on zaurus http : //www.google.co.uk/search ? q = zubuntu + zaurus [ google.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's been done, there's been ubuntu for the zaurus for quite some time, it got the nickname zubuntu, and is still undergoing casual development, it can also be used to run android on zaurus


http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=zubuntu+zaurus [google.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958708</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop vs Cellphone Costs</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1264780080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cell phones are actually quite hard to integrate. Batteries are smaller so you have to suspend a lot. You have to come out of suspend fast and not muck up the phone module as you do it. You have to wake up on an incoming call and start ringtones, etc. Openmoko distros frequently break on simple upgrades in weird ways, I tend to upgrade infrequently for that reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cell phones are actually quite hard to integrate .
Batteries are smaller so you have to suspend a lot .
You have to come out of suspend fast and not muck up the phone module as you do it .
You have to wake up on an incoming call and start ringtones , etc .
Openmoko distros frequently break on simple upgrades in weird ways , I tend to upgrade infrequently for that reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cell phones are actually quite hard to integrate.
Batteries are smaller so you have to suspend a lot.
You have to come out of suspend fast and not muck up the phone module as you do it.
You have to wake up on an incoming call and start ringtones, etc.
Openmoko distros frequently break on simple upgrades in weird ways, I tend to upgrade infrequently for that reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959138</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting, but not the iPad-killer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264783440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iPad needs to be released, and be wildly successful, before we start talking about 'iPad-killers.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iPad needs to be released , and be wildly successful , before we start talking about 'iPad-killers .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iPad needs to be released, and be wildly successful, before we start talking about 'iPad-killers.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962004</id>
	<title>Re:Android really fit for Netbooks?</title>
	<author>camperslo</author>
	<datestamp>1264865340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ok, so Android is pretty resource saving. It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.</i></p><p>It doesn't actually display at 720P but it can read from some 720P video files. There is no external display support, the built-in is 800x480.  The mfg. website lists avi, Xvid, Divx, MPEG-4,and RMVB support.</p><p>Flash imbedded youtube video wasn't working in the installed version of Android.<br>It wasn't clear if the browser would play h.264 videos from youtube, but the spec page shows Flash support.  On sites such as several running the review of this laptop, the imbedded youtube videos only offer the Flash (.flv).  But going to youtube to see it there are two versions in h.264 as well.<br>(That's as seen by the DownloadHelper plugin in Firefox)</p><p>I can see using a small screen if one really wants a device this small, but I question cutting corners so far when it comes to RAM (only 128 MB), or not bothering to include a screen with touch support when the OS is made for it.  It's really not Google's fault the UI seems so half-baked on this netbook.  It's just plain silly to have an on-screen keyboard popping up when you can't use it.  A well done interface could do quite a bit to make life with a small screen more tolerable.  Given the spec page showing functionality that the demo didn't, maybe it'll be improved some before shipping.  It's cute and apparently cheap, but I think using it would be torture.</p><p>I hope the 1.5 hours listed for the battery is the charging time, not the run time.</p><p>Not that spec sheets reveal much about joy of use, but specs are published here:</p><p><a href="http://hvsco.com/ProductsView.asp?articleid=789" title="hvsco.com">http://hvsco.com/ProductsView.asp?articleid=789</a> [hvsco.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so Android is pretty resource saving .
It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.It does n't actually display at 720P but it can read from some 720P video files .
There is no external display support , the built-in is 800x480 .
The mfg .
website lists avi , Xvid , Divx , MPEG-4,and RMVB support.Flash imbedded youtube video was n't working in the installed version of Android.It was n't clear if the browser would play h.264 videos from youtube , but the spec page shows Flash support .
On sites such as several running the review of this laptop , the imbedded youtube videos only offer the Flash ( .flv ) .
But going to youtube to see it there are two versions in h.264 as well .
( That 's as seen by the DownloadHelper plugin in Firefox ) I can see using a small screen if one really wants a device this small , but I question cutting corners so far when it comes to RAM ( only 128 MB ) , or not bothering to include a screen with touch support when the OS is made for it .
It 's really not Google 's fault the UI seems so half-baked on this netbook .
It 's just plain silly to have an on-screen keyboard popping up when you ca n't use it .
A well done interface could do quite a bit to make life with a small screen more tolerable .
Given the spec page showing functionality that the demo did n't , maybe it 'll be improved some before shipping .
It 's cute and apparently cheap , but I think using it would be torture.I hope the 1.5 hours listed for the battery is the charging time , not the run time.Not that spec sheets reveal much about joy of use , but specs are published here : http : //hvsco.com/ProductsView.asp ? articleid = 789 [ hvsco.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so Android is pretty resource saving.
It is pretty impressive that it can display 720p videos.It doesn't actually display at 720P but it can read from some 720P video files.
There is no external display support, the built-in is 800x480.
The mfg.
website lists avi, Xvid, Divx, MPEG-4,and RMVB support.Flash imbedded youtube video wasn't working in the installed version of Android.It wasn't clear if the browser would play h.264 videos from youtube, but the spec page shows Flash support.
On sites such as several running the review of this laptop, the imbedded youtube videos only offer the Flash (.flv).
But going to youtube to see it there are two versions in h.264 as well.
(That's as seen by the DownloadHelper plugin in Firefox)I can see using a small screen if one really wants a device this small, but I question cutting corners so far when it comes to RAM (only 128 MB), or not bothering to include a screen with touch support when the OS is made for it.
It's really not Google's fault the UI seems so half-baked on this netbook.
It's just plain silly to have an on-screen keyboard popping up when you can't use it.
A well done interface could do quite a bit to make life with a small screen more tolerable.
Given the spec page showing functionality that the demo didn't, maybe it'll be improved some before shipping.
It's cute and apparently cheap, but I think using it would be torture.I hope the 1.5 hours listed for the battery is the charging time, not the run time.Not that spec sheets reveal much about joy of use, but specs are published here:http://hvsco.com/ProductsView.asp?articleid=789 [hvsco.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294</id>
	<title>Other distros?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264776180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I can put ubuntu on it I will be interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I can put ubuntu on it I will be interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I can put ubuntu on it I will be interested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958478</id>
	<title>TFA is blocked?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264777920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would the hospital I work for block TFA at our firewall? Do they somehow know I shouldn't read it before posting?</p><p>WTF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would the hospital I work for block TFA at our firewall ?
Do they somehow know I should n't read it before posting ? WTF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would the hospital I work for block TFA at our firewall?
Do they somehow know I shouldn't read it before posting?WTF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958284</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264776120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That ARM architecture is wonderful an all but I prefer to imagine a beowulf cluster of AVR's.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>That ARM architecture is wonderful an all but I prefer to imagine a beowulf cluster of AVR 's .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That ARM architecture is wonderful an all but I prefer to imagine a beowulf cluster of AVR's.
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388</id>
	<title>Not a $100 laptop</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1264786260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA uses a simplistic economic fallacy to argue that the price will be around $100:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The price has not yet been announced officially... But you can understand that if Hivision was able to sell those types of laptops for $98 to distributors more than a year ago (when I filmed my popular video from IFA 2008), then surely the mass manufacturing price has not gone up since then. My expectation is that if a giant consumer electronics reseller such as Walmart or Best Buy approaches Hivision today to order huge quantities of this laptop, it could be sold below $100 to end users.</p></div><p>He's assuming that any given tech drops in price by a huge percentage every year. If that were true, IBM would still be making 8088-based PCs and selling them for a few bucks. (Take the $2K 1981 price and divide by 2 about 15 times.) Instead, you can't buy a new 8088-based system for any price &mdash; it's not worth Intel's while to even manufacture the chip, never mind somebody else to build a system around it.</p><p>There's always a certain minimum cost to any manufacturing process. Scaling up reduces costs, and so does Moore's law, but only to a point. You'll always have to pay for materials, factory space, workers, shipping, marketing, etc. Some of these things are cheaper outside the U.S., but again, only to a point.</p><p>I'm not sure what the minimum cost for manufacturing a computer is, but I very much doubt that it's much below $100. When manufacturers reach that minimum, they can't keep cutting prices, no matter how much the electronics improve, bang-for-buck-wise. So instead, they find a good price point, and provide the best product they know how to for that price. The result: low end products don't get cheaper, they get better.</p><p>I couldn't begin to guess how much these new ARM laptops will sell for. It will have to be a lot less than the competing Atom-based systems, or else no one will buy them. But I doubt if the retail price will ever go below $200, not if they're sold by anybody who's in it for the money.</p><p>Of course, even a $200 laptop would be damned popular. And a couple years after they come out, you'll be able to buy used ones on eBay for a pittance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA uses a simplistic economic fallacy to argue that the price will be around $ 100 : The price has not yet been announced officially... But you can understand that if Hivision was able to sell those types of laptops for $ 98 to distributors more than a year ago ( when I filmed my popular video from IFA 2008 ) , then surely the mass manufacturing price has not gone up since then .
My expectation is that if a giant consumer electronics reseller such as Walmart or Best Buy approaches Hivision today to order huge quantities of this laptop , it could be sold below $ 100 to end users.He 's assuming that any given tech drops in price by a huge percentage every year .
If that were true , IBM would still be making 8088-based PCs and selling them for a few bucks .
( Take the $ 2K 1981 price and divide by 2 about 15 times .
) Instead , you ca n't buy a new 8088-based system for any price    it 's not worth Intel 's while to even manufacture the chip , never mind somebody else to build a system around it.There 's always a certain minimum cost to any manufacturing process .
Scaling up reduces costs , and so does Moore 's law , but only to a point .
You 'll always have to pay for materials , factory space , workers , shipping , marketing , etc .
Some of these things are cheaper outside the U.S. , but again , only to a point.I 'm not sure what the minimum cost for manufacturing a computer is , but I very much doubt that it 's much below $ 100 .
When manufacturers reach that minimum , they ca n't keep cutting prices , no matter how much the electronics improve , bang-for-buck-wise .
So instead , they find a good price point , and provide the best product they know how to for that price .
The result : low end products do n't get cheaper , they get better.I could n't begin to guess how much these new ARM laptops will sell for .
It will have to be a lot less than the competing Atom-based systems , or else no one will buy them .
But I doubt if the retail price will ever go below $ 200 , not if they 're sold by anybody who 's in it for the money.Of course , even a $ 200 laptop would be damned popular .
And a couple years after they come out , you 'll be able to buy used ones on eBay for a pittance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA uses a simplistic economic fallacy to argue that the price will be around $100:The price has not yet been announced officially... But you can understand that if Hivision was able to sell those types of laptops for $98 to distributors more than a year ago (when I filmed my popular video from IFA 2008), then surely the mass manufacturing price has not gone up since then.
My expectation is that if a giant consumer electronics reseller such as Walmart or Best Buy approaches Hivision today to order huge quantities of this laptop, it could be sold below $100 to end users.He's assuming that any given tech drops in price by a huge percentage every year.
If that were true, IBM would still be making 8088-based PCs and selling them for a few bucks.
(Take the $2K 1981 price and divide by 2 about 15 times.
) Instead, you can't buy a new 8088-based system for any price — it's not worth Intel's while to even manufacture the chip, never mind somebody else to build a system around it.There's always a certain minimum cost to any manufacturing process.
Scaling up reduces costs, and so does Moore's law, but only to a point.
You'll always have to pay for materials, factory space, workers, shipping, marketing, etc.
Some of these things are cheaper outside the U.S., but again, only to a point.I'm not sure what the minimum cost for manufacturing a computer is, but I very much doubt that it's much below $100.
When manufacturers reach that minimum, they can't keep cutting prices, no matter how much the electronics improve, bang-for-buck-wise.
So instead, they find a good price point, and provide the best product they know how to for that price.
The result: low end products don't get cheaper, they get better.I couldn't begin to guess how much these new ARM laptops will sell for.
It will have to be a lot less than the competing Atom-based systems, or else no one will buy them.
But I doubt if the retail price will ever go below $200, not if they're sold by anybody who's in it for the money.Of course, even a $200 laptop would be damned popular.
And a couple years after they come out, you'll be able to buy used ones on eBay for a pittance.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961662</id>
	<title>Re:I'll believe it when I can buy it.</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1264862220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like the other person who responded to your post notes, I think these would do quite well at schools and universities. That's my environment, and it's the main reason I want one.</p><p>I already have a laptop, but it weighs 5 lbs, and the battery lasts at best 3 hours. Space is at a premium in the city, so you can be lucky to even find a place to sit, let alone one with an outlet. If I had a 10" netbook weighing 2.5 lbs and getting an 8 to 10 hour battery life, I'd be very happy.</p><p>Of course, I suppose I could buy one of the slightly upper-end Atoms and get those specs. But I <i>really</i> don't want to pay the Microsoft tax, even if it's just out of principle. It's also irritating to hear about all these great ARM offerings that are always just around the corner. I want something running Linux. That gives me rsync for synchronizing files between my machines, I can install R and a MythTV client...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the other person who responded to your post notes , I think these would do quite well at schools and universities .
That 's my environment , and it 's the main reason I want one.I already have a laptop , but it weighs 5 lbs , and the battery lasts at best 3 hours .
Space is at a premium in the city , so you can be lucky to even find a place to sit , let alone one with an outlet .
If I had a 10 " netbook weighing 2.5 lbs and getting an 8 to 10 hour battery life , I 'd be very happy.Of course , I suppose I could buy one of the slightly upper-end Atoms and get those specs .
But I really do n't want to pay the Microsoft tax , even if it 's just out of principle .
It 's also irritating to hear about all these great ARM offerings that are always just around the corner .
I want something running Linux .
That gives me rsync for synchronizing files between my machines , I can install R and a MythTV client.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the other person who responded to your post notes, I think these would do quite well at schools and universities.
That's my environment, and it's the main reason I want one.I already have a laptop, but it weighs 5 lbs, and the battery lasts at best 3 hours.
Space is at a premium in the city, so you can be lucky to even find a place to sit, let alone one with an outlet.
If I had a 10" netbook weighing 2.5 lbs and getting an 8 to 10 hour battery life, I'd be very happy.Of course, I suppose I could buy one of the slightly upper-end Atoms and get those specs.
But I really don't want to pay the Microsoft tax, even if it's just out of principle.
It's also irritating to hear about all these great ARM offerings that are always just around the corner.
I want something running Linux.
That gives me rsync for synchronizing files between my machines, I can install R and a MythTV client...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960310</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264884840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In former Soviet Russia, Beowulf clusters YOU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In former Soviet Russia , Beowulf clusters YOU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In former Soviet Russia, Beowulf clusters YOU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960400</id>
	<title>Re:gPad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264842420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, snap-on bluetooth extended battery? Did I miss something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , snap-on bluetooth extended battery ?
Did I miss something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, snap-on bluetooth extended battery?
Did I miss something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958926</id>
	<title>I hope to see these devices at my local stores...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264781700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be cool to see these for sale at Best Buy for $119. Hopefully these will become a big competitor to Microshaft when it comes to netbooks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be cool to see these for sale at Best Buy for $ 119 .
Hopefully these will become a big competitor to Microshaft when it comes to netbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be cool to see these for sale at Best Buy for $119.
Hopefully these will become a big competitor to Microshaft when it comes to netbooks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958480</id>
	<title>Re:720p playback on a 800x480 screen??</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1264777920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The extra (naughty) bits are squeezed out in playback.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The extra ( naughty ) bits are squeezed out in playback .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The extra (naughty) bits are squeezed out in playback.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960142</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop vs Cellphone Costs</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1264882800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$179?</p><p>Much of that R&amp;D, I bet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 179 ? Much of that R&amp;D , I bet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$179?Much of that R&amp;D, I bet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958652</id>
	<title>Re:Other distros?</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1264779480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Debian GNU/Linux on ARM</p><p>Current Status:</p><p>Debian fully supports a port to little-endian ARM. As of our latest release, Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.3, the following ARM sub-architectures are fully supported:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * footbridge: we fully support Netwinder machines and Simtec's CATS evaluation board<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * iop32x: we support some IOP32x based Network Attached Storage (NAS) devices, such as the Thecus N2100 and GLAN Tank<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * ixp4xx: we support the popular Linksys NSLU2 device.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * orion5x: we support Marvell's new Orion platform and we have specific support for a number of devices, including the QNAP Turbo Station (TS-109, TS-209, TS-409) and HP mv2120.</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.debian.org/ports/arm/" title="debian.org">http://www.debian.org/ports/arm/</a> [debian.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Debian GNU/Linux on ARMCurrent Status : Debian fully supports a port to little-endian ARM .
As of our latest release , Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.3 , the following ARM sub-architectures are fully supported :         * footbridge : we fully support Netwinder machines and Simtec 's CATS evaluation board         * iop32x : we support some IOP32x based Network Attached Storage ( NAS ) devices , such as the Thecus N2100 and GLAN Tank         * ixp4xx : we support the popular Linksys NSLU2 device .
        * orion5x : we support Marvell 's new Orion platform and we have specific support for a number of devices , including the QNAP Turbo Station ( TS-109 , TS-209 , TS-409 ) and HP mv2120.http : //www.debian.org/ports/arm/ [ debian.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debian GNU/Linux on ARMCurrent Status:Debian fully supports a port to little-endian ARM.
As of our latest release, Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.3, the following ARM sub-architectures are fully supported:
        * footbridge: we fully support Netwinder machines and Simtec's CATS evaluation board
        * iop32x: we support some IOP32x based Network Attached Storage (NAS) devices, such as the Thecus N2100 and GLAN Tank
        * ixp4xx: we support the popular Linksys NSLU2 device.
        * orion5x: we support Marvell's new Orion platform and we have specific support for a number of devices, including the QNAP Turbo Station (TS-109, TS-209, TS-409) and HP mv2120.http://www.debian.org/ports/arm/ [debian.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30967794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30966234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30963908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30965592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30964862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30964622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30963082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30965276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30965100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30971030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30971438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_30_0022239_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30963908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30966234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959296
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30963082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30971438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30965276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30967794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30971030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30964622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30964862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30965592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958824
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961814
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30965100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961060
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30959428
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30961476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_30_0022239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30960310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30958284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_30_0022239.30962126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
