<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_05_151221</id>
	<title>Graphene Transistors 10x Faster Than Silicon</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265383140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Asadullah Ahmad writes <i>"IBM has created <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/printer\_friendly\_article.aspx?id=24482&amp;channel=computing&amp;section=">transistors made from carbon atoms</a>, which operate at 100 gigahertz,  while using a manufacturing process that is compatible with current semiconductor fabrication. With silicon close to its physical limits, graphene seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop. Quoting: 'Researchers have previously made graphene transistors using laborious mechanical methods, for example by flaking off sheets of graphene from graphite; the fastest transistors made this way have reached speeds of up to 26 gigahertz. Transistors made using similar methods have not equaled these speeds.'"</i> The other day we discussed what sounds like <a href="//hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/02/01/1321202/Breakthrough-Grows-Graphene-On-Silicon-Substrate">similar research</a> by a group of scientists at Tohoku University; that team did not produce transistors, however.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asadullah Ahmad writes " IBM has created transistors made from carbon atoms , which operate at 100 gigahertz , while using a manufacturing process that is compatible with current semiconductor fabrication .
With silicon close to its physical limits , graphene seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop .
Quoting : 'Researchers have previously made graphene transistors using laborious mechanical methods , for example by flaking off sheets of graphene from graphite ; the fastest transistors made this way have reached speeds of up to 26 gigahertz .
Transistors made using similar methods have not equaled these speeds .
' " The other day we discussed what sounds like similar research by a group of scientists at Tohoku University ; that team did not produce transistors , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asadullah Ahmad writes "IBM has created transistors made from carbon atoms, which operate at 100 gigahertz,  while using a manufacturing process that is compatible with current semiconductor fabrication.
With silicon close to its physical limits, graphene seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop.
Quoting: 'Researchers have previously made graphene transistors using laborious mechanical methods, for example by flaking off sheets of graphene from graphite; the fastest transistors made this way have reached speeds of up to 26 gigahertz.
Transistors made using similar methods have not equaled these speeds.
'" The other day we discussed what sounds like similar research by a group of scientists at Tohoku University; that team did not produce transistors, however.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037578</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds cheap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265399700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think that will be a good argument for the future machines not to destroy humans?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think that will be a good argument for the future machines not to destroy humans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think that will be a good argument for the future machines not to destroy humans?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036310</id>
	<title>Beware!</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1265394060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All right!  Now we have a chip that we can get rid of using an eraser!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All right !
Now we have a chip that we can get rid of using an eraser !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All right!
Now we have a chip that we can get rid of using an eraser!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036356</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds cheap</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265394300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just get DeBeers to sell people coal as if it were something valuable.<br>They did it with the now nearly worthless diamonds. So coal should not be hard for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just get DeBeers to sell people coal as if it were something valuable.They did it with the now nearly worthless diamonds .
So coal should not be hard for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just get DeBeers to sell people coal as if it were something valuable.They did it with the now nearly worthless diamonds.
So coal should not be hard for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035020</id>
	<title>Military Application?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have my doubts on whether we'll ever see this because of two things from the article: "first applications of graphene transistors will likely be as switches and amplifiers in analog military electronics" and "Graphene's properties are very sensitive to its environment".  This means IBM is placing dainty technology into the hands of the harsh military environment.  I've heard how rigorously they test military electronics, and if Graphene is sensitive enough to require insulation, then it's never going to make it past those extreme environment tests they do.  Has anyone else seen sensitive materials make it through military applications?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have my doubts on whether we 'll ever see this because of two things from the article : " first applications of graphene transistors will likely be as switches and amplifiers in analog military electronics " and " Graphene 's properties are very sensitive to its environment " .
This means IBM is placing dainty technology into the hands of the harsh military environment .
I 've heard how rigorously they test military electronics , and if Graphene is sensitive enough to require insulation , then it 's never going to make it past those extreme environment tests they do .
Has anyone else seen sensitive materials make it through military applications ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have my doubts on whether we'll ever see this because of two things from the article: "first applications of graphene transistors will likely be as switches and amplifiers in analog military electronics" and "Graphene's properties are very sensitive to its environment".
This means IBM is placing dainty technology into the hands of the harsh military environment.
I've heard how rigorously they test military electronics, and if Graphene is sensitive enough to require insulation, then it's never going to make it past those extreme environment tests they do.
Has anyone else seen sensitive materials make it through military applications?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034796</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't Produce Transistors? Oh Come On!</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1265387340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Surely that is some sort of joke.</p><p>Too bad if it is, we have been waiting for this for a while now since silicon based chips kind of reached their frequency limits. Of course, there is quantum computing but it is not coming to your local store soon<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p><p>It would be nice to be able to fit a 100 gigahertz chip in current hardware architectures...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Surely that is some sort of joke.Too bad if it is , we have been waiting for this for a while now since silicon based chips kind of reached their frequency limits .
Of course , there is quantum computing but it is not coming to your local store soon ; - ) ) It would be nice to be able to fit a 100 gigahertz chip in current hardware architectures.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Surely that is some sort of joke.Too bad if it is, we have been waiting for this for a while now since silicon based chips kind of reached their frequency limits.
Of course, there is quantum computing but it is not coming to your local store soon ;-))It would be nice to be able to fit a 100 gigahertz chip in current hardware architectures...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034990</id>
	<title>Stupid question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>graphene provides a promising potential replacement because electrons move through the material much faster than they do through silicon</p></div><p>Could someone elaborate on that statement? I assume that they mean that an electron will move through the material with "less interference", like light traveling through space will be "faster" (to reach its destination) than if it were traveling through matter. Is that what they mean?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>graphene provides a promising potential replacement because electrons move through the material much faster than they do through siliconCould someone elaborate on that statement ?
I assume that they mean that an electron will move through the material with " less interference " , like light traveling through space will be " faster " ( to reach its destination ) than if it were traveling through matter .
Is that what they mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>graphene provides a promising potential replacement because electrons move through the material much faster than they do through siliconCould someone elaborate on that statement?
I assume that they mean that an electron will move through the material with "less interference", like light traveling through space will be "faster" (to reach its destination) than if it were traveling through matter.
Is that what they mean?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035072</id>
	<title>Other Applications</title>
	<author>royallthefourth</author>
	<datestamp>1265388840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder what a fuzz box made of these would sound like...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder what a fuzz box made of these would sound like.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder what a fuzz box made of these would sound like...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035656</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds cheap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265391600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would certainly raise 'burning up your CPU' to a whole new level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would certainly raise 'burning up your CPU ' to a whole new level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would certainly raise 'burning up your CPU' to a whole new level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036552</id>
	<title>Integration scale</title>
	<author>pablodiazgutierrez</author>
	<datestamp>1265395020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary doesn't mention it, but is the integration scale potentially competitive? I'd assume so, since it's supposed to be commercially viable, but of course I didn't RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary does n't mention it , but is the integration scale potentially competitive ?
I 'd assume so , since it 's supposed to be commercially viable , but of course I did n't RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary doesn't mention it, but is the integration scale potentially competitive?
I'd assume so, since it's supposed to be commercially viable, but of course I didn't RTFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039480</id>
	<title>Re:How long until you can buy it?</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1265364780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a former circuit designer, and still a CPU engineer, I can say without hesitation that I don't care about graphene. The transistors aren't the big factor anymore. Sure, smaller transistors are good to increase transistors per die, and reduce the distance between them, but wire RC delay is the big deal. Even if the Ioff goes down and Ion goes up, the speed of the chip isn't going to change much.</p></div><p>Sure it does. Current circuit speed is still (despite predictions) dominated by capacitance. This includes both load capacitance on the transistors themselves (which, mind you, is still not trivial compared to interconnect) and load capacitance on the metal itself.</p><p>To decrease rise and fall time you can either decrease capacitance (shorter wires) or increase the drive current, which faster transistors do.</p><p>And while transistor frequency scaling isn't overwhelmingly dominant as they were back in 0.35um, they still play a large role today. Even at 28nm (the characterization data and models are still pretty rough), net-delay for say, a fast adder is still about ~50\% of the total delay.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Things aren't going to get much better than copper -- it's very good already. Even if they upgraded to slightly lower resistance silver (and talk about a reactive metal!), the delay wouldn't change much. Lower K dielectric would help too. There are some minor improvements that can be done, but we're probably talking 5\% here and there, and they probably don't add up to 20\%.</p></div><p>Graphene and Carbon NanoTubes can also be used as interconnects. When their alignment is made for them to be a pure conductor they reach near-superconductor levels of conductance at room temperature.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a former circuit designer , and still a CPU engineer , I can say without hesitation that I do n't care about graphene .
The transistors are n't the big factor anymore .
Sure , smaller transistors are good to increase transistors per die , and reduce the distance between them , but wire RC delay is the big deal .
Even if the Ioff goes down and Ion goes up , the speed of the chip is n't going to change much.Sure it does .
Current circuit speed is still ( despite predictions ) dominated by capacitance .
This includes both load capacitance on the transistors themselves ( which , mind you , is still not trivial compared to interconnect ) and load capacitance on the metal itself.To decrease rise and fall time you can either decrease capacitance ( shorter wires ) or increase the drive current , which faster transistors do.And while transistor frequency scaling is n't overwhelmingly dominant as they were back in 0.35um , they still play a large role today .
Even at 28nm ( the characterization data and models are still pretty rough ) , net-delay for say , a fast adder is still about ~ 50 \ % of the total delay.Things are n't going to get much better than copper -- it 's very good already .
Even if they upgraded to slightly lower resistance silver ( and talk about a reactive metal !
) , the delay would n't change much .
Lower K dielectric would help too .
There are some minor improvements that can be done , but we 're probably talking 5 \ % here and there , and they probably do n't add up to 20 \ % .Graphene and Carbon NanoTubes can also be used as interconnects .
When their alignment is made for them to be a pure conductor they reach near-superconductor levels of conductance at room temperature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a former circuit designer, and still a CPU engineer, I can say without hesitation that I don't care about graphene.
The transistors aren't the big factor anymore.
Sure, smaller transistors are good to increase transistors per die, and reduce the distance between them, but wire RC delay is the big deal.
Even if the Ioff goes down and Ion goes up, the speed of the chip isn't going to change much.Sure it does.
Current circuit speed is still (despite predictions) dominated by capacitance.
This includes both load capacitance on the transistors themselves (which, mind you, is still not trivial compared to interconnect) and load capacitance on the metal itself.To decrease rise and fall time you can either decrease capacitance (shorter wires) or increase the drive current, which faster transistors do.And while transistor frequency scaling isn't overwhelmingly dominant as they were back in 0.35um, they still play a large role today.
Even at 28nm (the characterization data and models are still pretty rough), net-delay for say, a fast adder is still about ~50\% of the total delay.Things aren't going to get much better than copper -- it's very good already.
Even if they upgraded to slightly lower resistance silver (and talk about a reactive metal!
), the delay wouldn't change much.
Lower K dielectric would help too.
There are some minor improvements that can be done, but we're probably talking 5\% here and there, and they probably don't add up to 20\%.Graphene and Carbon NanoTubes can also be used as interconnects.
When their alignment is made for them to be a pure conductor they reach near-superconductor levels of conductance at room temperature.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034924</id>
	<title>Bad / Incorrect Article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The prototype devices, made from atom-thick sheets of carbon, operate at 100 gigahertz"</p><p>Define operate?  This sounds like the cut-off frequency, which is 100s of GHz for Si CMOS.  How is 200GHz  100GHz?  And no, this does not mean it can switch this fast.  If it can switch this fast, it would likely operate into the THz, and we would be interested in using it for THz applications.  Maybe operate is maximum stable oscillation frequency?  Ft?  Fmax?  It's sure as hell not a switching frequency, despite what the article tells us.</p><p>"Growing transistors on a wafer not only leads to better performance, it's also more commercially feasible"</p><p>Growing transistors on a wafer?  As compared to what?  A waffle?</p><p>Done reading... moving on...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The prototype devices , made from atom-thick sheets of carbon , operate at 100 gigahertz " Define operate ?
This sounds like the cut-off frequency , which is 100s of GHz for Si CMOS .
How is 200GHz 100GHz ?
And no , this does not mean it can switch this fast .
If it can switch this fast , it would likely operate into the THz , and we would be interested in using it for THz applications .
Maybe operate is maximum stable oscillation frequency ?
Ft ? Fmax ?
It 's sure as hell not a switching frequency , despite what the article tells us .
" Growing transistors on a wafer not only leads to better performance , it 's also more commercially feasible " Growing transistors on a wafer ?
As compared to what ?
A waffle ? Done reading... moving on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The prototype devices, made from atom-thick sheets of carbon, operate at 100 gigahertz"Define operate?
This sounds like the cut-off frequency, which is 100s of GHz for Si CMOS.
How is 200GHz  100GHz?
And no, this does not mean it can switch this fast.
If it can switch this fast, it would likely operate into the THz, and we would be interested in using it for THz applications.
Maybe operate is maximum stable oscillation frequency?
Ft?  Fmax?
It's sure as hell not a switching frequency, despite what the article tells us.
"Growing transistors on a wafer not only leads to better performance, it's also more commercially feasible"Growing transistors on a wafer?
As compared to what?
A waffle?Done reading... moving on...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039298</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1265363940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphene in its conductive state has a much lower resistance/area than silicon semiconductors. There's also far less scattering.</p><p>This means more electrons can move through a piece of graphene than a piece of silicon of the same size per second.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphene in its conductive state has a much lower resistance/area than silicon semiconductors .
There 's also far less scattering.This means more electrons can move through a piece of graphene than a piece of silicon of the same size per second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphene in its conductive state has a much lower resistance/area than silicon semiconductors.
There's also far less scattering.This means more electrons can move through a piece of graphene than a piece of silicon of the same size per second.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035436</id>
	<title>Re:Military Application?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265390580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They mean the gate dielectric (which is used for the majority of transistor designs, silicon or otherwise) not that the transistors need insulation from the environment - graphene is more sensitive to the dielectric material (ie the enivronment around the transitior) than silicon. Extreme external (ie military) environment is irrelevant as the entire chip is packaged up anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They mean the gate dielectric ( which is used for the majority of transistor designs , silicon or otherwise ) not that the transistors need insulation from the environment - graphene is more sensitive to the dielectric material ( ie the enivronment around the transitior ) than silicon .
Extreme external ( ie military ) environment is irrelevant as the entire chip is packaged up anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They mean the gate dielectric (which is used for the majority of transistor designs, silicon or otherwise) not that the transistors need insulation from the environment - graphene is more sensitive to the dielectric material (ie the enivronment around the transitior) than silicon.
Extreme external (ie military) environment is irrelevant as the entire chip is packaged up anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035722</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1265391840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can you tell me when 6 digit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. UIDs will become popular?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can you tell me when 6 digit / .
UIDs will become popular ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can you tell me when 6 digit /.
UIDs will become popular?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036346</id>
	<title>Re:Stupid question</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1265394240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition to fewer scattering events, I believe the energy required to affect the electron bonds on graphene is less than on silicon, so you reach the energy level faster, so you move the electron along faster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to fewer scattering events , I believe the energy required to affect the electron bonds on graphene is less than on silicon , so you reach the energy level faster , so you move the electron along faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to fewer scattering events, I believe the energy required to affect the electron bonds on graphene is less than on silicon, so you reach the energy level faster, so you move the electron along faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808</id>
	<title>How long until you can buy it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265387400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>IBM research is typically the traditional 10 years away - but not this one... from TFA:<p><div class="quote"><p>"This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff, this is real," he says. "This development is really going to turn into a communications device not too long from now."</p></div><p>So, I won't be playing Crysis on this transistor next month, but I might be using it to make a phone call "not too long from now".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM research is typically the traditional 10 years away - but not this one... from TFA : " This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff , this is real , " he says .
" This development is really going to turn into a communications device not too long from now .
" So , I wo n't be playing Crysis on this transistor next month , but I might be using it to make a phone call " not too long from now " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM research is typically the traditional 10 years away - but not this one... from TFA:"This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff, this is real," he says.
"This development is really going to turn into a communications device not too long from now.
"So, I won't be playing Crysis on this transistor next month, but I might be using it to make a phone call "not too long from now".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31038046</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds cheap</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1265401800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could buy a Diamond / Sapphire Radeon card...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could buy a Diamond / Sapphire Radeon card.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could buy a Diamond / Sapphire Radeon card...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844</id>
	<title>3D chips</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1265387580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest I'm more interested in seeing proper 3D chips become reality. If you find some affordable way to produce chips with, say 10 000 layers, then processing power per volume unit would increase rapidly.</p><p>I think the major obstacle is going to be what to do about heat. The center of such a chip-stack would probably get quite hot so you probably want to run some form of liquid cooling through the chip itself. Alternatively materials like silicon carbide or diamond might be able to cope better with the high power density.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest I 'm more interested in seeing proper 3D chips become reality .
If you find some affordable way to produce chips with , say 10 000 layers , then processing power per volume unit would increase rapidly.I think the major obstacle is going to be what to do about heat .
The center of such a chip-stack would probably get quite hot so you probably want to run some form of liquid cooling through the chip itself .
Alternatively materials like silicon carbide or diamond might be able to cope better with the high power density .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest I'm more interested in seeing proper 3D chips become reality.
If you find some affordable way to produce chips with, say 10 000 layers, then processing power per volume unit would increase rapidly.I think the major obstacle is going to be what to do about heat.
The center of such a chip-stack would probably get quite hot so you probably want to run some form of liquid cooling through the chip itself.
Alternatively materials like silicon carbide or diamond might be able to cope better with the high power density.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035930</id>
	<title>Organic Computers--should be able to chage extra</title>
	<author>engineerofsorts</author>
	<datestamp>1265392560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since Graphene-based  computers are "organic", they should sell at a premium price, just like the worm-infested organic apples in the produce section.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Graphene-based computers are " organic " , they should sell at a premium price , just like the worm-infested organic apples in the produce section .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Graphene-based  computers are "organic", they should sell at a premium price, just like the worm-infested organic apples in the produce section.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035794</id>
	<title>overrated</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1265392020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if the channel can pinch *almost* open/shut at 100Ghz, then the transistor can switch a lot faster than silicon, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if the channel can pinch * almost * open/shut at 100Ghz , then the transistor can switch a lot faster than silicon , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the channel can pinch *almost* open/shut at 100Ghz, then the transistor can switch a lot faster than silicon, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036462</id>
	<title>Re:3D chips</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265394660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue with having many layered chips is unwanted effects like parasitic capacitance which will lower the switching time of the circuit and lead to more heat being produced.  Even with improved cooling techniques parasitic capacitances will be a bottle neck to "proper 3D chips".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue with having many layered chips is unwanted effects like parasitic capacitance which will lower the switching time of the circuit and lead to more heat being produced .
Even with improved cooling techniques parasitic capacitances will be a bottle neck to " proper 3D chips " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue with having many layered chips is unwanted effects like parasitic capacitance which will lower the switching time of the circuit and lead to more heat being produced.
Even with improved cooling techniques parasitic capacitances will be a bottle neck to "proper 3D chips".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039268</id>
	<title>Carbon based life-form?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265363820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the future machine overlords will be a carbon based life form after all.... hmmmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the future machine overlords will be a carbon based life form after all.... hmmmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the future machine overlords will be a carbon based life form after all.... hmmmm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037288</id>
	<title>Re:Cue comments games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265398320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine a Beowulf cluster of GPUs with graphene transistors!</p><p>Happy now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a Beowulf cluster of GPUs with graphene transistors ! Happy now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a Beowulf cluster of GPUs with graphene transistors!Happy now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036538</id>
	<title>Re:How long until you can buy it?</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1265394960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>IBM research is typically the traditional 10 years away - but not this one</p></div></blockquote><p>My VLSI professor was in the forefront of the industry.  He had some very good contract with some good R&amp;D firms.  One day, he told us that copper might one day replace aluminum as wires in chips.  The lower resistance would make a big difference, but nobody had overcome the increased reactance yet.  The next day, IBM announced that they had figured it all out.  A year later, copper interconnect was being used in chips, and 6 months later, in iBooks.  The same professor in a subsequent class was discussing SOI with similar promises of improvements, and similar "nobody has it figured out yet".  A few weeks later, IBM came through again with an announcement.  2 years later, there it was in products.</p><p>With game changers like SOI and copper, IBM has gone to market in much less than 5 years.</p><p>As a former circuit designer, and still a CPU engineer, I can say without hesitation that I don't care about graphene.  The transistors aren't the big factor anymore.  Sure, smaller transistors are good to increase transistors per die, and reduce the distance between them, but wire RC delay is the big deal.  Even if the Ioff goes down and Ion goes up, the speed of the chip isn't going to change much.</p><p>Things aren't going to get much better than copper -- it's very good already.  Even if they upgraded to slightly lower resistance silver (and talk about a reactive metal!), the delay wouldn't change much.  Lower K dielectric would help too.  There are some minor improvements that can be done, but we're probably talking 5\% here and there, and they probably don't add up to 20\%.</p><p>Architecture changes are going to be important, from instruction optimization to multiple cores.  The automated synthesis tools available also have an amazing amount of potential improvement -- placement and routing is a field with a lot of graph theory headroom.  There is a world of difference still between "good enough" synthesis and what can be done by a well trained technician.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM research is typically the traditional 10 years away - but not this oneMy VLSI professor was in the forefront of the industry .
He had some very good contract with some good R&amp;D firms .
One day , he told us that copper might one day replace aluminum as wires in chips .
The lower resistance would make a big difference , but nobody had overcome the increased reactance yet .
The next day , IBM announced that they had figured it all out .
A year later , copper interconnect was being used in chips , and 6 months later , in iBooks .
The same professor in a subsequent class was discussing SOI with similar promises of improvements , and similar " nobody has it figured out yet " .
A few weeks later , IBM came through again with an announcement .
2 years later , there it was in products.With game changers like SOI and copper , IBM has gone to market in much less than 5 years.As a former circuit designer , and still a CPU engineer , I can say without hesitation that I do n't care about graphene .
The transistors are n't the big factor anymore .
Sure , smaller transistors are good to increase transistors per die , and reduce the distance between them , but wire RC delay is the big deal .
Even if the Ioff goes down and Ion goes up , the speed of the chip is n't going to change much.Things are n't going to get much better than copper -- it 's very good already .
Even if they upgraded to slightly lower resistance silver ( and talk about a reactive metal !
) , the delay would n't change much .
Lower K dielectric would help too .
There are some minor improvements that can be done , but we 're probably talking 5 \ % here and there , and they probably do n't add up to 20 \ % .Architecture changes are going to be important , from instruction optimization to multiple cores .
The automated synthesis tools available also have an amazing amount of potential improvement -- placement and routing is a field with a lot of graph theory headroom .
There is a world of difference still between " good enough " synthesis and what can be done by a well trained technician .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM research is typically the traditional 10 years away - but not this oneMy VLSI professor was in the forefront of the industry.
He had some very good contract with some good R&amp;D firms.
One day, he told us that copper might one day replace aluminum as wires in chips.
The lower resistance would make a big difference, but nobody had overcome the increased reactance yet.
The next day, IBM announced that they had figured it all out.
A year later, copper interconnect was being used in chips, and 6 months later, in iBooks.
The same professor in a subsequent class was discussing SOI with similar promises of improvements, and similar "nobody has it figured out yet".
A few weeks later, IBM came through again with an announcement.
2 years later, there it was in products.With game changers like SOI and copper, IBM has gone to market in much less than 5 years.As a former circuit designer, and still a CPU engineer, I can say without hesitation that I don't care about graphene.
The transistors aren't the big factor anymore.
Sure, smaller transistors are good to increase transistors per die, and reduce the distance between them, but wire RC delay is the big deal.
Even if the Ioff goes down and Ion goes up, the speed of the chip isn't going to change much.Things aren't going to get much better than copper -- it's very good already.
Even if they upgraded to slightly lower resistance silver (and talk about a reactive metal!
), the delay wouldn't change much.
Lower K dielectric would help too.
There are some minor improvements that can be done, but we're probably talking 5\% here and there, and they probably don't add up to 20\%.Architecture changes are going to be important, from instruction optimization to multiple cores.
The automated synthesis tools available also have an amazing amount of potential improvement -- placement and routing is a field with a lot of graph theory headroom.
There is a world of difference still between "good enough" synthesis and what can be done by a well trained technician.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035678</id>
	<title>Re:hold yer horses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265391660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>realize there is no mention in this article or the original article in "Science" for applying this for computing</i></p><p>Isnt the FET the basis of the IC...</p><p>So the leap to computing is not exactly that large.</p><p>Silicon still has legs so we will not see this for a long time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>realize there is no mention in this article or the original article in " Science " for applying this for computingIsnt the FET the basis of the IC...So the leap to computing is not exactly that large.Silicon still has legs so we will not see this for a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>realize there is no mention in this article or the original article in "Science" for applying this for computingIsnt the FET the basis of the IC...So the leap to computing is not exactly that large.Silicon still has legs so we will not see this for a long time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035350</id>
	<title>Re:how does this effect Moore's law</title>
	<author>Cytotoxic</author>
	<datestamp>1265390160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Moore's law has to do with the number of transistors on a processor.  So this doesn't directly impact Moore's law, unless they are also much smaller transistors that can be packed more densely.  We use Moore's law as a proxy for "faster", but that's not what it entails - although more transistors has meant faster so far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moore 's law has to do with the number of transistors on a processor .
So this does n't directly impact Moore 's law , unless they are also much smaller transistors that can be packed more densely .
We use Moore 's law as a proxy for " faster " , but that 's not what it entails - although more transistors has meant faster so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moore's law has to do with the number of transistors on a processor.
So this doesn't directly impact Moore's law, unless they are also much smaller transistors that can be packed more densely.
We use Moore's law as a proxy for "faster", but that's not what it entails - although more transistors has meant faster so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035128</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds cheap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265389140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know your computer has gold in it, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know your computer has gold in it , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know your computer has gold in it, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035654</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265391600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Err, the correct form would be...<br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and all we need to do is kill the native sentient species that happens to look like a tree.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Err , the correct form would be.. . ... and all we need to do is kill the native sentient species that happens to look like a tree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err, the correct form would be...
 ... and all we need to do is kill the native sentient species that happens to look like a tree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035006</id>
	<title>Interconnects</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265388540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphene will probably be at least as important as a replacement for metallic interconnects as for transistors.  Much of the area of a chip is covered by interconnects they are responsible for much of the heat and delay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphene will probably be at least as important as a replacement for metallic interconnects as for transistors .
Much of the area of a chip is covered by interconnects they are responsible for much of the heat and delay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphene will probably be at least as important as a replacement for metallic interconnects as for transistors.
Much of the area of a chip is covered by interconnects they are responsible for much of the heat and delay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035104</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds cheap</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1265389020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's sooooo <a href="http://www.neoseeker.com/news/7592-half-million-dollar-computer-cases/" title="neoseeker.com">2008</a> [neoseeker.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's sooooo 2008 [ neoseeker.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's sooooo 2008 [neoseeker.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035140</id>
	<title>9x faster, not 10x faster</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265389140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The prototype devices [...] can switch on and off [...] about 10 times as fast as the speediest silicon transistors.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>These transistors are only about 9x faster than silicon, not 10x faster as the Slashdot headline claims.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The prototype devices [ ... ] can switch on and off [ ... ] about 10 times as fast as the speediest silicon transistors .
These transistors are only about 9x faster than silicon , not 10x faster as the Slashdot headline claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The prototype devices [...] can switch on and off [...] about 10 times as fast as the speediest silicon transistors.
These transistors are only about 9x faster than silicon, not 10x faster as the Slashdot headline claims.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039296</id>
	<title>Re:3D chips</title>
	<author>thechao</author>
	<datestamp>1265363940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw the heat, you're going to have an IO and power deliver problem. Assuming a cubic uptake of density of transistors, you'll only have quadratic uptake in IO ports. Right now we use the 3rd dimension to help increase IO and power density (lifiting it up/down a layer; because we have a quadratic/linear problem with current chips). By the time you've managed to solve those problems (lowering transistor density to allow IO/power paths) you'll end up with a plain-old-chip, anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw the heat , you 're going to have an IO and power deliver problem .
Assuming a cubic uptake of density of transistors , you 'll only have quadratic uptake in IO ports .
Right now we use the 3rd dimension to help increase IO and power density ( lifiting it up/down a layer ; because we have a quadratic/linear problem with current chips ) .
By the time you 've managed to solve those problems ( lowering transistor density to allow IO/power paths ) you 'll end up with a plain-old-chip , anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw the heat, you're going to have an IO and power deliver problem.
Assuming a cubic uptake of density of transistors, you'll only have quadratic uptake in IO ports.
Right now we use the 3rd dimension to help increase IO and power density (lifiting it up/down a layer; because we have a quadratic/linear problem with current chips).
By the time you've managed to solve those problems (lowering transistor density to allow IO/power paths) you'll end up with a plain-old-chip, anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035234</id>
	<title>Re:How long until you can buy it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265389680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the way websites are going these days, you're going to need dual 32-core processors running at 100 GHz just be able to handle their useless JavaScript effects and AJAX rubbish.</p><p>Even Slashdot has fallen victim to this. Last weekend, for shits and giggles, I installed Linux on the system I used to use back around 2000. Even with Chrome, Slashdot was damn near unusable due to all the JavaScript faggotry it now has going on.</p><p>I used to browse Slashdot regularly on that system, and it was fast! What the hell has happened? It's not like anything useful has actually been added to the site since then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the way websites are going these days , you 're going to need dual 32-core processors running at 100 GHz just be able to handle their useless JavaScript effects and AJAX rubbish.Even Slashdot has fallen victim to this .
Last weekend , for shits and giggles , I installed Linux on the system I used to use back around 2000 .
Even with Chrome , Slashdot was damn near unusable due to all the JavaScript faggotry it now has going on.I used to browse Slashdot regularly on that system , and it was fast !
What the hell has happened ?
It 's not like anything useful has actually been added to the site since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the way websites are going these days, you're going to need dual 32-core processors running at 100 GHz just be able to handle their useless JavaScript effects and AJAX rubbish.Even Slashdot has fallen victim to this.
Last weekend, for shits and giggles, I installed Linux on the system I used to use back around 2000.
Even with Chrome, Slashdot was damn near unusable due to all the JavaScript faggotry it now has going on.I used to browse Slashdot regularly on that system, and it was fast!
What the hell has happened?
It's not like anything useful has actually been added to the site since then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036694</id>
	<title>Re:3D chips</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1265395620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heat is caused by power dissipation.  Not only has IBM been researching how to integrate cooling channels inside of chips, they've also been researching ways to create circuits that recycle as many of the electrons as possible, to avoid dissipating heat.  Hopefully they'll work something out that will enable 3D chips.  The connectivity possibilities are intriguing.</p><p>IBM still does do basic research, and they seem to believe in liberal licensing, judging by the 2 terabyte hard drives that can be had.  Hopefully they'll maintain their sanity in that respect, if they do achieve something revolutionary with 3D graphene liquid cooled low power chip features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heat is caused by power dissipation .
Not only has IBM been researching how to integrate cooling channels inside of chips , they 've also been researching ways to create circuits that recycle as many of the electrons as possible , to avoid dissipating heat .
Hopefully they 'll work something out that will enable 3D chips .
The connectivity possibilities are intriguing.IBM still does do basic research , and they seem to believe in liberal licensing , judging by the 2 terabyte hard drives that can be had .
Hopefully they 'll maintain their sanity in that respect , if they do achieve something revolutionary with 3D graphene liquid cooled low power chip features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heat is caused by power dissipation.
Not only has IBM been researching how to integrate cooling channels inside of chips, they've also been researching ways to create circuits that recycle as many of the electrons as possible, to avoid dissipating heat.
Hopefully they'll work something out that will enable 3D chips.
The connectivity possibilities are intriguing.IBM still does do basic research, and they seem to believe in liberal licensing, judging by the 2 terabyte hard drives that can be had.
Hopefully they'll maintain their sanity in that respect, if they do achieve something revolutionary with 3D graphene liquid cooled low power chip features.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035270</id>
	<title>Re:Military Application?</title>
	<author>Infiniti2000</author>
	<datestamp>1265389860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has anyone else seen sensitive materials make it through military applications?</p></div><p> Don't expect a lot of responses to this question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone else seen sensitive materials make it through military applications ?
Do n't expect a lot of responses to this question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone else seen sensitive materials make it through military applications?
Don't expect a lot of responses to this question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037328</id>
	<title>Re:Military Application?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265398440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look up "hermetic seal" in Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look up " hermetic seal " in Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look up "hermetic seal" in Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31038134</id>
	<title>Ya right!</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265402040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Show me an 18 SiC wafer, and I'll show you my retirement plan!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Show me an 18 SiC wafer , and I 'll show you my retirement plan !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show me an 18 SiC wafer, and I'll show you my retirement plan!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036624</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265395320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Year 2173:</p><p>Still no Year of Linux on the Desktop yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Year 2173 : Still no Year of Linux on the Desktop yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Year 2173:Still no Year of Linux on the Desktop yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035400</id>
	<title>Strictly it doesn't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265390400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware, in which the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years.</p></div><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore\%27s\_law</p><p>Moore's law is about quantity of transistors, not speed of computing, the two just tend to be highly correlated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moore 's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware , in which the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore \ % 27s \ _lawMoore 's law is about quantity of transistors , not speed of computing , the two just tend to be highly correlated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware, in which the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore\%27s\_lawMoore's law is about quantity of transistors, not speed of computing, the two just tend to be highly correlated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31043058</id>
	<title>Quantum Computing will Never Replace Silicon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quantum computing won't replace silicon transistors, or graphene transistors, or whatever comes after that. While quantum computers have the potential to be incredibly powerful, but they only work on a very small set of problems. As best I can tell they could, in theory, work well on problems that require brute force on a traditional computer. However for running a word processor, or rendering pretty 3D graphics they appear to be useless.<br>So while quantum computers may some day supplement traditional processors, they will never be a replacement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quantum computing wo n't replace silicon transistors , or graphene transistors , or whatever comes after that .
While quantum computers have the potential to be incredibly powerful , but they only work on a very small set of problems .
As best I can tell they could , in theory , work well on problems that require brute force on a traditional computer .
However for running a word processor , or rendering pretty 3D graphics they appear to be useless.So while quantum computers may some day supplement traditional processors , they will never be a replacement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quantum computing won't replace silicon transistors, or graphene transistors, or whatever comes after that.
While quantum computers have the potential to be incredibly powerful, but they only work on a very small set of problems.
As best I can tell they could, in theory, work well on problems that require brute force on a traditional computer.
However for running a word processor, or rendering pretty 3D graphics they appear to be useless.So while quantum computers may some day supplement traditional processors, they will never be a replacement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039364</id>
	<title>Re:3D chips</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1265364300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that processing power doesn't scale linearly with number of transistors you can fit in an area. That's the primary concern over the <b>frequency</b> scaling of silicon. You can cram more transistors in some space but if they can't run faster, your options are: 1. more cache 2. dual core 3. more specialized functions.</p><p>None of these will universally speed up computing like frequency scaling will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that processing power does n't scale linearly with number of transistors you can fit in an area .
That 's the primary concern over the frequency scaling of silicon .
You can cram more transistors in some space but if they ca n't run faster , your options are : 1. more cache 2. dual core 3. more specialized functions.None of these will universally speed up computing like frequency scaling will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that processing power doesn't scale linearly with number of transistors you can fit in an area.
That's the primary concern over the frequency scaling of silicon.
You can cram more transistors in some space but if they can't run faster, your options are: 1. more cache 2. dual core 3. more specialized functions.None of these will universally speed up computing like frequency scaling will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039556</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction</title>
	<author>florescent\_beige</author>
	<datestamp>1265365080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 2032 right after the event we know as "The electrosoccertux-Hamster-Beanbag Incident" that changed the rules of underwater violin racing forever.</p><p>
But I've already said too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 2032 right after the event we know as " The electrosoccertux-Hamster-Beanbag Incident " that changed the rules of underwater violin racing forever .
But I 've already said too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 2032 right after the event we know as "The electrosoccertux-Hamster-Beanbag Incident" that changed the rules of underwater violin racing forever.
But I've already said too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31038430</id>
	<title>Re:Military Application?</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1265403300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yes, I worked on some pretty dainty equipment in the Army,the abbreviated Guided Missile test set for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawk\_missile" title="wikipedia.org"> Hawk Missile</a> [wikipedia.org], just starting the truck meant 8 hours of work getting the  equipment back into alignment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes , I worked on some pretty dainty equipment in the Army,the abbreviated Guided Missile test set for the Hawk Missile [ wikipedia.org ] , just starting the truck meant 8 hours of work getting the equipment back into alignment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes, I worked on some pretty dainty equipment in the Army,the abbreviated Guided Missile test set for the  Hawk Missile [wikipedia.org], just starting the truck meant 8 hours of work getting the  equipment back into alignment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034930</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't Produce Transistors? Oh Come On!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Surely that is some sort of joke.  From the summary of the Tokyo University article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A new paper entitled Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon toward Graphene-Silicon Fusion Electronics published by a group of physicists at Tohoku University in Japan has demonstrated that they can grow graphene on a silicon substrate and pair that technique with conventional lithography to create a <b>graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor</b>.</p></div></div><p>Did you read this? <i> A paper<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... has demonstrated that they can grow graphene... and pair that technique... etc.</i>  It's a <b>paper</b>, not a transistor.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Not to mention that article is a myriad of highly moderated comments admonishing the staleness of graphene on silicon transistors.</p></div><p>Advancements in a technology might equate to staleness for some people, but if it's something new happening in the field, some people are going to be interested.  How obsolete is your world if technologies not available except in laboratories or in papers are stale?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely that is some sort of joke .
From the summary of the Tokyo University article : A new paper entitled Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon toward Graphene-Silicon Fusion Electronics published by a group of physicists at Tohoku University in Japan has demonstrated that they can grow graphene on a silicon substrate and pair that technique with conventional lithography to create a graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor.Did you read this ?
A paper ... has demonstrated that they can grow graphene... and pair that technique... etc. It 's a paper , not a transistor.Not to mention that article is a myriad of highly moderated comments admonishing the staleness of graphene on silicon transistors.Advancements in a technology might equate to staleness for some people , but if it 's something new happening in the field , some people are going to be interested .
How obsolete is your world if technologies not available except in laboratories or in papers are stale ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely that is some sort of joke.
From the summary of the Tokyo University article:A new paper entitled Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon toward Graphene-Silicon Fusion Electronics published by a group of physicists at Tohoku University in Japan has demonstrated that they can grow graphene on a silicon substrate and pair that technique with conventional lithography to create a graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor.Did you read this?
A paper ... has demonstrated that they can grow graphene... and pair that technique... etc.  It's a paper, not a transistor.Not to mention that article is a myriad of highly moderated comments admonishing the staleness of graphene on silicon transistors.Advancements in a technology might equate to staleness for some people, but if it's something new happening in the field, some people are going to be interested.
How obsolete is your world if technologies not available except in laboratories or in papers are stale?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039378</id>
	<title>The Future</title>
	<author>florescent\_beige</author>
	<datestamp>1265364300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The future of computing is gallium arsenide^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hphotonics^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hmolecular switches^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hquantum whatnot^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hummmmmmm^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hgraphene?^h!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The future of computing is gallium arsenide ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ hphotonics ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ hmolecular switches ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ hquantum whatnot ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ hummmmmmm ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ h ^ hgraphene ? ^ h !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The future of computing is gallium arsenide^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hphotonics^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hmolecular switches^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hquantum whatnot^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hummmmmmm^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hgraphene?^h!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037524</id>
	<title>Hey maybe they can use this to make</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1265399460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>an XBox 360 that doesn't RRoD after a year or 2. (Why do I get the feeling there's going to be a long line of "Hey maybe they can use this to make" examples as replies?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>an XBox 360 that does n't RRoD after a year or 2 .
( Why do I get the feeling there 's going to be a long line of " Hey maybe they can use this to make " examples as replies ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>an XBox 360 that doesn't RRoD after a year or 2.
(Why do I get the feeling there's going to be a long line of "Hey maybe they can use this to make" examples as replies?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034944</id>
	<title>Imagine the speed</title>
	<author>courteaudotbiz</author>
	<datestamp>1265388060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine at what speed the cards are going to come down and bounce in the "Solitaire" Windows game at 100 Ghz!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine at what speed the cards are going to come down and bounce in the " Solitaire " Windows game at 100 Ghz !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine at what speed the cards are going to come down and bounce in the "Solitaire" Windows game at 100 Ghz!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036218</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265393760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh? So what are they using in the year 2242 as a stop-gap measure until quantum computing gets to the desktop?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh ?
So what are they using in the year 2242 as a stop-gap measure until quantum computing gets to the desktop ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh?
So what are they using in the year 2242 as a stop-gap measure until quantum computing gets to the desktop?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036398</id>
	<title>Moving to Graphene Valley</title>
	<author>rbgrn</author>
	<datestamp>1265394480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm moving to Graphene Valley before it gets overcrowded!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm moving to Graphene Valley before it gets overcrowded !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm moving to Graphene Valley before it gets overcrowded!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31040428</id>
	<title>Re:Cue comments games</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1265369100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could dream about better language translation software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could dream about better language translation software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could dream about better language translation software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31070894</id>
	<title>Re:How long until you can buy it?</title>
	<author>MightyDrunken</author>
	<datestamp>1265724300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As a former circuit designer, and still a CPU engineer, I can say without hesitation that I don't care about graphene. The transistors aren't the big factor anymore. Sure, smaller transistors are good to increase transistors per die, and reduce the distance between them, but wire RC delay is the big deal. Even if the Ioff goes down and Ion goes up, the speed of the chip isn't going to change much.</p></div><p>
Maybe you shouldn't write-off the potential impact of graphene yet. As this article states <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090604124808.htm" title="sciencedaily.com" rel="nofollow">Graphene May Have Advantages Over Copper For IC Interconnects At The Nanoscale</a> [sciencedaily.com]
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;Our experimental demonstration of graphene nanowire interconnects on the scale of 20 nanometers shows that their performance is comparable to even the most optimistic projections for copper interconnects at that scale. Under real-world conditions, our graphene interconnects probably already out-perform copper at this size scale.&rdquo;
</p><p>
Beyond resistivity improvement, graphene interconnects would offer higher electron mobility, better thermal conductivity, higher mechanical strength and reduced capacitance coupling between adjacent wires.</p></div><p>Of course it may never live up to its potential but graphene looks very interesting for many possible uses. It may also be used in spintronics which would be a huge boost to computers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a former circuit designer , and still a CPU engineer , I can say without hesitation that I do n't care about graphene .
The transistors are n't the big factor anymore .
Sure , smaller transistors are good to increase transistors per die , and reduce the distance between them , but wire RC delay is the big deal .
Even if the Ioff goes down and Ion goes up , the speed of the chip is n't going to change much .
Maybe you should n't write-off the potential impact of graphene yet .
As this article states Graphene May Have Advantages Over Copper For IC Interconnects At The Nanoscale [ sciencedaily.com ]    Our experimental demonstration of graphene nanowire interconnects on the scale of 20 nanometers shows that their performance is comparable to even the most optimistic projections for copper interconnects at that scale .
Under real-world conditions , our graphene interconnects probably already out-perform copper at this size scale.    Beyond resistivity improvement , graphene interconnects would offer higher electron mobility , better thermal conductivity , higher mechanical strength and reduced capacitance coupling between adjacent wires.Of course it may never live up to its potential but graphene looks very interesting for many possible uses .
It may also be used in spintronics which would be a huge boost to computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a former circuit designer, and still a CPU engineer, I can say without hesitation that I don't care about graphene.
The transistors aren't the big factor anymore.
Sure, smaller transistors are good to increase transistors per die, and reduce the distance between them, but wire RC delay is the big deal.
Even if the Ioff goes down and Ion goes up, the speed of the chip isn't going to change much.
Maybe you shouldn't write-off the potential impact of graphene yet.
As this article states Graphene May Have Advantages Over Copper For IC Interconnects At The Nanoscale [sciencedaily.com]
“Our experimental demonstration of graphene nanowire interconnects on the scale of 20 nanometers shows that their performance is comparable to even the most optimistic projections for copper interconnects at that scale.
Under real-world conditions, our graphene interconnects probably already out-perform copper at this size scale.”

Beyond resistivity improvement, graphene interconnects would offer higher electron mobility, better thermal conductivity, higher mechanical strength and reduced capacitance coupling between adjacent wires.Of course it may never live up to its potential but graphene looks very interesting for many possible uses.
It may also be used in spintronics which would be a huge boost to computers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31058882</id>
	<title>Re:How long until you can buy it?</title>
	<author>bennettp</author>
	<datestamp>1265620860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting comment.

However, to a layperson, the article indicates that the benefits of graphene are not transistor size but switching speed. What is to say that graphene-based microprocessors will not reach 30GHz?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting comment .
However , to a layperson , the article indicates that the benefits of graphene are not transistor size but switching speed .
What is to say that graphene-based microprocessors will not reach 30GHz ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting comment.
However, to a layperson, the article indicates that the benefits of graphene are not transistor size but switching speed.
What is to say that graphene-based microprocessors will not reach 30GHz?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035174</id>
	<title>Re:3D chips</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265389320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the major obstacle is going to be what to do about heat. The center of such a chip-stack would probably get quite hot so you probably want to run some form of liquid cooling through the chip itself. Alternatively materials like silicon carbide or diamond might be able to cope better with the high power density.</p></div><p>Pretty sure you hit the nail on the head with this comment. 3D chips were being studied when I started university 9 years ago, I am sure that most of the problems with them have been worked out in that time, except this one which is the most prevalent problem in chips nowadays. I seem to recall seeing a few graphs of Moore's law behavior over the years, and extrapolating out to 20 years. The interesting one was that the temperature in chips seemed to be heading up so that by 2020 the internal temps would exceed the temperature at the surface of the sun.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the major obstacle is going to be what to do about heat .
The center of such a chip-stack would probably get quite hot so you probably want to run some form of liquid cooling through the chip itself .
Alternatively materials like silicon carbide or diamond might be able to cope better with the high power density.Pretty sure you hit the nail on the head with this comment .
3D chips were being studied when I started university 9 years ago , I am sure that most of the problems with them have been worked out in that time , except this one which is the most prevalent problem in chips nowadays .
I seem to recall seeing a few graphs of Moore 's law behavior over the years , and extrapolating out to 20 years .
The interesting one was that the temperature in chips seemed to be heading up so that by 2020 the internal temps would exceed the temperature at the surface of the sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the major obstacle is going to be what to do about heat.
The center of such a chip-stack would probably get quite hot so you probably want to run some form of liquid cooling through the chip itself.
Alternatively materials like silicon carbide or diamond might be able to cope better with the high power density.Pretty sure you hit the nail on the head with this comment.
3D chips were being studied when I started university 9 years ago, I am sure that most of the problems with them have been worked out in that time, except this one which is the most prevalent problem in chips nowadays.
I seem to recall seeing a few graphs of Moore's law behavior over the years, and extrapolating out to 20 years.
The interesting one was that the temperature in chips seemed to be heading up so that by 2020 the internal temps would exceed the temperature at the surface of the sun.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036154</id>
	<title>Re:9x faster, not 10x faster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265393520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> 9 x 1 = 9<br>10 x 1 = 10</p><p>Their math stacks up....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>9 x 1 = 910 x 1 = 10Their math stacks up... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 9 x 1 = 910 x 1 = 10Their math stacks up....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039844</id>
	<title>High ghz limits size of chip</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265366580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The speed of light doesn't travel too far at 100ghz.  This will limit how far components on a chip are separated from each other etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The speed of light does n't travel too far at 100ghz .
This will limit how far components on a chip are separated from each other etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The speed of light doesn't travel too far at 100ghz.
This will limit how far components on a chip are separated from each other etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035590</id>
	<title>Re:How long until you can buy it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265391240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>(I'm a student doing research in this area)

You forget economies of scale.  Right now, SiC wafers are indeed expensive (around ~$1k for a 2" wafer; compare that with about $20 for a Si wafer of the same size), but even in the 3 years I have been in the field, the price has dropped by a factor of 2 or 3, and we're still in the research phase of this material.  During this time, the wafer quality has gotten much better also so that there are nearly zero defects in the entire wafer.  I expect the price to plummet soon, as there has been explosive growth in researchers switching to graphene on SiC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I 'm a student doing research in this area ) You forget economies of scale .
Right now , SiC wafers are indeed expensive ( around ~ $ 1k for a 2 " wafer ; compare that with about $ 20 for a Si wafer of the same size ) , but even in the 3 years I have been in the field , the price has dropped by a factor of 2 or 3 , and we 're still in the research phase of this material .
During this time , the wafer quality has gotten much better also so that there are nearly zero defects in the entire wafer .
I expect the price to plummet soon , as there has been explosive growth in researchers switching to graphene on SiC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I'm a student doing research in this area)

You forget economies of scale.
Right now, SiC wafers are indeed expensive (around ~$1k for a 2" wafer; compare that with about $20 for a Si wafer of the same size), but even in the 3 years I have been in the field, the price has dropped by a factor of 2 or 3, and we're still in the research phase of this material.
During this time, the wafer quality has gotten much better also so that there are nearly zero defects in the entire wafer.
I expect the price to plummet soon, as there has been explosive growth in researchers switching to graphene on SiC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034986</id>
	<title>Re:How long until you can buy it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The obiggest issue is cost, the transistors were made on silicon carbide wafers, these are very expensive.  Even if you ignore all the costs of the new specialized methods to make them, silicon carbide is much more expensive than silicon wafers so we wont see it in consumer technology soon.  And in case anyone thinks they're clever, no the silicon carbide brakes on your car are not single crystal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The obiggest issue is cost , the transistors were made on silicon carbide wafers , these are very expensive .
Even if you ignore all the costs of the new specialized methods to make them , silicon carbide is much more expensive than silicon wafers so we wont see it in consumer technology soon .
And in case anyone thinks they 're clever , no the silicon carbide brakes on your car are not single crystal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obiggest issue is cost, the transistors were made on silicon carbide wafers, these are very expensive.
Even if you ignore all the costs of the new specialized methods to make them, silicon carbide is much more expensive than silicon wafers so we wont see it in consumer technology soon.
And in case anyone thinks they're clever, no the silicon carbide brakes on your car are not single crystal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035380</id>
	<title>hold yer horses</title>
	<author>lurgyman</author>
	<datestamp>1265390340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before you get yourselves worked up, realize there is no mention in this article or the original article in "Science" for applying this for computing.

There's somewhat of a misstatement in the technology review article - if you look at the actual article in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5966/662), the 100GHz figure is the unity (or cutoff) gain frequency (e.g., how high of a frequency you can build an amplifier) and not switching.  There is no mention of switching in the paper by the IBM scientists, and that is the application relevant to computing.  Even TFA's expert is talking about using this in analog communication frontends, folks.  Sorry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you get yourselves worked up , realize there is no mention in this article or the original article in " Science " for applying this for computing .
There 's somewhat of a misstatement in the technology review article - if you look at the actual article in Science ( http : //www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5966/662 ) , the 100GHz figure is the unity ( or cutoff ) gain frequency ( e.g. , how high of a frequency you can build an amplifier ) and not switching .
There is no mention of switching in the paper by the IBM scientists , and that is the application relevant to computing .
Even TFA 's expert is talking about using this in analog communication frontends , folks .
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you get yourselves worked up, realize there is no mention in this article or the original article in "Science" for applying this for computing.
There's somewhat of a misstatement in the technology review article - if you look at the actual article in Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5966/662), the 100GHz figure is the unity (or cutoff) gain frequency (e.g., how high of a frequency you can build an amplifier) and not switching.
There is no mention of switching in the paper by the IBM scientists, and that is the application relevant to computing.
Even TFA's expert is talking about using this in analog communication frontends, folks.
Sorry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035138</id>
	<title>Re:3D chips</title>
	<author>ianare</author>
	<datestamp>1265389140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2008-06-05-ibm-cooling-chips\_N.htm" title="usatoday.com">Quite right.</a> [usatoday.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite right .
[ usatoday.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite right.
[usatoday.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776</id>
	<title>My prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265387280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Year 2173:</p><p>"Hidrogen-Unobtanium polycomposites seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Year 2173 : " Hidrogen-Unobtanium polycomposites seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Year 2173:"Hidrogen-Unobtanium polycomposites seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034970</id>
	<title>Re:How long until you can buy it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think you've misunderstood "communications device".  Chances are something of this nature will be aimed as high throughput communications backbone devices.  Think firewall/switch/etc with 100's Gbit/sec of throughput.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think you 've misunderstood " communications device " .
Chances are something of this nature will be aimed as high throughput communications backbone devices .
Think firewall/switch/etc with 100 's Gbit/sec of throughput .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think you've misunderstood "communications device".
Chances are something of this nature will be aimed as high throughput communications backbone devices.
Think firewall/switch/etc with 100's Gbit/sec of throughput.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916</id>
	<title>Sounds cheap</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1265387940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was bad enough when computers were made out of mere sand, now they will be made out of coal?</p><p>Can't they make computers out of sapphires or something so I can feel sophisticated when I buy it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was bad enough when computers were made out of mere sand , now they will be made out of coal ? Ca n't they make computers out of sapphires or something so I can feel sophisticated when I buy it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was bad enough when computers were made out of mere sand, now they will be made out of coal?Can't they make computers out of sapphires or something so I can feel sophisticated when I buy it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037988</id>
	<title>Re:3D chips</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1265401560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although 3D chips would be advantageous, they would not be as big a gain as it first appears. With devices and conductive layers, the electrically used portion of modern ICs is about 30 times as deep as the minimum feature size. (I've been out of the field for a decade, corrections appreciated.) That includes a few layers for the active devices and maybe 6 layers for conductors. So for a 20 nanometer process, 10,000 layers of which 1,000 are active device layers, the first nominal expectation is 1,000 times the processing power. Hovever, much of the area of inner layers is going to be vias (wires between layers), so the gain won't be 1000X.  It would make a chip 1000 x 30 x 20e-9 = 600e-6 m thick. OK, that's less than what I first thought, it's about how thick chips are now. Two problems occur to me. The first is power dissipation, which others have mentioned. To some extent, this can be worked around by making designs that have low leakage, static (CMOS) design, slower clocks, and circuitry most of which is inactive at any given time. All of that decreases performance. The second problem is yield. Even when all other problems are solved, big chips have yields in the 50\% range. Double the number of layers and you will cut the yield to 25\%. At 100 layers (10 layers for active devices) the yield will be 0.1\%. At 10,000 layers, not one working device could be made in the age of the universe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although 3D chips would be advantageous , they would not be as big a gain as it first appears .
With devices and conductive layers , the electrically used portion of modern ICs is about 30 times as deep as the minimum feature size .
( I 've been out of the field for a decade , corrections appreciated .
) That includes a few layers for the active devices and maybe 6 layers for conductors .
So for a 20 nanometer process , 10,000 layers of which 1,000 are active device layers , the first nominal expectation is 1,000 times the processing power .
Hovever , much of the area of inner layers is going to be vias ( wires between layers ) , so the gain wo n't be 1000X .
It would make a chip 1000 x 30 x 20e-9 = 600e-6 m thick .
OK , that 's less than what I first thought , it 's about how thick chips are now .
Two problems occur to me .
The first is power dissipation , which others have mentioned .
To some extent , this can be worked around by making designs that have low leakage , static ( CMOS ) design , slower clocks , and circuitry most of which is inactive at any given time .
All of that decreases performance .
The second problem is yield .
Even when all other problems are solved , big chips have yields in the 50 \ % range .
Double the number of layers and you will cut the yield to 25 \ % .
At 100 layers ( 10 layers for active devices ) the yield will be 0.1 \ % .
At 10,000 layers , not one working device could be made in the age of the universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although 3D chips would be advantageous, they would not be as big a gain as it first appears.
With devices and conductive layers, the electrically used portion of modern ICs is about 30 times as deep as the minimum feature size.
(I've been out of the field for a decade, corrections appreciated.
) That includes a few layers for the active devices and maybe 6 layers for conductors.
So for a 20 nanometer process, 10,000 layers of which 1,000 are active device layers, the first nominal expectation is 1,000 times the processing power.
Hovever, much of the area of inner layers is going to be vias (wires between layers), so the gain won't be 1000X.
It would make a chip 1000 x 30 x 20e-9 = 600e-6 m thick.
OK, that's less than what I first thought, it's about how thick chips are now.
Two problems occur to me.
The first is power dissipation, which others have mentioned.
To some extent, this can be worked around by making designs that have low leakage, static (CMOS) design, slower clocks, and circuitry most of which is inactive at any given time.
All of that decreases performance.
The second problem is yield.
Even when all other problems are solved, big chips have yields in the 50\% range.
Double the number of layers and you will cut the yield to 25\%.
At 100 layers (10 layers for active devices) the yield will be 0.1\%.
At 10,000 layers, not one working device could be made in the age of the universe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035146</id>
	<title>Cue comments games</title>
	<author>gsgriffin</author>
	<datestamp>1265389200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't believe we're this far and nobody is dreaming about how they can play their favority games at highest resolution.  This will effect GPU as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe we 're this far and nobody is dreaming about how they can play their favority games at highest resolution .
This will effect GPU as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe we're this far and nobody is dreaming about how they can play their favority games at highest resolution.
This will effect GPU as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034718</id>
	<title>Didn't Produce Transistors? Oh Come On!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The other day we discussed what sounds like <a href="https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/02/01/1321202/Breakthrough-Grows-Graphene-On-Silicon-Substrate" title="slashdot.org">similar research</a> [slashdot.org] by a group of scientists at Tohoku University; that team did not produce transistors, however.</p></div><p>Surely that is some sort of joke.  From the summary of the Tokyo University article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A new paper entitled Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon toward Graphene-Silicon Fusion Electronics published by a group of physicists at Tohoku University in Japan has demonstrated that they can grow graphene on a silicon substrate and pair that technique with conventional lithography to create a <b>graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor</b>.</p></div><p>Not to mention that article is a myriad of highly moderated comments admonishing the staleness of graphene on silicon transistors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The other day we discussed what sounds like similar research [ slashdot.org ] by a group of scientists at Tohoku University ; that team did not produce transistors , however.Surely that is some sort of joke .
From the summary of the Tokyo University article : A new paper entitled Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon toward Graphene-Silicon Fusion Electronics published by a group of physicists at Tohoku University in Japan has demonstrated that they can grow graphene on a silicon substrate and pair that technique with conventional lithography to create a graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor.Not to mention that article is a myriad of highly moderated comments admonishing the staleness of graphene on silicon transistors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other day we discussed what sounds like similar research [slashdot.org] by a group of scientists at Tohoku University; that team did not produce transistors, however.Surely that is some sort of joke.
From the summary of the Tokyo University article:A new paper entitled Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon toward Graphene-Silicon Fusion Electronics published by a group of physicists at Tohoku University in Japan has demonstrated that they can grow graphene on a silicon substrate and pair that technique with conventional lithography to create a graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor.Not to mention that article is a myriad of highly moderated comments admonishing the staleness of graphene on silicon transistors.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034896</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265387880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Year 2173:</p><p>"Hidrogen-Unobtanium polycomposites seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop."</p></div><p>I came here from the year 2242 to tell you that you're wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Year 2173 : " Hidrogen-Unobtanium polycomposites seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop .
" I came here from the year 2242 to tell you that you 're wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Year 2173:"Hidrogen-Unobtanium polycomposites seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop.
"I came here from the year 2242 to tell you that you're wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035090</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction</title>
	<author>ianare</author>
	<datestamp>1265388960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and all we need to do get some is to get some stupid natives out of their tree house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and all we need to do get some is to get some stupid natives out of their tree house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and all we need to do get some is to get some stupid natives out of their tree house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034940</id>
	<title>how does this effect Moore's law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since I can not picture it ( even after read the article ) could someone explain what changes on the graph will happen. and if possible what would be the next stage after this ( given, I think I understand that quantum computing would be the current top of computing speed, but I can not figure out where this goes )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I can not picture it ( even after read the article ) could someone explain what changes on the graph will happen .
and if possible what would be the next stage after this ( given , I think I understand that quantum computing would be the current top of computing speed , but I can not figure out where this goes )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I can not picture it ( even after read the article ) could someone explain what changes on the graph will happen.
and if possible what would be the next stage after this ( given, I think I understand that quantum computing would be the current top of computing speed, but I can not figure out where this goes )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035000</id>
	<title>wow</title>
	<author>muckracer</author>
	<datestamp>1265388540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those? [oblig]</p><p>2015:</p><p>"So what kind of computer you got these days?"</p><p>"Cluster...1 PetaHertz"</p><p>"LAME!! My stupidphone is faster than that. Get with the times, Dad!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those ?
[ oblig ] 2015 : " So what kind of computer you got these days ?
" " Cluster...1 PetaHertz " " LAME ! !
My stupidphone is faster than that .
Get with the times , Dad !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of those?
[oblig]2015:"So what kind of computer you got these days?
""Cluster...1 PetaHertz""LAME!!
My stupidphone is faster than that.
Get with the times, Dad!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036222</id>
	<title>Re:hold yer horses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265393760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.  According to the Science article, "No clear current saturation was observed at drain biases up to 2V or before device breakdown."  The basic "transistor" nature of a device dictates it must have both a linear AND saturation region for switching applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
According to the Science article , " No clear current saturation was observed at drain biases up to 2V or before device breakdown .
" The basic " transistor " nature of a device dictates it must have both a linear AND saturation region for switching applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
According to the Science article, "No clear current saturation was observed at drain biases up to 2V or before device breakdown.
"  The basic "transistor" nature of a device dictates it must have both a linear AND saturation region for switching applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035022</id>
	<title>Re:How long until you can buy it?</title>
	<author>stms</author>
	<datestamp>1265388600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah but that's mainly because it's not fast enough to play crisis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but that 's mainly because it 's not fast enough to play crisis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but that's mainly because it's not fast enough to play crisis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036002</id>
	<title>Re:Military Application?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265392800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the time. They're called the airforce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the time .
They 're called the airforce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the time.
They're called the airforce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036380</id>
	<title>mo3 up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265394360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">of business and Was Users of NetBSD the project is in</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>of business and Was Users of NetBSD the project is in [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of business and Was Users of NetBSD the project is in [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035158</id>
	<title>yes, can you make a billion for $10?</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1265389260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have dozens of interesting technologies proposed each year.  But few pass the commercial test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have dozens of interesting technologies proposed each year .
But few pass the commercial test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have dozens of interesting technologies proposed each year.
But few pass the commercial test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034848</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't Produce Transistors? Oh Come On!</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1265387580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The other day we discussed what sounds like <a href="https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/02/01/1321202/Breakthrough-Grows-Graphene-On-Silicon-Substrate" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">similar research</a> [slashdot.org] by a group of scientists at Tohoku University; that team did not produce transistors, however.</p></div><p>Surely that is some sort of joke.  From the summary of the Tokyo University article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A new paper entitled Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon toward Graphene-Silicon Fusion Electronics published by a group of physicists at Tohoku University in Japan has demonstrated that they can grow graphene on a silicon substrate and pair that technique with conventional lithography to create a <b>graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor</b>.</p></div><p>Not to mention that article is a myriad of highly moderated comments admonishing the staleness of graphene on silicon transistors.</p></div><p>From reading what you quoted, it's not certain that Tohoku produced anything, at least not a graphene transistor. They did however demonstrate that they <em>can</em> grow graphene on a silicon substrate, and that they <em>can</em> pair that technique with conventional lithography <em>to</em> create a graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor. It's just not clear that they <em>did</em> create a graphene transistor, or at least anything comparable to what IBM apparently <em>is</em> producing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The other day we discussed what sounds like similar research [ slashdot.org ] by a group of scientists at Tohoku University ; that team did not produce transistors , however.Surely that is some sort of joke .
From the summary of the Tokyo University article : A new paper entitled Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon toward Graphene-Silicon Fusion Electronics published by a group of physicists at Tohoku University in Japan has demonstrated that they can grow graphene on a silicon substrate and pair that technique with conventional lithography to create a graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor.Not to mention that article is a myriad of highly moderated comments admonishing the staleness of graphene on silicon transistors.From reading what you quoted , it 's not certain that Tohoku produced anything , at least not a graphene transistor .
They did however demonstrate that they can grow graphene on a silicon substrate , and that they can pair that technique with conventional lithography to create a graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor .
It 's just not clear that they did create a graphene transistor , or at least anything comparable to what IBM apparently is producing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other day we discussed what sounds like similar research [slashdot.org] by a group of scientists at Tohoku University; that team did not produce transistors, however.Surely that is some sort of joke.
From the summary of the Tokyo University article:A new paper entitled Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon toward Graphene-Silicon Fusion Electronics published by a group of physicists at Tohoku University in Japan has demonstrated that they can grow graphene on a silicon substrate and pair that technique with conventional lithography to create a graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor.Not to mention that article is a myriad of highly moderated comments admonishing the staleness of graphene on silicon transistors.From reading what you quoted, it's not certain that Tohoku produced anything, at least not a graphene transistor.
They did however demonstrate that they can grow graphene on a silicon substrate, and that they can pair that technique with conventional lithography to create a graphene-on-silicon field effect transistor.
It's just not clear that they did create a graphene transistor, or at least anything comparable to what IBM apparently is producing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034992</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Year 1943:
<br> <br>
"Trinitrotoluene semiconductors seem like a viable replacement until transist.... BOOOOOOOM!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Year 1943 : " Trinitrotoluene semiconductors seem like a viable replacement until transist... .
BOOOOOOOM ! "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Year 1943:
 
"Trinitrotoluene semiconductors seem like a viable replacement until transist....
BOOOOOOOM!"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035406</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds cheap</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265390400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Diamonds are made from Coal too.  Just say it is made from diamonds and you are all set.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Diamonds are made from Coal too .
Just say it is made from diamonds and you are all set .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diamonds are made from Coal too.
Just say it is made from diamonds and you are all set.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035564</id>
	<title>Graphene is ok for now</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1265391180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>graphene seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop</i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>With everyone quitting smoking, we've run out of dead people's lungs to scrape carbon out of, so we've reached the limits of carbon-based CPUs and had to switch to graphene.<br>
&nbsp; <br>But the extra pencils from companies going paperless will only last so long.  When we run out, we will have to switch to making quantum CPUs.  Hopefully by then, making quantums will be a lot cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>graphene seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop   With everyone quitting smoking , we 've run out of dead people 's lungs to scrape carbon out of , so we 've reached the limits of carbon-based CPUs and had to switch to graphene .
  But the extra pencils from companies going paperless will only last so long .
When we run out , we will have to switch to making quantum CPUs .
Hopefully by then , making quantums will be a lot cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>graphene seems like a viable replacement until quantum computing gets to desktop 
  With everyone quitting smoking, we've run out of dead people's lungs to scrape carbon out of, so we've reached the limits of carbon-based CPUs and had to switch to graphene.
  But the extra pencils from companies going paperless will only last so long.
When we run out, we will have to switch to making quantum CPUs.
Hopefully by then, making quantums will be a lot cheaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31040528</id>
	<title>Silicon is still faster</title>
	<author>MattskEE</author>
	<datestamp>1265369760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphene is still very much a lab technology which isn't anywhere near ready for commercial production of devices.  It may turn out to replace Silicon one day, but guess what, people keep doing amazing shit with silicon because it's still the cheapest material system for fabrication.</p><p>Apologies to those without IEEE access, but here is a paper discussing a recent 150GHz Silicon CMOS amplifier: <a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&amp;arnumber=4977519&amp;isnumber=4977283" title="ieee.org">A 1.1V 150GHz amplifier with 8dB gain and +6dBm saturated output power in standard digital 65nm CMOS using dummy-prefilled microstrip lines</a> [ieee.org].  That's pretty awesome in my book.  It's pushing the amplifier very close to fmax of the actual transistors, but it works and it's in a commercial silicon process.</p><p>There are always applications where we can do better systems with more expensive materials like GaAs, GaN, InP, Graphene, etc... but silicon is cheap and easily mass-produced, so lots of engineers work on pushing it to incredible performance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphene is still very much a lab technology which is n't anywhere near ready for commercial production of devices .
It may turn out to replace Silicon one day , but guess what , people keep doing amazing shit with silicon because it 's still the cheapest material system for fabrication.Apologies to those without IEEE access , but here is a paper discussing a recent 150GHz Silicon CMOS amplifier : A 1.1V 150GHz amplifier with 8dB gain and + 6dBm saturated output power in standard digital 65nm CMOS using dummy-prefilled microstrip lines [ ieee.org ] .
That 's pretty awesome in my book .
It 's pushing the amplifier very close to fmax of the actual transistors , but it works and it 's in a commercial silicon process.There are always applications where we can do better systems with more expensive materials like GaAs , GaN , InP , Graphene , etc... but silicon is cheap and easily mass-produced , so lots of engineers work on pushing it to incredible performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphene is still very much a lab technology which isn't anywhere near ready for commercial production of devices.
It may turn out to replace Silicon one day, but guess what, people keep doing amazing shit with silicon because it's still the cheapest material system for fabrication.Apologies to those without IEEE access, but here is a paper discussing a recent 150GHz Silicon CMOS amplifier: A 1.1V 150GHz amplifier with 8dB gain and +6dBm saturated output power in standard digital 65nm CMOS using dummy-prefilled microstrip lines [ieee.org].
That's pretty awesome in my book.
It's pushing the amplifier very close to fmax of the actual transistors, but it works and it's in a commercial silicon process.There are always applications where we can do better systems with more expensive materials like GaAs, GaN, InP, Graphene, etc... but silicon is cheap and easily mass-produced, so lots of engineers work on pushing it to incredible performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035242</id>
	<title>Re:3D chips</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1265389680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3D chip manufacturing would be interesting. As well as having a possible stepping stone towards universal fabrication, you would also have a great increase in the potential number of connections between processing elements. Connectivity is one of the main divides between silicon and neural tissue, so this may have implications for artificial intelligence. Two singularities for the price of one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3D chip manufacturing would be interesting .
As well as having a possible stepping stone towards universal fabrication , you would also have a great increase in the potential number of connections between processing elements .
Connectivity is one of the main divides between silicon and neural tissue , so this may have implications for artificial intelligence .
Two singularities for the price of one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D chip manufacturing would be interesting.
As well as having a possible stepping stone towards universal fabrication, you would also have a great increase in the potential number of connections between processing elements.
Connectivity is one of the main divides between silicon and neural tissue, so this may have implications for artificial intelligence.
Two singularities for the price of one!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035442</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds cheap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265390640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think of it this way: They'll be carbon-based, like us!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of it this way : They 'll be carbon-based , like us !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of it this way: They'll be carbon-based, like us!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31038296</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1265402760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh? So what are they using in the year 2242 as a stop-gap measure until quantum computing gets to the desktop?</p></div><p>Unfortunately divulging any information other than you are wrong would be a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh ?
So what are they using in the year 2242 as a stop-gap measure until quantum computing gets to the desktop ? Unfortunately divulging any information other than you are wrong would be a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh?
So what are they using in the year 2242 as a stop-gap measure until quantum computing gets to the desktop?Unfortunately divulging any information other than you are wrong would be a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035074</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds cheap</title>
	<author>eudean</author>
	<datestamp>1265388840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They do.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon\_on\_sapphire" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon\_on\_sapphire</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon \ _on \ _sapphire [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon\_on\_sapphire [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034764</id>
	<title>Commercially Viable</title>
	<author>LikwidCirkel</author>
	<datestamp>1265387220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>With all the stories of highly-experimental new, novel types of transistors - the majority of which are expensive-research only with no chance of commercialization any time soon, it's refreshing to see something that actually takes production feasibility into account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all the stories of highly-experimental new , novel types of transistors - the majority of which are expensive-research only with no chance of commercialization any time soon , it 's refreshing to see something that actually takes production feasibility into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all the stories of highly-experimental new, novel types of transistors - the majority of which are expensive-research only with no chance of commercialization any time soon, it's refreshing to see something that actually takes production feasibility into account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31040212</id>
	<title>Finally..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265368140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..we will be able to run java applications at "full speed".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..we will be able to run java applications at " full speed " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..we will be able to run java applications at "full speed".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035612</id>
	<title>Re:My prediction</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1265391420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unobtanium will never get to your desktop. It may however hover slightly above it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unobtanium will never get to your desktop .
It may however hover slightly above it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unobtanium will never get to your desktop.
It may however hover slightly above it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035320</id>
	<title>Re:3D chips</title>
	<author>Evan Meakyl</author>
	<datestamp>1265390040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that a kind of fractal volume for the CPU (which will maximize the surface between the cooling fluid and the heating parts of the CPU) could be pretty cool (no pun intended!), but quite hard to manufacture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that a kind of fractal volume for the CPU ( which will maximize the surface between the cooling fluid and the heating parts of the CPU ) could be pretty cool ( no pun intended !
) , but quite hard to manufacture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that a kind of fractal volume for the CPU (which will maximize the surface between the cooling fluid and the heating parts of the CPU) could be pretty cool (no pun intended!
), but quite hard to manufacture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034880</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't Produce Transistors? Oh Come On!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265387820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe you would like to read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FET" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FET</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you would like to read http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FET [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you would like to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FET [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034718</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31038046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31058882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31040428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31070894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31038430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31038296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_151221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31040428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31058882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31070894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31038430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036218
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31038296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035722
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31039296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31037578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31035104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31036356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31038046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_151221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_151221.31034796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
