<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_06_0545220</id>
	<title>New Rules May Raise Cost of Buying Gadgets Online</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265448780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ericatcw writes <i>"Buying your next laptop or smartphone online could suddenly get a lot more expensive if a little-known US Department of Transportation proposal to tighten rules around the shipment of small, Lithium-Ion battery-powered devices by air goes through, <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9153078/Proposed\_battery\_restrictions\_could\_crimp\_e\_commerce\_air\_travel?taxonomyId=70&amp;pageNumber=1">says an industry group opposing the move</a>. The changes, designed primarily to reduce the <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/09/24/2158244/Making-Safer-Lithium-Ion-Batteries">risk from Lithium-Ion batteries</a>, would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage, according to the head of the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association. The proposal is under review until March 12. It <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a75fb2">can be viewed and commented upon by members of the public</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ericatcw writes " Buying your next laptop or smartphone online could suddenly get a lot more expensive if a little-known US Department of Transportation proposal to tighten rules around the shipment of small , Lithium-Ion battery-powered devices by air goes through , says an industry group opposing the move .
The changes , designed primarily to reduce the risk from Lithium-Ion batteries , would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage , according to the head of the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association .
The proposal is under review until March 12 .
It can be viewed and commented upon by members of the public .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ericatcw writes "Buying your next laptop or smartphone online could suddenly get a lot more expensive if a little-known US Department of Transportation proposal to tighten rules around the shipment of small, Lithium-Ion battery-powered devices by air goes through, says an industry group opposing the move.
The changes, designed primarily to reduce the risk from Lithium-Ion batteries, would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage, according to the head of the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association.
The proposal is under review until March 12.
It can be viewed and commented upon by members of the public.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044314</id>
	<title>Ban crying babies  . . . and their parents . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265453460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> . . . I find them much more annoying than exploding Lithium Ion batteries . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
I find them much more annoying than exploding Lithium Ion batteries .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .
. .
I find them much more annoying than exploding Lithium Ion batteries .
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044300</id>
	<title>Suggested additional measure</title>
	<author>sleeponthemic</author>
	<datestamp>1265453160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ban humans on flights.  The even present threat of spontaneous combustion threatens us all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ban humans on flights .
The even present threat of spontaneous combustion threatens us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ban humans on flights.
The even present threat of spontaneous combustion threatens us all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047508</id>
	<title>Re:pain profit</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1265447160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the regulation. It does nothing of the kind. The point of not allowing batteries in CHECKED baggage is so that the "small fires" are in an area accessible to the cabin crew. There is no ban on the devices in carry-on. And if the airline just installs fire-suppression equipment (halon?) in the cargo hold, there is no need to ban the batteries in checked-luggage either. The airlines can recover their costs by raising the checked-bag fee by a buck or two.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the regulation .
It does nothing of the kind .
The point of not allowing batteries in CHECKED baggage is so that the " small fires " are in an area accessible to the cabin crew .
There is no ban on the devices in carry-on .
And if the airline just installs fire-suppression equipment ( halon ?
) in the cargo hold , there is no need to ban the batteries in checked-luggage either .
The airlines can recover their costs by raising the checked-bag fee by a buck or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the regulation.
It does nothing of the kind.
The point of not allowing batteries in CHECKED baggage is so that the "small fires" are in an area accessible to the cabin crew.
There is no ban on the devices in carry-on.
And if the airline just installs fire-suppression equipment (halon?
) in the cargo hold, there is no need to ban the batteries in checked-luggage either.
The airlines can recover their costs by raising the checked-bag fee by a buck or two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045842</id>
	<title>Re:and it's safer on carry-on bags?</title>
	<author>ShnowDoggie</author>
	<datestamp>1265475060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL! If I had points I would give some to you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL !
If I had points I would give some to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL!
If I had points I would give some to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044962</id>
	<title>shipping by air</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1265464440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when buying stuff with batteries in, check the cheapest and slowest shipping option. If it comes by USPS or UPS Ground, it won't be a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when buying stuff with batteries in , check the cheapest and slowest shipping option .
If it comes by USPS or UPS Ground , it wo n't be a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when buying stuff with batteries in, check the cheapest and slowest shipping option.
If it comes by USPS or UPS Ground, it won't be a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044332</id>
	<title>pain  profit</title>
	<author>Jesus\_Corpse</author>
	<datestamp>1265453700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would result in all the gadgets I use in flight (Nintendo DS, iPod, Laptop) to be stocked away, making airtravel an even bigger pain in the ass.<br>How many incidents with batteries occur anyway? The figures suggest that a small percentage of all batteries are potentially dangerous, and I've never seen figures of how many people die of these batteries. Small fires can be put out by the cabin crew, and it certainly sounds it's going to cost a lot more than it will generate in terms of safety</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would result in all the gadgets I use in flight ( Nintendo DS , iPod , Laptop ) to be stocked away , making airtravel an even bigger pain in the ass.How many incidents with batteries occur anyway ?
The figures suggest that a small percentage of all batteries are potentially dangerous , and I 've never seen figures of how many people die of these batteries .
Small fires can be put out by the cabin crew , and it certainly sounds it 's going to cost a lot more than it will generate in terms of safety</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would result in all the gadgets I use in flight (Nintendo DS, iPod, Laptop) to be stocked away, making airtravel an even bigger pain in the ass.How many incidents with batteries occur anyway?
The figures suggest that a small percentage of all batteries are potentially dangerous, and I've never seen figures of how many people die of these batteries.
Small fires can be put out by the cabin crew, and it certainly sounds it's going to cost a lot more than it will generate in terms of safety</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31048230</id>
	<title>Nothing new...</title>
	<author>Fishbulb</author>
	<datestamp>1265454300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When laptop batteries began exploding left and right if you looked at them wrong, I gave my father a call.</p><p>He worked for many years at the Lithium Corporation of America, where they mined and refined Lithium ore for all sorts of purposes (shoe rubber, axle grease, pool chlorine, etc, etc..).</p><p>I asked him about the exploding batteries, expecting a tirade on how bad manufacturing was to blame, rather than lithium.</p><p>Instead, he surprised me with a rant about the old-old lithium batteries - small things about half the size of a double-A battery - used in (pro-)photography flash units.  "They banned those from passenger flights because if you hit one with a hammer, it would go off like a shotgun shell. The whole point of using lithium in a battery is because it releases stored energy quickly, to recharge the flash." He seemed a bit shaken and a little surprised that one of those exploding batteries hadn't taken down an airliner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When laptop batteries began exploding left and right if you looked at them wrong , I gave my father a call.He worked for many years at the Lithium Corporation of America , where they mined and refined Lithium ore for all sorts of purposes ( shoe rubber , axle grease , pool chlorine , etc , etc.. ) .I asked him about the exploding batteries , expecting a tirade on how bad manufacturing was to blame , rather than lithium.Instead , he surprised me with a rant about the old-old lithium batteries - small things about half the size of a double-A battery - used in ( pro- ) photography flash units .
" They banned those from passenger flights because if you hit one with a hammer , it would go off like a shotgun shell .
The whole point of using lithium in a battery is because it releases stored energy quickly , to recharge the flash .
" He seemed a bit shaken and a little surprised that one of those exploding batteries had n't taken down an airliner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When laptop batteries began exploding left and right if you looked at them wrong, I gave my father a call.He worked for many years at the Lithium Corporation of America, where they mined and refined Lithium ore for all sorts of purposes (shoe rubber, axle grease, pool chlorine, etc, etc..).I asked him about the exploding batteries, expecting a tirade on how bad manufacturing was to blame, rather than lithium.Instead, he surprised me with a rant about the old-old lithium batteries - small things about half the size of a double-A battery - used in (pro-)photography flash units.
"They banned those from passenger flights because if you hit one with a hammer, it would go off like a shotgun shell.
The whole point of using lithium in a battery is because it releases stored energy quickly, to recharge the flash.
" He seemed a bit shaken and a little surprised that one of those exploding batteries hadn't taken down an airliner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047228</id>
	<title>surprised by an explosion in my pocket</title>
	<author>Haxzaw</author>
	<datestamp>1265487360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are those exploding batteries in your pocket, or are just glad to see me?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are those exploding batteries in your pocket , or are just glad to see me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are those exploding batteries in your pocket, or are just glad to see me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044706</id>
	<title>Stop those terrorists!!</title>
	<author>haruchai</author>
	<datestamp>1265459520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you never know when the next flight might be threatened by lithium-powered underwear</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you never know when the next flight might be threatened by lithium-powered underwear</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you never know when the next flight might be threatened by lithium-powered underwear</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31050164</id>
	<title>This will never get passed</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1265474880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know why people worry about this kind of thing being made law. Why am I not worried? Think about it.</p><p>Who are the people who use planes all the time? Business people, government workers.</p><p>And who are the people who need to use their laptops on all those plane trips? Business people, government workers.</p><p>And who are the people in real control of all of the laws in the country? That's right, the wealthy business people, the lawmaking government workers.</p><p>In 2010+, No law or regulation is ever going to happen that makes air travel require you to not have a working computer. It is just not realistic given the players involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why people worry about this kind of thing being made law .
Why am I not worried ?
Think about it.Who are the people who use planes all the time ?
Business people , government workers.And who are the people who need to use their laptops on all those plane trips ?
Business people , government workers.And who are the people in real control of all of the laws in the country ?
That 's right , the wealthy business people , the lawmaking government workers.In 2010 + , No law or regulation is ever going to happen that makes air travel require you to not have a working computer .
It is just not realistic given the players involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why people worry about this kind of thing being made law.
Why am I not worried?
Think about it.Who are the people who use planes all the time?
Business people, government workers.And who are the people who need to use their laptops on all those plane trips?
Business people, government workers.And who are the people in real control of all of the laws in the country?
That's right, the wealthy business people, the lawmaking government workers.In 2010+, No law or regulation is ever going to happen that makes air travel require you to not have a working computer.
It is just not realistic given the players involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045396</id>
	<title>Re:Not just alkaline and NiMH but Lithium also.</title>
	<author>Internal Modem</author>
	<datestamp>1265470320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you miss the part in your quote that states "Except as provided in Sec. 172.102, Special Provision A101"? </p><p>A101A primary (non-rechargeable) lithium battery or cell packed with equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless:</p><p>a. The battery or cell complies with the requirements and limitations of 173.185(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4) and (b)(6) or 173.185(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(5) of this subchapter;</p><p>b. The package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment;</p><p>c. The equipment and the battery or cell are packed in a strong packaging;</p><p>d. The gross weight of the package does not exceed 5 kg. Packages complying with the requirements of this special provision are excepted from all other requirements of this subchapter.</p><p>A102A primary (non-rechargeable) lithium battery or cell contained in equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless:</p><p>a. The battery or cell complies with the requirements and limitations of 173.185(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4) and (b)(6) or 173.185(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(5) of this subchapter;</p><p>b. The package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment;</p><p>c. The equipment containing the battery or cell is packed in strong packagings; and</p><p>d. The net weight of the package does not exceed 5 kg. Packages complying with the requirements of this special provision are excepted from all other requirements of this subchapter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you miss the part in your quote that states " Except as provided in Sec .
172.102 , Special Provision A101 " ?
A101A primary ( non-rechargeable ) lithium battery or cell packed with equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless : a. The battery or cell complies with the requirements and limitations of 173.185 ( b ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 2 ) , ( b ) ( 3 ) , ( b ) ( 4 ) and ( b ) ( 6 ) or 173.185 ( c ) ( 1 ) , ( c ) ( 2 ) , ( c ) ( 3 ) and ( c ) ( 5 ) of this subchapter ; b. The package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment ; c. The equipment and the battery or cell are packed in a strong packaging ; d. The gross weight of the package does not exceed 5 kg .
Packages complying with the requirements of this special provision are excepted from all other requirements of this subchapter.A102A primary ( non-rechargeable ) lithium battery or cell contained in equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless : a. The battery or cell complies with the requirements and limitations of 173.185 ( b ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 2 ) , ( b ) ( 3 ) , ( b ) ( 4 ) and ( b ) ( 6 ) or 173.185 ( c ) ( 1 ) , ( c ) ( 2 ) , ( c ) ( 3 ) and ( c ) ( 5 ) of this subchapter ; b. The package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment ; c. The equipment containing the battery or cell is packed in strong packagings ; andd .
The net weight of the package does not exceed 5 kg .
Packages complying with the requirements of this special provision are excepted from all other requirements of this subchapter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you miss the part in your quote that states "Except as provided in Sec.
172.102, Special Provision A101"?
A101A primary (non-rechargeable) lithium battery or cell packed with equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless:a. The battery or cell complies with the requirements and limitations of 173.185(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4) and (b)(6) or 173.185(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(5) of this subchapter;b. The package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment;c. The equipment and the battery or cell are packed in a strong packaging;d. The gross weight of the package does not exceed 5 kg.
Packages complying with the requirements of this special provision are excepted from all other requirements of this subchapter.A102A primary (non-rechargeable) lithium battery or cell contained in equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless:a. The battery or cell complies with the requirements and limitations of 173.185(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4) and (b)(6) or 173.185(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(5) of this subchapter;b. The package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment;c. The equipment containing the battery or cell is packed in strong packagings; andd.
The net weight of the package does not exceed 5 kg.
Packages complying with the requirements of this special provision are excepted from all other requirements of this subchapter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044572</id>
	<title>The key to fighting this ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265457660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key to fighting this idiocy is to hit the bureaucrats back, HARD and where it hurts!  Just make sure the rules are applied to the battery operated sex toys that their hookers bring with them on their junkets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key to fighting this idiocy is to hit the bureaucrats back , HARD and where it hurts !
Just make sure the rules are applied to the battery operated sex toys that their hookers bring with them on their junkets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key to fighting this idiocy is to hit the bureaucrats back, HARD and where it hurts!
Just make sure the rules are applied to the battery operated sex toys that their hookers bring with them on their junkets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046720</id>
	<title>My babbling comment, post yours</title>
	<author>exabrial</author>
	<datestamp>1265482800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>here has been no evidence that lithium ion, nickel metal hydrid, nor aklaline batteries present any kind of danger to air travel. Regulstions such as these are reactionary knee jerk responses to problems that do not exist. Please consider the times in which we live, humans are connected 24-7 by devices powered by these batteries. Money spent of these regulations would be better invested in foreign intelligence, even though the public already has such an extremely low chance of dying on a terrorist act anyway.

Getting back to the point, this measure only serves to harass airline passengers, increase spiralling costs of air safety and further send a troubled nation into panic while buying us absolutely no 'real' safety. Myself and every other reasonable person in the united states are apposed to this measure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>here has been no evidence that lithium ion , nickel metal hydrid , nor aklaline batteries present any kind of danger to air travel .
Regulstions such as these are reactionary knee jerk responses to problems that do not exist .
Please consider the times in which we live , humans are connected 24-7 by devices powered by these batteries .
Money spent of these regulations would be better invested in foreign intelligence , even though the public already has such an extremely low chance of dying on a terrorist act anyway .
Getting back to the point , this measure only serves to harass airline passengers , increase spiralling costs of air safety and further send a troubled nation into panic while buying us absolutely no 'real ' safety .
Myself and every other reasonable person in the united states are apposed to this measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here has been no evidence that lithium ion, nickel metal hydrid, nor aklaline batteries present any kind of danger to air travel.
Regulstions such as these are reactionary knee jerk responses to problems that do not exist.
Please consider the times in which we live, humans are connected 24-7 by devices powered by these batteries.
Money spent of these regulations would be better invested in foreign intelligence, even though the public already has such an extremely low chance of dying on a terrorist act anyway.
Getting back to the point, this measure only serves to harass airline passengers, increase spiralling costs of air safety and further send a troubled nation into panic while buying us absolutely no 'real' safety.
Myself and every other reasonable person in the united states are apposed to this measure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045202</id>
	<title>cpap</title>
	<author>madhippy</author>
	<datestamp>1265467980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sleep hooked up to one of them darn fangled cpap machines<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  planning a trip soon and bought a 222Wh lithium-ion battery to allow me to go camping etc.<br><br>found out I can't use the bloody thing now!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sleep hooked up to one of them darn fangled cpap machines ... planning a trip soon and bought a 222Wh lithium-ion battery to allow me to go camping etc.found out I ca n't use the bloody thing now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sleep hooked up to one of them darn fangled cpap machines ...  planning a trip soon and bought a 222Wh lithium-ion battery to allow me to go camping etc.found out I can't use the bloody thing now!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044280</id>
	<title>Makes sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265452920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Batteries can be dangerous if not looked after, especially in a flying aeroplane scenario.<br>An easy solution would be standardised batteries that you can buy from the supermarket. (strangely enough, we actually used to have these in the old days)<br>I can't see the need for special batteries for every single device. How is that progress? (And Apple and Logitech have one step stupider and made devices with irreplacable batteries).<br>Perhaps a battery size standard law is required instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Batteries can be dangerous if not looked after , especially in a flying aeroplane scenario.An easy solution would be standardised batteries that you can buy from the supermarket .
( strangely enough , we actually used to have these in the old days ) I ca n't see the need for special batteries for every single device .
How is that progress ?
( And Apple and Logitech have one step stupider and made devices with irreplacable batteries ) .Perhaps a battery size standard law is required instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Batteries can be dangerous if not looked after, especially in a flying aeroplane scenario.An easy solution would be standardised batteries that you can buy from the supermarket.
(strangely enough, we actually used to have these in the old days)I can't see the need for special batteries for every single device.
How is that progress?
(And Apple and Logitech have one step stupider and made devices with irreplacable batteries).Perhaps a battery size standard law is required instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046156</id>
	<title>From now on...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265478120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I will only fly completely naked.</p><p>Let&lsquo;s see how long they can stand that, before they overturn the laws.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>But I can raise the bar too, by employing this technique: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9yLKnC5bho" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9yLKnC5bho</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I will only fly completely naked.Let    s see how long they can stand that , before they overturn the laws .
: PBut I can raise the bar too , by employing this technique : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = m9yLKnC5bho [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I will only fly completely naked.Let‘s see how long they can stand that, before they overturn the laws.
:PBut I can raise the bar too, by employing this technique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9yLKnC5bho [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046336</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>Idbar</author>
	<datestamp>1265479680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, In any case, I always use ground shipping because it's cheaper, so why would that affect me?<br>Do you mean that cargo imports from China or other manufacturers locations are dangerous to cargo planes and they don't properly use bubble wrap to ensure these devices don't collide between each other?<br> <br>
What I don't get is, if they were dangerous, how did they become so widely used in the market and why just until now they figured out that it could cause an accident?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , In any case , I always use ground shipping because it 's cheaper , so why would that affect me ? Do you mean that cargo imports from China or other manufacturers locations are dangerous to cargo planes and they do n't properly use bubble wrap to ensure these devices do n't collide between each other ?
What I do n't get is , if they were dangerous , how did they become so widely used in the market and why just until now they figured out that it could cause an accident ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, In any case, I always use ground shipping because it's cheaper, so why would that affect me?Do you mean that cargo imports from China or other manufacturers locations are dangerous to cargo planes and they don't properly use bubble wrap to ensure these devices don't collide between each other?
What I don't get is, if they were dangerous, how did they become so widely used in the market and why just until now they figured out that it could cause an accident?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046960</id>
	<title>Re:Am I reading this right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265484900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After the Great Battery Scare last year with all those laptops combusting spontaneously their was little choice but to start with at least <i>some</i> regulation regarding the combustable nature of these batteries.</p></div><p>The "Great Battery Scare", in caps!? Lol<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...oh yes, I remember how everyone I know was so terrified of batteries all last year. Exploding all over the place as they were. I was having so many nightmares about batteries. Communities were crying out all over the country to their leaders, do something, do something about these darn batteries terrifying us all. YMBFJ.</p><p>Seriously, this desperate need to paranoidly cry for 'regulation' in the face of just about any completely statistically insignificant 'threat' should be classified as a mental illness and treated as such.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After the Great Battery Scare last year with all those laptops combusting spontaneously their was little choice but to start with at least some regulation regarding the combustable nature of these batteries.The " Great Battery Scare " , in caps ! ?
Lol ...oh yes , I remember how everyone I know was so terrified of batteries all last year .
Exploding all over the place as they were .
I was having so many nightmares about batteries .
Communities were crying out all over the country to their leaders , do something , do something about these darn batteries terrifying us all .
YMBFJ.Seriously , this desperate need to paranoidly cry for 'regulation ' in the face of just about any completely statistically insignificant 'threat ' should be classified as a mental illness and treated as such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the Great Battery Scare last year with all those laptops combusting spontaneously their was little choice but to start with at least some regulation regarding the combustable nature of these batteries.The "Great Battery Scare", in caps!?
Lol ...oh yes, I remember how everyone I know was so terrified of batteries all last year.
Exploding all over the place as they were.
I was having so many nightmares about batteries.
Communities were crying out all over the country to their leaders, do something, do something about these darn batteries terrifying us all.
YMBFJ.Seriously, this desperate need to paranoidly cry for 'regulation' in the face of just about any completely statistically insignificant 'threat' should be classified as a mental illness and treated as such.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044682</id>
	<title>Re:Blame XKCD for this one</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1265459280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not about consumer safety as much as it is about putting a safety *tax* on imported goods.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about consumer safety as much as it is about putting a safety * tax * on imported goods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about consumer safety as much as it is about putting a safety *tax* on imported goods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044378</id>
	<title>Re:Blame XKCD for this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265454480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually technology advances over time.</p><p>But due to the paranoid delusions of many, many Americans, air travel is now less convenient than it was 20 years ago.</p><p>I'm just waiting for a sufficiently determined biochemist to lock herself in the airplane restroom, amputate her own leg, separate it into its constituent compounds, and synthesize an explosive charge.  After that, they'll presumably decide to have everyone travel pre-dissected in little vials, maybe split up onto different flights just in case.</p><p>On second thought, I take that back.  Nobody will ever do such a thing, or even consider it, but some petty official in the Department of Homeland Security will read this post and preemptively issue an internal memo.  The memo will travel through the hands of ten other petty officials, becoming more and more terrifying to each, until it arrives at the desk of someone with more power and paranoia than the average public servant.  He'll read it, scream into his Homeland Security terror blanket, and have his secretary pull strings to enact the dissection-before-travel rule.</p><p>Please don't blame me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually technology advances over time.But due to the paranoid delusions of many , many Americans , air travel is now less convenient than it was 20 years ago.I 'm just waiting for a sufficiently determined biochemist to lock herself in the airplane restroom , amputate her own leg , separate it into its constituent compounds , and synthesize an explosive charge .
After that , they 'll presumably decide to have everyone travel pre-dissected in little vials , maybe split up onto different flights just in case.On second thought , I take that back .
Nobody will ever do such a thing , or even consider it , but some petty official in the Department of Homeland Security will read this post and preemptively issue an internal memo .
The memo will travel through the hands of ten other petty officials , becoming more and more terrifying to each , until it arrives at the desk of someone with more power and paranoia than the average public servant .
He 'll read it , scream into his Homeland Security terror blanket , and have his secretary pull strings to enact the dissection-before-travel rule.Please do n't blame me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually technology advances over time.But due to the paranoid delusions of many, many Americans, air travel is now less convenient than it was 20 years ago.I'm just waiting for a sufficiently determined biochemist to lock herself in the airplane restroom, amputate her own leg, separate it into its constituent compounds, and synthesize an explosive charge.
After that, they'll presumably decide to have everyone travel pre-dissected in little vials, maybe split up onto different flights just in case.On second thought, I take that back.
Nobody will ever do such a thing, or even consider it, but some petty official in the Department of Homeland Security will read this post and preemptively issue an internal memo.
The memo will travel through the hands of ten other petty officials, becoming more and more terrifying to each, until it arrives at the desk of someone with more power and paranoia than the average public servant.
He'll read it, scream into his Homeland Security terror blanket, and have his secretary pull strings to enact the dissection-before-travel rule.Please don't blame me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045040</id>
	<title>Re:Blame XKCD for this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265465820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Am I the only one who finds the women in XKCD cartoons so damn sexy?</p></div></blockquote><p>I've always liked slim women.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who finds the women in XKCD cartoons so damn sexy ? I 've always liked slim women .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who finds the women in XKCD cartoons so damn sexy?I've always liked slim women.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044924</id>
	<title>War on Lithium's Terror</title>
	<author>ipX</author>
	<datestamp>1265463780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While he acknowledged the department's figure of 40 air transport-related incidents since 1991 involving lithium batteries and devices powered by lithium batteries, Kerchner said it is a small number in the context of the 3.3 billion lithium batteries transported in 2008 alone.</p></div><p>This is a pressing matter. 2.105263158 "incidents" per year is obviously unacceptable.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...the battery inside an already-padded box for a new notebook PC might need to be packaged in an additional fiberboard box along with extra shipping documents, he said.</p></div><p>Obviously this is a ploy set up by <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/18/hp\_packaging/" title="theregister.co.uk">HP's packaging engineers</a> [theregister.co.uk].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You're now limited to a maximum of two batteries with between 8 and 25 grams of lithium in them. They<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... must be carried now in plastic bags... If you carry on three such batteries, security will take one of them away.</p> </div><p>So forget bringing multiple 9-cell batteries on a plane. FedEx'ing the whole thing sounds better and better every day now, since TSA can sieze <a href="http://www.upi.com/Odd\_News/2009/07/29/TSA-seizes-Disney-World-toys/UPI-63061248898047/" title="upi.com">anything</a> [upi.com] they want, including your data and now your expensive extended batteries.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While he acknowledged the department 's figure of 40 air transport-related incidents since 1991 involving lithium batteries and devices powered by lithium batteries , Kerchner said it is a small number in the context of the 3.3 billion lithium batteries transported in 2008 alone.This is a pressing matter .
2.105263158 " incidents " per year is obviously unacceptable .
...the battery inside an already-padded box for a new notebook PC might need to be packaged in an additional fiberboard box along with extra shipping documents , he said.Obviously this is a ploy set up by HP 's packaging engineers [ theregister.co.uk ] .You 're now limited to a maximum of two batteries with between 8 and 25 grams of lithium in them .
They ... must be carried now in plastic bags... If you carry on three such batteries , security will take one of them away .
So forget bringing multiple 9-cell batteries on a plane .
FedEx'ing the whole thing sounds better and better every day now , since TSA can sieze anything [ upi.com ] they want , including your data and now your expensive extended batteries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While he acknowledged the department's figure of 40 air transport-related incidents since 1991 involving lithium batteries and devices powered by lithium batteries, Kerchner said it is a small number in the context of the 3.3 billion lithium batteries transported in 2008 alone.This is a pressing matter.
2.105263158 "incidents" per year is obviously unacceptable.
...the battery inside an already-padded box for a new notebook PC might need to be packaged in an additional fiberboard box along with extra shipping documents, he said.Obviously this is a ploy set up by HP's packaging engineers [theregister.co.uk].You're now limited to a maximum of two batteries with between 8 and 25 grams of lithium in them.
They ... must be carried now in plastic bags... If you carry on three such batteries, security will take one of them away.
So forget bringing multiple 9-cell batteries on a plane.
FedEx'ing the whole thing sounds better and better every day now, since TSA can sieze anything [upi.com] they want, including your data and now your expensive extended batteries.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044430</id>
	<title>Re:and it's safer on carry-on bags?</title>
	<author>mrjb</author>
	<datestamp>1265455500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage" If it's so "dangerous" to be in the checked bags, then why is it safe to be on carry-on bags?</p></div></blockquote><p>
You're asking the wrong question. The right question is, "are spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in checked-in luggage are a safety risk?" The question can be answered objectively, rather than theoretically, because people have been stashing their batteries in checked-in luggage for decades. Right, batteries in checked-in luggage are an accident waiting to happen. We've been waiting, {and waiting,}*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but nothing happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage " If it 's so " dangerous " to be in the checked bags , then why is it safe to be on carry-on bags ?
You 're asking the wrong question .
The right question is , " are spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in checked-in luggage are a safety risk ?
" The question can be answered objectively , rather than theoretically , because people have been stashing their batteries in checked-in luggage for decades .
Right , batteries in checked-in luggage are an accident waiting to happen .
We 've been waiting , { and waiting , } * ... but nothing happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage" If it's so "dangerous" to be in the checked bags, then why is it safe to be on carry-on bags?
You're asking the wrong question.
The right question is, "are spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in checked-in luggage are a safety risk?
" The question can be answered objectively, rather than theoretically, because people have been stashing their batteries in checked-in luggage for decades.
Right, batteries in checked-in luggage are an accident waiting to happen.
We've been waiting, {and waiting,}* ... but nothing happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045608</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1265472960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I can't see the need for special batteries for every single device. How is that progress? (And Apple and Logitech have one step stupider and made devices with irreplacable batteries)."</p><p>It's progress toward Vendor Lock, nothing else. Volume makes it cheap for vendors and easy to inflict on the public.</p><p>Desktop computing is the last holdout of standard form-factors, but desktops don't have batteries.</p><p>"Perhaps a battery size standard law is required instead?"</p><p>From the POV of economic production, replacement, and being able to re-use old notebooks whose dead batteries turn them into throwaways, that's a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I ca n't see the need for special batteries for every single device .
How is that progress ?
( And Apple and Logitech have one step stupider and made devices with irreplacable batteries ) .
" It 's progress toward Vendor Lock , nothing else .
Volume makes it cheap for vendors and easy to inflict on the public.Desktop computing is the last holdout of standard form-factors , but desktops do n't have batteries .
" Perhaps a battery size standard law is required instead ?
" From the POV of economic production , replacement , and being able to re-use old notebooks whose dead batteries turn them into throwaways , that 's a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I can't see the need for special batteries for every single device.
How is that progress?
(And Apple and Logitech have one step stupider and made devices with irreplacable batteries).
"It's progress toward Vendor Lock, nothing else.
Volume makes it cheap for vendors and easy to inflict on the public.Desktop computing is the last holdout of standard form-factors, but desktops don't have batteries.
"Perhaps a battery size standard law is required instead?
"From the POV of economic production, replacement, and being able to re-use old notebooks whose dead batteries turn them into throwaways, that's a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045548</id>
	<title>Re:pain profit</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1265472360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not sure about alkaline and NiMHs, but the cabin crew is not going to be able to put out a lithium battery that's on fire.  They self oxidize.  And what would you think they could do?  Pour water over it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure about alkaline and NiMHs , but the cabin crew is not going to be able to put out a lithium battery that 's on fire .
They self oxidize .
And what would you think they could do ?
Pour water over it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure about alkaline and NiMHs, but the cabin crew is not going to be able to put out a lithium battery that's on fire.
They self oxidize.
And what would you think they could do?
Pour water over it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31050324</id>
	<title>Re:Not just alkaline and NiMH but Lithium also.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265477280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, yeah. You're not allowed to ship a whole CAR or ENGINE or MACHINERY on a passenger aircraft with the batteries installed. I'd like to see you get one of those in under the 50lbs checked baggage weight limit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , yeah .
You 're not allowed to ship a whole CAR or ENGINE or MACHINERY on a passenger aircraft with the batteries installed .
I 'd like to see you get one of those in under the 50lbs checked baggage weight limit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, yeah.
You're not allowed to ship a whole CAR or ENGINE or MACHINERY on a passenger aircraft with the batteries installed.
I'd like to see you get one of those in under the 50lbs checked baggage weight limit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045534</id>
	<title>Carry-on Safer?</title>
	<author>IcePop456</author>
	<datestamp>1265472060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure people could use batteries in a dangerous way, but at least there are others that could do something about the fire/damage.  Down with the checked luggage, I assume the plane would not react until things were much worse...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure people could use batteries in a dangerous way , but at least there are others that could do something about the fire/damage .
Down with the checked luggage , I assume the plane would not react until things were much worse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure people could use batteries in a dangerous way, but at least there are others that could do something about the fire/damage.
Down with the checked luggage, I assume the plane would not react until things were much worse...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31050556</id>
	<title>Re:Am I reading this right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265480280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please also note that (as far as I can tell) all references to "cartridge" are referring to fuel cell cartridges, and not batteries. The text explicitly uses the term "battery(ies)" when they want to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please also note that ( as far as I can tell ) all references to " cartridge " are referring to fuel cell cartridges , and not batteries .
The text explicitly uses the term " battery ( ies ) " when they want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please also note that (as far as I can tell) all references to "cartridge" are referring to fuel cell cartridges, and not batteries.
The text explicitly uses the term "battery(ies)" when they want to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046914</id>
	<title>Re:and it's safer on carry-on bags?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265484480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I flew a few months ago they weren't allowed in carry-on bags either.<br>They let laptops go through, despite the lithium ion battery... but there were signs saying no lithium ion batteries allowed in carry-on luggage at the Phoenix airport.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I flew a few months ago they were n't allowed in carry-on bags either.They let laptops go through , despite the lithium ion battery... but there were signs saying no lithium ion batteries allowed in carry-on luggage at the Phoenix airport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I flew a few months ago they weren't allowed in carry-on bags either.They let laptops go through, despite the lithium ion battery... but there were signs saying no lithium ion batteries allowed in carry-on luggage at the Phoenix airport.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045126</id>
	<title>Batteries in security scans</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1265467020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do batteries look like on security scans?  Can the scanners not penetrate them?  If the scanners have trouble with them, then I submit that this is a veiled attempt at stopping terrorists from hiding bombs in or behind lithium-ion batteries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do batteries look like on security scans ?
Can the scanners not penetrate them ?
If the scanners have trouble with them , then I submit that this is a veiled attempt at stopping terrorists from hiding bombs in or behind lithium-ion batteries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do batteries look like on security scans?
Can the scanners not penetrate them?
If the scanners have trouble with them, then I submit that this is a veiled attempt at stopping terrorists from hiding bombs in or behind lithium-ion batteries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046176</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265478240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait until they learn how firewall rules work... ^^</p><p>Then they can even brag about that &ldquo;the only thing they do&rdquo;, is allow things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait until they learn how firewall rules work... ^ ^ Then they can even brag about that    the only thing they do    , is allow things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait until they learn how firewall rules work... ^^Then they can even brag about that “the only thing they do”, is allow things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31053960</id>
	<title>*sigh*</title>
	<author>dsmall</author>
	<datestamp>1265574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can buy Gadgets online?</p><p>Errrr... Ummm...</p><p>Why didn't anybody tell... me?</p><p>Thanks,</p><p>Dave Small</p><p>(formerly of Gadgets by Small)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can buy Gadgets online ? Errrr... Ummm...Why did n't anybody tell... me ? Thanks,Dave Small ( formerly of Gadgets by Small )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can buy Gadgets online?Errrr... Ummm...Why didn't anybody tell... me?Thanks,Dave Small(formerly of Gadgets by Small)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045530</id>
	<title>Re:Not just alkaline and NiMH but Lithium also.</title>
	<author>BoogieChile</author>
	<datestamp>1265471940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or some bright spark could, I don't know, go and look up this "Special Provision A101" of which they speak?<br>
<br>
Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble, shall I?<br>
<br>
 A101 A primary lithium battery or cell packed with or contained in equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless the equipment and the battery conform to the following provisions and the package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment:<br>
    (1) The lithium content of each cell, when fully charged, is not more than 5 grams.<br>
    (2) The aggregate lithium content of the anode of each battery, when fully charged, is not more than 25 grams.<br>
    (3) The net weight of lithium batteries does not exceed 5 kg (11 pounds).<br>
<a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?YEAR=current&amp;TITLE=49&amp;PART=172&amp;SECTION=102&amp;SUBPART=&amp;TYPE=TEXT" title="gpo.gov" rel="nofollow">http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?YEAR=current&amp;TITLE=49&amp;PART=172&amp;SECTION=102&amp;SUBPART=&amp;TYPE=TEXT</a> [gpo.gov]  <br>
<br>
So, unless you've got one of those weird mutant Nintendo DSes with the REALLY big battery back, that's the end of our little panic fit, OK?<br>
<br>
Sheesh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or some bright spark could , I do n't know , go and look up this " Special Provision A101 " of which they speak ?
Tell you what , I 'll save you the trouble , shall I ?
A101 A primary lithium battery or cell packed with or contained in equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless the equipment and the battery conform to the following provisions and the package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment : ( 1 ) The lithium content of each cell , when fully charged , is not more than 5 grams .
( 2 ) The aggregate lithium content of the anode of each battery , when fully charged , is not more than 25 grams .
( 3 ) The net weight of lithium batteries does not exceed 5 kg ( 11 pounds ) .
http : //frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi ? YEAR = current&amp;TITLE = 49&amp;PART = 172&amp;SECTION = 102&amp;SUBPART = &amp;TYPE = TEXT [ gpo.gov ] So , unless you 've got one of those weird mutant Nintendo DSes with the REALLY big battery back , that 's the end of our little panic fit , OK ?
Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or some bright spark could, I don't know, go and look up this "Special Provision A101" of which they speak?
Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble, shall I?
A101 A primary lithium battery or cell packed with or contained in equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless the equipment and the battery conform to the following provisions and the package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment:
    (1) The lithium content of each cell, when fully charged, is not more than 5 grams.
(2) The aggregate lithium content of the anode of each battery, when fully charged, is not more than 25 grams.
(3) The net weight of lithium batteries does not exceed 5 kg (11 pounds).
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?YEAR=current&amp;TITLE=49&amp;PART=172&amp;SECTION=102&amp;SUBPART=&amp;TYPE=TEXT [gpo.gov]  

So, unless you've got one of those weird mutant Nintendo DSes with the REALLY big battery back, that's the end of our little panic fit, OK?
Sheesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045990</id>
	<title>Exploding batteries?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1265476740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the NSA finally classified Sony as terrorists?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the NSA finally classified Sony as terrorists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the NSA finally classified Sony as terrorists?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045368</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265470020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't be serious!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't be serious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't be serious!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044372</id>
	<title>One more reason not to fly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265454480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just one more reason not to fly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just one more reason not to fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just one more reason not to fly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045210</id>
	<title>Re:Ban crying babies . . . and their parents . . .</title>
	<author>Quarters</author>
	<datestamp>1265468100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spoken like someone who is too self-important and socially inept to ever get to the point of being a parent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoken like someone who is too self-important and socially inept to ever get to the point of being a parent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoken like someone who is too self-important and socially inept to ever get to the point of being a parent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045084</id>
	<title>Nonremovable batteries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265466420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An obvious risk mitigation would be to ban carrying in the cabin of any device where the battery is not properly sealed and cannot easily be made open circuit.</p><p>As an electronics engineer aware of corners cut, tolerances reduced, and the plain immense amount of energy in a modern battery, it makes me cringe whenever I see a device which cannot simply be "turned off" if something malfunctions. It's like having a gas hob and never being able to stop the flow of gas completely: you can implement safety measures to reduce the risk of explosion, but if the circuitry of pipes is always live, you have no option to isolate the source of danger.</p><p>Of course li-ion batteries should not be carried in the hold of a passenger plane, but neither should they be carried in any sealed piece of equipment which makes electrical contact with the battery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An obvious risk mitigation would be to ban carrying in the cabin of any device where the battery is not properly sealed and can not easily be made open circuit.As an electronics engineer aware of corners cut , tolerances reduced , and the plain immense amount of energy in a modern battery , it makes me cringe whenever I see a device which can not simply be " turned off " if something malfunctions .
It 's like having a gas hob and never being able to stop the flow of gas completely : you can implement safety measures to reduce the risk of explosion , but if the circuitry of pipes is always live , you have no option to isolate the source of danger.Of course li-ion batteries should not be carried in the hold of a passenger plane , but neither should they be carried in any sealed piece of equipment which makes electrical contact with the battery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An obvious risk mitigation would be to ban carrying in the cabin of any device where the battery is not properly sealed and cannot easily be made open circuit.As an electronics engineer aware of corners cut, tolerances reduced, and the plain immense amount of energy in a modern battery, it makes me cringe whenever I see a device which cannot simply be "turned off" if something malfunctions.
It's like having a gas hob and never being able to stop the flow of gas completely: you can implement safety measures to reduce the risk of explosion, but if the circuitry of pipes is always live, you have no option to isolate the source of danger.Of course li-ion batteries should not be carried in the hold of a passenger plane, but neither should they be carried in any sealed piece of equipment which makes electrical contact with the battery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044420</id>
	<title>Re:Blame XKCD for this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265455380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who finds the women in XKCD cartoons so damn sexy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who finds the women in XKCD cartoons so damn sexy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who finds the women in XKCD cartoons so damn sexy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045334</id>
	<title>Re:Blame XKCD for this one</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1265469540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely not. I love those skin-tight outfits she wears -- when she wears clothes at all!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely not .
I love those skin-tight outfits she wears -- when she wears clothes at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely not.
I love those skin-tight outfits she wears -- when she wears clothes at all!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045200</id>
	<title>Re:and it's safer on carry-on bags?</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1265467980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flight baggage are written with the convenience of the rules enforcer. Not the passenger.</p><p>If you think that through, it makes sense to do it that way.</p><p>The laptop battery installed in a laptop is properly stored.   The laptop battery kicking around in somebody's suitcase is not necessarily so.  Most accidents are a compound of events people thought unlikely: it is unlikely that a laptop battery will explode due to redundant safety features (unless it is a cheap knock-off, which are sometimes produced in the same Chinese factories as the real thing).  It is unlikely that something stored properly could cause a problem.  We count on that redundancy in case one of the assumptions fails.  Don't forget that the ValuJet crash way back in the 90s was due to shipping the same oxygen generators that sit over every passenger's seat.  In that storage setup, a faulty detonation results in the mask dropping in front of the passenger.  In a crate of oxygen generators down in the old, it was fatal to everyone.</p><p>Here is a cautionary tale about storing batteries properly. Just recently I took three dead button batteries and put them in my pants pockets rather than get up and put them in the trash. I forgot I had them there and the next day I was sitting at the table and was surprised by an explosion in my pocket. It was small explosion by normal standards, but there is no such thing as a small explosion when it happens in your pants. (Gee that sounds like an aphorism.)  I felt the electrolyte leaking onto my leg and immediately pulled my pants down.  Good thing this wasn't at work.  Now I knew I shouldn't have put those batteries in my pocket, but you could walk around with button batteries in your pocket every day of your life and never have something like that happen.  I counted on it not happening in the fifteen minutes I expected to have them there. Everybody does things like that they know they shouldn't do.  Now multiply that by thousands of times, and put tens of thousands of lives at risk.</p><p>Anyhow, the point is that we could train TSA guys to be able determine whether a laptop battery was safely stored.  It wouldn't be hard.  But that's one of hundreds, maybe thousands of cases.   What you *really* need to do is to hire people who've gone through the equivalent of an associate's degree program on engineering and safety, put them through stringent application tests and continually retrain and restest them.  Then you'd get much better security and much less hassle.</p><p>But guess what? We as a people would rather put up with the hassle than pay for safety AND convenience. That's not an entirely irrational point of view either.  You've got to draw the line somewhere, and no matter where you draw that line, somebody will be inconvenienced unnecessarily.  Take model rocket enthusiasts.  They *should* in an ideal world, be able to take most of their stuff aboard a plane if it is properly stowed.   But a ruleset that encompassed all such cases would be so large that the people enforcing them couldn't know them by heart. They'd be sifting through the rulebook on every passenger.</p><p>Naturally, the rules *could* be made better.  But it's not easy to come up with rules that (a) inconvenience nobody unnecessarily and (b) can be implemented everywhere with affordable personnel and (c) don't cause traffic jams at security gates.  Oh, yes and (d) which keep people safe.  It takes years.  It's been almost a decade since 9/11, and even if rules hadn't been side tracked by security theater, you wouldn't expect the rules to be perfect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flight baggage are written with the convenience of the rules enforcer .
Not the passenger.If you think that through , it makes sense to do it that way.The laptop battery installed in a laptop is properly stored .
The laptop battery kicking around in somebody 's suitcase is not necessarily so .
Most accidents are a compound of events people thought unlikely : it is unlikely that a laptop battery will explode due to redundant safety features ( unless it is a cheap knock-off , which are sometimes produced in the same Chinese factories as the real thing ) .
It is unlikely that something stored properly could cause a problem .
We count on that redundancy in case one of the assumptions fails .
Do n't forget that the ValuJet crash way back in the 90s was due to shipping the same oxygen generators that sit over every passenger 's seat .
In that storage setup , a faulty detonation results in the mask dropping in front of the passenger .
In a crate of oxygen generators down in the old , it was fatal to everyone.Here is a cautionary tale about storing batteries properly .
Just recently I took three dead button batteries and put them in my pants pockets rather than get up and put them in the trash .
I forgot I had them there and the next day I was sitting at the table and was surprised by an explosion in my pocket .
It was small explosion by normal standards , but there is no such thing as a small explosion when it happens in your pants .
( Gee that sounds like an aphorism .
) I felt the electrolyte leaking onto my leg and immediately pulled my pants down .
Good thing this was n't at work .
Now I knew I should n't have put those batteries in my pocket , but you could walk around with button batteries in your pocket every day of your life and never have something like that happen .
I counted on it not happening in the fifteen minutes I expected to have them there .
Everybody does things like that they know they should n't do .
Now multiply that by thousands of times , and put tens of thousands of lives at risk.Anyhow , the point is that we could train TSA guys to be able determine whether a laptop battery was safely stored .
It would n't be hard .
But that 's one of hundreds , maybe thousands of cases .
What you * really * need to do is to hire people who 've gone through the equivalent of an associate 's degree program on engineering and safety , put them through stringent application tests and continually retrain and restest them .
Then you 'd get much better security and much less hassle.But guess what ?
We as a people would rather put up with the hassle than pay for safety AND convenience .
That 's not an entirely irrational point of view either .
You 've got to draw the line somewhere , and no matter where you draw that line , somebody will be inconvenienced unnecessarily .
Take model rocket enthusiasts .
They * should * in an ideal world , be able to take most of their stuff aboard a plane if it is properly stowed .
But a ruleset that encompassed all such cases would be so large that the people enforcing them could n't know them by heart .
They 'd be sifting through the rulebook on every passenger.Naturally , the rules * could * be made better .
But it 's not easy to come up with rules that ( a ) inconvenience nobody unnecessarily and ( b ) can be implemented everywhere with affordable personnel and ( c ) do n't cause traffic jams at security gates .
Oh , yes and ( d ) which keep people safe .
It takes years .
It 's been almost a decade since 9/11 , and even if rules had n't been side tracked by security theater , you would n't expect the rules to be perfect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flight baggage are written with the convenience of the rules enforcer.
Not the passenger.If you think that through, it makes sense to do it that way.The laptop battery installed in a laptop is properly stored.
The laptop battery kicking around in somebody's suitcase is not necessarily so.
Most accidents are a compound of events people thought unlikely: it is unlikely that a laptop battery will explode due to redundant safety features (unless it is a cheap knock-off, which are sometimes produced in the same Chinese factories as the real thing).
It is unlikely that something stored properly could cause a problem.
We count on that redundancy in case one of the assumptions fails.
Don't forget that the ValuJet crash way back in the 90s was due to shipping the same oxygen generators that sit over every passenger's seat.
In that storage setup, a faulty detonation results in the mask dropping in front of the passenger.
In a crate of oxygen generators down in the old, it was fatal to everyone.Here is a cautionary tale about storing batteries properly.
Just recently I took three dead button batteries and put them in my pants pockets rather than get up and put them in the trash.
I forgot I had them there and the next day I was sitting at the table and was surprised by an explosion in my pocket.
It was small explosion by normal standards, but there is no such thing as a small explosion when it happens in your pants.
(Gee that sounds like an aphorism.
)  I felt the electrolyte leaking onto my leg and immediately pulled my pants down.
Good thing this wasn't at work.
Now I knew I shouldn't have put those batteries in my pocket, but you could walk around with button batteries in your pocket every day of your life and never have something like that happen.
I counted on it not happening in the fifteen minutes I expected to have them there.
Everybody does things like that they know they shouldn't do.
Now multiply that by thousands of times, and put tens of thousands of lives at risk.Anyhow, the point is that we could train TSA guys to be able determine whether a laptop battery was safely stored.
It wouldn't be hard.
But that's one of hundreds, maybe thousands of cases.
What you *really* need to do is to hire people who've gone through the equivalent of an associate's degree program on engineering and safety, put them through stringent application tests and continually retrain and restest them.
Then you'd get much better security and much less hassle.But guess what?
We as a people would rather put up with the hassle than pay for safety AND convenience.
That's not an entirely irrational point of view either.
You've got to draw the line somewhere, and no matter where you draw that line, somebody will be inconvenienced unnecessarily.
Take model rocket enthusiasts.
They *should* in an ideal world, be able to take most of their stuff aboard a plane if it is properly stowed.
But a ruleset that encompassed all such cases would be so large that the people enforcing them couldn't know them by heart.
They'd be sifting through the rulebook on every passenger.Naturally, the rules *could* be made better.
But it's not easy to come up with rules that (a) inconvenience nobody unnecessarily and (b) can be implemented everywhere with affordable personnel and (c) don't cause traffic jams at security gates.
Oh, yes and (d) which keep people safe.
It takes years.
It's been almost a decade since 9/11, and even if rules hadn't been side tracked by security theater, you wouldn't expect the rules to be perfect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044384</id>
	<title>Yes, let's all listen to the battery lobbyist.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265454540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pardon me, but when the second sentence ends with "argues George Kerchner, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Portable Rechargeable Battery Association," I tend to think that article doesn't have much credibility.</p><p>Would we pay attention if an article said something like:</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>Tobacco good for your after all</b></p><p>Your health may not be in the kind of shape you think it is, according to some little known aspects of human biology.  Cancer is actually caused by a lack of cigarettes, argues National Tobacco Federation spokesman John Doe.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, some lobbyist for the battery cartel (Big Battery?) says new regulations will make batteries costly.  I don't buy it.  Sounds that Energizer Bunny's gotten too fat on his wide margins.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pardon me , but when the second sentence ends with " argues George Kerchner , executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Portable Rechargeable Battery Association , " I tend to think that article does n't have much credibility.Would we pay attention if an article said something like : Tobacco good for your after allYour health may not be in the kind of shape you think it is , according to some little known aspects of human biology .
Cancer is actually caused by a lack of cigarettes , argues National Tobacco Federation spokesman John Doe.So , some lobbyist for the battery cartel ( Big Battery ?
) says new regulations will make batteries costly .
I do n't buy it .
Sounds that Energizer Bunny 's gotten too fat on his wide margins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pardon me, but when the second sentence ends with "argues George Kerchner, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Portable Rechargeable Battery Association," I tend to think that article doesn't have much credibility.Would we pay attention if an article said something like: Tobacco good for your after allYour health may not be in the kind of shape you think it is, according to some little known aspects of human biology.
Cancer is actually caused by a lack of cigarettes, argues National Tobacco Federation spokesman John Doe.So, some lobbyist for the battery cartel (Big Battery?
) says new regulations will make batteries costly.
I don't buy it.
Sounds that Energizer Bunny's gotten too fat on his wide margins.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044710</id>
	<title>Re:Blame XKCD for this one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265459580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha ha!  Me too!</p><p>It's comics at their best.  Randall Munroe gives the audience only the most brief fragments of information and allows our minds to fill in the blanks.  But overall, he's quite clear about the kinds of girls he's attracted to, so a geek guy who shares his taste can easily map onto his pictures the perfect archetypal form.</p><p>Quite the accomplishment for a stick figure!</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha ha !
Me too ! It 's comics at their best .
Randall Munroe gives the audience only the most brief fragments of information and allows our minds to fill in the blanks .
But overall , he 's quite clear about the kinds of girls he 's attracted to , so a geek guy who shares his taste can easily map onto his pictures the perfect archetypal form.Quite the accomplishment for a stick figure ! -FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha ha!
Me too!It's comics at their best.
Randall Munroe gives the audience only the most brief fragments of information and allows our minds to fill in the blanks.
But overall, he's quite clear about the kinds of girls he's attracted to, so a geek guy who shares his taste can easily map onto his pictures the perfect archetypal form.Quite the accomplishment for a stick figure!-FL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045972</id>
	<title>Wrong Rulemaking is Linked in Summary</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1265476560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As anyone who can read could tell you, the rule-making linked in the summary is for a final rule. The final rule isn't open for comment anymore - it's already published, already effective, and would require a new notice-and-comment cycle in order to change.</p><p>The rulemaking PHMSA is proposing is at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a7b3a7" title="regulations.gov">PHMSA-2009-0095</a> [regulations.gov]. PHMSA is not required to listen to any comments posted on the link above, because that docket is closed. Therefore, if you want your comments to be read, you should use the above link.</p><p>Because the analysis of many people has been on a rule that's only tangentially related to the rule-making at issue, much of what's been posted in this thread is 100\% wrong. For instance, many people are saying that the rule would prohibit people from carrying spare batteries with them.</p><blockquote><div><p>Sec.  175.10  Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air<br>operators.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (a) * * *<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (17) Except as provided in Sec.  173.21 of this subchapter,<br>portable electronic devices (for example, watches, calculating<br>machines, cameras, cellular phones, laptop and notebook computers,<br>camcorders, etc.) containing dry cells or dry batteries (including<br>lithium cells or batteries) and spare dry cells and batteries for these<br>devices, when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use.<br>Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven to<br>meet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and<br>Criteria, and each spare battery must be individually protected so as<br>to prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or<br>by otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposed<br>terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or<br>protective pouch) and carried in carry-on baggage only. In addition,<br>each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content of not more than<br>2 grams per battery; or<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (ii) For a lithium-ion battery, a rating of not more than 100 Wh,<br>except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than<br>100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not only can you continue to bring your electronics on the plane, you can bring spares for the devices as well, so long as you take the reasonable step of taping over the terminals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As anyone who can read could tell you , the rule-making linked in the summary is for a final rule .
The final rule is n't open for comment anymore - it 's already published , already effective , and would require a new notice-and-comment cycle in order to change.The rulemaking PHMSA is proposing is at PHMSA-2009-0095 [ regulations.gov ] .
PHMSA is not required to listen to any comments posted on the link above , because that docket is closed .
Therefore , if you want your comments to be read , you should use the above link.Because the analysis of many people has been on a rule that 's only tangentially related to the rule-making at issue , much of what 's been posted in this thread is 100 \ % wrong .
For instance , many people are saying that the rule would prohibit people from carrying spare batteries with them.Sec .
175.10 Exceptions for passengers , crewmembers , and airoperators .
        ( a ) * * *         ( 17 ) Except as provided in Sec .
173.21 of this subchapter,portable electronic devices ( for example , watches , calculatingmachines , cameras , cellular phones , laptop and notebook computers,camcorders , etc .
) containing dry cells or dry batteries ( includinglithium cells or batteries ) and spare dry cells and batteries for thesedevices , when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use.Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven tomeet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests andCriteria , and each spare battery must be individually protected so asto prevent short circuits ( by placement in original retail packaging orby otherwise insulating terminals , e.g. , by taping over exposedterminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag orprotective pouch ) and carried in carry-on baggage only .
In addition,each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following :         ( i ) For a lithium metal battery , a lithium content of not more than2 grams per battery ; or         ( ii ) For a lithium-ion battery , a rating of not more than 100 Wh,except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.Not only can you continue to bring your electronics on the plane , you can bring spares for the devices as well , so long as you take the reasonable step of taping over the terminals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As anyone who can read could tell you, the rule-making linked in the summary is for a final rule.
The final rule isn't open for comment anymore - it's already published, already effective, and would require a new notice-and-comment cycle in order to change.The rulemaking PHMSA is proposing is at PHMSA-2009-0095 [regulations.gov].
PHMSA is not required to listen to any comments posted on the link above, because that docket is closed.
Therefore, if you want your comments to be read, you should use the above link.Because the analysis of many people has been on a rule that's only tangentially related to the rule-making at issue, much of what's been posted in this thread is 100\% wrong.
For instance, many people are saying that the rule would prohibit people from carrying spare batteries with them.Sec.
175.10  Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and airoperators.
        (a) * * *
        (17) Except as provided in Sec.
173.21 of this subchapter,portable electronic devices (for example, watches, calculatingmachines, cameras, cellular phones, laptop and notebook computers,camcorders, etc.
) containing dry cells or dry batteries (includinglithium cells or batteries) and spare dry cells and batteries for thesedevices, when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use.Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven tomeet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests andCriteria, and each spare battery must be individually protected so asto prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging orby otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposedterminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag orprotective pouch) and carried in carry-on baggage only.
In addition,each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following:
        (i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content of not more than2 grams per battery; or
        (ii) For a lithium-ion battery, a rating of not more than 100 Wh,except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.Not only can you continue to bring your electronics on the plane, you can bring spares for the devices as well, so long as you take the reasonable step of taping over the terminals.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044468</id>
	<title>Looking forward to the fix</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265455980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's an obvious way to solve the problem: Don't package the battery with the gadget. The Li-Ion batteries can be shipped by sea. Additional benefit: Standardizing Li-Ion batteries would make this more economical and user friendly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an obvious way to solve the problem : Do n't package the battery with the gadget .
The Li-Ion batteries can be shipped by sea .
Additional benefit : Standardizing Li-Ion batteries would make this more economical and user friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an obvious way to solve the problem: Don't package the battery with the gadget.
The Li-Ion batteries can be shipped by sea.
Additional benefit: Standardizing Li-Ion batteries would make this more economical and user friendly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045276</id>
	<title>Unscrewing the inscrutable</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1265469120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The proposed rule itself is pretty inscrutable (as usual, I suppose),</p></div><p>.

</p><p>But don't worry - we can rely on all those helpful and well-educated airport ground staff to correctly and consistently interpret the law and offer balanced and sensible advice to travelers. </p><p>We can also re-assure the check-in person that we haven't got batteries at the same time we're assuring them that our luggage has never left our side (even in the trunk of the bus, or when we left it behind the desk at the hotel while we went for lunch); avoiding asking whether the rules on flammable liquids applies to our bottle of "Jungle Formula" and assuming "has anybody given you anything to carry" only applies to ticking teddy bears and bags of white powder handed over by suspicious-looking johnny foreigners. (Seriously, in the entire history of air travel has anybody actually given the "wrong" answer to those questions?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The proposed rule itself is pretty inscrutable ( as usual , I suppose ) , .
But do n't worry - we can rely on all those helpful and well-educated airport ground staff to correctly and consistently interpret the law and offer balanced and sensible advice to travelers .
We can also re-assure the check-in person that we have n't got batteries at the same time we 're assuring them that our luggage has never left our side ( even in the trunk of the bus , or when we left it behind the desk at the hotel while we went for lunch ) ; avoiding asking whether the rules on flammable liquids applies to our bottle of " Jungle Formula " and assuming " has anybody given you anything to carry " only applies to ticking teddy bears and bags of white powder handed over by suspicious-looking johnny foreigners .
( Seriously , in the entire history of air travel has anybody actually given the " wrong " answer to those questions ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proposed rule itself is pretty inscrutable (as usual, I suppose),.
But don't worry - we can rely on all those helpful and well-educated airport ground staff to correctly and consistently interpret the law and offer balanced and sensible advice to travelers.
We can also re-assure the check-in person that we haven't got batteries at the same time we're assuring them that our luggage has never left our side (even in the trunk of the bus, or when we left it behind the desk at the hotel while we went for lunch); avoiding asking whether the rules on flammable liquids applies to our bottle of "Jungle Formula" and assuming "has anybody given you anything to carry" only applies to ticking teddy bears and bags of white powder handed over by suspicious-looking johnny foreigners.
(Seriously, in the entire history of air travel has anybody actually given the "wrong" answer to those questions?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044526</id>
	<title>Not just alkaline and NiMH but Lithium also.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265456880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Sec.  173.220  (d) Lithium batteries. Except as provided in Sec.  172.102, Special Provision A101 of this subchapter, vehicles, engines and machinery powered by lithium metal batteries that are transported with these batteries installed are forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft."</i>
<br> <br>
Laptops, cell phones, iPods, etc. are all "machinery powered by lithium metal batteries". And it doesn't say anything about shipping or checked luggage, it says they <b>shall be forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft</b>!!!
<br> <br>
One could argue that they are not "machinery" in the conventional sense, but this is far too vague. In my experience, when the language of a law allows it to be enforced in some way, eventually it will be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sec .
173.220 ( d ) Lithium batteries .
Except as provided in Sec .
172.102 , Special Provision A101 of this subchapter , vehicles , engines and machinery powered by lithium metal batteries that are transported with these batteries installed are forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft .
" Laptops , cell phones , iPods , etc .
are all " machinery powered by lithium metal batteries " .
And it does n't say anything about shipping or checked luggage , it says they shall be forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft ! ! !
One could argue that they are not " machinery " in the conventional sense , but this is far too vague .
In my experience , when the language of a law allows it to be enforced in some way , eventually it will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sec.
173.220  (d) Lithium batteries.
Except as provided in Sec.
172.102, Special Provision A101 of this subchapter, vehicles, engines and machinery powered by lithium metal batteries that are transported with these batteries installed are forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft.
"
 
Laptops, cell phones, iPods, etc.
are all "machinery powered by lithium metal batteries".
And it doesn't say anything about shipping or checked luggage, it says they shall be forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft!!!
One could argue that they are not "machinery" in the conventional sense, but this is far too vague.
In my experience, when the language of a law allows it to be enforced in some way, eventually it will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044676</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>frdmfghtr</author>
	<datestamp>1265459160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I can't see the need for special batteries for every single device. How is that progress? (And Apple and Logitech have one step stupider and made devices with irreplacable batteries).</p></div></blockquote><p>As far as I can tell, the specialized batteries are used to maximize the power density in small, power-hungry devices.</p><p>Example:  I have two digital cameras from Canon.  The older one (A80) uses standard AA batteries.  However, it is a bit larger and less capable than the newer one (SD600), which uses a special Li-Ion battery.  If the SD600 were made to use AA batteries, then it would have to be a little bigger.</p><p>It's all an engineering/design trade-off.  Standard cells mean more battery space and weight but readily available replacements.  Custom batteries mean less weight and more power, but require special chargers.</p><p>Why not make standard, box-shaped cells to save space?  You could do that, but the casing would have to be made stronger (leaving less volume for the energy storage chemicals) to prevent distortion of the casing.  A cylinder is better able to redistribute forces around it, where a flat surface caves in or bows out.  What about that boxy 9-volt battery?  I saw one cracked open once; it was six 1.5v cylindrical cells in series.  Again, a set of trade-offs:  energy per unit volume vs. structural integrity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see the need for special batteries for every single device .
How is that progress ?
( And Apple and Logitech have one step stupider and made devices with irreplacable batteries ) .As far as I can tell , the specialized batteries are used to maximize the power density in small , power-hungry devices.Example : I have two digital cameras from Canon .
The older one ( A80 ) uses standard AA batteries .
However , it is a bit larger and less capable than the newer one ( SD600 ) , which uses a special Li-Ion battery .
If the SD600 were made to use AA batteries , then it would have to be a little bigger.It 's all an engineering/design trade-off .
Standard cells mean more battery space and weight but readily available replacements .
Custom batteries mean less weight and more power , but require special chargers.Why not make standard , box-shaped cells to save space ?
You could do that , but the casing would have to be made stronger ( leaving less volume for the energy storage chemicals ) to prevent distortion of the casing .
A cylinder is better able to redistribute forces around it , where a flat surface caves in or bows out .
What about that boxy 9-volt battery ?
I saw one cracked open once ; it was six 1.5v cylindrical cells in series .
Again , a set of trade-offs : energy per unit volume vs. structural integrity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see the need for special batteries for every single device.
How is that progress?
(And Apple and Logitech have one step stupider and made devices with irreplacable batteries).As far as I can tell, the specialized batteries are used to maximize the power density in small, power-hungry devices.Example:  I have two digital cameras from Canon.
The older one (A80) uses standard AA batteries.
However, it is a bit larger and less capable than the newer one (SD600), which uses a special Li-Ion battery.
If the SD600 were made to use AA batteries, then it would have to be a little bigger.It's all an engineering/design trade-off.
Standard cells mean more battery space and weight but readily available replacements.
Custom batteries mean less weight and more power, but require special chargers.Why not make standard, box-shaped cells to save space?
You could do that, but the casing would have to be made stronger (leaving less volume for the energy storage chemicals) to prevent distortion of the casing.
A cylinder is better able to redistribute forces around it, where a flat surface caves in or bows out.
What about that boxy 9-volt battery?
I saw one cracked open once; it was six 1.5v cylindrical cells in series.
Again, a set of trade-offs:  energy per unit volume vs. structural integrity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047764</id>
	<title>Re:Not just alkaline and NiMH but Lithium also.</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1265449200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Laptops, cell phones, iPods, etc. are all "machinery powered by lithium metal batteries". And it doesn't say anything about shipping or checked luggage, it says they shall be forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft!!!</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Just explain to them that everyone's digital watch is also powered by a lithium battery. They are sure to see the error of their ways and hand back your iPod and other devices...   wait, why are they taking my watch now as well?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Laptops , cell phones , iPods , etc .
are all " machinery powered by lithium metal batteries " .
And it does n't say anything about shipping or checked luggage , it says they shall be forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft ! ! !
Just explain to them that everyone 's digital watch is also powered by a lithium battery .
They are sure to see the error of their ways and hand back your iPod and other devices... wait , why are they taking my watch now as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laptops, cell phones, iPods, etc.
are all "machinery powered by lithium metal batteries".
And it doesn't say anything about shipping or checked luggage, it says they shall be forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft!!!
Just explain to them that everyone's digital watch is also powered by a lithium battery.
They are sure to see the error of their ways and hand back your iPod and other devices...   wait, why are they taking my watch now as well?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044652</id>
	<title>Maglevs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265458860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the more reasons to build a planetary maglev transit system. Unless Tesla's going to come out with some kind of electric airbus, we better start building the future now. Heck, it'll even create jobs and save the economy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the more reasons to build a planetary maglev transit system .
Unless Tesla 's going to come out with some kind of electric airbus , we better start building the future now .
Heck , it 'll even create jobs and save the economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the more reasons to build a planetary maglev transit system.
Unless Tesla's going to come out with some kind of electric airbus, we better start building the future now.
Heck, it'll even create jobs and save the economy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044276</id>
	<title>and it's safer on carry-on bags?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265452800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage"

If it's so "dangerous" to be in the checked bags, then why is it safe to be on carry-on bags?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage " If it 's so " dangerous " to be in the checked bags , then why is it safe to be on carry-on bags ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries in their checked-in luggage"

If it's so "dangerous" to be in the checked bags, then why is it safe to be on carry-on bags?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31052216</id>
	<title>Air Shipping</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1265556120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get ground shipping free and automatically unles I choose air</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get ground shipping free and automatically unles I choose air</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get ground shipping free and automatically unles I choose air</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045136</id>
	<title>Quoting the regulations from TFA</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1265467200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(d) Lithium batteries. Except as provided in Sec.  172.102, Special<br>Provision A101 of this subchapter, vehicles, engines and machinery<br>powered by lithium metal batteries that are transported with these<br>batteries installed are forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft. *</p> </div><p>Are electronic devices part of "vehicles, engines, and machinery?"  I hope not.  Else you can't use your ipod.  172.102 isn't in the linked article so I don't know what the special provisions are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( d ) Lithium batteries .
Except as provided in Sec .
172.102 , SpecialProvision A101 of this subchapter , vehicles , engines and machinerypowered by lithium metal batteries that are transported with thesebatteries installed are forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft .
* Are electronic devices part of " vehicles , engines , and machinery ?
" I hope not .
Else you ca n't use your ipod .
172.102 is n't in the linked article so I do n't know what the special provisions are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(d) Lithium batteries.
Except as provided in Sec.
172.102, SpecialProvision A101 of this subchapter, vehicles, engines and machinerypowered by lithium metal batteries that are transported with thesebatteries installed are forbidden aboard passenger-carrying aircraft.
* Are electronic devices part of "vehicles, engines, and machinery?
"  I hope not.
Else you can't use your ipod.
172.102 isn't in the linked article so I don't know what the special provisions are.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047386</id>
	<title>Re:and it's safer on carry-on bags?</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1265488980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The regulation says that batteries have to either be stored in an area of the cargo hold that is covered by fire-suppression equipment or they have to be in an area accessible by the flight crew (i.e., the cabin), so that the crew can act to suppress fires.  Do a text search on "batteries" in the regulation to see.  It's not that the batteries are any safer in one location vs. another, it's that the batteries have to be in an area where it's possible to put out a potential fire.<br><br>Also, there is no mention in the regulation of alkaline or NiMH batteries. That part of the article sounds like an industry troll that the Computerworld reporter swallowed whole. In fact the whole thing is a troll. The added cost of fire suppression equipment in the cargo hold of a plane, spread out over the lifetime of the aircraft and the amount of cargo/passengers it carries, is not going to increase the shipping cost of a digital camera by $40.  I can see where the transition period might be a bit more painful. Older aircraft that need to be retrofitted would cost more to fix up than a new aircraft with the features built-in, and the lifetime to recover the added costs would be shorter.<br><br>Nothing to see here folks. Just another lobbyist ranting. Move along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The regulation says that batteries have to either be stored in an area of the cargo hold that is covered by fire-suppression equipment or they have to be in an area accessible by the flight crew ( i.e. , the cabin ) , so that the crew can act to suppress fires .
Do a text search on " batteries " in the regulation to see .
It 's not that the batteries are any safer in one location vs. another , it 's that the batteries have to be in an area where it 's possible to put out a potential fire.Also , there is no mention in the regulation of alkaline or NiMH batteries .
That part of the article sounds like an industry troll that the Computerworld reporter swallowed whole .
In fact the whole thing is a troll .
The added cost of fire suppression equipment in the cargo hold of a plane , spread out over the lifetime of the aircraft and the amount of cargo/passengers it carries , is not going to increase the shipping cost of a digital camera by $ 40 .
I can see where the transition period might be a bit more painful .
Older aircraft that need to be retrofitted would cost more to fix up than a new aircraft with the features built-in , and the lifetime to recover the added costs would be shorter.Nothing to see here folks .
Just another lobbyist ranting .
Move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The regulation says that batteries have to either be stored in an area of the cargo hold that is covered by fire-suppression equipment or they have to be in an area accessible by the flight crew (i.e., the cabin), so that the crew can act to suppress fires.
Do a text search on "batteries" in the regulation to see.
It's not that the batteries are any safer in one location vs. another, it's that the batteries have to be in an area where it's possible to put out a potential fire.Also, there is no mention in the regulation of alkaline or NiMH batteries.
That part of the article sounds like an industry troll that the Computerworld reporter swallowed whole.
In fact the whole thing is a troll.
The added cost of fire suppression equipment in the cargo hold of a plane, spread out over the lifetime of the aircraft and the amount of cargo/passengers it carries, is not going to increase the shipping cost of a digital camera by $40.
I can see where the transition period might be a bit more painful.
Older aircraft that need to be retrofitted would cost more to fix up than a new aircraft with the features built-in, and the lifetime to recover the added costs would be shorter.Nothing to see here folks.
Just another lobbyist ranting.
Move along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045550</id>
	<title>Well, there's another reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265472480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to go to the US of A. This country, wow, it's moving with amazing speed from last remaining superpower (Bush sr, clinton) to facist dictatorship (king bush II) to truly insane "strip before you even consider flying across our border" country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to go to the US of A. This country , wow , it 's moving with amazing speed from last remaining superpower ( Bush sr , clinton ) to facist dictatorship ( king bush II ) to truly insane " strip before you even consider flying across our border " country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to go to the US of A. This country, wow, it's moving with amazing speed from last remaining superpower (Bush sr, clinton) to facist dictatorship (king bush II) to truly insane "strip before you even consider flying across our border" country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046224</id>
	<title>No fly zone.</title>
	<author>OFnow</author>
	<datestamp>1265478660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets call the US the "No Fly Zone".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets call the US the " No Fly Zone " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets call the US the "No Fly Zone".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047330</id>
	<title>Re:the article's examples are a pretty big range</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1265488380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of the article's examples are just plain false. Did a text search of the regulation for the word batteries and every mention of batteries is coupled with the word "Lithium" or else is a grammatical or referential revision that in no way alters the regulation. SO no impact to NiCad or Alkaline batteries.<br><br>Some interesting stuff on fuel-cells, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of the article 's examples are just plain false .
Did a text search of the regulation for the word batteries and every mention of batteries is coupled with the word " Lithium " or else is a grammatical or referential revision that in no way alters the regulation .
SO no impact to NiCad or Alkaline batteries.Some interesting stuff on fuel-cells , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of the article's examples are just plain false.
Did a text search of the regulation for the word batteries and every mention of batteries is coupled with the word "Lithium" or else is a grammatical or referential revision that in no way alters the regulation.
SO no impact to NiCad or Alkaline batteries.Some interesting stuff on fuel-cells, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045206</id>
	<title>Am I reading this right?</title>
	<author>Diddlbiker</author>
	<datestamp>1265468100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was discussed <i>ad nauseum</i> at photography forums last year. Key is to read the actual proposal and not depend on the warmongerings of a journalist trying to attract more traffic to his site:<br>
<tt>  Cartridges packed with equipment to be packed in intermediate packagings together with the equipment they are capable of powering.<br>
The fuel cell cartridges and the equipment must be packaged with cushioning material or dividers or inner packaging so that the fuel cell cartridges are protected against damage that may be caused by the shifting or placement of the equipment and the cartridges within the outer packaging.</tt> <br> <br>

All the rule is basically doing is requiring that batteries are transported in such a way that they cannot short out. Either by putting them in the device they are made for (so your gameboy is safe) or by putting them in a special container (the big Li-Ion batteries for SLR's come like that in the box anyway).<br> <br>
After the Great Battery Scare last year with all those laptops combusting spontaneously their was little choice but to start with at least <i>some</i> regulation regarding the combustable nature of these batteries. The requirements are minimal and reasonable and quite frankly I have yet to see <i>anything</i> shipped commercially that doesn't meet those standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was discussed ad nauseum at photography forums last year .
Key is to read the actual proposal and not depend on the warmongerings of a journalist trying to attract more traffic to his site : Cartridges packed with equipment to be packed in intermediate packagings together with the equipment they are capable of powering .
The fuel cell cartridges and the equipment must be packaged with cushioning material or dividers or inner packaging so that the fuel cell cartridges are protected against damage that may be caused by the shifting or placement of the equipment and the cartridges within the outer packaging .
All the rule is basically doing is requiring that batteries are transported in such a way that they can not short out .
Either by putting them in the device they are made for ( so your gameboy is safe ) or by putting them in a special container ( the big Li-Ion batteries for SLR 's come like that in the box anyway ) .
After the Great Battery Scare last year with all those laptops combusting spontaneously their was little choice but to start with at least some regulation regarding the combustable nature of these batteries .
The requirements are minimal and reasonable and quite frankly I have yet to see anything shipped commercially that does n't meet those standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was discussed ad nauseum at photography forums last year.
Key is to read the actual proposal and not depend on the warmongerings of a journalist trying to attract more traffic to his site:
  Cartridges packed with equipment to be packed in intermediate packagings together with the equipment they are capable of powering.
The fuel cell cartridges and the equipment must be packaged with cushioning material or dividers or inner packaging so that the fuel cell cartridges are protected against damage that may be caused by the shifting or placement of the equipment and the cartridges within the outer packaging.
All the rule is basically doing is requiring that batteries are transported in such a way that they cannot short out.
Either by putting them in the device they are made for (so your gameboy is safe) or by putting them in a special container (the big Li-Ion batteries for SLR's come like that in the box anyway).
After the Great Battery Scare last year with all those laptops combusting spontaneously their was little choice but to start with at least some regulation regarding the combustable nature of these batteries.
The requirements are minimal and reasonable and quite frankly I have yet to see anything shipped commercially that doesn't meet those standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045602</id>
	<title>It's important as a US citizen ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265472900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>To go and leave your comment on the proposal. That way you'll know you did your part when the public's comments are ignored and it happens anyway<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>To go and leave your comment on the proposal .
That way you 'll know you did your part when the public 's comments are ignored and it happens anyway .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To go and leave your comment on the proposal.
That way you'll know you did your part when the public's comments are ignored and it happens anyway ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046472</id>
	<title>Re:Makes sense</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1265480820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Li-Ion batteries are available in standard sizes as well, some are AAA sized. They run $3 - $6 online. Many of those special batteries are, in fact, just aaa or aa sized LiIon batteries sealed into a proprietary carrier and marked up a few thousand percent (since the new "battery" is oh-so-special). The only thing that's "special" about the chargers for those is that they are designed to fit that proprietary carrier (and ONLY that carrier) and so they get marked up as well.</p><p>Looking at the battery for the SD600, a pair of standard CR10440 LiIon batteries would be smaller and last a bit longer (CR10440 is aaa sized).</p><p>LiIon also come in a AA size and others. I have yet to see a "special" battery that couldn't have been be replaced by mass manufactured off the shelf batteries. Either the engineers are all stone cold stupid (seems unlikely) or it's a scam. Probably some pretentious "designer" who doesn't care at all about usability thinks that putting a round battery in would make the product seem "common" or "cheap".</p><p>If that was a common thing, you could easily get replacement batteries for your laptop at the drug or grocery store. You could interchange batteries between your still camera, video camera, laptop, flashlight, etc. etc. A charger that works on all of them would be $10-$15.</p><p>Before you say they do it to protect the device from the wrong type of batteries (since a "aaa" LiIon is 3.7V rather than 1.5 or 1.2), the device already has to gracefully handle undervoltage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Li-Ion batteries are available in standard sizes as well , some are AAA sized .
They run $ 3 - $ 6 online .
Many of those special batteries are , in fact , just aaa or aa sized LiIon batteries sealed into a proprietary carrier and marked up a few thousand percent ( since the new " battery " is oh-so-special ) .
The only thing that 's " special " about the chargers for those is that they are designed to fit that proprietary carrier ( and ONLY that carrier ) and so they get marked up as well.Looking at the battery for the SD600 , a pair of standard CR10440 LiIon batteries would be smaller and last a bit longer ( CR10440 is aaa sized ) .LiIon also come in a AA size and others .
I have yet to see a " special " battery that could n't have been be replaced by mass manufactured off the shelf batteries .
Either the engineers are all stone cold stupid ( seems unlikely ) or it 's a scam .
Probably some pretentious " designer " who does n't care at all about usability thinks that putting a round battery in would make the product seem " common " or " cheap " .If that was a common thing , you could easily get replacement batteries for your laptop at the drug or grocery store .
You could interchange batteries between your still camera , video camera , laptop , flashlight , etc .
etc. A charger that works on all of them would be $ 10- $ 15.Before you say they do it to protect the device from the wrong type of batteries ( since a " aaa " LiIon is 3.7V rather than 1.5 or 1.2 ) , the device already has to gracefully handle undervoltage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Li-Ion batteries are available in standard sizes as well, some are AAA sized.
They run $3 - $6 online.
Many of those special batteries are, in fact, just aaa or aa sized LiIon batteries sealed into a proprietary carrier and marked up a few thousand percent (since the new "battery" is oh-so-special).
The only thing that's "special" about the chargers for those is that they are designed to fit that proprietary carrier (and ONLY that carrier) and so they get marked up as well.Looking at the battery for the SD600, a pair of standard CR10440 LiIon batteries would be smaller and last a bit longer (CR10440 is aaa sized).LiIon also come in a AA size and others.
I have yet to see a "special" battery that couldn't have been be replaced by mass manufactured off the shelf batteries.
Either the engineers are all stone cold stupid (seems unlikely) or it's a scam.
Probably some pretentious "designer" who doesn't care at all about usability thinks that putting a round battery in would make the product seem "common" or "cheap".If that was a common thing, you could easily get replacement batteries for your laptop at the drug or grocery store.
You could interchange batteries between your still camera, video camera, laptop, flashlight, etc.
etc. A charger that works on all of them would be $10-$15.Before you say they do it to protect the device from the wrong type of batteries (since a "aaa" LiIon is 3.7V rather than 1.5 or 1.2), the device already has to gracefully handle undervoltage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044456</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265455920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forbid forbid forbid, that's all I hear coming out of the "land of the free" lately. I went to the US 2 months ago, and I have never heard "you can't" as often as I did when I was there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forbid forbid forbid , that 's all I hear coming out of the " land of the free " lately .
I went to the US 2 months ago , and I have never heard " you ca n't " as often as I did when I was there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forbid forbid forbid, that's all I hear coming out of the "land of the free" lately.
I went to the US 2 months ago, and I have never heard "you can't" as often as I did when I was there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044550</id>
	<title>Mission Accomplished</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265457420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The changes, designed primarily to reduce the risk from <i>Lithium-Ion batteries</i>, would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare <i>alkaline or NiMH batteries</i></p> </div><p>Well, that there should do it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The changes , designed primarily to reduce the risk from Lithium-Ion batteries , would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries Well , that there should do it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The changes, designed primarily to reduce the risk from Lithium-Ion batteries, would also forbid air travelers from carrying spare alkaline or NiMH batteries Well, that there should do it!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046054</id>
	<title>Re:Not just alkaline and NiMH but Lithium also.</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1265477220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the rule-making <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=0900006480a7b3a7" title="regulations.gov">actually at issue (PHMSA-2009-0095)</a> [regulations.gov], rather than the one incorrectly linked by this page and others, the following paragraph is added to 49 C.F.R Section175.10:</p><blockquote><div><p>Sec.  175.10  Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and air<br>operators.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (a) * * *<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (17) Except as provided in Sec.  173.21 of this subchapter,<br>portable electronic devices (for example, watches, calculating<br>machines, cameras, cellular phones, laptop and notebook computers,<br>camcorders, etc.) containing dry cells or dry batteries (including<br>lithium cells or batteries) and spare dry cells and batteries for these<br>devices, when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use.<br>Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven to<br>meet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests and<br>Criteria, and each spare battery must be individually protected so as<br>to prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging or<br>by otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposed<br>terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or<br>protective pouch) and carried in carry-on baggage only. In addition,<br>each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content of not more than<br>2 grams per battery; or<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (ii) For a lithium-ion battery, a rating of not more than 100 Wh,<br>except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than<br>100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the rule-making actually at issue ( PHMSA-2009-0095 ) [ regulations.gov ] , rather than the one incorrectly linked by this page and others , the following paragraph is added to 49 C.F.R Section175.10 : Sec .
175.10 Exceptions for passengers , crewmembers , and airoperators .
        ( a ) * * *         ( 17 ) Except as provided in Sec .
173.21 of this subchapter,portable electronic devices ( for example , watches , calculatingmachines , cameras , cellular phones , laptop and notebook computers,camcorders , etc .
) containing dry cells or dry batteries ( includinglithium cells or batteries ) and spare dry cells and batteries for thesedevices , when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use.Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven tomeet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests andCriteria , and each spare battery must be individually protected so asto prevent short circuits ( by placement in original retail packaging orby otherwise insulating terminals , e.g. , by taping over exposedterminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag orprotective pouch ) and carried in carry-on baggage only .
In addition,each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following :         ( i ) For a lithium metal battery , a lithium content of not more than2 grams per battery ; or         ( ii ) For a lithium-ion battery , a rating of not more than 100 Wh,except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the rule-making actually at issue (PHMSA-2009-0095) [regulations.gov], rather than the one incorrectly linked by this page and others, the following paragraph is added to 49 C.F.R Section175.10:Sec.
175.10  Exceptions for passengers, crewmembers, and airoperators.
        (a) * * *
        (17) Except as provided in Sec.
173.21 of this subchapter,portable electronic devices (for example, watches, calculatingmachines, cameras, cellular phones, laptop and notebook computers,camcorders, etc.
) containing dry cells or dry batteries (includinglithium cells or batteries) and spare dry cells and batteries for thesedevices, when carried by passengers or crew members for personal use.Each installed or spare lithium battery must be of a type proven tomeet the requirements of each test in the UN Manual of Tests andCriteria, and each spare battery must be individually protected so asto prevent short circuits (by placement in original retail packaging orby otherwise insulating terminals, e.g., by taping over exposedterminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag orprotective pouch) and carried in carry-on baggage only.
In addition,each installed or spare battery must not exceed the following:
        (i) For a lithium metal battery, a lithium content of not more than2 grams per battery; or
        (ii) For a lithium-ion battery, a rating of not more than 100 Wh,except that up to two batteries with a watt hour rating of more than100 Wh but not more than 300 Wh may be carried.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044274</id>
	<title>the article's examples are a pretty big range</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1265452800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proposed rule itself is pretty inscrutable (as usual, I suppose), but the article's examples are all over the map. Some of the examples seem like the small-scale sort of thing that would indeed cause inconvenience to ban: individual electronic devices sent air-freight from NewEgg to a consumer, or spare batteries in checked luggage. But it also mentions that existing regulations exempt "a pallet containing thousands of lithium batteries" from hazardous-material reporting and packaging requirements... and in that case the change doesn't seem too unreasonable to me, because maybe a pallet with thousands of batteries really should be subjected to the packaging and reporting requirements?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proposed rule itself is pretty inscrutable ( as usual , I suppose ) , but the article 's examples are all over the map .
Some of the examples seem like the small-scale sort of thing that would indeed cause inconvenience to ban : individual electronic devices sent air-freight from NewEgg to a consumer , or spare batteries in checked luggage .
But it also mentions that existing regulations exempt " a pallet containing thousands of lithium batteries " from hazardous-material reporting and packaging requirements... and in that case the change does n't seem too unreasonable to me , because maybe a pallet with thousands of batteries really should be subjected to the packaging and reporting requirements ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proposed rule itself is pretty inscrutable (as usual, I suppose), but the article's examples are all over the map.
Some of the examples seem like the small-scale sort of thing that would indeed cause inconvenience to ban: individual electronic devices sent air-freight from NewEgg to a consumer, or spare batteries in checked luggage.
But it also mentions that existing regulations exempt "a pallet containing thousands of lithium batteries" from hazardous-material reporting and packaging requirements... and in that case the change doesn't seem too unreasonable to me, because maybe a pallet with thousands of batteries really should be subjected to the packaging and reporting requirements?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045844</id>
	<title>Re:and it's safer on carry-on bags?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265475120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many people have died in aircraft fires caused by batteries?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many people have died in aircraft fires caused by batteries ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many people have died in aircraft fires caused by batteries?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045898</id>
	<title>Just another way to discriminate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265475780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Much like other "safety" laws, this one will not be enforced on anyone but Arabs.  But heavens forbid an Arab carries a spare camera battery and off to interrogation he is! FOX NEWS ALERT: TERROR IN THE AIR!

Accordingly, most of you dont have to worry, until it is your turn to be the bad guy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Much like other " safety " laws , this one will not be enforced on anyone but Arabs .
But heavens forbid an Arab carries a spare camera battery and off to interrogation he is !
FOX NEWS ALERT : TERROR IN THE AIR !
Accordingly , most of you dont have to worry , until it is your turn to be the bad guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much like other "safety" laws, this one will not be enforced on anyone but Arabs.
But heavens forbid an Arab carries a spare camera battery and off to interrogation he is!
FOX NEWS ALERT: TERROR IN THE AIR!
Accordingly, most of you dont have to worry, until it is your turn to be the bad guy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31048048</id>
	<title>Re:Hmmm</title>
	<author>YenTheFirst</author>
	<datestamp>1265452260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am serious! And don't call me shirly!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am serious !
And do n't call me shirly !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am serious!
And don't call me shirly!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31049214</id>
	<title>Re:Quoting the regulations from TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265463060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A101  A primary (non-rechargeable) lithium battery or cell packed with equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless:</p><p>a. The battery or cell complies with the requirements and limitations of 173.185(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4) and (b)(6) or 173.185(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(5) of this subchapter;</p><p>b. The package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment;</p><p>c. The equipment and the battery or cell are packed in a strong packaging;</p><p>d. The gross weight of the package does not exceed 5 kg. Packages complying with the requirements of this special provision are excepted from all other requirements of this subchapter.</p><p>There's also an A102 but it refers to batteries or cells contained in equipment and would more likely be the one you would be seeing with your ipod</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A101 A primary ( non-rechargeable ) lithium battery or cell packed with equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless : a. The battery or cell complies with the requirements and limitations of 173.185 ( b ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 2 ) , ( b ) ( 3 ) , ( b ) ( 4 ) and ( b ) ( 6 ) or 173.185 ( c ) ( 1 ) , ( c ) ( 2 ) , ( c ) ( 3 ) and ( c ) ( 5 ) of this subchapter ; b. The package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment ; c. The equipment and the battery or cell are packed in a strong packaging ; d. The gross weight of the package does not exceed 5 kg .
Packages complying with the requirements of this special provision are excepted from all other requirements of this subchapter.There 's also an A102 but it refers to batteries or cells contained in equipment and would more likely be the one you would be seeing with your ipod</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A101  A primary (non-rechargeable) lithium battery or cell packed with equipment is forbidden for transport aboard a passenger carrying aircraft unless:a. The battery or cell complies with the requirements and limitations of 173.185(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4) and (b)(6) or 173.185(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(5) of this subchapter;b. The package contains no more than the number of lithium batteries or cells necessary to power the intended piece of equipment;c. The equipment and the battery or cell are packed in a strong packaging;d. The gross weight of the package does not exceed 5 kg.
Packages complying with the requirements of this special provision are excepted from all other requirements of this subchapter.There's also an A102 but it refers to batteries or cells contained in equipment and would more likely be the one you would be seeing with your ipod</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044436</id>
	<title>oh my, that's news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265455560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since over 20 years i wasn't allowed to put ANY kind of battery inside check-in luggage for flying<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... really a big change! oh wait....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since over 20 years i was n't allowed to put ANY kind of battery inside check-in luggage for flying .... really a big change !
oh wait... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since over 20 years i wasn't allowed to put ANY kind of battery inside check-in luggage for flying .... really a big change!
oh wait....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044268</id>
	<title>Blame XKCD for this one</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1265452620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously. Look at it. Just look at it:<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; <a href="http://xkcd.com/651/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/651/</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Look at it .
Just look at it :     http : //xkcd.com/651/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Look at it.
Just look at it:
  
  http://xkcd.com/651/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047238</id>
	<title>Re:pain profit</title>
	<author>cockpitcomp</author>
	<datestamp>1265487420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fire spreads to stuff that can be could extinguished if you can get to it.\b
If the fire kindly limited itself to the battery, it would not be an issue.\b
It takes a long time to get down from 30,000 feet unless you turn the plane into a lawn dart like the valuejet crash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fire spreads to stuff that can be could extinguished if you can get to it. \ b If the fire kindly limited itself to the battery , it would not be an issue. \ b It takes a long time to get down from 30,000 feet unless you turn the plane into a lawn dart like the valuejet crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fire spreads to stuff that can be could extinguished if you can get to it.\b
If the fire kindly limited itself to the battery, it would not be an issue.\b
It takes a long time to get down from 30,000 feet unless you turn the plane into a lawn dart like the valuejet crash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045548</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044708</id>
	<title>Hawaii will be especially hurt by this</title>
	<author>screff</author>
	<datestamp>1265459580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a resident of Hawaii this proposal causes me great concern.  The majority of the people here buy electronics items online that come by air shipping.  The price is generally 10-20\% cheaper online due to the high cost of living out here.  It sounds like a real boon to the local merchants but it sucks for the consumer looking for the best prices.  I know we're small but I hope they think of us before they enact this ban.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a resident of Hawaii this proposal causes me great concern .
The majority of the people here buy electronics items online that come by air shipping .
The price is generally 10-20 \ % cheaper online due to the high cost of living out here .
It sounds like a real boon to the local merchants but it sucks for the consumer looking for the best prices .
I know we 're small but I hope they think of us before they enact this ban .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a resident of Hawaii this proposal causes me great concern.
The majority of the people here buy electronics items online that come by air shipping.
The price is generally 10-20\% cheaper online due to the high cost of living out here.
It sounds like a real boon to the local merchants but it sucks for the consumer looking for the best prices.
I know we're small but I hope they think of us before they enact this ban.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31050324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31053960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31048048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31050556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31049214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_06_0545220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31050324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31053960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31048048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31050556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31049214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045200
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31047386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31046336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31045126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_06_0545220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_06_0545220.31044708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
