<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_08_0231234</id>
	<title>3D HDMI Specification Is Set Free</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265622600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The licenser of the HDMI specification has announced the intent to 'secure the application of 3D' by making the <a href="http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/166654,3d-hdmi-specification-is-set-free.aspx"> 3D portion of the HDMI 1.4 Specification</a> available for public download, as well as extracts from the upcoming HDMI 1.4a. While the spec includes a 3D component, apparently not everyone has decided to sign up to adopt it. Given the developments happening in <a href="//hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/01/19/1338205/Displayport-V12-To-Take-Giant-Leap-Over-HDMI"> DisplayPort v1.2</a>, the next year in displays looks like it will be an interesting one."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The licenser of the HDMI specification has announced the intent to 'secure the application of 3D ' by making the 3D portion of the HDMI 1.4 Specification available for public download , as well as extracts from the upcoming HDMI 1.4a .
While the spec includes a 3D component , apparently not everyone has decided to sign up to adopt it .
Given the developments happening in DisplayPort v1.2 , the next year in displays looks like it will be an interesting one .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The licenser of the HDMI specification has announced the intent to 'secure the application of 3D' by making the  3D portion of the HDMI 1.4 Specification available for public download, as well as extracts from the upcoming HDMI 1.4a.
While the spec includes a 3D component, apparently not everyone has decided to sign up to adopt it.
Given the developments happening in  DisplayPort v1.2, the next year in displays looks like it will be an interesting one.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060478</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI mess</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1265644380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have a hard enough time convincing people they need to re-buy cables (and peripherals) for their new TV as it is.</p></div><p>Well, given a good bit of the dialogue you posted, I can see why. Most of the dialogue past the fourth line sounds suspiciously like you're either:</p><p>a)  intentionally trying to confuse them;</p><p>b) trying to impress them with your knowledge (which doesn't preclude "a)"; or</p><p>c) hoping to proselytize them into your way of looking at things, but doing a piss-poor job of it.</p><p>I mean, c'mon! How much of the following is actually necessary?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"You need an HDMI cable"<br>"But I already have this SCART thing and this composite thing"<br>"Yeah, but you only have HDMI on your new TV"<br>"Is that because it's HD?"<br>"Well, no, you can send an HD signal over SCART or composite just the same, but they just don't want to let you.  They want you to buy HDMI leads and TV's and equipment with HDMI."<br>"Who's they?"<br>"The people who license the HDMI technology."<br>"Er... so I have to throw away my DVD player unless I pay extra to get legacy ports too?"<br>"Or buy a Blu-Ray with HDMI or a newer player with HDMI.  The new ones upscale the DVD so it *looks* like HD but isn't really."<br>"Mmm..."</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a hard enough time convincing people they need to re-buy cables ( and peripherals ) for their new TV as it is.Well , given a good bit of the dialogue you posted , I can see why .
Most of the dialogue past the fourth line sounds suspiciously like you 're either : a ) intentionally trying to confuse them ; b ) trying to impress them with your knowledge ( which does n't preclude " a ) " ; orc ) hoping to proselytize them into your way of looking at things , but doing a piss-poor job of it.I mean , c'mon !
How much of the following is actually necessary ?
" You need an HDMI cable " " But I already have this SCART thing and this composite thing " " Yeah , but you only have HDMI on your new TV " " Is that because it 's HD ?
" " Well , no , you can send an HD signal over SCART or composite just the same , but they just do n't want to let you .
They want you to buy HDMI leads and TV 's and equipment with HDMI .
" " Who 's they ?
" " The people who license the HDMI technology. " " Er.. .
so I have to throw away my DVD player unless I pay extra to get legacy ports too ?
" " Or buy a Blu-Ray with HDMI or a newer player with HDMI .
The new ones upscale the DVD so it * looks * like HD but is n't really. " " Mmm.. .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a hard enough time convincing people they need to re-buy cables (and peripherals) for their new TV as it is.Well, given a good bit of the dialogue you posted, I can see why.
Most of the dialogue past the fourth line sounds suspiciously like you're either:a)  intentionally trying to confuse them;b) trying to impress them with your knowledge (which doesn't preclude "a)"; orc) hoping to proselytize them into your way of looking at things, but doing a piss-poor job of it.I mean, c'mon!
How much of the following is actually necessary?
"You need an HDMI cable""But I already have this SCART thing and this composite thing""Yeah, but you only have HDMI on your new TV""Is that because it's HD?
""Well, no, you can send an HD signal over SCART or composite just the same, but they just don't want to let you.
They want you to buy HDMI leads and TV's and equipment with HDMI.
""Who's they?
""The people who license the HDMI technology.""Er...
so I have to throw away my DVD player unless I pay extra to get legacy ports too?
""Or buy a Blu-Ray with HDMI or a newer player with HDMI.
The new ones upscale the DVD so it *looks* like HD but isn't really.""Mmm...
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388</id>
	<title>HDMI mess</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1265630460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes because the consumer is going to know the difference between HDMI 1.1,1.2,1.3 and 1.4<p>
between DLNA, HDMI and the 3d crazy that's comming i'm predicting lots of ripped off people. consumer electronics in 2010 is going to be a mine field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes because the consumer is going to know the difference between HDMI 1.1,1.2,1.3 and 1.4 between DLNA , HDMI and the 3d crazy that 's comming i 'm predicting lots of ripped off people .
consumer electronics in 2010 is going to be a mine field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes because the consumer is going to know the difference between HDMI 1.1,1.2,1.3 and 1.4
between DLNA, HDMI and the 3d crazy that's comming i'm predicting lots of ripped off people.
consumer electronics in 2010 is going to be a mine field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059776</id>
	<title>Re: what good will it do...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265638140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...the 3D director's cut where Jake and Neytiri plug their hair together in the love scene {ooooh!}</p></div><p>Ugh, then what the hell were they actually doing with those animals? Epic mount fail...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the 3D director 's cut where Jake and Neytiri plug their hair together in the love scene { ooooh !
} Ugh , then what the hell were they actually doing with those animals ?
Epic mount fail.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the 3D director's cut where Jake and Neytiri plug their hair together in the love scene {ooooh!
}Ugh, then what the hell were they actually doing with those animals?
Epic mount fail...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31064160</id>
	<title>Re:More important for gaming than Hollywood?</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1265620200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Magic eye images depend on being able to relax your eye muscles.  Stereo input depends on your brain not trying to change your focal plane to match your depth perception.</p><p>They're two different issues, and while I empathize, I can't help but wonder where we'd be if all video games had to cater to all vision deficiencies, like the colour-blind (and they make up a good percentage of the population).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Magic eye images depend on being able to relax your eye muscles .
Stereo input depends on your brain not trying to change your focal plane to match your depth perception.They 're two different issues , and while I empathize , I ca n't help but wonder where we 'd be if all video games had to cater to all vision deficiencies , like the colour-blind ( and they make up a good percentage of the population ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Magic eye images depend on being able to relax your eye muscles.
Stereo input depends on your brain not trying to change your focal plane to match your depth perception.They're two different issues, and while I empathize, I can't help but wonder where we'd be if all video games had to cater to all vision deficiencies, like the colour-blind (and they make up a good percentage of the population).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059378</id>
	<title>Re: what good will it do...?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1265630340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll be able to have a massive nerdgasm imagining owning your your very Blu-ray copy of Avatar as you read it.</p><p>They won't release the 3D version right away of course. Oh no... First it will be the 2D theatrical version, then the 2D extended version, then the 3D theatrical version, then the 3D extended version<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...the 3D director's cut where Jake and Neytiri plug their hair together in the love scene {ooooh!} and *finally* the R-rated 3D extended director's cut with topless Na'vi. All versions will also be sold as boxed sets with collectible blue plastic dolls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll be able to have a massive nerdgasm imagining owning your your very Blu-ray copy of Avatar as you read it.They wo n't release the 3D version right away of course .
Oh no... First it will be the 2D theatrical version , then the 2D extended version , then the 3D theatrical version , then the 3D extended version ...the 3D director 's cut where Jake and Neytiri plug their hair together in the love scene { ooooh !
} and * finally * the R-rated 3D extended director 's cut with topless Na'vi .
All versions will also be sold as boxed sets with collectible blue plastic dolls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll be able to have a massive nerdgasm imagining owning your your very Blu-ray copy of Avatar as you read it.They won't release the 3D version right away of course.
Oh no... First it will be the 2D theatrical version, then the 2D extended version, then the 3D theatrical version, then the 3D extended version ...the 3D director's cut where Jake and Neytiri plug their hair together in the love scene {ooooh!
} and *finally* the R-rated 3D extended director's cut with topless Na'vi.
All versions will also be sold as boxed sets with collectible blue plastic dolls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060084</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI mess</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1265641140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh. At least tell them that HDMI is much easier to use than that SCART crap. Seriously... that thing is a behemoth relic. I do agree that the splitter stuff is nonsense, but that's not the fault of the cable per-se. It's the fault of the studios. Tell your friends/customers that the reason they can't get a cheap HDMI splitter or switcher is because the movie studios think he's a criminal. Lay the blame where the blame is due.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh .
At least tell them that HDMI is much easier to use than that SCART crap .
Seriously... that thing is a behemoth relic .
I do agree that the splitter stuff is nonsense , but that 's not the fault of the cable per-se .
It 's the fault of the studios .
Tell your friends/customers that the reason they ca n't get a cheap HDMI splitter or switcher is because the movie studios think he 's a criminal .
Lay the blame where the blame is due .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh.
At least tell them that HDMI is much easier to use than that SCART crap.
Seriously... that thing is a behemoth relic.
I do agree that the splitter stuff is nonsense, but that's not the fault of the cable per-se.
It's the fault of the studios.
Tell your friends/customers that the reason they can't get a cheap HDMI splitter or switcher is because the movie studios think he's a criminal.
Lay the blame where the blame is due.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31063778</id>
	<title>But there are no volumetric displays yet.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265661420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How are they going to display the 3D data?</p><p>Or is it a typo, and they meant stereo 2D?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How are they going to display the 3D data ? Or is it a typo , and they meant stereo 2D ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are they going to display the 3D data?Or is it a typo, and they meant stereo 2D?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059354</id>
	<title>Stereoscopic,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265629980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not 3D. You insensitive clods.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not 3D .
You insensitive clods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not 3D.
You insensitive clods.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31071410</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI mess</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265727660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, settle down... televisions all have analog inputs still: CVBS, Y/C, YPrPb, probably even VGA. Sure, in Europe, you pronounce that "SCART" and just hope your favorite of the many SCART interfaces is implemented on your new piece of kit (don't start with me, I designed video devices in Germany back in the late 1990s... SCART was a mess, even then, even if it did occasionally work well). Hell, I have all of these, as well as the HDMI's, on my dual 24" monitors. At least in the USA, the demand in new TVs is more ports... all the legacy ports, and as many HDMIs as they'll give you.</p><p>That's kind of silly anyway... most folks with more than an HDMI device or two are going to be switching HDMI though a digital amplifier anyway... I haven't used the audio in my media room TVs for 20 years... long before I had an actual "media room".</p><p>It's the computer folks who are making it all digital-only now. They're cutting back on LCD monitor prices so much, it's getting hard to find "TV" input options on computer monitors, even VGA is a dying interface. Ironically, they're also rapidly switching to 16:9 panels made for cheap HDTVs, rather than the 16:10 panels of a year or two ago.</p><p>And if you want to get complex on the consumer's buttocks, try to explain to them why all the companies doing extended control protocols (eg, control your Blu-Ray player on-screen on your TV over HDMI) are doing this all proprietary now. This was actually a done, completed, and working deal over Firewire, about a decade ago. I plug any of my Firewire cameras into my TV -- not one is a Samsung -- and control them just dandy with the OSD. So yeah, there's plenty of bad behavior here, but on actual TVs, it's not the collection of ports, at least not here in the USA. Even craptastic LCD my wife bought for the kitchen has VGA, HDMI, and all the regular TV analog ports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , settle down... televisions all have analog inputs still : CVBS , Y/C , YPrPb , probably even VGA .
Sure , in Europe , you pronounce that " SCART " and just hope your favorite of the many SCART interfaces is implemented on your new piece of kit ( do n't start with me , I designed video devices in Germany back in the late 1990s... SCART was a mess , even then , even if it did occasionally work well ) .
Hell , I have all of these , as well as the HDMI 's , on my dual 24 " monitors .
At least in the USA , the demand in new TVs is more ports... all the legacy ports , and as many HDMIs as they 'll give you.That 's kind of silly anyway... most folks with more than an HDMI device or two are going to be switching HDMI though a digital amplifier anyway... I have n't used the audio in my media room TVs for 20 years... long before I had an actual " media room " .It 's the computer folks who are making it all digital-only now .
They 're cutting back on LCD monitor prices so much , it 's getting hard to find " TV " input options on computer monitors , even VGA is a dying interface .
Ironically , they 're also rapidly switching to 16 : 9 panels made for cheap HDTVs , rather than the 16 : 10 panels of a year or two ago.And if you want to get complex on the consumer 's buttocks , try to explain to them why all the companies doing extended control protocols ( eg , control your Blu-Ray player on-screen on your TV over HDMI ) are doing this all proprietary now .
This was actually a done , completed , and working deal over Firewire , about a decade ago .
I plug any of my Firewire cameras into my TV -- not one is a Samsung -- and control them just dandy with the OSD .
So yeah , there 's plenty of bad behavior here , but on actual TVs , it 's not the collection of ports , at least not here in the USA .
Even craptastic LCD my wife bought for the kitchen has VGA , HDMI , and all the regular TV analog ports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, settle down... televisions all have analog inputs still: CVBS, Y/C, YPrPb, probably even VGA.
Sure, in Europe, you pronounce that "SCART" and just hope your favorite of the many SCART interfaces is implemented on your new piece of kit (don't start with me, I designed video devices in Germany back in the late 1990s... SCART was a mess, even then, even if it did occasionally work well).
Hell, I have all of these, as well as the HDMI's, on my dual 24" monitors.
At least in the USA, the demand in new TVs is more ports... all the legacy ports, and as many HDMIs as they'll give you.That's kind of silly anyway... most folks with more than an HDMI device or two are going to be switching HDMI though a digital amplifier anyway... I haven't used the audio in my media room TVs for 20 years... long before I had an actual "media room".It's the computer folks who are making it all digital-only now.
They're cutting back on LCD monitor prices so much, it's getting hard to find "TV" input options on computer monitors, even VGA is a dying interface.
Ironically, they're also rapidly switching to 16:9 panels made for cheap HDTVs, rather than the 16:10 panels of a year or two ago.And if you want to get complex on the consumer's buttocks, try to explain to them why all the companies doing extended control protocols (eg, control your Blu-Ray player on-screen on your TV over HDMI) are doing this all proprietary now.
This was actually a done, completed, and working deal over Firewire, about a decade ago.
I plug any of my Firewire cameras into my TV -- not one is a Samsung -- and control them just dandy with the OSD.
So yeah, there's plenty of bad behavior here, but on actual TVs, it's not the collection of ports, at least not here in the USA.
Even craptastic LCD my wife bought for the kitchen has VGA, HDMI, and all the regular TV analog ports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060766</id>
	<title>Re:More important for gaming than Hollywood?</title>
	<author>MrNemesis</author>
	<datestamp>1265646420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sincerely fucking hope not; I'm one of those annoying people that can't see 3D without concentrating, with the result that I get a splitting headache from pretty much any enforced stereoscopy after a minute or two, similarly I can't see magic eye images. Last I read something like 10\% of the western population have this defect; it's sometime correctable but I was advised against it; I was told I'd likely lose my 25/20 and 20/20 vision</p><p>I've not been able to see Avatar anywhere since there's no cinemas near me that aren't showing it in 3D; likewise I don't see any point in forking out extra for a 3D telly that'll look like shit to anyone not wearing silly goggles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sincerely fucking hope not ; I 'm one of those annoying people that ca n't see 3D without concentrating , with the result that I get a splitting headache from pretty much any enforced stereoscopy after a minute or two , similarly I ca n't see magic eye images .
Last I read something like 10 \ % of the western population have this defect ; it 's sometime correctable but I was advised against it ; I was told I 'd likely lose my 25/20 and 20/20 visionI 've not been able to see Avatar anywhere since there 's no cinemas near me that are n't showing it in 3D ; likewise I do n't see any point in forking out extra for a 3D telly that 'll look like shit to anyone not wearing silly goggles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sincerely fucking hope not; I'm one of those annoying people that can't see 3D without concentrating, with the result that I get a splitting headache from pretty much any enforced stereoscopy after a minute or two, similarly I can't see magic eye images.
Last I read something like 10\% of the western population have this defect; it's sometime correctable but I was advised against it; I was told I'd likely lose my 25/20 and 20/20 visionI've not been able to see Avatar anywhere since there's no cinemas near me that aren't showing it in 3D; likewise I don't see any point in forking out extra for a 3D telly that'll look like shit to anyone not wearing silly goggles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31065372</id>
	<title>Re: what good will it do...?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1265625060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the 3D director's cut where Jake and Neytiri plug their hair together in the love scene {ooooh!}</p> </div><p> <i>We jacked, straight across.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....<br>Ordinarily I get the raw material in a studio situation, filtered through several million dollars' worth of baffles, and I don't even have to see the artist. The stuff we get out to the consumer, you see, has been structured, balanced, turned into art. There are still people naive enough to assume that they'll actually enjoy jacking straight across with someone they love. I think most teenagers try it, once. Certainly it's easy enough to do; Radio Shack will sell you the box and the trodes and the cables. But me, I'd never done it. And now that I think about it, I'm not so sure I can explain why. Or that I even want to try.</i></p><p><i>I do know why I did it with Lise, sat down beside her on my Mexican futon and snapped the optic lead into the socket on the spine, the smooth dorsal ridge, of the exoskeleton. It was high up, at the base of her neck, hidden by her dark hair.</i></p><p>William Gibson, "The Winter Market", 1985.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Winter\_Market" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Winter\_Market</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.voidspace.org.uk/cyberpunk/burning\_chrome.shtml#market" title="voidspace.org.uk">http://www.voidspace.org.uk/cyberpunk/burning\_chrome.shtml#market</a> [voidspace.org.uk]</p><p>Best cyberpunk short story ever? It might just be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the 3D director 's cut where Jake and Neytiri plug their hair together in the love scene { ooooh !
} We jacked , straight across .
....Ordinarily I get the raw material in a studio situation , filtered through several million dollars ' worth of baffles , and I do n't even have to see the artist .
The stuff we get out to the consumer , you see , has been structured , balanced , turned into art .
There are still people naive enough to assume that they 'll actually enjoy jacking straight across with someone they love .
I think most teenagers try it , once .
Certainly it 's easy enough to do ; Radio Shack will sell you the box and the trodes and the cables .
But me , I 'd never done it .
And now that I think about it , I 'm not so sure I can explain why .
Or that I even want to try.I do know why I did it with Lise , sat down beside her on my Mexican futon and snapped the optic lead into the socket on the spine , the smooth dorsal ridge , of the exoskeleton .
It was high up , at the base of her neck , hidden by her dark hair.William Gibson , " The Winter Market " , 1985.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Winter \ _Market [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.voidspace.org.uk/cyberpunk/burning \ _chrome.shtml # market [ voidspace.org.uk ] Best cyberpunk short story ever ?
It might just be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the 3D director's cut where Jake and Neytiri plug their hair together in the love scene {ooooh!
}  We jacked, straight across.
....Ordinarily I get the raw material in a studio situation, filtered through several million dollars' worth of baffles, and I don't even have to see the artist.
The stuff we get out to the consumer, you see, has been structured, balanced, turned into art.
There are still people naive enough to assume that they'll actually enjoy jacking straight across with someone they love.
I think most teenagers try it, once.
Certainly it's easy enough to do; Radio Shack will sell you the box and the trodes and the cables.
But me, I'd never done it.
And now that I think about it, I'm not so sure I can explain why.
Or that I even want to try.I do know why I did it with Lise, sat down beside her on my Mexican futon and snapped the optic lead into the socket on the spine, the smooth dorsal ridge, of the exoskeleton.
It was high up, at the base of her neck, hidden by her dark hair.William Gibson, "The Winter Market", 1985.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Winter\_Market [wikipedia.org]http://www.voidspace.org.uk/cyberpunk/burning\_chrome.shtml#market [voidspace.org.uk]Best cyberpunk short story ever?
It might just be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31063514</id>
	<title>Re:How about displayport WITH Audio</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1265660040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm just sick of these ever evolving home theater standards.</p></div><p>Just don't buy into the BS then. There's nothing wrong with component video or VGA and either Toslink or coax for audio. Make sure you buy hardware that supports them and you won't have any troubles connecting things together. There will be no silly resolution restrictions, or DRM handshake dropouts. Everything that's been foisted on us since then has been an attempt to lock us out of handling our media in a convenient way and doesn't add anything new to the user experience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just sick of these ever evolving home theater standards.Just do n't buy into the BS then .
There 's nothing wrong with component video or VGA and either Toslink or coax for audio .
Make sure you buy hardware that supports them and you wo n't have any troubles connecting things together .
There will be no silly resolution restrictions , or DRM handshake dropouts .
Everything that 's been foisted on us since then has been an attempt to lock us out of handling our media in a convenient way and does n't add anything new to the user experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just sick of these ever evolving home theater standards.Just don't buy into the BS then.
There's nothing wrong with component video or VGA and either Toslink or coax for audio.
Make sure you buy hardware that supports them and you won't have any troubles connecting things together.
There will be no silly resolution restrictions, or DRM handshake dropouts.
Everything that's been foisted on us since then has been an attempt to lock us out of handling our media in a convenient way and doesn't add anything new to the user experience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059504</id>
	<title>Re: what good will it do...?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1265632560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh? When did Lucas acquire the HDMI patents?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
When did Lucas acquire the HDMI patents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
When did Lucas acquire the HDMI patents?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059228</id>
	<title>Truly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265627760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
2011 will be the year of DisplayPort on the desktop!
</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...what?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2011 will be the year of DisplayPort on the desktop !
...what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
2011 will be the year of DisplayPort on the desktop!
...what?
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31062122</id>
	<title>3D hdmi cable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265653260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 90's called. They want there 2D cables back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 90 's called .
They want there 2D cables back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 90's called.
They want there 2D cables back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059208</id>
	<title>Eat my poo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265627460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And choke on my giant wang.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And choke on my giant wang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And choke on my giant wang.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059352</id>
	<title>Set free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265629980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot editing is so inconsistent. Is that set free as in "turned loose"? Or set free as in "nobody owns one"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot editing is so inconsistent .
Is that set free as in " turned loose " ?
Or set free as in " nobody owns one " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot editing is so inconsistent.
Is that set free as in "turned loose"?
Or set free as in "nobody owns one"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31062270</id>
	<title>Re:3D HDMI Specification Is Set Non-Free</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1265654100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.. The headline is bogus. I didn't see anything about public domain in there. This is just an attempt to set the hooks even deeper. A feeble attept to make them look like one of the good guys. Oh well, the market has spoken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.. The headline is bogus .
I did n't see anything about public domain in there .
This is just an attempt to set the hooks even deeper .
A feeble attept to make them look like one of the good guys .
Oh well , the market has spoken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.. The headline is bogus.
I didn't see anything about public domain in there.
This is just an attempt to set the hooks even deeper.
A feeble attept to make them look like one of the good guys.
Oh well, the market has spoken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI mess</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1265636400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a hard enough time convincing people they need to re-buy cables (and peripherals) for their new TV as it is.</p><p>"You need an HDMI cable"<br>"But I already have this SCART thing and this composite thing"<br>"Yeah, but you only have HDMI on your new TV"<br>"Is that because it's HD?"<br>"Well, no, you can send an HD signal over SCART or composite just the same, but they just don't want to let you.  They want you to buy HDMI leads and TV's and equipment with HDMI."<br>"Who's they?"<br>"The people who license the HDMI technology."<br>"Er... so I have to throw away my DVD player unless I pay extra to get legacy ports too?"<br>"Or buy a Blu-Ray with HDMI or a newer player with HDMI.  The new ones upscale the DVD so it *looks* like HD but isn't really."<br>"Mmm..."</p><p>And then add an hour of conversation as you explain the various *revisions* of HDMI and everything else, and why they can't just buy a &pound;10 signal-splitter or cable-switcher without it potentially interfering with their recording of HD programmes, or why some models just won't negotiate a HD signal with some other models, or why the cheap, shit imported versions of DVD players and Blu-Ray let you just use a composite output, or why all this was to stop pirates when you can find and download HD-anything online in the same time as you used to be able to download SD content.</p><p>Call me when consumers get bored of this crap.  Then I might have a look and see if there's a *standard* (i.e. unchanging, common, open, useful) cable set I can use to watch TV and record the stuff I want.  To be honest, there already is - it's called "ADSL over a phone line from a widescreen laptop".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a hard enough time convincing people they need to re-buy cables ( and peripherals ) for their new TV as it is .
" You need an HDMI cable " " But I already have this SCART thing and this composite thing " " Yeah , but you only have HDMI on your new TV " " Is that because it 's HD ?
" " Well , no , you can send an HD signal over SCART or composite just the same , but they just do n't want to let you .
They want you to buy HDMI leads and TV 's and equipment with HDMI .
" " Who 's they ?
" " The people who license the HDMI technology. " " Er.. .
so I have to throw away my DVD player unless I pay extra to get legacy ports too ?
" " Or buy a Blu-Ray with HDMI or a newer player with HDMI .
The new ones upscale the DVD so it * looks * like HD but is n't really. " " Mmm.. .
" And then add an hour of conversation as you explain the various * revisions * of HDMI and everything else , and why they ca n't just buy a   10 signal-splitter or cable-switcher without it potentially interfering with their recording of HD programmes , or why some models just wo n't negotiate a HD signal with some other models , or why the cheap , shit imported versions of DVD players and Blu-Ray let you just use a composite output , or why all this was to stop pirates when you can find and download HD-anything online in the same time as you used to be able to download SD content.Call me when consumers get bored of this crap .
Then I might have a look and see if there 's a * standard * ( i.e .
unchanging , common , open , useful ) cable set I can use to watch TV and record the stuff I want .
To be honest , there already is - it 's called " ADSL over a phone line from a widescreen laptop " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a hard enough time convincing people they need to re-buy cables (and peripherals) for their new TV as it is.
"You need an HDMI cable""But I already have this SCART thing and this composite thing""Yeah, but you only have HDMI on your new TV""Is that because it's HD?
""Well, no, you can send an HD signal over SCART or composite just the same, but they just don't want to let you.
They want you to buy HDMI leads and TV's and equipment with HDMI.
""Who's they?
""The people who license the HDMI technology.""Er...
so I have to throw away my DVD player unless I pay extra to get legacy ports too?
""Or buy a Blu-Ray with HDMI or a newer player with HDMI.
The new ones upscale the DVD so it *looks* like HD but isn't really.""Mmm...
"And then add an hour of conversation as you explain the various *revisions* of HDMI and everything else, and why they can't just buy a £10 signal-splitter or cable-switcher without it potentially interfering with their recording of HD programmes, or why some models just won't negotiate a HD signal with some other models, or why the cheap, shit imported versions of DVD players and Blu-Ray let you just use a composite output, or why all this was to stop pirates when you can find and download HD-anything online in the same time as you used to be able to download SD content.Call me when consumers get bored of this crap.
Then I might have a look and see if there's a *standard* (i.e.
unchanging, common, open, useful) cable set I can use to watch TV and record the stuff I want.
To be honest, there already is - it's called "ADSL over a phone line from a widescreen laptop".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31117636</id>
	<title>Re:Displayport not a threat</title>
	<author>badkarmadayaccount</author>
	<datestamp>1265965560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DisplayPort is more compatible and extensible. Check the specs. I was actually wondering whether you can extend its micro-packet protocol to carry HyperTransport data flows. Anybody know the specs well enough to answer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>DisplayPort is more compatible and extensible .
Check the specs .
I was actually wondering whether you can extend its micro-packet protocol to carry HyperTransport data flows .
Anybody know the specs well enough to answer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DisplayPort is more compatible and extensible.
Check the specs.
I was actually wondering whether you can extend its micro-packet protocol to carry HyperTransport data flows.
Anybody know the specs well enough to answer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31068148</id>
	<title>Why cant they just get along?</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1265643120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why cant everyone from the computer camp, the home entertainment camp and elsewhere come together and create one unified set of next generation display standards for everything that both the CE guys and the computer guys could support?</p><p>What makes DVI and Display Port and other "computer" technologies better than HDMI for computer use?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why cant everyone from the computer camp , the home entertainment camp and elsewhere come together and create one unified set of next generation display standards for everything that both the CE guys and the computer guys could support ? What makes DVI and Display Port and other " computer " technologies better than HDMI for computer use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why cant everyone from the computer camp, the home entertainment camp and elsewhere come together and create one unified set of next generation display standards for everything that both the CE guys and the computer guys could support?What makes DVI and Display Port and other "computer" technologies better than HDMI for computer use?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059526</id>
	<title>More important for gaming than Hollywood?</title>
	<author>G3ckoG33k</author>
	<datestamp>1265632920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Despite the success of Avatar, this may be more important for gaming than Hollywood, or?

Didn't gaming bypass Hollywood in turnover some time ago?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the success of Avatar , this may be more important for gaming than Hollywood , or ?
Did n't gaming bypass Hollywood in turnover some time ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the success of Avatar, this may be more important for gaming than Hollywood, or?
Didn't gaming bypass Hollywood in turnover some time ago?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31065670</id>
	<title>Re:But there are no volumetric displays yet.</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1265626140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Update:  I just downloaded the spec, and it does contain the ability to transmit "L+Depth" which I believe is a 2D+depth representation that could be used by non-glasses-based mutiview displays, but will probably not be too good to look at in such a display without occlusion or transparency data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Update : I just downloaded the spec , and it does contain the ability to transmit " L + Depth " which I believe is a 2D + depth representation that could be used by non-glasses-based mutiview displays , but will probably not be too good to look at in such a display without occlusion or transparency data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Update:  I just downloaded the spec, and it does contain the ability to transmit "L+Depth" which I believe is a 2D+depth representation that could be used by non-glasses-based mutiview displays, but will probably not be too good to look at in such a display without occlusion or transparency data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31063778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059398</id>
	<title>"Free"?</title>
	<author>perrin</author>
	<datestamp>1265630520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The document has an EULA. While that is bad enough on its own, in it you find this gem: "The term of this Agreement is one year.  Agent in its sole discretion may terminate or extend this Agreement at any time and without prior notice.  Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, You shall immediately destroy and cease all use of the Specification Portion and all materials and information related to the Specification Portion." To add insult to injury, they also slap an indemnification clause to the document's EULA.</p><p>So, you agree to not distribute it and to destroy the document after one year. If they are sued for whatever reason, and they can blame it on you, you agree to cover all their expenses. Yay for openness!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The document has an EULA .
While that is bad enough on its own , in it you find this gem : " The term of this Agreement is one year .
Agent in its sole discretion may terminate or extend this Agreement at any time and without prior notice .
Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement , You shall immediately destroy and cease all use of the Specification Portion and all materials and information related to the Specification Portion .
" To add insult to injury , they also slap an indemnification clause to the document 's EULA.So , you agree to not distribute it and to destroy the document after one year .
If they are sued for whatever reason , and they can blame it on you , you agree to cover all their expenses .
Yay for openness !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The document has an EULA.
While that is bad enough on its own, in it you find this gem: "The term of this Agreement is one year.
Agent in its sole discretion may terminate or extend this Agreement at any time and without prior notice.
Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, You shall immediately destroy and cease all use of the Specification Portion and all materials and information related to the Specification Portion.
" To add insult to injury, they also slap an indemnification clause to the document's EULA.So, you agree to not distribute it and to destroy the document after one year.
If they are sued for whatever reason, and they can blame it on you, you agree to cover all their expenses.
Yay for openness!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31075988</id>
	<title>Re:Bwuh? Only ONE input????</title>
	<author>ageoffri</author>
	<datestamp>1265745720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I was shopping for a new TV a couple years ago I didn't care how many inputs it had.  I made sure it had a HDMI input.  Then I spent time making sure my AV Receiver had all the inputs I needed and then some extras.  A TV should not be the central control point in a decent home theater setup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was shopping for a new TV a couple years ago I did n't care how many inputs it had .
I made sure it had a HDMI input .
Then I spent time making sure my AV Receiver had all the inputs I needed and then some extras .
A TV should not be the central control point in a decent home theater setup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was shopping for a new TV a couple years ago I didn't care how many inputs it had.
I made sure it had a HDMI input.
Then I spent time making sure my AV Receiver had all the inputs I needed and then some extras.
A TV should not be the central control point in a decent home theater setup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059296</id>
	<title>Free to read != Free to use</title>
	<author>l2718</author>
	<datestamp>1265628900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very nice of them to allow us to <i>read</i> the spec.  Now what about the patents?  the rest of the HDMI spec on which this piece depends?</p><p>

If you can't implement the standard, what good will it do you to be able to read it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very nice of them to allow us to read the spec .
Now what about the patents ?
the rest of the HDMI spec on which this piece depends ?
If you ca n't implement the standard , what good will it do you to be able to read it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very nice of them to allow us to read the spec.
Now what about the patents?
the rest of the HDMI spec on which this piece depends?
If you can't implement the standard, what good will it do you to be able to read it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31062026</id>
	<title>Re:Free to read != Free to use</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1265652780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Very nice of them to allow us to read the spec. Now what about the patents? the rest of the HDMI spec on which this piece depends?</p><p>If you can't implement the standard, what good will it do you to be able to read it?</p></div></blockquote><p>You're supposed to <strong>join the HDMI consortium</strong> if you want to implement HDMI. It's a non-free group to join, like SD Card Association, Blu-Ray Association, DVD Forum, etc. There are free groups you can join, like the USB Association, PCI (note: specs cost $$$), and many others. Of course, some groups release partial specs (SD card's simplified spec, HDMI group's HDMI 1.3a and 3D 1.4 extract, etc) usually to get more people to join.</p><p>It's effectively a tease, meant to show how they're planning on doing 3D video.</p><p>On the same note, you can actually get the HDMI 1.3a specs for free now. Members get access to the latest spec, but non-members get access to the earlier ones (because all the competitive advantage is gone, and now it's just enticing other members to join in).</p><p>And typically, paying the royalties pays for the patents. Here, paying the HDMI royalties will probably pay for all the licensed bits used for that product.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very nice of them to allow us to read the spec .
Now what about the patents ?
the rest of the HDMI spec on which this piece depends ? If you ca n't implement the standard , what good will it do you to be able to read it ? You 're supposed to join the HDMI consortium if you want to implement HDMI .
It 's a non-free group to join , like SD Card Association , Blu-Ray Association , DVD Forum , etc .
There are free groups you can join , like the USB Association , PCI ( note : specs cost $ $ $ ) , and many others .
Of course , some groups release partial specs ( SD card 's simplified spec , HDMI group 's HDMI 1.3a and 3D 1.4 extract , etc ) usually to get more people to join.It 's effectively a tease , meant to show how they 're planning on doing 3D video.On the same note , you can actually get the HDMI 1.3a specs for free now .
Members get access to the latest spec , but non-members get access to the earlier ones ( because all the competitive advantage is gone , and now it 's just enticing other members to join in ) .And typically , paying the royalties pays for the patents .
Here , paying the HDMI royalties will probably pay for all the licensed bits used for that product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very nice of them to allow us to read the spec.
Now what about the patents?
the rest of the HDMI spec on which this piece depends?If you can't implement the standard, what good will it do you to be able to read it?You're supposed to join the HDMI consortium if you want to implement HDMI.
It's a non-free group to join, like SD Card Association, Blu-Ray Association, DVD Forum, etc.
There are free groups you can join, like the USB Association, PCI (note: specs cost $$$), and many others.
Of course, some groups release partial specs (SD card's simplified spec, HDMI group's HDMI 1.3a and 3D 1.4 extract, etc) usually to get more people to join.It's effectively a tease, meant to show how they're planning on doing 3D video.On the same note, you can actually get the HDMI 1.3a specs for free now.
Members get access to the latest spec, but non-members get access to the earlier ones (because all the competitive advantage is gone, and now it's just enticing other members to join in).And typically, paying the royalties pays for the patents.
Here, paying the HDMI royalties will probably pay for all the licensed bits used for that product.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060264</id>
	<title>Re:Displayport not a threat</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1265642520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>People are just now using HDMI. No one is moving anytime soon.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Maybe. Then again, adding an extra connector to a graphic card isn't exactly expensive. Mine has DVI, HDMI and Displayport.</p><p>Anyway, what I'd really like to see in a future standard would be variable refresh rate. That is, instead of updating the image 60 or 75 or 100 times per second, send the next image when it's ready. That way, when you're watching a PAL movie, your display shows 25 frames per second; when an NTSC one, 30; and when you're playing a 3D game, the rate keeps going up and down constantly.</p><p>This would mean lower latency ("vsync on demand", essentially) and smoother playback.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are just now using HDMI .
No one is moving anytime soon .
Maybe. Then again , adding an extra connector to a graphic card is n't exactly expensive .
Mine has DVI , HDMI and Displayport.Anyway , what I 'd really like to see in a future standard would be variable refresh rate .
That is , instead of updating the image 60 or 75 or 100 times per second , send the next image when it 's ready .
That way , when you 're watching a PAL movie , your display shows 25 frames per second ; when an NTSC one , 30 ; and when you 're playing a 3D game , the rate keeps going up and down constantly.This would mean lower latency ( " vsync on demand " , essentially ) and smoother playback .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are just now using HDMI.
No one is moving anytime soon.
Maybe. Then again, adding an extra connector to a graphic card isn't exactly expensive.
Mine has DVI, HDMI and Displayport.Anyway, what I'd really like to see in a future standard would be variable refresh rate.
That is, instead of updating the image 60 or 75 or 100 times per second, send the next image when it's ready.
That way, when you're watching a PAL movie, your display shows 25 frames per second; when an NTSC one, 30; and when you're playing a 3D game, the rate keeps going up and down constantly.This would mean lower latency ("vsync on demand", essentially) and smoother playback.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059934</id>
	<title>3D HDMI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265640000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally a chance for the porn industry to drive innovation, they could specify one connector to go into multiple ports... maybe call it backwards compatible.... but that might be a name for a new position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally a chance for the porn industry to drive innovation , they could specify one connector to go into multiple ports... maybe call it backwards compatible.... but that might be a name for a new position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally a chance for the porn industry to drive innovation, they could specify one connector to go into multiple ports... maybe call it backwards compatible.... but that might be a name for a new position.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059514</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI mess</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1265632740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone hand that guy an insightful mod.</p><p>2010 will be the year of a lot new buzzwords and add-on-words to various standards. Watch out for "enhanced", "empowered", "true", "extended" and whatever other buzzword the markedroids will come up to sell their outdated past standard not-quite-anymore-compatible junk. I'm still struggling with "HD ready" and "full HD" and HD...whatever the buzzword of the day is.</p><p>*whimper* I just wanna watch TV!</p><p>Waitasec... why? There's nothing on worth my time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone hand that guy an insightful mod.2010 will be the year of a lot new buzzwords and add-on-words to various standards .
Watch out for " enhanced " , " empowered " , " true " , " extended " and whatever other buzzword the markedroids will come up to sell their outdated past standard not-quite-anymore-compatible junk .
I 'm still struggling with " HD ready " and " full HD " and HD...whatever the buzzword of the day is .
* whimper * I just wan na watch TV ! Waitasec... why ? There 's nothing on worth my time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone hand that guy an insightful mod.2010 will be the year of a lot new buzzwords and add-on-words to various standards.
Watch out for "enhanced", "empowered", "true", "extended" and whatever other buzzword the markedroids will come up to sell their outdated past standard not-quite-anymore-compatible junk.
I'm still struggling with "HD ready" and "full HD" and HD...whatever the buzzword of the day is.
*whimper* I just wanna watch TV!Waitasec... why? There's nothing on worth my time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060520</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI mess</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1265644800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last year I found a case where someone had already been "convinced" they needed to buy a &pound;60 cable for their new HD setup. It was a SCART cable. They had a HDMI cable plugged in which had never been used until I asked why they had two A/V connections between the same things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last year I found a case where someone had already been " convinced " they needed to buy a   60 cable for their new HD setup .
It was a SCART cable .
They had a HDMI cable plugged in which had never been used until I asked why they had two A/V connections between the same things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last year I found a case where someone had already been "convinced" they needed to buy a £60 cable for their new HD setup.
It was a SCART cable.
They had a HDMI cable plugged in which had never been used until I asked why they had two A/V connections between the same things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31071564</id>
	<title>Re:Bwuh? Only ONE input????</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265728320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a A/V wizard (audiophile has such "another one born every minute" connotations) and I totally agree.. for the average consumer, the TV makes a great hub. And while the manufacturers do seem to be cutting down on the support for ports in monitors, I have seen no such evidence of this happening in full televisions.</p><p>The one thing I do miss is an audio chain output from the TV. Ok, my current Samsung has a Sony/Philips optical output, but that's just silly on a TV with HDMI inputs -- I need PCMx8 audio chain output. Years and years back, I had one of the first televisions designed to be used with external amplification, from Techniques (Panasonic's slightly higher-end audio division). This had a full audio chain output, so the TV could remain the video switching hub if you wanted it to be so. In most systems not using the TV speakers, the amplifier has to be the switching hub, which is confusing to consumers. And easily prevented.</p><p>But aside from that, the trend is clearly for more ports on televisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a A/V wizard ( audiophile has such " another one born every minute " connotations ) and I totally agree.. for the average consumer , the TV makes a great hub .
And while the manufacturers do seem to be cutting down on the support for ports in monitors , I have seen no such evidence of this happening in full televisions.The one thing I do miss is an audio chain output from the TV .
Ok , my current Samsung has a Sony/Philips optical output , but that 's just silly on a TV with HDMI inputs -- I need PCMx8 audio chain output .
Years and years back , I had one of the first televisions designed to be used with external amplification , from Techniques ( Panasonic 's slightly higher-end audio division ) .
This had a full audio chain output , so the TV could remain the video switching hub if you wanted it to be so .
In most systems not using the TV speakers , the amplifier has to be the switching hub , which is confusing to consumers .
And easily prevented.But aside from that , the trend is clearly for more ports on televisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a A/V wizard (audiophile has such "another one born every minute" connotations) and I totally agree.. for the average consumer, the TV makes a great hub.
And while the manufacturers do seem to be cutting down on the support for ports in monitors, I have seen no such evidence of this happening in full televisions.The one thing I do miss is an audio chain output from the TV.
Ok, my current Samsung has a Sony/Philips optical output, but that's just silly on a TV with HDMI inputs -- I need PCMx8 audio chain output.
Years and years back, I had one of the first televisions designed to be used with external amplification, from Techniques (Panasonic's slightly higher-end audio division).
This had a full audio chain output, so the TV could remain the video switching hub if you wanted it to be so.
In most systems not using the TV speakers, the amplifier has to be the switching hub, which is confusing to consumers.
And easily prevented.But aside from that, the trend is clearly for more ports on televisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059232</id>
	<title>farst</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265627880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pots</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pots</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pots</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31064130</id>
	<title>Re:Bwuh? Only ONE input????</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1265620020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the first things I do is try to save money by buying a TV with fewer input jacks because I expect my receiver to switch audio and video for me.  People who actually use their TV speakers for sound can ignore this comment of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the first things I do is try to save money by buying a TV with fewer input jacks because I expect my receiver to switch audio and video for me .
People who actually use their TV speakers for sound can ignore this comment of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the first things I do is try to save money by buying a TV with fewer input jacks because I expect my receiver to switch audio and video for me.
People who actually use their TV speakers for sound can ignore this comment of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059442</id>
	<title>Re:Free to read != Free to use</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1265631060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although patents can be bad, isn't adding a HDMI port to a device very cheap for manufacturers to do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although patents can be bad , is n't adding a HDMI port to a device very cheap for manufacturers to do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although patents can be bad, isn't adding a HDMI port to a device very cheap for manufacturers to do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059218</id>
	<title>Displayport not a threat</title>
	<author>iCantSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1265627640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are just now using HDMI. No one is moving anytime soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are just now using HDMI .
No one is moving anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are just now using HDMI.
No one is moving anytime soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059282</id>
	<title>3D HDMI Specification Is Set Non-Free</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1265628600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure you can download part of the spec. But it has a restrictive license (and only valid 1 year, after that it will self destruct), and it is actually quite useless without the rest of the HDMI spec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure you can download part of the spec .
But it has a restrictive license ( and only valid 1 year , after that it will self destruct ) , and it is actually quite useless without the rest of the HDMI spec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure you can download part of the spec.
But it has a restrictive license (and only valid 1 year, after that it will self destruct), and it is actually quite useless without the rest of the HDMI spec.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060672</id>
	<title>How about displayport WITH Audio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265645880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just want displayport implementations in laptops to transfer audio as well?  Even the current Lenovo W500 laptop, which comes with a displayport, does not transfer audio over it.  Even if you buy the bluray option for the laptop. It just pisses me off that there's no way to get high quality audio out of this laptop.  Even <a href="http://forum.lenovo.com/t5/W-Series-ThinkPad-Laptops/Displayport-to-HDMI-with-audio/m-p/176558#M6045" title="lenovo.com">lenovo admits</a> [lenovo.com] this.</p><p>I'm just sick of these ever evolving home theater standards.  There was a time when most home receivers didn't support DTS and dolby digital and so if you had a DVD which was only encoded in one, and your receiver didn't support it, you were out of luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just want displayport implementations in laptops to transfer audio as well ?
Even the current Lenovo W500 laptop , which comes with a displayport , does not transfer audio over it .
Even if you buy the bluray option for the laptop .
It just pisses me off that there 's no way to get high quality audio out of this laptop .
Even lenovo admits [ lenovo.com ] this.I 'm just sick of these ever evolving home theater standards .
There was a time when most home receivers did n't support DTS and dolby digital and so if you had a DVD which was only encoded in one , and your receiver did n't support it , you were out of luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just want displayport implementations in laptops to transfer audio as well?
Even the current Lenovo W500 laptop, which comes with a displayport, does not transfer audio over it.
Even if you buy the bluray option for the laptop.
It just pisses me off that there's no way to get high quality audio out of this laptop.
Even lenovo admits [lenovo.com] this.I'm just sick of these ever evolving home theater standards.
There was a time when most home receivers didn't support DTS and dolby digital and so if you had a DVD which was only encoded in one, and your receiver didn't support it, you were out of luck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060600</id>
	<title>Bwuh?  Only ONE input????</title>
	<author>sgtrock</author>
	<datestamp>1265645340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only geek on the planet who checks for multiple inputs before buying a TV?  While I realize that video- and audio- philes will probably disagree with me, I'd say that the TV is the best device to act as the central hub for 99\% of consumers out there.  It's simple and straightforward for them to figure out where to keep plugging stuff into.  Why would anyone ever buy a TV with only one (type of) input?</p><p>For example, I recently replaced my 10 year old Sony WEGA with a 55" Samsung LCD (half price off a Best Buy floor display).  My old Sony had  S-video, 3 or 4 sets of composite inputs, and a cable ready jack.  I ended up with DVI, VGA, composite, component, S-Video, USB, Ethernet, cable in, OTA, and HDMI options on the back of my set.  I've got a MythTV box, a DVD player, DishTV, an OTA antenna, and a WII plugged into this thing.  I still have 4 or 5 ports open in case I really want to go hog wild.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only geek on the planet who checks for multiple inputs before buying a TV ?
While I realize that video- and audio- philes will probably disagree with me , I 'd say that the TV is the best device to act as the central hub for 99 \ % of consumers out there .
It 's simple and straightforward for them to figure out where to keep plugging stuff into .
Why would anyone ever buy a TV with only one ( type of ) input ? For example , I recently replaced my 10 year old Sony WEGA with a 55 " Samsung LCD ( half price off a Best Buy floor display ) .
My old Sony had S-video , 3 or 4 sets of composite inputs , and a cable ready jack .
I ended up with DVI , VGA , composite , component , S-Video , USB , Ethernet , cable in , OTA , and HDMI options on the back of my set .
I 've got a MythTV box , a DVD player , DishTV , an OTA antenna , and a WII plugged into this thing .
I still have 4 or 5 ports open in case I really want to go hog wild .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only geek on the planet who checks for multiple inputs before buying a TV?
While I realize that video- and audio- philes will probably disagree with me, I'd say that the TV is the best device to act as the central hub for 99\% of consumers out there.
It's simple and straightforward for them to figure out where to keep plugging stuff into.
Why would anyone ever buy a TV with only one (type of) input?For example, I recently replaced my 10 year old Sony WEGA with a 55" Samsung LCD (half price off a Best Buy floor display).
My old Sony had  S-video, 3 or 4 sets of composite inputs, and a cable ready jack.
I ended up with DVI, VGA, composite, component, S-Video, USB, Ethernet, cable in, OTA, and HDMI options on the back of my set.
I've got a MythTV box, a DVD player, DishTV, an OTA antenna, and a WII plugged into this thing.
I still have 4 or 5 ports open in case I really want to go hog wild.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31063366</id>
	<title>Fuck this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265659440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm tired of this shit. It's a fucking cable. Get the fuck over it and make it open. You are fucking seriously fucked if you think I give a fuck about HDMI, HDMI 3D HDTV or any other fucking bullshit DRMd fuck-tech.</p><p>We're done with this fucking shit, DO YOU UNDERSTAND????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of this shit .
It 's a fucking cable .
Get the fuck over it and make it open .
You are fucking seriously fucked if you think I give a fuck about HDMI , HDMI 3D HDTV or any other fucking bullshit DRMd fuck-tech.We 're done with this fucking shit , DO YOU UNDERSTAND ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of this shit.
It's a fucking cable.
Get the fuck over it and make it open.
You are fucking seriously fucked if you think I give a fuck about HDMI, HDMI 3D HDTV or any other fucking bullshit DRMd fuck-tech.We're done with this fucking shit, DO YOU UNDERSTAND???
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060554</id>
	<title>They're already being ripped off</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1265644980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you seen how much bestbuy charges for a HDMI cable? Never mind the nonsense of selling Monster Cable HDMI cables to get the "best picture".(Never mind that a $5 cable from monoprice has the same picture.) I can't imagine how much more ripping off there's going to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you seen how much bestbuy charges for a HDMI cable ?
Never mind the nonsense of selling Monster Cable HDMI cables to get the " best picture " .
( Never mind that a $ 5 cable from monoprice has the same picture .
) I ca n't imagine how much more ripping off there 's going to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you seen how much bestbuy charges for a HDMI cable?
Never mind the nonsense of selling Monster Cable HDMI cables to get the "best picture".
(Never mind that a $5 cable from monoprice has the same picture.
) I can't imagine how much more ripping off there's going to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060992</id>
	<title>Re: what good will it do...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265647920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would that be 10 foot tall blue plastic SEX dolls?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would that be 10 foot tall blue plastic SEX dolls ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would that be 10 foot tall blue plastic SEX dolls?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059378</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31075988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31065372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31064130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31071410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31062270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31064160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31071564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31117636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31062026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31063514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31065670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31063778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_0231234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_0231234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_0231234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31063778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31065670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_0231234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31062270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_0231234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31063514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_0231234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31063366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_0231234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_0231234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31062026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31065372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_0231234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31064160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_0231234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31117636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_0231234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_0231234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31059680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31071410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060600
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31071564
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31064130
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31075988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31060554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_0231234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_0231234.31068148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
