<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_08_2223252</id>
	<title>Virus-Detecting "Lab On a Chip" Developed At BYU</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1265627100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>natharward writes <i>"A new development in nano-level diagnostic tests has been applied as a lab on a chip that successfully <a href="http://news.byu.edu/archive09-Dec-labonachip.aspx">screened viruses entirely by their size</a>. The chip's traps are size-specific, which means even tiny concentrations of viruses or other particles won't escape detection. For medicine, this development is promising for future lab diagnostics that could detect viruses before symptoms kick in and damage begins, well ahead of when traditional lab tests are able to catch them.  Aaron Hawkins, the BYU professor leading the work, says his team is now gearing up to make chips with multiple, progressively smaller slots, so that a single sample can be used to screen for particles of varying sizes. One could fairly simply determine which proteins or viruses are present based on which walls have particles stacked against them.  After this is developed, Hawkins says, 'If we decided to make these things in high volume, I think within a year it could be ready.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>natharward writes " A new development in nano-level diagnostic tests has been applied as a lab on a chip that successfully screened viruses entirely by their size .
The chip 's traps are size-specific , which means even tiny concentrations of viruses or other particles wo n't escape detection .
For medicine , this development is promising for future lab diagnostics that could detect viruses before symptoms kick in and damage begins , well ahead of when traditional lab tests are able to catch them .
Aaron Hawkins , the BYU professor leading the work , says his team is now gearing up to make chips with multiple , progressively smaller slots , so that a single sample can be used to screen for particles of varying sizes .
One could fairly simply determine which proteins or viruses are present based on which walls have particles stacked against them .
After this is developed , Hawkins says , 'If we decided to make these things in high volume , I think within a year it could be ready .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>natharward writes "A new development in nano-level diagnostic tests has been applied as a lab on a chip that successfully screened viruses entirely by their size.
The chip's traps are size-specific, which means even tiny concentrations of viruses or other particles won't escape detection.
For medicine, this development is promising for future lab diagnostics that could detect viruses before symptoms kick in and damage begins, well ahead of when traditional lab tests are able to catch them.
Aaron Hawkins, the BYU professor leading the work, says his team is now gearing up to make chips with multiple, progressively smaller slots, so that a single sample can be used to screen for particles of varying sizes.
One could fairly simply determine which proteins or viruses are present based on which walls have particles stacked against them.
After this is developed, Hawkins says, 'If we decided to make these things in high volume, I think within a year it could be ready.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066782</id>
	<title>Murtha is dead?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265631000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So long motherfucking shitball. It's time you got flushed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So long motherfucking shitball .
It 's time you got flushed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long motherfucking shitball.
It's time you got flushed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066814</id>
	<title>How to tell if you have teh AIDs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265631120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you had sex with a nigger, you have it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had sex with a nigger , you have it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had sex with a nigger, you have it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067470</id>
	<title>Re:uhh......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265635620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's something to do with shoes, right? Maybe it'll identify women as a virus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's something to do with shoes , right ?
Maybe it 'll identify women as a virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's something to do with shoes, right?
Maybe it'll identify women as a virus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067910</id>
	<title>Re:This will never work</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1265640180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My wife keeps telling me that size doesn't matter</p></div><p>Who is she trying to convince?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife keeps telling me that size does n't matterWho is she trying to convince ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife keeps telling me that size doesn't matterWho is she trying to convince?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067824</id>
	<title>Re:But will it work after the virus evolves?</title>
	<author>CyberSaint</author>
	<datestamp>1265639400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>oh dear... Mormons are Intelligent Design believers, not Creationists specifically, there is a difference.
<br>
<br>(Full disclosure, I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe in ID or Creationism, but was raised Mormon)</htmltext>
<tokenext>oh dear... Mormons are Intelligent Design believers , not Creationists specifically , there is a difference .
( Full disclosure , I 'm an Agnostic , I do n't believe in ID or Creationism , but was raised Mormon )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh dear... Mormons are Intelligent Design believers, not Creationists specifically, there is a difference.
(Full disclosure, I'm an Agnostic, I don't believe in ID or Creationism, but was raised Mormon)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066920</id>
	<title>Artificial immune system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265631660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about an implant which selectively traps virus particles, incinerates them and releases their component molecules?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about an implant which selectively traps virus particles , incinerates them and releases their component molecules ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about an implant which selectively traps virus particles, incinerates them and releases their component molecules?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067100</id>
	<title>Okay guys...</title>
	<author>tool462</author>
	<datestamp>1265632740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like we have a namespace collision here.</p><p>I propose the following solution: All references to 'virus' should now point to one of the following (as appropriate).</p><p>Meatspace::virus<br>Bitspace::virus</p><p>That'll solve a lot of confusion (and render almost every single "Funny"-modded post in this thread irrelevant)</p><p>Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like we have a namespace collision here.I propose the following solution : All references to 'virus ' should now point to one of the following ( as appropriate ) .Meatspace : : virusBitspace : : virusThat 'll solve a lot of confusion ( and render almost every single " Funny " -modded post in this thread irrelevant ) Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like we have a namespace collision here.I propose the following solution: All references to 'virus' should now point to one of the following (as appropriate).Meatspace::virusBitspace::virusThat'll solve a lot of confusion (and render almost every single "Funny"-modded post in this thread irrelevant)Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066850</id>
	<title>But will it work after the virus evolves?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265631300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But can the chip detect a virus after it has evolved into a different strain?  Considering their creationist views i doubt it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But can the chip detect a virus after it has evolved into a different strain ?
Considering their creationist views i doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But can the chip detect a virus after it has evolved into a different strain?
Considering their creationist views i doubt it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31068392</id>
	<title>Could do it this way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265646000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting way to go about things.  There are other ways:</p><p>http://combimatrix.com/products\_fludetector.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting way to go about things .
There are other ways : http : //combimatrix.com/products \ _fludetector.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting way to go about things.
There are other ways:http://combimatrix.com/products\_fludetector.htm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067198</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1265633640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is more amazing is that the technology was in fact invented at a Mormon school, and as everyone knows, Battlestar Galactica is the obligatory connection.</p><p>So this story is really not about virus detection, but over whether or not Star Trek is really stealing technology from Battlestar Galactica!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is more amazing is that the technology was in fact invented at a Mormon school , and as everyone knows , Battlestar Galactica is the obligatory connection.So this story is really not about virus detection , but over whether or not Star Trek is really stealing technology from Battlestar Galactica !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is more amazing is that the technology was in fact invented at a Mormon school, and as everyone knows, Battlestar Galactica is the obligatory connection.So this story is really not about virus detection, but over whether or not Star Trek is really stealing technology from Battlestar Galactica!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31068208</id>
	<title>Re:Magic Underwear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265644020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I grew up (mostly) in Utah. I have the utmost respect for the Mormons. I don't understand why everyone hates them or thinks they are crazy. They have always been kind and respectful to me and my family. I've even been to church with them.. seems normal enough to me. Pretty much the standard christian beliefs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I grew up ( mostly ) in Utah .
I have the utmost respect for the Mormons .
I do n't understand why everyone hates them or thinks they are crazy .
They have always been kind and respectful to me and my family .
I 've even been to church with them.. seems normal enough to me .
Pretty much the standard christian beliefs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grew up (mostly) in Utah.
I have the utmost respect for the Mormons.
I don't understand why everyone hates them or thinks they are crazy.
They have always been kind and respectful to me and my family.
I've even been to church with them.. seems normal enough to me.
Pretty much the standard christian beliefs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066946</id>
	<title>Re:Oh man, its one of those days...</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1265631840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if your virus (biological) detecting chip gets a virus (computer)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if your virus ( biological ) detecting chip gets a virus ( computer ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if your virus (biological) detecting chip gets a virus (computer)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31068834</id>
	<title>several questions</title>
	<author>Rutulian</author>
	<datestamp>1265650980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so I read the article--unsurprisingly it was light on the details. The sieve idea is good, but a few questions come to mind,</p><p>1) How are you going to do the actual virus identification? Most of the current techniques require an amplification step because you need enough signal to measure. It is great to be able to isolate small amounts, but not if you can't do anything with it. Morphological identification is one way to go, but you can only get species information that way (sometimes). You can't get strain information (ie: you know you have a flu virus, but which one?).</p><p>2) On the same line as 1), if you are going to amplify it to do some kind of test, how are you going to do that? Some viruses replicate easily (ie: in bacteria). Others don't. Almost all viruses are fairly fragile, so will they still be viable after being gathered on the chip?</p><p>3) How are you going to use this for diagnostic purposes. You can't just squirt blood onto this thing. You would need to prepare the sample in some way (to precipitate proteins, organelles, and structure polysaccharides) or else you will gunk up the chip and have a large background signal.</p><p>An interesting technology for sure, but this sort of stuff needs to be thought through if it is going to be useful in any kind of clinical way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so I read the article--unsurprisingly it was light on the details .
The sieve idea is good , but a few questions come to mind,1 ) How are you going to do the actual virus identification ?
Most of the current techniques require an amplification step because you need enough signal to measure .
It is great to be able to isolate small amounts , but not if you ca n't do anything with it .
Morphological identification is one way to go , but you can only get species information that way ( sometimes ) .
You ca n't get strain information ( ie : you know you have a flu virus , but which one ?
) .2 ) On the same line as 1 ) , if you are going to amplify it to do some kind of test , how are you going to do that ?
Some viruses replicate easily ( ie : in bacteria ) .
Others do n't .
Almost all viruses are fairly fragile , so will they still be viable after being gathered on the chip ? 3 ) How are you going to use this for diagnostic purposes .
You ca n't just squirt blood onto this thing .
You would need to prepare the sample in some way ( to precipitate proteins , organelles , and structure polysaccharides ) or else you will gunk up the chip and have a large background signal.An interesting technology for sure , but this sort of stuff needs to be thought through if it is going to be useful in any kind of clinical way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so I read the article--unsurprisingly it was light on the details.
The sieve idea is good, but a few questions come to mind,1) How are you going to do the actual virus identification?
Most of the current techniques require an amplification step because you need enough signal to measure.
It is great to be able to isolate small amounts, but not if you can't do anything with it.
Morphological identification is one way to go, but you can only get species information that way (sometimes).
You can't get strain information (ie: you know you have a flu virus, but which one?
).2) On the same line as 1), if you are going to amplify it to do some kind of test, how are you going to do that?
Some viruses replicate easily (ie: in bacteria).
Others don't.
Almost all viruses are fairly fragile, so will they still be viable after being gathered on the chip?3) How are you going to use this for diagnostic purposes.
You can't just squirt blood onto this thing.
You would need to prepare the sample in some way (to precipitate proteins, organelles, and structure polysaccharides) or else you will gunk up the chip and have a large background signal.An interesting technology for sure, but this sort of stuff needs to be thought through if it is going to be useful in any kind of clinical way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066978</id>
	<title>How the Chips Work</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1265631960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The chips work like coin sorters, only they are much, much smaller. Liquids flow until they hit a wall where big particles get stuck and small particles pass through a super-thin slot at the bottom. Each chip&rsquo;s slot is set a little smaller than the size of the particle to be detected. After the particles get trapped against the wall, they form a line visible with a special camera.</p><p>Obviously viruses are not like coins.<br>Obviously their orientation as they hit the walls and slots matters.</p><p>The trick is that this thing is designed to take a single small sample, run it through, and then see where the distribution lies.</p><p>Instead of giving a bunch of samples (or several large samples) to check for a bunch of virii in a bunch of tests, this serves as a single test to identify, or at least narrow down, the virus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The chips work like coin sorters , only they are much , much smaller .
Liquids flow until they hit a wall where big particles get stuck and small particles pass through a super-thin slot at the bottom .
Each chip    s slot is set a little smaller than the size of the particle to be detected .
After the particles get trapped against the wall , they form a line visible with a special camera.Obviously viruses are not like coins.Obviously their orientation as they hit the walls and slots matters.The trick is that this thing is designed to take a single small sample , run it through , and then see where the distribution lies.Instead of giving a bunch of samples ( or several large samples ) to check for a bunch of virii in a bunch of tests , this serves as a single test to identify , or at least narrow down , the virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The chips work like coin sorters, only they are much, much smaller.
Liquids flow until they hit a wall where big particles get stuck and small particles pass through a super-thin slot at the bottom.
Each chip’s slot is set a little smaller than the size of the particle to be detected.
After the particles get trapped against the wall, they form a line visible with a special camera.Obviously viruses are not like coins.Obviously their orientation as they hit the walls and slots matters.The trick is that this thing is designed to take a single small sample, run it through, and then see where the distribution lies.Instead of giving a bunch of samples (or several large samples) to check for a bunch of virii in a bunch of tests, this serves as a single test to identify, or at least narrow down, the virus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066942</id>
	<title>Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anarchy245</author>
	<datestamp>1265631840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is amazing how technologies shown in Star Trek 45-15 years ago (esp TNG, and Voyager if I daresay) have brought to life by scientists who were inspired by its intellectual dialogue and its incredible technology. Many of the things Star Trek did...like teleporters and replicators, phasers and tricorders, and pads, we marvel at and sometimes wonder how they ever possibly could work, a seemingly impossible feat of mankind's ingenuity. And yet, over the years we have seen so many of them come to life; the Kindle and the iPAD awe me every time I see them. Consider also, MRI imaging. The ability to bring a momentarily-dead person back to life. Transplants of major organs and body parts. And now, possibly, the ability to measure the some of the most minute details of a human that we could possibly conceive. Is this another incredible step forward for mankind and his unrelenting technological, intellectual aspirations? I can't wait to see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is amazing how technologies shown in Star Trek 45-15 years ago ( esp TNG , and Voyager if I daresay ) have brought to life by scientists who were inspired by its intellectual dialogue and its incredible technology .
Many of the things Star Trek did...like teleporters and replicators , phasers and tricorders , and pads , we marvel at and sometimes wonder how they ever possibly could work , a seemingly impossible feat of mankind 's ingenuity .
And yet , over the years we have seen so many of them come to life ; the Kindle and the iPAD awe me every time I see them .
Consider also , MRI imaging .
The ability to bring a momentarily-dead person back to life .
Transplants of major organs and body parts .
And now , possibly , the ability to measure the some of the most minute details of a human that we could possibly conceive .
Is this another incredible step forward for mankind and his unrelenting technological , intellectual aspirations ?
I ca n't wait to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is amazing how technologies shown in Star Trek 45-15 years ago (esp TNG, and Voyager if I daresay) have brought to life by scientists who were inspired by its intellectual dialogue and its incredible technology.
Many of the things Star Trek did...like teleporters and replicators, phasers and tricorders, and pads, we marvel at and sometimes wonder how they ever possibly could work, a seemingly impossible feat of mankind's ingenuity.
And yet, over the years we have seen so many of them come to life; the Kindle and the iPAD awe me every time I see them.
Consider also, MRI imaging.
The ability to bring a momentarily-dead person back to life.
Transplants of major organs and body parts.
And now, possibly, the ability to measure the some of the most minute details of a human that we could possibly conceive.
Is this another incredible step forward for mankind and his unrelenting technological, intellectual aspirations?
I can't wait to see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31068018</id>
	<title>DNA microarrays are likely highly superior</title>
	<author>Michael G. Kaplan</author>
	<datestamp>1265641260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DNA microarrays (also know as DNA chips) can already identify every virus ever discovered, and it can even identify undiscovered viruses by recognizing genetic sequences that are highly conserved among viruses.  This type of chip first proved its worth in 2003 when it was used to identify SARS.  The New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/health/research/07conv.html" title="nytimes.com">interviewed the inventor Joseph DeRisi about it</a> [nytimes.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>We had just finished building the full version of our ViroChip, when we read about SARS in the newspapers. We literarily begged the C.D.C. to send us samples of the virus. Once we had it, we immediately put it onto a chip. In less than 24 hours we confirmed that this was a novel coronavirus. We confirmed the ViroChip&rsquo;s finding by subsequently sequencing this virus&rsquo;s genome. This had never in history happened before.</p></div></blockquote><p>It is not yet evident what, if any, advantage this other chip that hopes to identify viruses by their size will have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DNA microarrays ( also know as DNA chips ) can already identify every virus ever discovered , and it can even identify undiscovered viruses by recognizing genetic sequences that are highly conserved among viruses .
This type of chip first proved its worth in 2003 when it was used to identify SARS .
The New York Times interviewed the inventor Joseph DeRisi about it [ nytimes.com ] : We had just finished building the full version of our ViroChip , when we read about SARS in the newspapers .
We literarily begged the C.D.C .
to send us samples of the virus .
Once we had it , we immediately put it onto a chip .
In less than 24 hours we confirmed that this was a novel coronavirus .
We confirmed the ViroChip    s finding by subsequently sequencing this virus    s genome .
This had never in history happened before.It is not yet evident what , if any , advantage this other chip that hopes to identify viruses by their size will have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DNA microarrays (also know as DNA chips) can already identify every virus ever discovered, and it can even identify undiscovered viruses by recognizing genetic sequences that are highly conserved among viruses.
This type of chip first proved its worth in 2003 when it was used to identify SARS.
The New York Times interviewed the inventor Joseph DeRisi about it [nytimes.com]:We had just finished building the full version of our ViroChip, when we read about SARS in the newspapers.
We literarily begged the C.D.C.
to send us samples of the virus.
Once we had it, we immediately put it onto a chip.
In less than 24 hours we confirmed that this was a novel coronavirus.
We confirmed the ViroChip’s finding by subsequently sequencing this virus’s genome.
This had never in history happened before.It is not yet evident what, if any, advantage this other chip that hopes to identify viruses by their size will have.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067390</id>
	<title>Re:But will it work after the virus evolves?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1265634960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Maybe this was a troll, but I'll respond anyway. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons) do believe that God created the Earth. Which is "creationism". However most LDS folks also believe in evolution (e.g. as part of God's creation) and BYU was one of the very first schools to teach evolution. Last year BYU had a big, well-publicized week-long celebration of Darwin's birthday that included many lectures on the importance of the discovery of evolution.</i></p><p>That's not "Creationism" in the normal sense.  Lots of Christians (non-fundamentalists) believe that God had some sort of hand in creating the earth, but they also believe in evolution as the specific mechanism for the changes in lifeforms that we have fossil evidence for in the past few hundred million years.  Note also that Darwin's theory of evolution has no position at all on the actual creation of life (from non-life).  It only theorizes that organisms mutate and adapt to their environment.  It doesn't say where all the organisms came from in the first place, and that's the biggest problem every time the fundies complain about it; they can't seem to understand that the two are separate issues.</p><p>A true "Creationist" believes that God created the Earth with all the organisms that now inhabit it (plus a few now-extinct ones), and that's that; no organism ever evolved into a different species, reptiles didn't evolve from fish, birds didn't evolve from T-rex's ancestors, humans don't share a common ancestor with gorillas and chimps, etc.</p><p>So no, I don't think it's correct to call LDS people "creationists" by any means, because that lumps them in with all the 6000-year-old-Earth fundie Christians.  To be fair, LDS have their own wacky beliefs (that God/Jehovah is but one god of many, and lives on the planet Kolob, that Jesus appeared to Meso-Americans after leaving Israel and that various things happened tere which are completely contradicted by all archaeological evidence, etc.), but let's not criticize them for things they don't actually believe in.  At least they have the good sense to acknowledge that the Earth really is billions of years old as far as we can determine by physical evidence, and that evolution is a real thing by all available evidence (and they don't try to make up some "microevolution vs macroevolution" BS like that Creationist apologists).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this was a troll , but I 'll respond anyway .
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ( aka Mormons ) do believe that God created the Earth .
Which is " creationism " .
However most LDS folks also believe in evolution ( e.g .
as part of God 's creation ) and BYU was one of the very first schools to teach evolution .
Last year BYU had a big , well-publicized week-long celebration of Darwin 's birthday that included many lectures on the importance of the discovery of evolution.That 's not " Creationism " in the normal sense .
Lots of Christians ( non-fundamentalists ) believe that God had some sort of hand in creating the earth , but they also believe in evolution as the specific mechanism for the changes in lifeforms that we have fossil evidence for in the past few hundred million years .
Note also that Darwin 's theory of evolution has no position at all on the actual creation of life ( from non-life ) .
It only theorizes that organisms mutate and adapt to their environment .
It does n't say where all the organisms came from in the first place , and that 's the biggest problem every time the fundies complain about it ; they ca n't seem to understand that the two are separate issues.A true " Creationist " believes that God created the Earth with all the organisms that now inhabit it ( plus a few now-extinct ones ) , and that 's that ; no organism ever evolved into a different species , reptiles did n't evolve from fish , birds did n't evolve from T-rex 's ancestors , humans do n't share a common ancestor with gorillas and chimps , etc.So no , I do n't think it 's correct to call LDS people " creationists " by any means , because that lumps them in with all the 6000-year-old-Earth fundie Christians .
To be fair , LDS have their own wacky beliefs ( that God/Jehovah is but one god of many , and lives on the planet Kolob , that Jesus appeared to Meso-Americans after leaving Israel and that various things happened tere which are completely contradicted by all archaeological evidence , etc .
) , but let 's not criticize them for things they do n't actually believe in .
At least they have the good sense to acknowledge that the Earth really is billions of years old as far as we can determine by physical evidence , and that evolution is a real thing by all available evidence ( and they do n't try to make up some " microevolution vs macroevolution " BS like that Creationist apologists ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this was a troll, but I'll respond anyway.
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons) do believe that God created the Earth.
Which is "creationism".
However most LDS folks also believe in evolution (e.g.
as part of God's creation) and BYU was one of the very first schools to teach evolution.
Last year BYU had a big, well-publicized week-long celebration of Darwin's birthday that included many lectures on the importance of the discovery of evolution.That's not "Creationism" in the normal sense.
Lots of Christians (non-fundamentalists) believe that God had some sort of hand in creating the earth, but they also believe in evolution as the specific mechanism for the changes in lifeforms that we have fossil evidence for in the past few hundred million years.
Note also that Darwin's theory of evolution has no position at all on the actual creation of life (from non-life).
It only theorizes that organisms mutate and adapt to their environment.
It doesn't say where all the organisms came from in the first place, and that's the biggest problem every time the fundies complain about it; they can't seem to understand that the two are separate issues.A true "Creationist" believes that God created the Earth with all the organisms that now inhabit it (plus a few now-extinct ones), and that's that; no organism ever evolved into a different species, reptiles didn't evolve from fish, birds didn't evolve from T-rex's ancestors, humans don't share a common ancestor with gorillas and chimps, etc.So no, I don't think it's correct to call LDS people "creationists" by any means, because that lumps them in with all the 6000-year-old-Earth fundie Christians.
To be fair, LDS have their own wacky beliefs (that God/Jehovah is but one god of many, and lives on the planet Kolob, that Jesus appeared to Meso-Americans after leaving Israel and that various things happened tere which are completely contradicted by all archaeological evidence, etc.
), but let's not criticize them for things they don't actually believe in.
At least they have the good sense to acknowledge that the Earth really is billions of years old as far as we can determine by physical evidence, and that evolution is a real thing by all available evidence (and they don't try to make up some "microevolution vs macroevolution" BS like that Creationist apologists).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067158</id>
	<title>what about cinnamon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265633280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the first thing i thought when i read the article is what virus various common powdery substances would match with. flour, sugar, cinnamon, pepper, powdered dry wall, chalk dust, cokeane, nutmeg, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the first thing i thought when i read the article is what virus various common powdery substances would match with .
flour , sugar , cinnamon , pepper , powdered dry wall , chalk dust , cokeane , nutmeg , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the first thing i thought when i read the article is what virus various common powdery substances would match with.
flour, sugar, cinnamon, pepper, powdered dry wall, chalk dust, cokeane, nutmeg, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31071484</id>
	<title>Re:Artificial immune system</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1265728020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or a filter, kinda like a dialysis machine, but for viruses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or a filter , kinda like a dialysis machine , but for viruses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or a filter, kinda like a dialysis machine, but for viruses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067012</id>
	<title>Magic Underwear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265632140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this come with a free set of the magic underwear, or does that have to be bought separately?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this come with a free set of the magic underwear , or does that have to be bought separately ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this come with a free set of the magic underwear, or does that have to be bought separately?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066810</id>
	<title>BYU, eh?</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1265631120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a wonder how those Mormons can juggle their child brides and offspring and <i>still</i> be able to innovate.<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and y'all say that nerds never get any. Hmmph!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a wonder how those Mormons can juggle their child brides and offspring and still be able to innovate .
...and y'all say that nerds never get any .
Hmmph !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a wonder how those Mormons can juggle their child brides and offspring and still be able to innovate.
...and y'all say that nerds never get any.
Hmmph!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067630</id>
	<title>It's a Sieve</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265637180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's even more fascinating how the simplest things are the things that work, and how underdeveloped medicine is in so many ways.  What they have invented is  a sieve.  Okay this is hard to do at small scales, so kudos to the researchers, but the concept is simple!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's even more fascinating how the simplest things are the things that work , and how underdeveloped medicine is in so many ways .
What they have invented is a sieve .
Okay this is hard to do at small scales , so kudos to the researchers , but the concept is simple !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's even more fascinating how the simplest things are the things that work, and how underdeveloped medicine is in so many ways.
What they have invented is  a sieve.
Okay this is hard to do at small scales, so kudos to the researchers, but the concept is simple!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31069462</id>
	<title>To think that I'm still using checksums!</title>
	<author>zlel</author>
	<datestamp>1265747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And i thought MD5 had collision problems!</htmltext>
<tokenext>And i thought MD5 had collision problems !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And i thought MD5 had collision problems!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067696</id>
	<title>Re:uhh......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265637900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And why Smith seems to think that viruses and cancer have anything to do with each other isn't at all clear to me.</p></div><p>they both consume until their host provides no further means to consume.</p><p>are you really going to post that many words and then ask a question only an idiot would?</p><p>also, i never mentioned a movie.  my question was legitimate.  thanks for being dumb.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why Smith seems to think that viruses and cancer have anything to do with each other is n't at all clear to me.they both consume until their host provides no further means to consume.are you really going to post that many words and then ask a question only an idiot would ? also , i never mentioned a movie .
my question was legitimate .
thanks for being dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why Smith seems to think that viruses and cancer have anything to do with each other isn't at all clear to me.they both consume until their host provides no further means to consume.are you really going to post that many words and then ask a question only an idiot would?also, i never mentioned a movie.
my question was legitimate.
thanks for being dumb.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067574</id>
	<title>Re:uhh......</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265636700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Comparisons between humanity and viruses might be fun in the Matrix and the like, but it is a really bad analogies. We're quite standard as mammals go. Agent Smith says in the Matrix:<p><div class="quote"><p>"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren't actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we... are the cure."</p></div><p>
But this is ridiculous. Lot's of species do exactly this. It is quite difficult for species of any sort not to keep expanding until all resources are consumed, since each individual has an evolutionary incentive to do so. In fact, viruses and many other parasitical organisms are in some respects more restrained in some ways compared to mammals. The vast majority of viruses don't wipe out their host species. In contrast, some predatory species, including humans, do so. So if anything humans are worse. Don't knock the viruses. The only saving grace the humans have is the possibility that we might one day use our intelligence to deliberately prevent ourselves from over consumption of resources.

</p><p>
And why Smith seems to think that viruses and cancer have anything to do with each other isn't at all clear to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparisons between humanity and viruses might be fun in the Matrix and the like , but it is a really bad analogies .
We 're quite standard as mammals go .
Agent Smith says in the Matrix : " I 'd like to share a revelation that I 've had , during my time here .
It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you are n't actually mammals .
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment , but you humans do not .
You move to an area and you multiply , and multiply until every natural resource is consumed .
The only way you can survive is to spread to another area .
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern .
Do you know what it is ?
A virus .
Human beings are a disease , a cancer of this planet .
You are a plague , and we... are the cure .
" But this is ridiculous .
Lot 's of species do exactly this .
It is quite difficult for species of any sort not to keep expanding until all resources are consumed , since each individual has an evolutionary incentive to do so .
In fact , viruses and many other parasitical organisms are in some respects more restrained in some ways compared to mammals .
The vast majority of viruses do n't wipe out their host species .
In contrast , some predatory species , including humans , do so .
So if anything humans are worse .
Do n't knock the viruses .
The only saving grace the humans have is the possibility that we might one day use our intelligence to deliberately prevent ourselves from over consumption of resources .
And why Smith seems to think that viruses and cancer have anything to do with each other is n't at all clear to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparisons between humanity and viruses might be fun in the Matrix and the like, but it is a really bad analogies.
We're quite standard as mammals go.
Agent Smith says in the Matrix:"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had, during my time here.
It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you aren't actually mammals.
Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but you humans do not.
You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed.
The only way you can survive is to spread to another area.
There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern.
Do you know what it is?
A virus.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
You are a plague, and we... are the cure.
"
But this is ridiculous.
Lot's of species do exactly this.
It is quite difficult for species of any sort not to keep expanding until all resources are consumed, since each individual has an evolutionary incentive to do so.
In fact, viruses and many other parasitical organisms are in some respects more restrained in some ways compared to mammals.
The vast majority of viruses don't wipe out their host species.
In contrast, some predatory species, including humans, do so.
So if anything humans are worse.
Don't knock the viruses.
The only saving grace the humans have is the possibility that we might one day use our intelligence to deliberately prevent ourselves from over consumption of resources.
And why Smith seems to think that viruses and cancer have anything to do with each other isn't at all clear to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31069724</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here, move along</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265708400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading TFA, it is quite clear that there is nothing new or revolutionary in this work. There are a large number of other methods for concentrating particles in microfluidic flow based on size, and there is nothing specific about this technique that somehow makes it better than other methods. To top it all off, they don't actually do any virus detection at low levels. Just FUD like "it could accumulate many particles over time that otherwise might be missed by other tests" without any data actually showing that this technique enables ultra-sensitive virus detections. As someone who has published in Lab on a Chip, I have read a great many papers in that publication and pretty much 95\% of all the papers will read just the same. I guess these guys got their press office to do a good job at 'spinning' the story.</p><p>So move along. And one more thing to note, if this was really as revolutionary as it is claimed to be, it would have been published in Science, Nature or PNAS. Lab on Chip is not the premier journal for chip based research, it just gets a lot of the hand me downs that were never good enough to make it to the really big name, high-impact journals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading TFA , it is quite clear that there is nothing new or revolutionary in this work .
There are a large number of other methods for concentrating particles in microfluidic flow based on size , and there is nothing specific about this technique that somehow makes it better than other methods .
To top it all off , they do n't actually do any virus detection at low levels .
Just FUD like " it could accumulate many particles over time that otherwise might be missed by other tests " without any data actually showing that this technique enables ultra-sensitive virus detections .
As someone who has published in Lab on a Chip , I have read a great many papers in that publication and pretty much 95 \ % of all the papers will read just the same .
I guess these guys got their press office to do a good job at 'spinning ' the story.So move along .
And one more thing to note , if this was really as revolutionary as it is claimed to be , it would have been published in Science , Nature or PNAS .
Lab on Chip is not the premier journal for chip based research , it just gets a lot of the hand me downs that were never good enough to make it to the really big name , high-impact journals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading TFA, it is quite clear that there is nothing new or revolutionary in this work.
There are a large number of other methods for concentrating particles in microfluidic flow based on size, and there is nothing specific about this technique that somehow makes it better than other methods.
To top it all off, they don't actually do any virus detection at low levels.
Just FUD like "it could accumulate many particles over time that otherwise might be missed by other tests" without any data actually showing that this technique enables ultra-sensitive virus detections.
As someone who has published in Lab on a Chip, I have read a great many papers in that publication and pretty much 95\% of all the papers will read just the same.
I guess these guys got their press office to do a good job at 'spinning' the story.So move along.
And one more thing to note, if this was really as revolutionary as it is claimed to be, it would have been published in Science, Nature or PNAS.
Lab on Chip is not the premier journal for chip based research, it just gets a lot of the hand me downs that were never good enough to make it to the really big name, high-impact journals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067254</id>
	<title>I had the same thought yesterday</title>
	<author>pizza\_milkshake</author>
	<datestamp>1265634060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>based on this neat interactive flash demonstration comparing the sizes of coffee beans, bacterium, viruses and atoms: <a href="http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/" title="utah.edu">http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/</a> [utah.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>based on this neat interactive flash demonstration comparing the sizes of coffee beans , bacterium , viruses and atoms : http : //learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/ [ utah.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>based on this neat interactive flash demonstration comparing the sizes of coffee beans, bacterium, viruses and atoms: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/ [utah.edu]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067792</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1265639100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It certainly is nothing to sneeze at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It certainly is nothing to sneeze at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It certainly is nothing to sneeze at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31070810</id>
	<title>Re:Okay guys...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265723580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All references to 'virus' should now point to one of the following (as appropriate). Meatspace::virus, Bitspace::virus</p></div><p>What's with the double-colon. Are you one of those smelly Perl hackers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All references to 'virus ' should now point to one of the following ( as appropriate ) .
Meatspace : : virus , Bitspace : : virusWhat 's with the double-colon .
Are you one of those smelly Perl hackers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All references to 'virus' should now point to one of the following (as appropriate).
Meatspace::virus, Bitspace::virusWhat's with the double-colon.
Are you one of those smelly Perl hackers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31068154</id>
	<title>Re:what about cinnamon</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1265643240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>flour, sugar, cinnamon, pepper, powdered dry wall, chalk dust, <b>cocaine</b>, nutmeg, etc.</p></div><p>That would certainly explain why I like girl scout cookies so much...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>flour , sugar , cinnamon , pepper , powdered dry wall , chalk dust , cocaine , nutmeg , etc.That would certainly explain why I like girl scout cookies so much.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>flour, sugar, cinnamon, pepper, powdered dry wall, chalk dust, cocaine, nutmeg, etc.That would certainly explain why I like girl scout cookies so much...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066774</id>
	<title>uhh......</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265630940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what happens when the chip identifies humanity as a virus?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what happens when the chip identifies humanity as a virus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what happens when the chip identifies humanity as a virus?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067308</id>
	<title>Re:Oh man, its one of those days...</title>
	<author>fatlotus</author>
	<datestamp>1265634540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow. Norton needs a dedicated chip to run on now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
Norton needs a dedicated chip to run on now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
Norton needs a dedicated chip to run on now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066926</id>
	<title>But does it run linux?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265631720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That way you wouldn't need to worry about vir...</p><p>Oh,</p><p>sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That way you would n't need to worry about vir...Oh,sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That way you wouldn't need to worry about vir...Oh,sorry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31069736</id>
	<title>These guys are doing it with paper.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265708580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.ted.com/talks/george\_whitesides\_a\_lab\_the\_size\_of\_a\_postage\_stamp.html</p><p>Captcha: bigger</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.ted.com/talks/george \ _whitesides \ _a \ _lab \ _the \ _size \ _of \ _a \ _postage \ _stamp.htmlCaptcha : bigger</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.ted.com/talks/george\_whitesides\_a\_lab\_the\_size\_of\_a\_postage\_stamp.htmlCaptcha: bigger</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067528</id>
	<title>Re:uhh......</title>
	<author>nmb3000</author>
	<datestamp>1265636160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>what happens when the chip identifies humanity as a virus?</i></p><p>Well, if you're keeping up on the news via Slashdot you'll find out about the destruction of mankind sometime around <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705354715/BYU-research-teamaposs-microchip-traps-virus-molecules.html" title="deseretnews.com">three months after the fact</a> [deseretnews.com].</p><p>Ah Slashdot, one of the few places where the phrase "new news" isn't redundant and "old news" isn't clich&#233;d.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what happens when the chip identifies humanity as a virus ? Well , if you 're keeping up on the news via Slashdot you 'll find out about the destruction of mankind sometime around three months after the fact [ deseretnews.com ] .Ah Slashdot , one of the few places where the phrase " new news " is n't redundant and " old news " is n't clich   d .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what happens when the chip identifies humanity as a virus?Well, if you're keeping up on the news via Slashdot you'll find out about the destruction of mankind sometime around three months after the fact [deseretnews.com].Ah Slashdot, one of the few places where the phrase "new news" isn't redundant and "old news" isn't clichéd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066902</id>
	<title>This will never work</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1265631540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My wife keeps telling me that size doesn't matter... how then can viruses be identified solely by their size? It's not how big the molecules are that are important, it's what the virus can do with them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife keeps telling me that size does n't matter... how then can viruses be identified solely by their size ?
It 's not how big the molecules are that are important , it 's what the virus can do with them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife keeps telling me that size doesn't matter... how then can viruses be identified solely by their size?
It's not how big the molecules are that are important, it's what the virus can do with them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066824</id>
	<title>Oh man, its one of those days...</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1265631180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the whole summary twice thinking this had to do with computer viruses.</p><p>They even mention words like "Medicine" and "Proteins".</p><p>Oracle&gt; INSERT "Monkeedude1212" INTO dual</p><p>AKA the Dummy table</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the whole summary twice thinking this had to do with computer viruses.They even mention words like " Medicine " and " Proteins " .Oracle &gt; INSERT " Monkeedude1212 " INTO dualAKA the Dummy table</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the whole summary twice thinking this had to do with computer viruses.They even mention words like "Medicine" and "Proteins".Oracle&gt; INSERT "Monkeedude1212" INTO dualAKA the Dummy table</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066984</id>
	<title>Re:But will it work after the virus evolves?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265632020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Maybe this was a troll, but I'll respond anyway.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons) do believe that God created the Earth.  Which is "creationism".

However most LDS folks also believe in evolution (e.g. as part of God's creation) and BYU was one of the very first schools to teach evolution.  Last year BYU had a big, well-publicized week-long celebration of Darwin's birthday that included many lectures on the importance of the discovery of evolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this was a troll , but I 'll respond anyway .
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ( aka Mormons ) do believe that God created the Earth .
Which is " creationism " .
However most LDS folks also believe in evolution ( e.g .
as part of God 's creation ) and BYU was one of the very first schools to teach evolution .
Last year BYU had a big , well-publicized week-long celebration of Darwin 's birthday that included many lectures on the importance of the discovery of evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Maybe this was a troll, but I'll respond anyway.
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons) do believe that God created the Earth.
Which is "creationism".
However most LDS folks also believe in evolution (e.g.
as part of God's creation) and BYU was one of the very first schools to teach evolution.
Last year BYU had a big, well-publicized week-long celebration of Darwin's birthday that included many lectures on the importance of the discovery of evolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066850</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31068208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31071484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31070810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_2223252_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31068154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_2223252.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31070810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_2223252.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31068208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_2223252.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_2223252.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_2223252.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_2223252.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_2223252.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_2223252.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31071484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_2223252.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_2223252.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31067158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31068154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_2223252.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31066810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_2223252.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_2223252.31068018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
