<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_10_2226236</id>
	<title>Sony Announces First 3D Blu-ray Disc Players</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265797620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"Sony has announced <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/335847">a new 3D Blu-ray Disc player</a> and upgrades to existing players so that they will be able to show high-definition 3D movies too. The company introduced the BDP-S470 Blu-ray Disc model and upgraded existing home theater systems, which will be able to play Blu-ray movies when related firmware for the devices is released later this year. Movies based on the Blu-ray 3D specification, which was <a href="http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=3924">finalized  by the Blu-ray Association</a> in December, can be shown on the players."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " Sony has announced a new 3D Blu-ray Disc player and upgrades to existing players so that they will be able to show high-definition 3D movies too .
The company introduced the BDP-S470 Blu-ray Disc model and upgraded existing home theater systems , which will be able to play Blu-ray movies when related firmware for the devices is released later this year .
Movies based on the Blu-ray 3D specification , which was finalized by the Blu-ray Association in December , can be shown on the players .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "Sony has announced a new 3D Blu-ray Disc player and upgrades to existing players so that they will be able to show high-definition 3D movies too.
The company introduced the BDP-S470 Blu-ray Disc model and upgraded existing home theater systems, which will be able to play Blu-ray movies when related firmware for the devices is released later this year.
Movies based on the Blu-ray 3D specification, which was finalized  by the Blu-ray Association in December, can be shown on the players.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091972</id>
	<title>until the glasses are gone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3d will never catch on</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3d will never catch on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3d will never catch on</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31100146</id>
	<title>No thank you</title>
	<author>tomzyk</author>
	<datestamp>1265906520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only 3D? No thanks.<br>I had one of those back in the day. I saw it only for a split second and it was gone.<br>I'm currently holding out until they make a 4 dimensional one... which, quite frankly, they should have made in the first place!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 3D ?
No thanks.I had one of those back in the day .
I saw it only for a split second and it was gone.I 'm currently holding out until they make a 4 dimensional one... which , quite frankly , they should have made in the first place !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only 3D?
No thanks.I had one of those back in the day.
I saw it only for a split second and it was gone.I'm currently holding out until they make a 4 dimensional one... which, quite frankly, they should have made in the first place!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091962</id>
	<title>What about the PS3?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the PS3 would be the first one to have BR 3D support, since it was announced when the spec became ready.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the PS3 would be the first one to have BR 3D support , since it was announced when the spec became ready .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the PS3 would be the first one to have BR 3D support, since it was announced when the spec became ready.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093538</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI spec</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1265032440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To receive what?  Analog TV is dead in the US.  If you're still watching OTA broadcasts, spend an hour on a weekend to make one of <a href="http://uhfhdtvantenna.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">these</a> [blogspot.com].  It works much better for DTV than rabbit ears.  I found the reflector to be unnecessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To receive what ?
Analog TV is dead in the US .
If you 're still watching OTA broadcasts , spend an hour on a weekend to make one of these [ blogspot.com ] .
It works much better for DTV than rabbit ears .
I found the reflector to be unnecessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To receive what?
Analog TV is dead in the US.
If you're still watching OTA broadcasts, spend an hour on a weekend to make one of these [blogspot.com].
It works much better for DTV than rabbit ears.
I found the reflector to be unnecessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31104428</id>
	<title>What about component video?</title>
	<author>VanessaE</author>
	<datestamp>1265881020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went and looked at BluRay players the other day, and of the 5 sold at the store I was at, none could up-scale DVD's via component video (all demanded HDMI).  I got the impression from that, that none of them could do High Def *at all* via component video, let alone 3D video, and I refuse to support the HDMI "standard".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went and looked at BluRay players the other day , and of the 5 sold at the store I was at , none could up-scale DVD 's via component video ( all demanded HDMI ) .
I got the impression from that , that none of them could do High Def * at all * via component video , let alone 3D video , and I refuse to support the HDMI " standard " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went and looked at BluRay players the other day, and of the 5 sold at the store I was at, none could up-scale DVD's via component video (all demanded HDMI).
I got the impression from that, that none of them could do High Def *at all* via component video, let alone 3D video, and I refuse to support the HDMI "standard".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092220</id>
	<title>About time!</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1265024820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I gotta say I can't wait for 3D BluRay discs to come out.  I keep accidentally losing the 2D ones between the atoms of my couch!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got ta say I ca n't wait for 3D BluRay discs to come out .
I keep accidentally losing the 2D ones between the atoms of my couch !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gotta say I can't wait for 3D BluRay discs to come out.
I keep accidentally losing the 2D ones between the atoms of my couch!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094450</id>
	<title>Re:This is ridiculous.</title>
	<author>theJML</author>
	<datestamp>1265036460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing with the 3D spec's is that it's all in the TV. BluRay's just provide the 3d imaging (left and right frames) it's the TV then projects it, however the hell it wants to... active/passive glasses, polarized fields, stereoscopy, Dolby3D, Real3D, hell, even red-blue or magic eye if that's how the set works.</p><p>Personally, I think the 3D thing is cool, it's finally bringing this stuff into the main stream that's going to make industry focus on ways to make it not suck. And I figure by the time they work that part out, it'll be about time to upgrade my currently 7 year old 1080i CRT to something a bit flatter and bigger without feeling like I didn't get my money's worth out of the current set (and relegating it to another room).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing with the 3D spec 's is that it 's all in the TV .
BluRay 's just provide the 3d imaging ( left and right frames ) it 's the TV then projects it , however the hell it wants to... active/passive glasses , polarized fields , stereoscopy , Dolby3D , Real3D , hell , even red-blue or magic eye if that 's how the set works.Personally , I think the 3D thing is cool , it 's finally bringing this stuff into the main stream that 's going to make industry focus on ways to make it not suck .
And I figure by the time they work that part out , it 'll be about time to upgrade my currently 7 year old 1080i CRT to something a bit flatter and bigger without feeling like I did n't get my money 's worth out of the current set ( and relegating it to another room ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing with the 3D spec's is that it's all in the TV.
BluRay's just provide the 3d imaging (left and right frames) it's the TV then projects it, however the hell it wants to... active/passive glasses, polarized fields, stereoscopy, Dolby3D, Real3D, hell, even red-blue or magic eye if that's how the set works.Personally, I think the 3D thing is cool, it's finally bringing this stuff into the main stream that's going to make industry focus on ways to make it not suck.
And I figure by the time they work that part out, it'll be about time to upgrade my currently 7 year old 1080i CRT to something a bit flatter and bigger without feeling like I didn't get my money's worth out of the current set (and relegating it to another room).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092082</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI spec</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>exactly , this is why I am still using my trusted analog rabbit ears<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>exactly , this is why I am still using my trusted analog rabbit ears .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exactly , this is why I am still using my trusted analog rabbit ears ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092664</id>
	<title>Re:3D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265027880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The usual term is "stereo" or "stereo-3D."   It's been around since shortly after the invention of photography.<br> <br>
I love stereo-3D myself, and have a collection of it in various forms including an antique Stereo-Realist camera that can take action stills in stereo.   It's also quite easy to take stereo stills with any digital camera, providing there's no movement involved in the subject-- just by taking the picture, moving over about a foot, and taking another framed the same (and hopefully, with the same exposure).   Viewing can be done with budget viewers from your LCD video monitor, side to side, or using the crosseye technique, etc.<br> <br>
That said though, I think in this case it's a cheap excuse to try to sell more BluRay players since the market just hasn't been taking off-- HD doesn't get you enough over SD DVD for many people to bother to spend the money (including me).   Unfortunately, 3D will get the short-shrift it always does, and when it doesn't explode into an "everybody's gotta have it right now" craze, the producers will tire of spending money in the production for insufficient results.   So we'll have a couple of wowzer stereo films (Avatar and one or two others, probably), but not enough to justify converting your entire video system over unless you've got too much money or you're a total gadget geek.<br> <br>
A "Ted Turner" could start taking old content and producing artificial plane-separated synthetic stereo from existing media, and that might pull it a long for a few more miles, but even then I seriously doubt it'll be enough to carry it along.  And it likely won't be quite as easy or as cheap as "colorization" was, at least to do well.<br> <br>
I'd love to see stereo become mainstream, but we've been down this road before, and I don't see anything new here, just the dollars involved are bigger (which itself doesn't bode well, because for too many people, it's just non-essential)...<br> <br>
If stereo computer monitors got cheap enough I might get one of those so my 3D modelling work can be done in full stereo, but I don't get paid for that so I'm not willing to spend a whole lot over what a plain-old 2D monitor costs.<br> <br>
I'd like to see it, I really would, but I just don't expect it to happen.  There's just not enough momentum.  It looks to me like a last-ditch attempt for a few desperate folks in tinseltown to give the public a reason to pay more for their stuff.  It's just not a good enough reason, frankly.  And even if we weren't in a recession, and digital entertainment hadn't lost a whole lot of it's value over the last decade due to the glut of content and its distribution, I just don't see it becoming any more than an expensive parlor-trick...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The usual term is " stereo " or " stereo-3D .
" It 's been around since shortly after the invention of photography .
I love stereo-3D myself , and have a collection of it in various forms including an antique Stereo-Realist camera that can take action stills in stereo .
It 's also quite easy to take stereo stills with any digital camera , providing there 's no movement involved in the subject-- just by taking the picture , moving over about a foot , and taking another framed the same ( and hopefully , with the same exposure ) .
Viewing can be done with budget viewers from your LCD video monitor , side to side , or using the crosseye technique , etc .
That said though , I think in this case it 's a cheap excuse to try to sell more BluRay players since the market just has n't been taking off-- HD does n't get you enough over SD DVD for many people to bother to spend the money ( including me ) .
Unfortunately , 3D will get the short-shrift it always does , and when it does n't explode into an " everybody 's got ta have it right now " craze , the producers will tire of spending money in the production for insufficient results .
So we 'll have a couple of wowzer stereo films ( Avatar and one or two others , probably ) , but not enough to justify converting your entire video system over unless you 've got too much money or you 're a total gadget geek .
A " Ted Turner " could start taking old content and producing artificial plane-separated synthetic stereo from existing media , and that might pull it a long for a few more miles , but even then I seriously doubt it 'll be enough to carry it along .
And it likely wo n't be quite as easy or as cheap as " colorization " was , at least to do well .
I 'd love to see stereo become mainstream , but we 've been down this road before , and I do n't see anything new here , just the dollars involved are bigger ( which itself does n't bode well , because for too many people , it 's just non-essential ) .. . If stereo computer monitors got cheap enough I might get one of those so my 3D modelling work can be done in full stereo , but I do n't get paid for that so I 'm not willing to spend a whole lot over what a plain-old 2D monitor costs .
I 'd like to see it , I really would , but I just do n't expect it to happen .
There 's just not enough momentum .
It looks to me like a last-ditch attempt for a few desperate folks in tinseltown to give the public a reason to pay more for their stuff .
It 's just not a good enough reason , frankly .
And even if we were n't in a recession , and digital entertainment had n't lost a whole lot of it 's value over the last decade due to the glut of content and its distribution , I just do n't see it becoming any more than an expensive parlor-trick.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The usual term is "stereo" or "stereo-3D.
"   It's been around since shortly after the invention of photography.
I love stereo-3D myself, and have a collection of it in various forms including an antique Stereo-Realist camera that can take action stills in stereo.
It's also quite easy to take stereo stills with any digital camera, providing there's no movement involved in the subject-- just by taking the picture, moving over about a foot, and taking another framed the same (and hopefully, with the same exposure).
Viewing can be done with budget viewers from your LCD video monitor, side to side, or using the crosseye technique, etc.
That said though, I think in this case it's a cheap excuse to try to sell more BluRay players since the market just hasn't been taking off-- HD doesn't get you enough over SD DVD for many people to bother to spend the money (including me).
Unfortunately, 3D will get the short-shrift it always does, and when it doesn't explode into an "everybody's gotta have it right now" craze, the producers will tire of spending money in the production for insufficient results.
So we'll have a couple of wowzer stereo films (Avatar and one or two others, probably), but not enough to justify converting your entire video system over unless you've got too much money or you're a total gadget geek.
A "Ted Turner" could start taking old content and producing artificial plane-separated synthetic stereo from existing media, and that might pull it a long for a few more miles, but even then I seriously doubt it'll be enough to carry it along.
And it likely won't be quite as easy or as cheap as "colorization" was, at least to do well.
I'd love to see stereo become mainstream, but we've been down this road before, and I don't see anything new here, just the dollars involved are bigger (which itself doesn't bode well, because for too many people, it's just non-essential)... 
If stereo computer monitors got cheap enough I might get one of those so my 3D modelling work can be done in full stereo, but I don't get paid for that so I'm not willing to spend a whole lot over what a plain-old 2D monitor costs.
I'd like to see it, I really would, but I just don't expect it to happen.
There's just not enough momentum.
It looks to me like a last-ditch attempt for a few desperate folks in tinseltown to give the public a reason to pay more for their stuff.
It's just not a good enough reason, frankly.
And even if we weren't in a recession, and digital entertainment hadn't lost a whole lot of it's value over the last decade due to the glut of content and its distribution, I just don't see it becoming any more than an expensive parlor-trick...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31096496</id>
	<title>Re:Stereoscopic != 3D</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1265052960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds more like you're sick of advertising. Period.</p><p>Nobody, except the most clueless of rock-dwelling hermits, will think that 3D television projects a 3-dimensional environment into their living room, and thus pinning a deceptive advertising charge would be difficult to impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds more like you 're sick of advertising .
Period.Nobody , except the most clueless of rock-dwelling hermits , will think that 3D television projects a 3-dimensional environment into their living room , and thus pinning a deceptive advertising charge would be difficult to impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds more like you're sick of advertising.
Period.Nobody, except the most clueless of rock-dwelling hermits, will think that 3D television projects a 3-dimensional environment into their living room, and thus pinning a deceptive advertising charge would be difficult to impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094072</id>
	<title>Unfortunately</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1265034720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, the Wonka bar is still very, very small. Ah well.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , the Wonka bar is still very , very small .
Ah well.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, the Wonka bar is still very, very small.
Ah well.--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31096614</id>
	<title>Re:3D</title>
	<author>dr00g911</author>
	<datestamp>1265918460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking of expensive parlor tricks...</p><p>About half of the stereo features hitting theaters this year will be last minute planar projection fake conversions in effort to jack up the ticket price. Offshore stereo conversion companies are sprouting up like weeks in the VFX industry currently.</p><p>So, you've got stuff like Up and Avatar that actually start driving demand for theatrical stereo, soon to be followed by an avalanche of headache inducing cashgrab.</p><p>The industry seems intent on sabotaging itself.</p><p>Aside: I'm a VFX artist these days, and I get to work with headsets and stereo monitors on occasion. Save your cash and preview depth with anaglyph glasses for short periods. The tech just isn't there yet for a working "3D" display that is easy enough on the eyes for you to last an entire workday. Maybe soon, but not just yet. But even then, the user won't have a director tweaking inter-occular depth etc to prevent strain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of expensive parlor tricks...About half of the stereo features hitting theaters this year will be last minute planar projection fake conversions in effort to jack up the ticket price .
Offshore stereo conversion companies are sprouting up like weeks in the VFX industry currently.So , you 've got stuff like Up and Avatar that actually start driving demand for theatrical stereo , soon to be followed by an avalanche of headache inducing cashgrab.The industry seems intent on sabotaging itself.Aside : I 'm a VFX artist these days , and I get to work with headsets and stereo monitors on occasion .
Save your cash and preview depth with anaglyph glasses for short periods .
The tech just is n't there yet for a working " 3D " display that is easy enough on the eyes for you to last an entire workday .
Maybe soon , but not just yet .
But even then , the user wo n't have a director tweaking inter-occular depth etc to prevent strain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of expensive parlor tricks...About half of the stereo features hitting theaters this year will be last minute planar projection fake conversions in effort to jack up the ticket price.
Offshore stereo conversion companies are sprouting up like weeks in the VFX industry currently.So, you've got stuff like Up and Avatar that actually start driving demand for theatrical stereo, soon to be followed by an avalanche of headache inducing cashgrab.The industry seems intent on sabotaging itself.Aside: I'm a VFX artist these days, and I get to work with headsets and stereo monitors on occasion.
Save your cash and preview depth with anaglyph glasses for short periods.
The tech just isn't there yet for a working "3D" display that is easy enough on the eyes for you to last an entire workday.
Maybe soon, but not just yet.
But even then, the user won't have a director tweaking inter-occular depth etc to prevent strain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092290</id>
	<title>Re:Finally</title>
	<author>FrigBot</author>
	<datestamp>1265025180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh heh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh heh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh heh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092118</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31103038</id>
	<title>3D is it like Talkies?</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1265918880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every time they mention 3D TV I think to myself: "DO NOT WANT!!!"<br>
<br>
Then I think to myself, gee am I some old curmudgeon that would have been against talkies one the big screen clinging to my black and white TV when color TV's came out?<br>
<br>
I hate the idea of having to wear special glasses to watch my TV.  I think this new move to 3D TV is a novelty that will wear off, but it won't because it is easier for companies to lock down 3D because of the larger size and proprietary equipment.<br>
<br>
Am I just not keeping up with the times?  Have I finally gotten to the point where I'm to old for technology?  Geez, I'm only 30!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time they mention 3D TV I think to myself : " DO NOT WANT ! ! !
" Then I think to myself , gee am I some old curmudgeon that would have been against talkies one the big screen clinging to my black and white TV when color TV 's came out ?
I hate the idea of having to wear special glasses to watch my TV .
I think this new move to 3D TV is a novelty that will wear off , but it wo n't because it is easier for companies to lock down 3D because of the larger size and proprietary equipment .
Am I just not keeping up with the times ?
Have I finally gotten to the point where I 'm to old for technology ?
Geez , I 'm only 30 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time they mention 3D TV I think to myself: "DO NOT WANT!!!
"

Then I think to myself, gee am I some old curmudgeon that would have been against talkies one the big screen clinging to my black and white TV when color TV's came out?
I hate the idea of having to wear special glasses to watch my TV.
I think this new move to 3D TV is a novelty that will wear off, but it won't because it is easier for companies to lock down 3D because of the larger size and proprietary equipment.
Am I just not keeping up with the times?
Have I finally gotten to the point where I'm to old for technology?
Geez, I'm only 30!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094846</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI spec</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1265039100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>save for Apple.</p></div><p>Is that will, reflex, or fortitude?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>save for Apple.Is that will , reflex , or fortitude ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>save for Apple.Is that will, reflex, or fortitude?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092484</id>
	<title>3D!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A 3-dimensional player would have been nice. All I have is a 2-dimensional Blu-ray player.</p><p>Figuring out the physics behind how to convert a 3-dimensional Blu-ray disc into 2-dimensional space and back so it could work with my 2-dimensional player was a bit tough, but once you get the hang of it it's not so bad.</p><p>Oh wait.... you're talking about stereoscopic video, not the actual spacial dimensionality of the physical player.</p><p>Sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A 3-dimensional player would have been nice .
All I have is a 2-dimensional Blu-ray player.Figuring out the physics behind how to convert a 3-dimensional Blu-ray disc into 2-dimensional space and back so it could work with my 2-dimensional player was a bit tough , but once you get the hang of it it 's not so bad.Oh wait.... you 're talking about stereoscopic video , not the actual spacial dimensionality of the physical player.Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 3-dimensional player would have been nice.
All I have is a 2-dimensional Blu-ray player.Figuring out the physics behind how to convert a 3-dimensional Blu-ray disc into 2-dimensional space and back so it could work with my 2-dimensional player was a bit tough, but once you get the hang of it it's not so bad.Oh wait.... you're talking about stereoscopic video, not the actual spacial dimensionality of the physical player.Sorry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31099522</id>
	<title>Re:3D</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265903580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't really see it that way.</p><p>Rather, this is the typical theater vs. home wars, bumping up to the next level. It's clear that Hollywood, Inc. has discovered that "3D" in films, when used to actually enhance the film (rather as the gimmick it's been in the past) is fairly compelling. More people saw "Avatar" in 3D than normal, and this film is now the highest grossing in history, and the first to pass the $2 billion mark. And that's just box office.</p><p>The 3D thing is really overblown, anyway. It's largely a change in software on the Blu-Ray player, as the upgrades from Sony illustrate. It will work with some of today's TVs as-is, but a 3D aware television may offer better results, as would higher speed interfaces.</p><p>Most people are completely happy with Blu-Ray, and really do appreciate the difference between HD and SD (the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is greater than the difference between DVD and VHS... and Blu-Ray is growing faster than DVD did at the same point in its evolution). What they're not ready for yet is $250+ for a player. So player sales only grew 67\% in 2009 over 2008. Most industry watchers predict the crossover in media sales in 2012 or 2013. Today, Blu-Ray accounts for 10\%-30\% of media sales, depending on the release. In the last quarter of 2009, Blu-Ray media sales grew by 35\% in the USA. DVD sales in the same quarter fell by 17\%.</p><p>This is hardly an usual thing, but in fact, exactly what you sign up for when you make things based around computers. It was difficult to grow media formats in a compatible way back in the analog days, but for this, the 3D is just an optional add-on. Older players will just play the 2D version, and 3D-aware players will offer you a choice, or perhaps even only offer that choice in the presence of proper 3D viewing gear.</p><p>Hollywood, Inc. is already moving on. Most of the digital projectors in theaters these days have been 2K format projectors (nominally 2000x1000 pixels), which is essentially just the same as HDTV. They're moving rapidly to shooting in 4K (nominally 4000x2000), and beyond.  Some folks in Japan have already shown off a prototype 8K television (nominally 8000x4000... <a href="http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/super\_hi/index.html" title="nhk.or.jp">http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/super\_hi/index.html</a> [nhk.or.jp]). It just never ends.</p><p>Of course, it really does end. You can see 1080p just dandy on a computer monitor... I'm about 2ft away from my dual 1200p monitors here, and I see it fine. But at a normal television viewing distance, you can't tell the difference between 1200p/1080p and 720p. Unless you're Superman, or at least Harvey Birdman. I have a 71" 1080p television in my media room.  Most people will see an advantage to 1080p at 10-12 feet from the screen, which is an absolutely reasonable viewing distance, within the THX optimal viewing range, and just a bit short of the SMPTE optimal viewing range (both THX and SMPTE are based on your angle of view).</p><p>To get much out of a 4K screen, I'm going to have to sit closer than ft, or get a very gigantic screen. Of course, when I grew up, my parent's "big screen" TV was a 25" Sears console... that was the largest they ever owned, at least while I was at home. Could be some go larger in the future. But how many people really have room for 100" + screens. Ok, if you're offering, sure, I'll make it fit...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really see it that way.Rather , this is the typical theater vs. home wars , bumping up to the next level .
It 's clear that Hollywood , Inc. has discovered that " 3D " in films , when used to actually enhance the film ( rather as the gimmick it 's been in the past ) is fairly compelling .
More people saw " Avatar " in 3D than normal , and this film is now the highest grossing in history , and the first to pass the $ 2 billion mark .
And that 's just box office.The 3D thing is really overblown , anyway .
It 's largely a change in software on the Blu-Ray player , as the upgrades from Sony illustrate .
It will work with some of today 's TVs as-is , but a 3D aware television may offer better results , as would higher speed interfaces.Most people are completely happy with Blu-Ray , and really do appreciate the difference between HD and SD ( the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is greater than the difference between DVD and VHS... and Blu-Ray is growing faster than DVD did at the same point in its evolution ) .
What they 're not ready for yet is $ 250 + for a player .
So player sales only grew 67 \ % in 2009 over 2008 .
Most industry watchers predict the crossover in media sales in 2012 or 2013 .
Today , Blu-Ray accounts for 10 \ % -30 \ % of media sales , depending on the release .
In the last quarter of 2009 , Blu-Ray media sales grew by 35 \ % in the USA .
DVD sales in the same quarter fell by 17 \ % .This is hardly an usual thing , but in fact , exactly what you sign up for when you make things based around computers .
It was difficult to grow media formats in a compatible way back in the analog days , but for this , the 3D is just an optional add-on .
Older players will just play the 2D version , and 3D-aware players will offer you a choice , or perhaps even only offer that choice in the presence of proper 3D viewing gear.Hollywood , Inc. is already moving on .
Most of the digital projectors in theaters these days have been 2K format projectors ( nominally 2000x1000 pixels ) , which is essentially just the same as HDTV .
They 're moving rapidly to shooting in 4K ( nominally 4000x2000 ) , and beyond .
Some folks in Japan have already shown off a prototype 8K television ( nominally 8000x4000... http : //www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/super \ _hi/index.html [ nhk.or.jp ] ) .
It just never ends.Of course , it really does end .
You can see 1080p just dandy on a computer monitor... I 'm about 2ft away from my dual 1200p monitors here , and I see it fine .
But at a normal television viewing distance , you ca n't tell the difference between 1200p/1080p and 720p .
Unless you 're Superman , or at least Harvey Birdman .
I have a 71 " 1080p television in my media room .
Most people will see an advantage to 1080p at 10-12 feet from the screen , which is an absolutely reasonable viewing distance , within the THX optimal viewing range , and just a bit short of the SMPTE optimal viewing range ( both THX and SMPTE are based on your angle of view ) .To get much out of a 4K screen , I 'm going to have to sit closer than ft , or get a very gigantic screen .
Of course , when I grew up , my parent 's " big screen " TV was a 25 " Sears console... that was the largest they ever owned , at least while I was at home .
Could be some go larger in the future .
But how many people really have room for 100 " + screens .
Ok , if you 're offering , sure , I 'll make it fit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really see it that way.Rather, this is the typical theater vs. home wars, bumping up to the next level.
It's clear that Hollywood, Inc. has discovered that "3D" in films, when used to actually enhance the film (rather as the gimmick it's been in the past) is fairly compelling.
More people saw "Avatar" in 3D than normal, and this film is now the highest grossing in history, and the first to pass the $2 billion mark.
And that's just box office.The 3D thing is really overblown, anyway.
It's largely a change in software on the Blu-Ray player, as the upgrades from Sony illustrate.
It will work with some of today's TVs as-is, but a 3D aware television may offer better results, as would higher speed interfaces.Most people are completely happy with Blu-Ray, and really do appreciate the difference between HD and SD (the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is greater than the difference between DVD and VHS... and Blu-Ray is growing faster than DVD did at the same point in its evolution).
What they're not ready for yet is $250+ for a player.
So player sales only grew 67\% in 2009 over 2008.
Most industry watchers predict the crossover in media sales in 2012 or 2013.
Today, Blu-Ray accounts for 10\%-30\% of media sales, depending on the release.
In the last quarter of 2009, Blu-Ray media sales grew by 35\% in the USA.
DVD sales in the same quarter fell by 17\%.This is hardly an usual thing, but in fact, exactly what you sign up for when you make things based around computers.
It was difficult to grow media formats in a compatible way back in the analog days, but for this, the 3D is just an optional add-on.
Older players will just play the 2D version, and 3D-aware players will offer you a choice, or perhaps even only offer that choice in the presence of proper 3D viewing gear.Hollywood, Inc. is already moving on.
Most of the digital projectors in theaters these days have been 2K format projectors (nominally 2000x1000 pixels), which is essentially just the same as HDTV.
They're moving rapidly to shooting in 4K (nominally 4000x2000), and beyond.
Some folks in Japan have already shown off a prototype 8K television (nominally 8000x4000... http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/super\_hi/index.html [nhk.or.jp]).
It just never ends.Of course, it really does end.
You can see 1080p just dandy on a computer monitor... I'm about 2ft away from my dual 1200p monitors here, and I see it fine.
But at a normal television viewing distance, you can't tell the difference between 1200p/1080p and 720p.
Unless you're Superman, or at least Harvey Birdman.
I have a 71" 1080p television in my media room.
Most people will see an advantage to 1080p at 10-12 feet from the screen, which is an absolutely reasonable viewing distance, within the THX optimal viewing range, and just a bit short of the SMPTE optimal viewing range (both THX and SMPTE are based on your angle of view).To get much out of a 4K screen, I'm going to have to sit closer than ft, or get a very gigantic screen.
Of course, when I grew up, my parent's "big screen" TV was a 25" Sears console... that was the largest they ever owned, at least while I was at home.
Could be some go larger in the future.
But how many people really have room for 100" + screens.
Ok, if you're offering, sure, I'll make it fit...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092344</id>
	<title>3D</title>
	<author>Niris</author>
	<datestamp>1265025660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand what the difference is between 3D blu-ray and normal blu-ray HD movies. Do they mean like "holy shit that's popping out of the screen" with 3D glasses support like Avatar or just "Damn that's some nice graphics"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand what the difference is between 3D blu-ray and normal blu-ray HD movies .
Do they mean like " holy shit that 's popping out of the screen " with 3D glasses support like Avatar or just " Damn that 's some nice graphics "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand what the difference is between 3D blu-ray and normal blu-ray HD movies.
Do they mean like "holy shit that's popping out of the screen" with 3D glasses support like Avatar or just "Damn that's some nice graphics"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092132</id>
	<title>Re:What about the PS3?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The PS3 will be able to accommodate the spec as per Sony's announcement at CES last month. It's all a mater of when Sony pushes out the update for it. Apparently, the bigger problem is that you'll likely need <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/17/blu-ray-3d-specifications-finalized-your-ps3-is-ready/" title="engadget.com">a new TV</a> [engadget.com] from what I've been able to find. There are <a href="http://www.3dmovielist.com/3dhdtvs.html" title="3dmovielist.com">some models</a> [3dmovielist.com] that are apparently capable of supporting it, but it seems fairly sparse.
<br> <br>
As far as I know there isn't a lot of content out there to take advantage of either. Avatar is a nice example, but I can't think of anything else off of the top of my head that's mainstream or will be ready any time soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The PS3 will be able to accommodate the spec as per Sony 's announcement at CES last month .
It 's all a mater of when Sony pushes out the update for it .
Apparently , the bigger problem is that you 'll likely need a new TV [ engadget.com ] from what I 've been able to find .
There are some models [ 3dmovielist.com ] that are apparently capable of supporting it , but it seems fairly sparse .
As far as I know there is n't a lot of content out there to take advantage of either .
Avatar is a nice example , but I ca n't think of anything else off of the top of my head that 's mainstream or will be ready any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PS3 will be able to accommodate the spec as per Sony's announcement at CES last month.
It's all a mater of when Sony pushes out the update for it.
Apparently, the bigger problem is that you'll likely need a new TV [engadget.com] from what I've been able to find.
There are some models [3dmovielist.com] that are apparently capable of supporting it, but it seems fairly sparse.
As far as I know there isn't a lot of content out there to take advantage of either.
Avatar is a nice example, but I can't think of anything else off of the top of my head that's mainstream or will be ready any time soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094868</id>
	<title>So, tell me, Sony</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1265039220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You going to give us glasses for this? I doubt I can use the RealD polarized glasses with my LCD TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You going to give us glasses for this ?
I doubt I can use the RealD polarized glasses with my LCD TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You going to give us glasses for this?
I doubt I can use the RealD polarized glasses with my LCD TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31104116</id>
	<title>Re:Remember when 3D used to mean...</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1265879640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Remember when 3D used to mean they had two dimensions and a story!</i></p><p>You're quite right.  Photographs are 2D.  TV and Movies are 3D.  Avatar was 4D.</p><p>I'm simply astonished the marketdroids haven't picked up on this yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when 3D used to mean they had two dimensions and a story ! You 're quite right .
Photographs are 2D .
TV and Movies are 3D .
Avatar was 4D.I 'm simply astonished the marketdroids have n't picked up on this yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when 3D used to mean they had two dimensions and a story!You're quite right.
Photographs are 2D.
TV and Movies are 3D.
Avatar was 4D.I'm simply astonished the marketdroids haven't picked up on this yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091978</id>
	<title>InB4</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In before "3D gives me headaches" and "I'm too cool to wear the glasses".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In before " 3D gives me headaches " and " I 'm too cool to wear the glasses " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In before "3D gives me headaches" and "I'm too cool to wear the glasses".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092212</id>
	<title>Re:What about the PS3?</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265024760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure they're prototyping these Blu-Ray upgrades on the PS3.</p><p>But Sony's not just going to upgrade your PS3 for 3D Blu-Ray. They need to have support for 3D games, and of course, Sony's version of 3D shutter glasses so you can actually make use of the thing. My guess is they use Bluetooth for the sync... no need to add-on any hardware to the PS3, and receiving what's essentially 60 "flip a bit" signals per second can't be all that draining on the battery. It's a good move... I don't know if I'd worry too much about 3D if it meant a new TV and Blu-Ray player and all, but if it's $100 for a pair of glasses or two from Sony, I'm in.</p><p>Sony is almost certainly doing Blu-Ray over HDMI-1.3. The PS3 can only deliver a 60p video, so they're going to do field-multiplexed 30p stereoscopic, which should be good enough, as well as working on existing gear. HDMI 1.4 will support a bunch of more sophisticated 3D modes... presumably, there's some formula for handshaking the specific version between player and TV. This also makes the TV 3D aware, which it will not be over HDMI 1.3. But hey, you can do 3D today on plain old everyday computer monitors as long as the PC is driving the shutter sync, so this ought to work fine now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure they 're prototyping these Blu-Ray upgrades on the PS3.But Sony 's not just going to upgrade your PS3 for 3D Blu-Ray .
They need to have support for 3D games , and of course , Sony 's version of 3D shutter glasses so you can actually make use of the thing .
My guess is they use Bluetooth for the sync... no need to add-on any hardware to the PS3 , and receiving what 's essentially 60 " flip a bit " signals per second ca n't be all that draining on the battery .
It 's a good move... I do n't know if I 'd worry too much about 3D if it meant a new TV and Blu-Ray player and all , but if it 's $ 100 for a pair of glasses or two from Sony , I 'm in.Sony is almost certainly doing Blu-Ray over HDMI-1.3 .
The PS3 can only deliver a 60p video , so they 're going to do field-multiplexed 30p stereoscopic , which should be good enough , as well as working on existing gear .
HDMI 1.4 will support a bunch of more sophisticated 3D modes... presumably , there 's some formula for handshaking the specific version between player and TV .
This also makes the TV 3D aware , which it will not be over HDMI 1.3 .
But hey , you can do 3D today on plain old everyday computer monitors as long as the PC is driving the shutter sync , so this ought to work fine now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure they're prototyping these Blu-Ray upgrades on the PS3.But Sony's not just going to upgrade your PS3 for 3D Blu-Ray.
They need to have support for 3D games, and of course, Sony's version of 3D shutter glasses so you can actually make use of the thing.
My guess is they use Bluetooth for the sync... no need to add-on any hardware to the PS3, and receiving what's essentially 60 "flip a bit" signals per second can't be all that draining on the battery.
It's a good move... I don't know if I'd worry too much about 3D if it meant a new TV and Blu-Ray player and all, but if it's $100 for a pair of glasses or two from Sony, I'm in.Sony is almost certainly doing Blu-Ray over HDMI-1.3.
The PS3 can only deliver a 60p video, so they're going to do field-multiplexed 30p stereoscopic, which should be good enough, as well as working on existing gear.
HDMI 1.4 will support a bunch of more sophisticated 3D modes... presumably, there's some formula for handshaking the specific version between player and TV.
This also makes the TV 3D aware, which it will not be over HDMI 1.3.
But hey, you can do 3D today on plain old everyday computer monitors as long as the PC is driving the shutter sync, so this ought to work fine now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091990</id>
	<title>I'll pass....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me know when they release the first 4D Blu-ray disc players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me know when they release the first 4D Blu-ray disc players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me know when they release the first 4D Blu-ray disc players.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092258</id>
	<title>Finally...</title>
	<author>markowen58</author>
	<datestamp>1265025060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd been struggling along with a 2D one which was an absolute nightmare to find when viewed end on...</p><p>This extra dimension you refer to interests me, do you have more information in the form of a pop up book?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd been struggling along with a 2D one which was an absolute nightmare to find when viewed end on...This extra dimension you refer to interests me , do you have more information in the form of a pop up book ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd been struggling along with a 2D one which was an absolute nightmare to find when viewed end on...This extra dimension you refer to interests me, do you have more information in the form of a pop up book?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31097986</id>
	<title>Re:What about the PS3?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265891460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it will be.  These players will ship without 3D firmware, to be provided later.  The PS3 update is due before the Summer for BD 3D, and the firmware for 3D gaming was delivered to devs earlier this week to get 3D games out for the Summer Bravia launch.</p><p>It's a great time to be a PS3 owner, all the best games are PS3 exclusives and the console is uber-upgradable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it will be .
These players will ship without 3D firmware , to be provided later .
The PS3 update is due before the Summer for BD 3D , and the firmware for 3D gaming was delivered to devs earlier this week to get 3D games out for the Summer Bravia launch.It 's a great time to be a PS3 owner , all the best games are PS3 exclusives and the console is uber-upgradable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it will be.
These players will ship without 3D firmware, to be provided later.
The PS3 update is due before the Summer for BD 3D, and the firmware for 3D gaming was delivered to devs earlier this week to get 3D games out for the Summer Bravia launch.It's a great time to be a PS3 owner, all the best games are PS3 exclusives and the console is uber-upgradable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093302</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI spec</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265031060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple.</p></div><p>Trolling again, I see. Apple computers are perfectly capable of outputting over HDMI.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple.Trolling again , I see .
Apple computers are perfectly capable of outputting over HDMI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple.Trolling again, I see.
Apple computers are perfectly capable of outputting over HDMI.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093048</id>
	<title>Maybe virtual reality glasses?</title>
	<author>dindi</author>
	<datestamp>1265029860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had my nvidia shutters a long time ago (10 years or so), and while it was really fun I do not see myself getting into this new tv new glasses thing.</p><p>I would expect to have an affordable at least 720p (1280x720?) glasses (per eye) tiny displays with a light helmet/head mount by now, but no... most headsets are still 640x480 or 800x600<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... 1024 costs a lot more.....   Just do not get it......</p><p>Technology is there and I think they would sell too......maybe I am just part of a crazy crowd who thinks that others would pay for such a thing....  then again, I am not the movie goer, a movie is not a social event in my dictionary....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had my nvidia shutters a long time ago ( 10 years or so ) , and while it was really fun I do not see myself getting into this new tv new glasses thing.I would expect to have an affordable at least 720p ( 1280x720 ?
) glasses ( per eye ) tiny displays with a light helmet/head mount by now , but no... most headsets are still 640x480 or 800x600 .... 1024 costs a lot more..... Just do not get it......Technology is there and I think they would sell too......maybe I am just part of a crazy crowd who thinks that others would pay for such a thing.... then again , I am not the movie goer , a movie is not a social event in my dictionary... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had my nvidia shutters a long time ago (10 years or so), and while it was really fun I do not see myself getting into this new tv new glasses thing.I would expect to have an affordable at least 720p (1280x720?
) glasses (per eye) tiny displays with a light helmet/head mount by now, but no... most headsets are still 640x480 or 800x600 .... 1024 costs a lot more.....   Just do not get it......Technology is there and I think they would sell too......maybe I am just part of a crazy crowd who thinks that others would pay for such a thing....  then again, I am not the movie goer, a movie is not a social event in my dictionary....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092188</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI spec</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1265024640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?</i></p><p>If they claimed to stand behind it, would you trust them?</p><p>I can imagine this being announced by most, implemented by some, and then abandoned by all due to industry spats and lack of consumer interest. Then a lucky few will own the TV equivalent of 1970s laserdisc players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec ? If they claimed to stand behind it , would you trust them ? I can imagine this being announced by most , implemented by some , and then abandoned by all due to industry spats and lack of consumer interest .
Then a lucky few will own the TV equivalent of 1970s laserdisc players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?If they claimed to stand behind it, would you trust them?I can imagine this being announced by most, implemented by some, and then abandoned by all due to industry spats and lack of consumer interest.
Then a lucky few will own the TV equivalent of 1970s laserdisc players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092198</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI spec</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1265024700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HDMI is supported by just about everything save for Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31095202</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI spec</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1265041800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To receive what? Analog TV is dead in the US.</p> </div><p>Maybe they are close to the boarder, Canada is still not all digital broadcast (until Aug 2011) not sure Mexico has announced any HD plans (I can still get several Mexican Analog stations but not likely from across the boarder, 50 miles away.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To receive what ?
Analog TV is dead in the US .
Maybe they are close to the boarder , Canada is still not all digital broadcast ( until Aug 2011 ) not sure Mexico has announced any HD plans ( I can still get several Mexican Analog stations but not likely from across the boarder , 50 miles away .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To receive what?
Analog TV is dead in the US.
Maybe they are close to the boarder, Canada is still not all digital broadcast (until Aug 2011) not sure Mexico has announced any HD plans (I can still get several Mexican Analog stations but not likely from across the boarder, 50 miles away.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092004</id>
	<title>Why bother</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The X-Prize brain-computer interface will make this obsolete in only 40 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The X-Prize brain-computer interface will make this obsolete in only 40 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The X-Prize brain-computer interface will make this obsolete in only 40 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092418</id>
	<title>Re:3D</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1265026140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy shit, that's popping out of the screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy shit , that 's popping out of the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy shit, that's popping out of the screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093004</id>
	<title>cable boxes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?</p><p>Having the media standard and players are nice, but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard (that will be around for more than 2 seconds) is somewhat important as well.</p></div><p>I'm more interested in cable boxes supporting HDMI (with CEC).</p><p>I still have old school analog cable, and so I can connect the coax directly into my TV and only have to deal with one remote for channels and volume.</p><p>For crying out loud, this is the century of the fruit bat! Why can't we have a single remote control for channel surfing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec ? Having the media standard and players are nice , but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard ( that will be around for more than 2 seconds ) is somewhat important as well.I 'm more interested in cable boxes supporting HDMI ( with CEC ) .I still have old school analog cable , and so I can connect the coax directly into my TV and only have to deal with one remote for channels and volume.For crying out loud , this is the century of the fruit bat !
Why ca n't we have a single remote control for channel surfing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?Having the media standard and players are nice, but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard (that will be around for more than 2 seconds) is somewhat important as well.I'm more interested in cable boxes supporting HDMI (with CEC).I still have old school analog cable, and so I can connect the coax directly into my TV and only have to deal with one remote for channels and volume.For crying out loud, this is the century of the fruit bat!
Why can't we have a single remote control for channel surfing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094498</id>
	<title>Re:Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It really doesn't matter to me if some corporate shills spitefully mod me "troll". It <b>is</b> bad, fake 3D and you all know it. You're not fooling anyone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really does n't matter to me if some corporate shills spitefully mod me " troll " .
It is bad , fake 3D and you all know it .
You 're not fooling anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really doesn't matter to me if some corporate shills spitefully mod me "troll".
It is bad, fake 3D and you all know it.
You're not fooling anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31096332</id>
	<title>Re:Stereoscopic != 3D</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1265051160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You haven't seen Avatar, have you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't seen Avatar , have you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't seen Avatar, have you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092210</id>
	<title>Stereoscopic != 3D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is anybody else bothered by the false advertising that well funded corporate marketing and headline-seeking news is shoving down the public's collective throat?</p><p>Claiming that a stereoscopic picture is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional projection is the equivalent of presenting a stereo entertainment center and claiming that it is surround sound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anybody else bothered by the false advertising that well funded corporate marketing and headline-seeking news is shoving down the public 's collective throat ? Claiming that a stereoscopic picture is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional projection is the equivalent of presenting a stereo entertainment center and claiming that it is surround sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anybody else bothered by the false advertising that well funded corporate marketing and headline-seeking news is shoving down the public's collective throat?Claiming that a stereoscopic picture is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional projection is the equivalent of presenting a stereo entertainment center and claiming that it is surround sound.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092046</id>
	<title>Do Not Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bottome line: 3D tech will not work at home in any real way until anybody in the room is able to view it just fine with the naked eye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bottome line : 3D tech will not work at home in any real way until anybody in the room is able to view it just fine with the naked eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bottome line: 3D tech will not work at home in any real way until anybody in the room is able to view it just fine with the naked eye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956</id>
	<title>HDMI spec</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265023740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?</p><p>Having the media standard and players are nice, but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard (that will be around for more than 2 seconds) is somewhat important as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec ? Having the media standard and players are nice , but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard ( that will be around for more than 2 seconds ) is somewhat important as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can the TV industry all stand behind the new HDMI or Displayport spec?Having the media standard and players are nice, but until I know I have a TV that will support a standard (that will be around for more than 2 seconds) is somewhat important as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094630</id>
	<title>Re:3D!!!</title>
	<author>shoehornjob</author>
	<datestamp>1265037660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ummm maybe I missed something but how do they expect to put a 3d image on a 2d screen. Call me when they invent the holosuite. Nothing to see here people. Move along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm maybe I missed something but how do they expect to put a 3d image on a 2d screen .
Call me when they invent the holosuite .
Nothing to see here people .
Move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm maybe I missed something but how do they expect to put a 3d image on a 2d screen.
Call me when they invent the holosuite.
Nothing to see here people.
Move along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31098916</id>
	<title>3D is annoying</title>
	<author>Scarumanga</author>
	<datestamp>1265900400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about anyone else, but I do NOT want to wear any kind of glasses just to watch TV, especially shaded glasses. I would prefer to see them use existing technology to make 3DTV's that require no glasses at all.
I have a fine tuned vision that i am used to, why obstruct my vision with lame shutter glasses?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about anyone else , but I do NOT want to wear any kind of glasses just to watch TV , especially shaded glasses .
I would prefer to see them use existing technology to make 3DTV 's that require no glasses at all .
I have a fine tuned vision that i am used to , why obstruct my vision with lame shutter glasses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about anyone else, but I do NOT want to wear any kind of glasses just to watch TV, especially shaded glasses.
I would prefer to see them use existing technology to make 3DTV's that require no glasses at all.
I have a fine tuned vision that i am used to, why obstruct my vision with lame shutter glasses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093022</id>
	<title>What about the media?</title>
	<author>RoboRay</author>
	<datestamp>1265029740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If 2D BluRay comes on a flat disc, does 3D BluRay come on a sphere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If 2D BluRay comes on a flat disc , does 3D BluRay come on a sphere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 2D BluRay comes on a flat disc, does 3D BluRay come on a sphere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092012</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>clang\_jangle</author>
	<datestamp>1265023920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But they'll still have to squeeze years worth of storytelling into about two hours.
Screw that, I'm holding out for 4D. <br> <br>Okay, seriously -- what do they think, that everyone will just keep several extra sets of funny glasses around so when company comes they can get a headac^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H watch bad fake "3D" too? They're dreaming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But they 'll still have to squeeze years worth of storytelling into about two hours .
Screw that , I 'm holding out for 4D .
Okay , seriously -- what do they think , that everyone will just keep several extra sets of funny glasses around so when company comes they can get a headac ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H watch bad fake " 3D " too ?
They 're dreaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they'll still have to squeeze years worth of storytelling into about two hours.
Screw that, I'm holding out for 4D.
Okay, seriously -- what do they think, that everyone will just keep several extra sets of funny glasses around so when company comes they can get a headac^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H watch bad fake "3D" too?
They're dreaming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092630</id>
	<title>This is ridiculous.</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1265027700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which 3D spec is it?<br>The tech is incredibly immature right now, there's about 3 different methods of doing 3D - some require glasses, some apparently don't.  How is it encoded on the disc, can the disc still contain the regular 2D blu ray movie. Is it the same spec as the other companies?  What about the TV guys, is it the same spec there?</p><p>They (not just Sony) are really praying for this 3D thing to take off and cause a whole new run of consumer idiot sales, we aren't falling for it this time, the 1080p fiasco was bad enough (it was never an official HD spec, it was added later)  you expect us to sell out 1-&gt;30 month old HD TV's for a 3D one when the spec is a complete shambles?<br>I think a 'lol, no!' should suffice here. I'm definitely waiting this one well, well out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which 3D spec is it ? The tech is incredibly immature right now , there 's about 3 different methods of doing 3D - some require glasses , some apparently do n't .
How is it encoded on the disc , can the disc still contain the regular 2D blu ray movie .
Is it the same spec as the other companies ?
What about the TV guys , is it the same spec there ? They ( not just Sony ) are really praying for this 3D thing to take off and cause a whole new run of consumer idiot sales , we are n't falling for it this time , the 1080p fiasco was bad enough ( it was never an official HD spec , it was added later ) you expect us to sell out 1- &gt; 30 month old HD TV 's for a 3D one when the spec is a complete shambles ? I think a 'lol , no !
' should suffice here .
I 'm definitely waiting this one well , well out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which 3D spec is it?The tech is incredibly immature right now, there's about 3 different methods of doing 3D - some require glasses, some apparently don't.
How is it encoded on the disc, can the disc still contain the regular 2D blu ray movie.
Is it the same spec as the other companies?
What about the TV guys, is it the same spec there?They (not just Sony) are really praying for this 3D thing to take off and cause a whole new run of consumer idiot sales, we aren't falling for it this time, the 1080p fiasco was bad enough (it was never an official HD spec, it was added later)  you expect us to sell out 1-&gt;30 month old HD TV's for a 3D one when the spec is a complete shambles?I think a 'lol, no!
' should suffice here.
I'm definitely waiting this one well, well out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092318</id>
	<title>Of course.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Create Blu-ray Players<br>2) Try to push people to buy lots of expensive new hardware and media<br>3) Keep changing the encryption methods so people are left in the dust if they bought a cheap player<br>4) Keep changing formats so people have to buy new players<br>5) Profit!</p><p>Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch some non-DRMed media on my free as in freedom media player over my home network on my Linux desktop... for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Create Blu-ray Players2 ) Try to push people to buy lots of expensive new hardware and media3 ) Keep changing the encryption methods so people are left in the dust if they bought a cheap player4 ) Keep changing formats so people have to buy new players5 ) Profit ! Now if you 'll excuse me , I 'm going to go watch some non-DRMed media on my free as in freedom media player over my home network on my Linux desktop... for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Create Blu-ray Players2) Try to push people to buy lots of expensive new hardware and media3) Keep changing the encryption methods so people are left in the dust if they bought a cheap player4) Keep changing formats so people have to buy new players5) Profit!Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch some non-DRMed media on my free as in freedom media player over my home network on my Linux desktop... for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093366</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265031420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How have we been able to laugh 3d movies out of our lives for fifty goddamn years or so now and now all of a sudden it's the biggest fucking thing ever?</p><p>Either we have been somehow conditioned to accept without question every new goddamn pile of shit technology that has come down in the last few years (LCDs, Blu-Ray, Wii, XBox 360 with its horribly defective hardware, CFL, etc), or we have gotten a LOT less intelligent in that time.  Maybe a little of both.</p><p>Wake up, people.  Holy fuck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How have we been able to laugh 3d movies out of our lives for fifty goddamn years or so now and now all of a sudden it 's the biggest fucking thing ever ? Either we have been somehow conditioned to accept without question every new goddamn pile of shit technology that has come down in the last few years ( LCDs , Blu-Ray , Wii , XBox 360 with its horribly defective hardware , CFL , etc ) , or we have gotten a LOT less intelligent in that time .
Maybe a little of both.Wake up , people .
Holy fuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How have we been able to laugh 3d movies out of our lives for fifty goddamn years or so now and now all of a sudden it's the biggest fucking thing ever?Either we have been somehow conditioned to accept without question every new goddamn pile of shit technology that has come down in the last few years (LCDs, Blu-Ray, Wii, XBox 360 with its horribly defective hardware, CFL, etc), or we have gotten a LOT less intelligent in that time.
Maybe a little of both.Wake up, people.
Holy fuck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092838</id>
	<title>Re:I'll pass....</title>
	<author>dindi</author>
	<datestamp>1265028780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is 3d<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... then you can move in time within the boundaries of the movie. that is an extra D there for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is 3d .... then you can move in time within the boundaries of the movie .
that is an extra D there for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is 3d .... then you can move in time within the boundaries of the movie.
that is an extra D there for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092222</id>
	<title>Re:HDMI spec</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1265024820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So far, the TV manufacturers are standing behind HDMI... DisplayPort is being pushed as the official computer industry replacement for DVI. There's a virtual certainty that some TVs will eventually grow DisplayPorts, but hey, most modern TVs have VGA connectors too. It's not as if anyone making a television is all THAT worried about cutting down on the ports count.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So far , the TV manufacturers are standing behind HDMI... DisplayPort is being pushed as the official computer industry replacement for DVI .
There 's a virtual certainty that some TVs will eventually grow DisplayPorts , but hey , most modern TVs have VGA connectors too .
It 's not as if anyone making a television is all THAT worried about cutting down on the ports count .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far, the TV manufacturers are standing behind HDMI... DisplayPort is being pushed as the official computer industry replacement for DVI.
There's a virtual certainty that some TVs will eventually grow DisplayPorts, but hey, most modern TVs have VGA connectors too.
It's not as if anyone making a television is all THAT worried about cutting down on the ports count.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093248</id>
	<title>Next Big Thing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265030760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few Years ago, I bought a large screen TV - Rear projection. At the time, I was not worried about HD as there was no HD content available for broadcast and the BluRay HDDVD battle (I can hardly call it a war) had not begun.

It did have 1080i which I later found out was a HD spec. Cool I thought. I am ready for when this starts happening.

Then a  few months later, I hear very little about 1080i and lots about this 1080p stuff. Then start to hear I hear HDMI input. This monster box has coxial, Svideo, component and composite.

So in theory, I have a nice large screen television that is HD capable, but no way of utilising this function.

Thank you Panasonic.

Just last year I bought myself a bigger, Plasma screen - This time 1080p with many HDMI inputs and I have been enjoying HD -

However, Damned if I am going to buy - yet another - high end Television (there is no way I am going smaller) in the next few years only to be obsoleted so quickly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A few Years ago , I bought a large screen TV - Rear projection .
At the time , I was not worried about HD as there was no HD content available for broadcast and the BluRay HDDVD battle ( I can hardly call it a war ) had not begun .
It did have 1080i which I later found out was a HD spec .
Cool I thought .
I am ready for when this starts happening .
Then a few months later , I hear very little about 1080i and lots about this 1080p stuff .
Then start to hear I hear HDMI input .
This monster box has coxial , Svideo , component and composite .
So in theory , I have a nice large screen television that is HD capable , but no way of utilising this function .
Thank you Panasonic .
Just last year I bought myself a bigger , Plasma screen - This time 1080p with many HDMI inputs and I have been enjoying HD - However , Damned if I am going to buy - yet another - high end Television ( there is no way I am going smaller ) in the next few years only to be obsoleted so quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few Years ago, I bought a large screen TV - Rear projection.
At the time, I was not worried about HD as there was no HD content available for broadcast and the BluRay HDDVD battle (I can hardly call it a war) had not begun.
It did have 1080i which I later found out was a HD spec.
Cool I thought.
I am ready for when this starts happening.
Then a  few months later, I hear very little about 1080i and lots about this 1080p stuff.
Then start to hear I hear HDMI input.
This monster box has coxial, Svideo, component and composite.
So in theory, I have a nice large screen television that is HD capable, but no way of utilising this function.
Thank you Panasonic.
Just last year I bought myself a bigger, Plasma screen - This time 1080p with many HDMI inputs and I have been enjoying HD -

However, Damned if I am going to buy - yet another - high end Television (there is no way I am going smaller) in the next few years only to be obsoleted so quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31098870</id>
	<title>Panasonic have it first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265900160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems Panasonic beats Sony for actually making the 3D TV and 3D Blu-ray player recorder available for consumers first.</p><p>The Active Shutter 3D glasses is quite cool.</p><p>http://slashdot.org/submission/1170610/Panasonic-Full-HD-3D-TV-and-Blu-ray-3D-recorder</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems Panasonic beats Sony for actually making the 3D TV and 3D Blu-ray player recorder available for consumers first.The Active Shutter 3D glasses is quite cool.http : //slashdot.org/submission/1170610/Panasonic-Full-HD-3D-TV-and-Blu-ray-3D-recorder</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems Panasonic beats Sony for actually making the 3D TV and 3D Blu-ray player recorder available for consumers first.The Active Shutter 3D glasses is quite cool.http://slashdot.org/submission/1170610/Panasonic-Full-HD-3D-TV-and-Blu-ray-3D-recorder</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094738</id>
	<title>Re:This is ridiculous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what 1080p fiasco?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what 1080p fiasco ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what 1080p fiasco?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31100114</id>
	<title>Re:Remember when 3D used to mean...</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265906400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The story has been replaced with special effect. If you want a story you are going to have to buy the new 4D TVs next year. Plot twist 5D TVs will follow in 2012.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The story has been replaced with special effect .
If you want a story you are going to have to buy the new 4D TVs next year .
Plot twist 5D TVs will follow in 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story has been replaced with special effect.
If you want a story you are going to have to buy the new 4D TVs next year.
Plot twist 5D TVs will follow in 2012.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092128</id>
	<title>Re:What about the PS3?</title>
	<author>Gandhi of War</author>
	<datestamp>1265024340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It says in the first linked article that the PS3 will be supported by the Blu-ray 3D specs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It says in the first linked article that the PS3 will be supported by the Blu-ray 3D specs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It says in the first linked article that the PS3 will be supported by the Blu-ray 3D specs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092072</id>
	<title>They are evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Bluray" is how the Italian terrorists hipnootize our women and use them ass islamocommunist terrorist anti-american jihadists that is why I do not allow any Rays or computers in my Home and I forbid my children and Wife from accissing the intortet without the supervision of myself or another Patriotic Christian man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bluray " is how the Italian terrorists hipnootize our women and use them ass islamocommunist terrorist anti-american jihadists that is why I do not allow any Rays or computers in my Home and I forbid my children and Wife from accissing the intortet without the supervision of myself or another Patriotic Christian man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Bluray" is how the Italian terrorists hipnootize our women and use them ass islamocommunist terrorist anti-american jihadists that is why I do not allow any Rays or computers in my Home and I forbid my children and Wife from accissing the intortet without the supervision of myself or another Patriotic Christian man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092352</id>
	<title>Re:Stereoscopic != 3D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Claiming that a stereoscopic picture is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional projection is the equivalent of presenting a stereo entertainment center and claiming that it is surround sound.</p></div><p>Stereoscopic, def.: "The viewing of objects as three-dimensional."</p><p>Clue: you're being a douche when you rant on threads you have nothing to contribute, beside the obvious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Claiming that a stereoscopic picture is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional projection is the equivalent of presenting a stereo entertainment center and claiming that it is surround sound.Stereoscopic , def .
: " The viewing of objects as three-dimensional .
" Clue : you 're being a douche when you rant on threads you have nothing to contribute , beside the obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Claiming that a stereoscopic picture is the equivalent of a 3 dimensional projection is the equivalent of presenting a stereo entertainment center and claiming that it is surround sound.Stereoscopic, def.
: "The viewing of objects as three-dimensional.
"Clue: you're being a douche when you rant on threads you have nothing to contribute, beside the obvious.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092714</id>
	<title>Re:Stereoscopic != 3D</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>These types of movies have been called 3D for about 60 years.  What percentage of the population do you think is confused by what someone means when they say 3D movie (other than you, apparently)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>These types of movies have been called 3D for about 60 years .
What percentage of the population do you think is confused by what someone means when they say 3D movie ( other than you , apparently ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These types of movies have been called 3D for about 60 years.
What percentage of the population do you think is confused by what someone means when they say 3D movie (other than you, apparently)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093462</id>
	<title>Remember when 3D used to mean...</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1265032080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember when 3D used to mean they had two dimensions and a story!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when 3D used to mean they had two dimensions and a story !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when 3D used to mean they had two dimensions and a story!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093140</id>
	<title>PS3...</title>
	<author>TheTyrannyOfForcedRe</author>
	<datestamp>1265030280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm... No mention of the PS3. Time to sell?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm... No mention of the PS3 .
Time to sell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm... No mention of the PS3.
Time to sell?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092118</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1265024340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally, a 3D blue-ray player! I keep losing my 2-dimensional player when the wind blows it under the couch. It's impossible to see from the side, since it is infinately thin, so I have to move the couch to be able to see it from the top or bottom. They should have made them 3 dimensional in the first place!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , a 3D blue-ray player !
I keep losing my 2-dimensional player when the wind blows it under the couch .
It 's impossible to see from the side , since it is infinately thin , so I have to move the couch to be able to see it from the top or bottom .
They should have made them 3 dimensional in the first place !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, a 3D blue-ray player!
I keep losing my 2-dimensional player when the wind blows it under the couch.
It's impossible to see from the side, since it is infinately thin, so I have to move the couch to be able to see it from the top or bottom.
They should have made them 3 dimensional in the first place!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31100114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31100146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31096496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31095202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31099522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31096332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31096614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31097986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31104116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_2226236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31096496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31096332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31100146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31098916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31097986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31104116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31100114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093538
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31095202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31091990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31096614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31099522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31094630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31093248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_2226236.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_2226236.31092004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
