<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_16_1647213</id>
	<title>A History of Media Technology Scares</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266343740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jamesswift writes <i>"Vaughan Bell at Slate has written an interesting article on the centuries old phenomenon of <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2244198/pagenum/all/">hysterical suspicion surrounding new media</a> and the technologies that enable them. 'A respected Swiss scientist, Conrad Gessner, might have been the first to raise the alarm about the effects of information overload. In a landmark book, he described how the modern world overwhelmed people with data and that this overabundance was both "confusing and harmful" to the mind. The media now echo his concerns with reports on the unprecedented risks of living in an "always on" digital environment. It's worth noting that Gessner, for his part, never once used e-mail and was completely ignorant about computers. That's not because he was a technophobe but because he died in 1565.' The best line comes near then end: 'The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal, anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting, and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jamesswift writes " Vaughan Bell at Slate has written an interesting article on the centuries old phenomenon of hysterical suspicion surrounding new media and the technologies that enable them .
'A respected Swiss scientist , Conrad Gessner , might have been the first to raise the alarm about the effects of information overload .
In a landmark book , he described how the modern world overwhelmed people with data and that this overabundance was both " confusing and harmful " to the mind .
The media now echo his concerns with reports on the unprecedented risks of living in an " always on " digital environment .
It 's worth noting that Gessner , for his part , never once used e-mail and was completely ignorant about computers .
That 's not because he was a technophobe but because he died in 1565 .
' The best line comes near then end : 'The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal , anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting , and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jamesswift writes "Vaughan Bell at Slate has written an interesting article on the centuries old phenomenon of hysterical suspicion surrounding new media and the technologies that enable them.
'A respected Swiss scientist, Conrad Gessner, might have been the first to raise the alarm about the effects of information overload.
In a landmark book, he described how the modern world overwhelmed people with data and that this overabundance was both "confusing and harmful" to the mind.
The media now echo his concerns with reports on the unprecedented risks of living in an "always on" digital environment.
It's worth noting that Gessner, for his part, never once used e-mail and was completely ignorant about computers.
That's not because he was a technophobe but because he died in 1565.
' The best line comes near then end: 'The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal, anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting, and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158050</id>
	<title>Re:Good quote</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1266348660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although his quote might be generally true, I am not yet 35, but highly suspicious of any technology that tries to lock me in. Yet I'm an early adopter of anything that genuinely work for me, and I always will be.</p><p>I'll be first in line for those Deus Ex augmentations, so long as I don't have to phone Microsoft to re-activate my microfibral muscles, because I changed too many body parts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although his quote might be generally true , I am not yet 35 , but highly suspicious of any technology that tries to lock me in .
Yet I 'm an early adopter of anything that genuinely work for me , and I always will be.I 'll be first in line for those Deus Ex augmentations , so long as I do n't have to phone Microsoft to re-activate my microfibral muscles , because I changed too many body parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although his quote might be generally true, I am not yet 35, but highly suspicious of any technology that tries to lock me in.
Yet I'm an early adopter of anything that genuinely work for me, and I always will be.I'll be first in line for those Deus Ex augmentations, so long as I don't have to phone Microsoft to re-activate my microfibral muscles, because I changed too many body parts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158978</id>
	<title>Re:Good quote</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1266352260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I Can't imagine a technology that I would ever be suspicious of though</i></p><p>The guillotine?</p><p>But although I haven't yet reached the age where I'm suspicious of any technology (I'm 57), I saw it in my dad and in my maternal grandfather. With my dad it was cell phones and computers, with my grandfather it was indoor plumbing. In both cases they said "I've done without it for <i>n</i> years, I don't need it now."</p><p>As to your nephew, I agree with him -- even brand new technology I expect to "just work" because damn it, I've seen a LOT of new tech in my time; microwaves, VCRs, TV remotes, self-opening doors, motion sensors, the list goes on, and until recently it DID just work, and work as advertised. The new business method is "ship the goddamned thing, we can send a patch later." Too bad you young people put up with that shit or stuff would still "just work." There's no excuse for shipping garbage, but people accept it these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I Ca n't imagine a technology that I would ever be suspicious of thoughThe guillotine ? But although I have n't yet reached the age where I 'm suspicious of any technology ( I 'm 57 ) , I saw it in my dad and in my maternal grandfather .
With my dad it was cell phones and computers , with my grandfather it was indoor plumbing .
In both cases they said " I 've done without it for n years , I do n't need it now .
" As to your nephew , I agree with him -- even brand new technology I expect to " just work " because damn it , I 've seen a LOT of new tech in my time ; microwaves , VCRs , TV remotes , self-opening doors , motion sensors , the list goes on , and until recently it DID just work , and work as advertised .
The new business method is " ship the goddamned thing , we can send a patch later .
" Too bad you young people put up with that shit or stuff would still " just work .
" There 's no excuse for shipping garbage , but people accept it these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Can't imagine a technology that I would ever be suspicious of thoughThe guillotine?But although I haven't yet reached the age where I'm suspicious of any technology (I'm 57), I saw it in my dad and in my maternal grandfather.
With my dad it was cell phones and computers, with my grandfather it was indoor plumbing.
In both cases they said "I've done without it for n years, I don't need it now.
"As to your nephew, I agree with him -- even brand new technology I expect to "just work" because damn it, I've seen a LOT of new tech in my time; microwaves, VCRs, TV remotes, self-opening doors, motion sensors, the list goes on, and until recently it DID just work, and work as advertised.
The new business method is "ship the goddamned thing, we can send a patch later.
" Too bad you young people put up with that shit or stuff would still "just work.
" There's no excuse for shipping garbage, but people accept it these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159114</id>
	<title>Re:Good quote</title>
	<author>mikestew</author>
	<datestamp>1266352860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on how one defines "suspicious". I'm well past the age of suspicion defined by Adams. I'm just as much of a gadget/technology nerd as I ever was (probably more so, now that I have more money for gadgets). What I'm suspicious of are any claims of revolutionizing the world. Because of my advanced age, I frequently ask (to use one common Slashdot whipping boy) "how is this different from the CueCat:?", or three-tier, or punch cards, or whatever else has been done in a similar vein. It's going to "change the way I..."? Umm, yeah, sure.  I guess skepticism is a more accurate word.</p><p>But suspicious as in "my set-top box has a camera so Comcast can spy on me"? I don't believe age is the issue for anyone born in the last fifty years (i. e., grew up with relatively fast-moving technology). There are paranoid nut jobs of varying ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on how one defines " suspicious " .
I 'm well past the age of suspicion defined by Adams .
I 'm just as much of a gadget/technology nerd as I ever was ( probably more so , now that I have more money for gadgets ) .
What I 'm suspicious of are any claims of revolutionizing the world .
Because of my advanced age , I frequently ask ( to use one common Slashdot whipping boy ) " how is this different from the CueCat : ?
" , or three-tier , or punch cards , or whatever else has been done in a similar vein .
It 's going to " change the way I... " ?
Umm , yeah , sure .
I guess skepticism is a more accurate word.But suspicious as in " my set-top box has a camera so Comcast can spy on me " ?
I do n't believe age is the issue for anyone born in the last fifty years ( i. e. , grew up with relatively fast-moving technology ) .
There are paranoid nut jobs of varying ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on how one defines "suspicious".
I'm well past the age of suspicion defined by Adams.
I'm just as much of a gadget/technology nerd as I ever was (probably more so, now that I have more money for gadgets).
What I'm suspicious of are any claims of revolutionizing the world.
Because of my advanced age, I frequently ask (to use one common Slashdot whipping boy) "how is this different from the CueCat:?
", or three-tier, or punch cards, or whatever else has been done in a similar vein.
It's going to "change the way I..."?
Umm, yeah, sure.
I guess skepticism is a more accurate word.But suspicious as in "my set-top box has a camera so Comcast can spy on me"?
I don't believe age is the issue for anyone born in the last fifty years (i. e., grew up with relatively fast-moving technology).
There are paranoid nut jobs of varying ages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31167320</id>
	<title>Re:Not exactly an authority</title>
	<author>Panoptes</author>
	<datestamp>1265027340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Douglas Adams had an English degree. Do you have the faintest idea of what studying for an English degree entails these days? Have you seen a recent syllabus from a good UK university? The notion that the study of English is simply reading great literature from Beowulf to Virginia Wolf died long ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Douglas Adams had an English degree .
Do you have the faintest idea of what studying for an English degree entails these days ?
Have you seen a recent syllabus from a good UK university ?
The notion that the study of English is simply reading great literature from Beowulf to Virginia Wolf died long ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Douglas Adams had an English degree.
Do you have the faintest idea of what studying for an English degree entails these days?
Have you seen a recent syllabus from a good UK university?
The notion that the study of English is simply reading great literature from Beowulf to Virginia Wolf died long ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158582</id>
	<title>Trouble is on the production side</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1266350580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There's more trouble on the supply side than on the consumption side.
</p><p>
The problem with news is that the pundit/reporter ratio has swung way too far in the pundit direction. There are too few people out digging up info, and too many people analyzing it.  "News is what someone doesn't want published.  All else is publicity." With so much incoming free information, willingness to pay people to go out and dig up real news has declined substantially.
It takes minutes to rewrite a paragraph from a press release.  It takes days of work to get the information for a real story.
</p><p>
Look at the front page of Google News.  How many of those stories started as a press release?  Most of them. Sometimes, all of them.
</p><p>
In the heyday of newspapers (say, 1880 to 1950), the printing process was far more labor-intensive.  As a result, reporters were a small fraction of the payroll, and keeping head count down on the reporting side wasn't top priority.  Most newspapers had reporting, editing, composing, and printing all in the same building or adjacent buildings.  The big part of the business was printing and distribution.
</p><p>
Today, printing plants are remote, have few people, and may be outsourced.  Composing is automated.  Editorial is mostly automated; text goes from reporter to printed page without much editing.  So reporting is the big labor cost. And it's so easy to just tap into some feed and pump it out to the printing plant.
</p><p>
Blogging isn't helping.  It's mostly punditry and self-publicity.
</p><p>
That's where information overload is hurting.  Information wants to be free, but free information is self-serving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's more trouble on the supply side than on the consumption side .
The problem with news is that the pundit/reporter ratio has swung way too far in the pundit direction .
There are too few people out digging up info , and too many people analyzing it .
" News is what someone does n't want published .
All else is publicity .
" With so much incoming free information , willingness to pay people to go out and dig up real news has declined substantially .
It takes minutes to rewrite a paragraph from a press release .
It takes days of work to get the information for a real story .
Look at the front page of Google News .
How many of those stories started as a press release ?
Most of them .
Sometimes , all of them .
In the heyday of newspapers ( say , 1880 to 1950 ) , the printing process was far more labor-intensive .
As a result , reporters were a small fraction of the payroll , and keeping head count down on the reporting side was n't top priority .
Most newspapers had reporting , editing , composing , and printing all in the same building or adjacent buildings .
The big part of the business was printing and distribution .
Today , printing plants are remote , have few people , and may be outsourced .
Composing is automated .
Editorial is mostly automated ; text goes from reporter to printed page without much editing .
So reporting is the big labor cost .
And it 's so easy to just tap into some feed and pump it out to the printing plant .
Blogging is n't helping .
It 's mostly punditry and self-publicity .
That 's where information overload is hurting .
Information wants to be free , but free information is self-serving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There's more trouble on the supply side than on the consumption side.
The problem with news is that the pundit/reporter ratio has swung way too far in the pundit direction.
There are too few people out digging up info, and too many people analyzing it.
"News is what someone doesn't want published.
All else is publicity.
" With so much incoming free information, willingness to pay people to go out and dig up real news has declined substantially.
It takes minutes to rewrite a paragraph from a press release.
It takes days of work to get the information for a real story.
Look at the front page of Google News.
How many of those stories started as a press release?
Most of them.
Sometimes, all of them.
In the heyday of newspapers (say, 1880 to 1950), the printing process was far more labor-intensive.
As a result, reporters were a small fraction of the payroll, and keeping head count down on the reporting side wasn't top priority.
Most newspapers had reporting, editing, composing, and printing all in the same building or adjacent buildings.
The big part of the business was printing and distribution.
Today, printing plants are remote, have few people, and may be outsourced.
Composing is automated.
Editorial is mostly automated; text goes from reporter to printed page without much editing.
So reporting is the big labor cost.
And it's so easy to just tap into some feed and pump it out to the printing plant.
Blogging isn't helping.
It's mostly punditry and self-publicity.
That's where information overload is hurting.
Information wants to be free, but free information is self-serving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158962</id>
	<title>Perception vs reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266352200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal, anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting, and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion.'</p></div><p>The thing is technology that we are aware of that existed when we were born and is still in use when we get old enough to really think about it is proven. It works and gets the job done. <br>
When new technology is developed before we turn 35 (or some other age, it started to happen for me when I was in my 20s) we see its possibilities and how it will change the world. We tend not to see its short comings, or how it solves a problem that nobody has. Additionally, while we are in that age, we have to spend as much time learning how to use existing technology as we do new technology, so they are equal footing. <br>
After 35 (or whatever age this revelation occurs to the individual), you start to see how some new technology has the same sort of problems that some previous "new" technology had such that the previous "new" technology never worked out. Additionally, new technology means you have to learn a new way to do something where you had mastered the old way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal , anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting , and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion .
'The thing is technology that we are aware of that existed when we were born and is still in use when we get old enough to really think about it is proven .
It works and gets the job done .
When new technology is developed before we turn 35 ( or some other age , it started to happen for me when I was in my 20s ) we see its possibilities and how it will change the world .
We tend not to see its short comings , or how it solves a problem that nobody has .
Additionally , while we are in that age , we have to spend as much time learning how to use existing technology as we do new technology , so they are equal footing .
After 35 ( or whatever age this revelation occurs to the individual ) , you start to see how some new technology has the same sort of problems that some previous " new " technology had such that the previous " new " technology never worked out .
Additionally , new technology means you have to learn a new way to do something where you had mastered the old way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal, anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting, and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion.
'The thing is technology that we are aware of that existed when we were born and is still in use when we get old enough to really think about it is proven.
It works and gets the job done.
When new technology is developed before we turn 35 (or some other age, it started to happen for me when I was in my 20s) we see its possibilities and how it will change the world.
We tend not to see its short comings, or how it solves a problem that nobody has.
Additionally, while we are in that age, we have to spend as much time learning how to use existing technology as we do new technology, so they are equal footing.
After 35 (or whatever age this revelation occurs to the individual), you start to see how some new technology has the same sort of problems that some previous "new" technology had such that the previous "new" technology never worked out.
Additionally, new technology means you have to learn a new way to do something where you had mastered the old way.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159658</id>
	<title>So in other words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266312420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>450 years of chasing those damn kids off our lawns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>450 years of chasing those damn kids off our lawns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>450 years of chasing those damn kids off our lawns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158160</id>
	<title>Re:Good quote</title>
	<author>Darth Sdlavrot</author>
	<datestamp>1266349020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Terrible quote.</p><p>I'm 50 -- I'm not afraid of technology.</p><p>I'm sensitive about privacy and and how information about me is used, but I'm not afraid of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Terrible quote.I 'm 50 -- I 'm not afraid of technology.I 'm sensitive about privacy and and how information about me is used , but I 'm not afraid of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Terrible quote.I'm 50 -- I'm not afraid of technology.I'm sensitive about privacy and and how information about me is used, but I'm not afraid of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157886</id>
	<title>Roles</title>
	<author>Pantero Blanco</author>
	<datestamp>1266348060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this just different age groups acting out their normal roles?</p><p>The young take the world as they see it and learn from it, adults try to use it productively, and elders warn people about observed and potential dangers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this just different age groups acting out their normal roles ? The young take the world as they see it and learn from it , adults try to use it productively , and elders warn people about observed and potential dangers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this just different age groups acting out their normal roles?The young take the world as they see it and learn from it, adults try to use it productively, and elders warn people about observed and potential dangers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159306</id>
	<title>Unexpected old quotes</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1266353820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love these old quotes that sound like they were made recently, but in fact are very old.<br>These are my favourites:</p><p>&gt; Although they posses enough, and more than enough, still they yearn for more.<br>(Ovid (English Poet, 43 BC - 17 AD))</p><p>&gt; I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on<br>the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless<br>beyond words. When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and<br>respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise and<br>impatient of restraint.<br>(Hesiod 800 - 720 BC)</p><p>&gt; The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for<br>authority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer rise<br>when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter<br>before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and<br>are tyrants over their teachers.<br>((allegedly) Socrates ca. 390 BC)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love these old quotes that sound like they were made recently , but in fact are very old.These are my favourites : &gt; Although they posses enough , and more than enough , still they yearn for more .
( Ovid ( English Poet , 43 BC - 17 AD ) ) &gt; I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent onthe frivolous youth of today , for certainly all youth are recklessbeyond words .
When I was a boy , we were taught to be discrete andrespectful of elders , but the present youth are exceedingly wise andimpatient of restraint .
( Hesiod 800 - 720 BC ) &gt; The children now love luxury .
They have bad manners , contempt forauthority , they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer risewhen elders enter the room .
They contradict their parents , chatterbefore company , gobble up dainties at the table , cross their legs , andare tyrants over their teachers .
( ( allegedly ) Socrates ca .
390 BC )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love these old quotes that sound like they were made recently, but in fact are very old.These are my favourites:&gt; Although they posses enough, and more than enough, still they yearn for more.
(Ovid (English Poet, 43 BC - 17 AD))&gt; I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent onthe frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are recklessbeyond words.
When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete andrespectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise andimpatient of restraint.
(Hesiod 800 - 720 BC)&gt; The children now love luxury.
They have bad manners, contempt forauthority, they show disrespect to their elders.... They no longer risewhen elders enter the room.
They contradict their parents, chatterbefore company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, andare tyrants over their teachers.
((allegedly) Socrates ca.
390 BC)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158174</id>
	<title>Reinventing the Wheel</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1266349080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For some reason, and I still do not understand exactly why, people tend to re-invent things.  Once you have seen this happen a few times, you don't tend to be impressed with every latest doo-dad.</p><p>As for the reason, there are lots of factors.  But the ultimate factor is that nothing is really permanent, certainly not humans but not even ideas.  Communication and education have high costs.  Information storage degrades, in human memory and in physical forms.  Even interpretation of long-stored information is a challenge.  There are all sorts of incentives not to share innovation, both inherent and by design of various political and economic systems.</p><p>If you're being sold a better video player or a better cheeseburger, it might actually be better for you.  But it is almost as likely to be worse.  It may not even be better for the person who created it.  It may just be newer instead of better.  Progress is not a given, and the vast majority of people ("consumers") tend to be uncritical automatons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For some reason , and I still do not understand exactly why , people tend to re-invent things .
Once you have seen this happen a few times , you do n't tend to be impressed with every latest doo-dad.As for the reason , there are lots of factors .
But the ultimate factor is that nothing is really permanent , certainly not humans but not even ideas .
Communication and education have high costs .
Information storage degrades , in human memory and in physical forms .
Even interpretation of long-stored information is a challenge .
There are all sorts of incentives not to share innovation , both inherent and by design of various political and economic systems.If you 're being sold a better video player or a better cheeseburger , it might actually be better for you .
But it is almost as likely to be worse .
It may not even be better for the person who created it .
It may just be newer instead of better .
Progress is not a given , and the vast majority of people ( " consumers " ) tend to be uncritical automatons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For some reason, and I still do not understand exactly why, people tend to re-invent things.
Once you have seen this happen a few times, you don't tend to be impressed with every latest doo-dad.As for the reason, there are lots of factors.
But the ultimate factor is that nothing is really permanent, certainly not humans but not even ideas.
Communication and education have high costs.
Information storage degrades, in human memory and in physical forms.
Even interpretation of long-stored information is a challenge.
There are all sorts of incentives not to share innovation, both inherent and by design of various political and economic systems.If you're being sold a better video player or a better cheeseburger, it might actually be better for you.
But it is almost as likely to be worse.
It may not even be better for the person who created it.
It may just be newer instead of better.
Progress is not a given, and the vast majority of people ("consumers") tend to be uncritical automatons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31160846</id>
	<title>Re:Perception vs reality</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1266317700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> The thing is technology that we are aware of that existed when we were born
  and is still in use when we get old enough to really think about it is
  proven.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
That's why I use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnu\_emacs" title="wikipedia.org">Emacs</a> [wikipedia.org](*). It's 35 years old and proven tech that just works and beats the pants off the whippersnapper java based upstarts.
</p><p>
(*) Sith lords use vi.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is technology that we are aware of that existed when we were born and is still in use when we get old enough to really think about it is proven .
That 's why I use Emacs [ wikipedia.org ] ( * ) .
It 's 35 years old and proven tech that just works and beats the pants off the whippersnapper java based upstarts .
( * ) Sith lords use vi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The thing is technology that we are aware of that existed when we were born
  and is still in use when we get old enough to really think about it is
  proven.
That's why I use Emacs [wikipedia.org](*).
It's 35 years old and proven tech that just works and beats the pants off the whippersnapper java based upstarts.
(*) Sith lords use vi.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157998</id>
	<title>Gessner's Book Arguing Against Books?</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1266348480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article:<p><div class="quote"><p>A respected Swiss scientist, Conrad Gessner, might have been the first to raise the alarm about the effects of information overload. In a <b>landmark book</b>, he described how the modern world overwhelmed people with data<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... His warnings referred to the seemingly unmanageable flood of information unleashed by the printing press.</p> </div><p>So he chose to release his findings in the exact form of what was 'overloading people with information'?  A printed book?  <br> <br>

Boy I'd like to design that back cover:<br> <br>

"Find out how things like this very book you hold in your hands right now is destroying your mind and plaguing you with confusing and harmful thoughts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."<br> <br>

"You'll pick it up, read it, burn it and never read another book again!"<br> <br>

"Tell your neighbors to buy this book so you can outsmart them and take their cattle!"<br> <br>

"Your feudal lord's new tool of oppression: Printed word?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : A respected Swiss scientist , Conrad Gessner , might have been the first to raise the alarm about the effects of information overload .
In a landmark book , he described how the modern world overwhelmed people with data ... His warnings referred to the seemingly unmanageable flood of information unleashed by the printing press .
So he chose to release his findings in the exact form of what was 'overloading people with information ' ?
A printed book ?
Boy I 'd like to design that back cover : " Find out how things like this very book you hold in your hands right now is destroying your mind and plaguing you with confusing and harmful thoughts ... " " You 'll pick it up , read it , burn it and never read another book again !
" " Tell your neighbors to buy this book so you can outsmart them and take their cattle !
" " Your feudal lord 's new tool of oppression : Printed word ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:A respected Swiss scientist, Conrad Gessner, might have been the first to raise the alarm about the effects of information overload.
In a landmark book, he described how the modern world overwhelmed people with data ... His warnings referred to the seemingly unmanageable flood of information unleashed by the printing press.
So he chose to release his findings in the exact form of what was 'overloading people with information'?
A printed book?
Boy I'd like to design that back cover: 

"Find out how things like this very book you hold in your hands right now is destroying your mind and plaguing you with confusing and harmful thoughts ..." 

"You'll pick it up, read it, burn it and never read another book again!
" 

"Tell your neighbors to buy this book so you can outsmart them and take their cattle!
" 

"Your feudal lord's new tool of oppression: Printed word?
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158106</id>
	<title>Re:Good quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266348840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would you be 100\% comfortable with having a brain-chip installed inside your head?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you be 100 \ % comfortable with having a brain-chip installed inside your head ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you be 100\% comfortable with having a brain-chip installed inside your head?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159126</id>
	<title>Re:feeble argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266352920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As for universal education, we have an excellent example of what can go wrong here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?em=&amp;pagewanted=all. "Education" in the US! Most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. followers are aware of how ridiculous it sounds to non-Americans what goes on there but it's still fun to point out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-).<br>But even getting everyone to read was known back in Roman times as a useful tool for mass manipulation of thought/opinion. But it's just more of the same when compared with organised religion (homogenising thought from the pulpit). Technology is rarely, if ever, the problem - it is those controlling the technology, whether it be the technology of audible speech or tweets arriving on my smartphone.<br>A++<br>ps. Anyone who claims that anything less than excessive (many joints), daily *abuse* of marijuana has ANY long term effects for 99.9\% of the population has simply not read any of the relevant literature. There is the occasional church/right-wing-sponsored article that makes it into the journals but none of these stand up to serious scrutiny. And thankfully more and more governments are realising that, as it is obviously medically far less dangerous than both cigarettes and alcohol, it should be at least decriminalised and why not taxed! Good on ya California!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As for universal education , we have an excellent example of what can go wrong here http : //www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html ? em = &amp;pagewanted = all .
" Education " in the US !
Most / .
followers are aware of how ridiculous it sounds to non-Americans what goes on there but it 's still fun to point out : - ) .But even getting everyone to read was known back in Roman times as a useful tool for mass manipulation of thought/opinion .
But it 's just more of the same when compared with organised religion ( homogenising thought from the pulpit ) .
Technology is rarely , if ever , the problem - it is those controlling the technology , whether it be the technology of audible speech or tweets arriving on my smartphone.A + + ps .
Anyone who claims that anything less than excessive ( many joints ) , daily * abuse * of marijuana has ANY long term effects for 99.9 \ % of the population has simply not read any of the relevant literature .
There is the occasional church/right-wing-sponsored article that makes it into the journals but none of these stand up to serious scrutiny .
And thankfully more and more governments are realising that , as it is obviously medically far less dangerous than both cigarettes and alcohol , it should be at least decriminalised and why not taxed !
Good on ya California !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for universal education, we have an excellent example of what can go wrong here http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?em=&amp;pagewanted=all.
"Education" in the US!
Most /.
followers are aware of how ridiculous it sounds to non-Americans what goes on there but it's still fun to point out :-).But even getting everyone to read was known back in Roman times as a useful tool for mass manipulation of thought/opinion.
But it's just more of the same when compared with organised religion (homogenising thought from the pulpit).
Technology is rarely, if ever, the problem - it is those controlling the technology, whether it be the technology of audible speech or tweets arriving on my smartphone.A++ps.
Anyone who claims that anything less than excessive (many joints), daily *abuse* of marijuana has ANY long term effects for 99.9\% of the population has simply not read any of the relevant literature.
There is the occasional church/right-wing-sponsored article that makes it into the journals but none of these stand up to serious scrutiny.
And thankfully more and more governments are realising that, as it is obviously medically far less dangerous than both cigarettes and alcohol, it should be at least decriminalised and why not taxed!
Good on ya California!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158580</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1266350580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So... If you go to hospital, you might be safer with a stoned surgeon, than one who's been up for 36 hours?</p></div><p>Trouble is, you'd probably end up with a surgeon that's stoned <b>and</b> has been up 36 hours. Yeah, it's proven time and time again that lack of sleep seriously impacts your performance, you should never be operated on by someone that's gone 36 hours without sleep unless it's an emergency. But practical matters dictate there won't be operating rooms and doctors everywhere and not enough so in a major accident they just do what they got to do. If it wasn't for that, they should certainly be no less restricted than truck drivers with mandatory rest stops and such. Seriously, would you let someone unfit to drive a road vechicle cut you open with a scalpel? I wouldn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So... If you go to hospital , you might be safer with a stoned surgeon , than one who 's been up for 36 hours ? Trouble is , you 'd probably end up with a surgeon that 's stoned and has been up 36 hours .
Yeah , it 's proven time and time again that lack of sleep seriously impacts your performance , you should never be operated on by someone that 's gone 36 hours without sleep unless it 's an emergency .
But practical matters dictate there wo n't be operating rooms and doctors everywhere and not enough so in a major accident they just do what they got to do .
If it was n't for that , they should certainly be no less restricted than truck drivers with mandatory rest stops and such .
Seriously , would you let someone unfit to drive a road vechicle cut you open with a scalpel ?
I would n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... If you go to hospital, you might be safer with a stoned surgeon, than one who's been up for 36 hours?Trouble is, you'd probably end up with a surgeon that's stoned and has been up 36 hours.
Yeah, it's proven time and time again that lack of sleep seriously impacts your performance, you should never be operated on by someone that's gone 36 hours without sleep unless it's an emergency.
But practical matters dictate there won't be operating rooms and doctors everywhere and not enough so in a major accident they just do what they got to do.
If it wasn't for that, they should certainly be no less restricted than truck drivers with mandatory rest stops and such.
Seriously, would you let someone unfit to drive a road vechicle cut you open with a scalpel?
I wouldn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31170592</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected old quotes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um... Ovid was a Roman poet.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovid</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... Ovid was a Roman poet .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... Ovid was a Roman poet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovid</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158396</id>
	<title>Not exactly an authority</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266349860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Douglas Adams had an English degree. What the hell did he know about psychology and information science? He wrote one somewhat-funny book series. Why quote him? What did Leary say about this? Jung? Meade? Wilson? Just because DA said it doesn't make it so. I see plenty of old professors that are far more tuned into to technology and information processing than the twenty-year old students that sit in their classes. It's an overgeneralized stereotype, and a poor one at that.

The initial analogy is idiotic in any event. There's a world of difference between the time it takes to assimilate information from a library full of books (ala Gessner; serial-processing - one at a time) and juggling email, a cell phone, tv, the radio, books, journal articles, textbooks, facebook, twitter, podcasts...</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Douglas Adams had an English degree .
What the hell did he know about psychology and information science ?
He wrote one somewhat-funny book series .
Why quote him ?
What did Leary say about this ?
Jung ? Meade ?
Wilson ? Just because DA said it does n't make it so .
I see plenty of old professors that are far more tuned into to technology and information processing than the twenty-year old students that sit in their classes .
It 's an overgeneralized stereotype , and a poor one at that .
The initial analogy is idiotic in any event .
There 's a world of difference between the time it takes to assimilate information from a library full of books ( ala Gessner ; serial-processing - one at a time ) and juggling email , a cell phone , tv , the radio , books , journal articles , textbooks , facebook , twitter , podcasts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Douglas Adams had an English degree.
What the hell did he know about psychology and information science?
He wrote one somewhat-funny book series.
Why quote him?
What did Leary say about this?
Jung? Meade?
Wilson? Just because DA said it doesn't make it so.
I see plenty of old professors that are far more tuned into to technology and information processing than the twenty-year old students that sit in their classes.
It's an overgeneralized stereotype, and a poor one at that.
The initial analogy is idiotic in any event.
There's a world of difference between the time it takes to assimilate information from a library full of books (ala Gessner; serial-processing - one at a time) and juggling email, a cell phone, tv, the radio, books, journal articles, textbooks, facebook, twitter, podcasts...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159568</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1266311940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd agree with you if you were using "It's 22:00 and I normally go to bed at exactly 21:30" as an example of "really tired". Now if we're talking about <b>really</b> tired people (like an ER surgeon who's been up for 36+ hours and working hard for most of that time) then we're looking at seriously bizarre behaviour, hallucinations and an inability to concentrate that would make my cats seem like geniuses in comparison.</p><p>The average marijuana user just tends to be a bit more relaxed, giggly and goofy and most likely lacking in concentration but at least aware of these shortcomings.</p></div><p>None of these traits are really represented in an IQ test, and particularly not to the magnitude that they would affect a surgeon's ability to perform surgery.  It tells us nothing of motor skills or many other important abilities.  The tired person will probably test more poorly than the high person on written or oral tests, but we have no way to infer their abilities as a surgeon/musician/laborer/receptionist/etc.
</p><p>In other words a 10-point IQ drop compared to a 4-point IQ drop only indicates a general loss of cognition.  Nothing more, nothing less.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd agree with you if you were using " It 's 22 : 00 and I normally go to bed at exactly 21 : 30 " as an example of " really tired " .
Now if we 're talking about really tired people ( like an ER surgeon who 's been up for 36 + hours and working hard for most of that time ) then we 're looking at seriously bizarre behaviour , hallucinations and an inability to concentrate that would make my cats seem like geniuses in comparison.The average marijuana user just tends to be a bit more relaxed , giggly and goofy and most likely lacking in concentration but at least aware of these shortcomings.None of these traits are really represented in an IQ test , and particularly not to the magnitude that they would affect a surgeon 's ability to perform surgery .
It tells us nothing of motor skills or many other important abilities .
The tired person will probably test more poorly than the high person on written or oral tests , but we have no way to infer their abilities as a surgeon/musician/laborer/receptionist/etc .
In other words a 10-point IQ drop compared to a 4-point IQ drop only indicates a general loss of cognition .
Nothing more , nothing less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd agree with you if you were using "It's 22:00 and I normally go to bed at exactly 21:30" as an example of "really tired".
Now if we're talking about really tired people (like an ER surgeon who's been up for 36+ hours and working hard for most of that time) then we're looking at seriously bizarre behaviour, hallucinations and an inability to concentrate that would make my cats seem like geniuses in comparison.The average marijuana user just tends to be a bit more relaxed, giggly and goofy and most likely lacking in concentration but at least aware of these shortcomings.None of these traits are really represented in an IQ test, and particularly not to the magnitude that they would affect a surgeon's ability to perform surgery.
It tells us nothing of motor skills or many other important abilities.
The tired person will probably test more poorly than the high person on written or oral tests, but we have no way to infer their abilities as a surgeon/musician/laborer/receptionist/etc.
In other words a 10-point IQ drop compared to a 4-point IQ drop only indicates a general loss of cognition.
Nothing more, nothing less.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158840</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1266351720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you take an IQ test five minutes after smoking a joint, you will score ten points lower. However, the next day your score will be what it was before you smoked the joint. In short, DUH!</p><p>I imagine if I took an IQ test drunk I'd score quite a bit lower than ten points down.</p><p>They've found that twisting the truth is more believable than a bald-faced lie, even though the anit-pot warriers do tell some whoppers.</p><p>As to email, if you take an IQ test with something important on your mind (like the hot chick sitting next to you, or an important email) you'll score lower as well. Anything that hurts your concentration will hurt your IQ score.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you take an IQ test five minutes after smoking a joint , you will score ten points lower .
However , the next day your score will be what it was before you smoked the joint .
In short , DUH ! I imagine if I took an IQ test drunk I 'd score quite a bit lower than ten points down.They 've found that twisting the truth is more believable than a bald-faced lie , even though the anit-pot warriers do tell some whoppers.As to email , if you take an IQ test with something important on your mind ( like the hot chick sitting next to you , or an important email ) you 'll score lower as well .
Anything that hurts your concentration will hurt your IQ score .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you take an IQ test five minutes after smoking a joint, you will score ten points lower.
However, the next day your score will be what it was before you smoked the joint.
In short, DUH!I imagine if I took an IQ test drunk I'd score quite a bit lower than ten points down.They've found that twisting the truth is more believable than a bald-faced lie, even though the anit-pot warriers do tell some whoppers.As to email, if you take an IQ test with something important on your mind (like the hot chick sitting next to you, or an important email) you'll score lower as well.
Anything that hurts your concentration will hurt your IQ score.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31162810</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266327660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really tired people don't seem to have the same mental differences from their normal state  [...].  Really tired people don't seem to have quite the same brain "skew" that someone who is stoned does.</p></div><p>Define "really tired".  I've had chronic insomnia for decades, and by insomnia I mean that I've gone on hideously long stretches of getting from 0-3 hours a sleep, and other stretches where I might get 5-5.5 of non-restorative sleep.</p><p>From personal experience, I can tell you that short-term sleep deprivation (as in not getting nearly enough sleep, not getting no sleep) causes a significant drop in cognitive function.  Medium- to long-term sleep deprivation is worse: hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, severe attention deficit, amongst others.</p><p>The relationship between sleep and healthy mental function is well-known.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really tired people do n't seem to have the same mental differences from their normal state [ ... ] .
Really tired people do n't seem to have quite the same brain " skew " that someone who is stoned does.Define " really tired " .
I 've had chronic insomnia for decades , and by insomnia I mean that I 've gone on hideously long stretches of getting from 0-3 hours a sleep , and other stretches where I might get 5-5.5 of non-restorative sleep.From personal experience , I can tell you that short-term sleep deprivation ( as in not getting nearly enough sleep , not getting no sleep ) causes a significant drop in cognitive function .
Medium- to long-term sleep deprivation is worse : hallucinations , delusions , paranoia , severe attention deficit , amongst others.The relationship between sleep and healthy mental function is well-known .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really tired people don't seem to have the same mental differences from their normal state  [...].
Really tired people don't seem to have quite the same brain "skew" that someone who is stoned does.Define "really tired".
I've had chronic insomnia for decades, and by insomnia I mean that I've gone on hideously long stretches of getting from 0-3 hours a sleep, and other stretches where I might get 5-5.5 of non-restorative sleep.From personal experience, I can tell you that short-term sleep deprivation (as in not getting nearly enough sleep, not getting no sleep) causes a significant drop in cognitive function.
Medium- to long-term sleep deprivation is worse: hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, severe attention deficit, amongst others.The relationship between sleep and healthy mental function is well-known.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157970</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1266348300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>He found the IQ of those who tried to juggle messages and work fell by 10 points -- the equivalent to missing a whole night's sleep and more than double the 4-point fall seen after smoking marijuana.</p></div></div><p>So... If you go to hospital, you might be safer with a stoned surgeon, than one who's been up for 36 hours?   Strange, the things we make illegal, and the things we don't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He found the IQ of those who tried to juggle messages and work fell by 10 points -- the equivalent to missing a whole night 's sleep and more than double the 4-point fall seen after smoking marijuana.So... If you go to hospital , you might be safer with a stoned surgeon , than one who 's been up for 36 hours ?
Strange , the things we make illegal , and the things we do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He found the IQ of those who tried to juggle messages and work fell by 10 points -- the equivalent to missing a whole night's sleep and more than double the 4-point fall seen after smoking marijuana.So... If you go to hospital, you might be safer with a stoned surgeon, than one who's been up for 36 hours?
Strange, the things we make illegal, and the things we don't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31161370</id>
	<title>Re:Good quote</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1266319980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know Douglas Adams is popular around here, but I've got to say that the quote that's attributed to him in this article is really dumb.  It's something that someone who's trying very hard to sound clever would say.</p><p>I know lots of people well past age 35 that are taking to absolutely cutting edge technologies.  There's a musician I play with on a regular basis who is constantly developing exciting controllers for MIDI instruments, and the 73 year-old retired surgeon who lives across the alley from me is my go-to guru for Linux issues.  She (that's right, "she") has come over more than a few times to help me with the Ubuntu server that I use for offloading real-time effects and rendering chores from my digital audio workstation.</p><p>Hell, I use technologies that were developed after my 35th birthday, by choice <i>to make a living</i>.  Digital Audio Workstations were starting to show up around the time I was 35 and DAW plug-in technologies like VST and DirectX didn't show up until later, and they completely transformed the way I work.</p><p>No, I don't care much for twitter or some other "social media" type things, but not because I'm "suspicious" of the technology.</p><p>My mother-in-law over in Belgrade, who is in her late 70's, asked me to send her a couple of decent USB webcams so she can talk to her lady friend in Italy.  She never once called me to ask for help setting them up.  In fact, I didn't even know she had received them until she popped up in my Skype one morning.  Oh, I'm pretty sure that skype or VOIP didn't show up until after my 40th birthday, either.</p><p>I think it might be more interesting that so many people <i>under</i> the age of 35 are "suspicious" of any computer or mobile technology that lets them install applications that weren't vetted by Steve Jobs or whose technology requires them to make choices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know Douglas Adams is popular around here , but I 've got to say that the quote that 's attributed to him in this article is really dumb .
It 's something that someone who 's trying very hard to sound clever would say.I know lots of people well past age 35 that are taking to absolutely cutting edge technologies .
There 's a musician I play with on a regular basis who is constantly developing exciting controllers for MIDI instruments , and the 73 year-old retired surgeon who lives across the alley from me is my go-to guru for Linux issues .
She ( that 's right , " she " ) has come over more than a few times to help me with the Ubuntu server that I use for offloading real-time effects and rendering chores from my digital audio workstation.Hell , I use technologies that were developed after my 35th birthday , by choice to make a living .
Digital Audio Workstations were starting to show up around the time I was 35 and DAW plug-in technologies like VST and DirectX did n't show up until later , and they completely transformed the way I work.No , I do n't care much for twitter or some other " social media " type things , but not because I 'm " suspicious " of the technology.My mother-in-law over in Belgrade , who is in her late 70 's , asked me to send her a couple of decent USB webcams so she can talk to her lady friend in Italy .
She never once called me to ask for help setting them up .
In fact , I did n't even know she had received them until she popped up in my Skype one morning .
Oh , I 'm pretty sure that skype or VOIP did n't show up until after my 40th birthday , either.I think it might be more interesting that so many people under the age of 35 are " suspicious " of any computer or mobile technology that lets them install applications that were n't vetted by Steve Jobs or whose technology requires them to make choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know Douglas Adams is popular around here, but I've got to say that the quote that's attributed to him in this article is really dumb.
It's something that someone who's trying very hard to sound clever would say.I know lots of people well past age 35 that are taking to absolutely cutting edge technologies.
There's a musician I play with on a regular basis who is constantly developing exciting controllers for MIDI instruments, and the 73 year-old retired surgeon who lives across the alley from me is my go-to guru for Linux issues.
She (that's right, "she") has come over more than a few times to help me with the Ubuntu server that I use for offloading real-time effects and rendering chores from my digital audio workstation.Hell, I use technologies that were developed after my 35th birthday, by choice to make a living.
Digital Audio Workstations were starting to show up around the time I was 35 and DAW plug-in technologies like VST and DirectX didn't show up until later, and they completely transformed the way I work.No, I don't care much for twitter or some other "social media" type things, but not because I'm "suspicious" of the technology.My mother-in-law over in Belgrade, who is in her late 70's, asked me to send her a couple of decent USB webcams so she can talk to her lady friend in Italy.
She never once called me to ask for help setting them up.
In fact, I didn't even know she had received them until she popped up in my Skype one morning.
Oh, I'm pretty sure that skype or VOIP didn't show up until after my 40th birthday, either.I think it might be more interesting that so many people under the age of 35 are "suspicious" of any computer or mobile technology that lets them install applications that weren't vetted by Steve Jobs or whose technology requires them to make choices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750</id>
	<title>Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1266347460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>CNN reported that "Email 'hurts IQ more than pot'"</p></div><p>Well from that article,</p><p><div class="quote"><p>He found the IQ of those who tried to juggle messages and work fell by 10 points -- the equivalent to missing a whole night's sleep and more than double the 4-point fall seen after smoking marijuana.</p></div><p>Well, not that I trust psychiatrists that much but I guess the only thing this is telling me is that marijuana really isn't the brain destroying demon they've made it out to be.  Doesn't really convince me that email rots my brain.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Not a single shred of evidence underlies these stories<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>Well, to be fair, these are psychiatrists conducting surveys and "research."  Probably counts as a 'shred.'  I think the surveys are a better bet than research but your blame doesn't lie with the media<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... rather the institutions giving these psychiatrists degrees and the "peer reviewed" journals publishing this work and research.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>CNN reported that " Email 'hurts IQ more than pot ' " Well from that article,He found the IQ of those who tried to juggle messages and work fell by 10 points -- the equivalent to missing a whole night 's sleep and more than double the 4-point fall seen after smoking marijuana.Well , not that I trust psychiatrists that much but I guess the only thing this is telling me is that marijuana really is n't the brain destroying demon they 've made it out to be .
Does n't really convince me that email rots my brain.Not a single shred of evidence underlies these stories ... Well , to be fair , these are psychiatrists conducting surveys and " research .
" Probably counts as a 'shred .
' I think the surveys are a better bet than research but your blame does n't lie with the media ... rather the institutions giving these psychiatrists degrees and the " peer reviewed " journals publishing this work and research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNN reported that "Email 'hurts IQ more than pot'"Well from that article,He found the IQ of those who tried to juggle messages and work fell by 10 points -- the equivalent to missing a whole night's sleep and more than double the 4-point fall seen after smoking marijuana.Well, not that I trust psychiatrists that much but I guess the only thing this is telling me is that marijuana really isn't the brain destroying demon they've made it out to be.
Doesn't really convince me that email rots my brain.Not a single shred of evidence underlies these stories ... Well, to be fair, these are psychiatrists conducting surveys and "research.
"  Probably counts as a 'shred.
'  I think the surveys are a better bet than research but your blame doesn't lie with the media ... rather the institutions giving these psychiatrists degrees and the "peer reviewed" journals publishing this work and research.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159348</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1266310800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saw a very interesting BBC show where the lady went to Amsterdam for a month.</p><p>What I got out of it was</p><p>MJ users of high THC, low Cannabinoid pot were high and creeped out, paranoid.<br>MJ users of low/high THC, high Cannabinoid pot were high and really happy.</p><p>If I were to use it, I'd want the really happy kind myself.  No idea what names that might go for.  In the show, they had at least two dozen varieties.</p><p>I've heard about K2 lately-- it sounds like it is more of a high THC high without the happy part.</p><p>It also pointed out that pot users are more cautious while booze users are overconfident.</p><p>Lack of sleep can make you hallucinate after only 30ish hours.  I'd prefer to avoid hallucinating doctors.  I think the current hospital system is evil to nurses AND doctors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saw a very interesting BBC show where the lady went to Amsterdam for a month.What I got out of it wasMJ users of high THC , low Cannabinoid pot were high and creeped out , paranoid.MJ users of low/high THC , high Cannabinoid pot were high and really happy.If I were to use it , I 'd want the really happy kind myself .
No idea what names that might go for .
In the show , they had at least two dozen varieties.I 've heard about K2 lately-- it sounds like it is more of a high THC high without the happy part.It also pointed out that pot users are more cautious while booze users are overconfident.Lack of sleep can make you hallucinate after only 30ish hours .
I 'd prefer to avoid hallucinating doctors .
I think the current hospital system is evil to nurses AND doctors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saw a very interesting BBC show where the lady went to Amsterdam for a month.What I got out of it wasMJ users of high THC, low Cannabinoid pot were high and creeped out, paranoid.MJ users of low/high THC, high Cannabinoid pot were high and really happy.If I were to use it, I'd want the really happy kind myself.
No idea what names that might go for.
In the show, they had at least two dozen varieties.I've heard about K2 lately-- it sounds like it is more of a high THC high without the happy part.It also pointed out that pot users are more cautious while booze users are overconfident.Lack of sleep can make you hallucinate after only 30ish hours.
I'd prefer to avoid hallucinating doctors.
I think the current hospital system is evil to nurses AND doctors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158128</id>
	<title>Just Great!</title>
	<author>LowerTheBar</author>
	<datestamp>1266348900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>based on what Adams said: "The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal, anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting, and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion"

I have to be suspicious of everything I develop now that I am older that 35</htmltext>
<tokenext>based on what Adams said : " The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal , anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting , and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion " I have to be suspicious of everything I develop now that I am older that 35</tokentext>
<sentencetext>based on what Adams said: "The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal, anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting, and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion"

I have to be suspicious of everything I develop now that I am older that 35</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158088</id>
	<title>Don't read this!</title>
	<author>dsavi</author>
	<datestamp>1266348780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too late! Information overload!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too late !
Information overload !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too late!
Information overload!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157986</id>
	<title>Re:Good quote</title>
	<author>0racle</author>
	<datestamp>1266348360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't trust that twitter thing. Up to no good I say.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't trust that twitter thing .
Up to no good I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't trust that twitter thing.
Up to no good I say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158628</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>mikael\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1266350760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not sure about that. I've been around stoned people and I've been around really tired people.</p></div><p>Oh really? The rest of your post doesn't give that impression.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Really tired people don't seem to have the same mental differences from their normal state than stoned people.</p></div><p>I'd agree with you if you were using "It's 22:00 and I normally go to bed at exactly 21:30" as an example of "really tired". Now if we're talking about <b>really</b> tired people (like an ER surgeon who's been up for 36+ hours and working hard for most of that time) then we're looking at seriously bizarre behaviour, hallucinations and an inability to concentrate that would make my cats seem like geniuses in comparison.</p><p>The average marijuana user just tends to be a bit more relaxed, giggly and goofy and most likely lacking in concentration but at least aware of these shortcomings.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Stoned people seem to lose certain asepcts of their personality.</p></div><p>What parts of their personalities would this be? Because I can't say I've observed this outside of state-sponsored anti-drug propaganda.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>IQ? Sure, maybe that doesn't go down. But IQ isn't all you want your doctor to be. You'd also like to have your doctor, say, empathetic to your pain, realize what time it is,...</p></div><p>Most people don't become emotionless zombies when they are under the influence of cannabis (unless we are talking about the aforementioned state-sponsored propaganda). If anything most people become more emotional after smoking marijuana (but will seem "emotionless" when asked to take out the trash or clean the dishes, sort of like how someone who is drunk will laugh similar things off while under the influence).</p><p>As for perception of time, cannabis does impair your ability to keep track of time but unless we're talking about a doctor who's so stoned he/she can't stand up then this really isn't that much of an issue. It's a much bigger issue when you have nothing important to do and you forget to go out and buy more soda before the grocery store closes because you're "busy" watching a movie.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>etc. Really tired people don't seem to have quite the same brain "skew" that someone who is stoned does.</p></div><p>Obviously the effect isn't the same, but I'd rather be in the hands of a doctor who's had a few hits of a joint an hour ago than a doctor who's been up since yesterday morning.</p><p>/Mikael</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure about that .
I 've been around stoned people and I 've been around really tired people.Oh really ?
The rest of your post does n't give that impression .
Really tired people do n't seem to have the same mental differences from their normal state than stoned people.I 'd agree with you if you were using " It 's 22 : 00 and I normally go to bed at exactly 21 : 30 " as an example of " really tired " .
Now if we 're talking about really tired people ( like an ER surgeon who 's been up for 36 + hours and working hard for most of that time ) then we 're looking at seriously bizarre behaviour , hallucinations and an inability to concentrate that would make my cats seem like geniuses in comparison.The average marijuana user just tends to be a bit more relaxed , giggly and goofy and most likely lacking in concentration but at least aware of these shortcomings.Stoned people seem to lose certain asepcts of their personality.What parts of their personalities would this be ?
Because I ca n't say I 've observed this outside of state-sponsored anti-drug propaganda.IQ ?
Sure , maybe that does n't go down .
But IQ is n't all you want your doctor to be .
You 'd also like to have your doctor , say , empathetic to your pain , realize what time it is,...Most people do n't become emotionless zombies when they are under the influence of cannabis ( unless we are talking about the aforementioned state-sponsored propaganda ) .
If anything most people become more emotional after smoking marijuana ( but will seem " emotionless " when asked to take out the trash or clean the dishes , sort of like how someone who is drunk will laugh similar things off while under the influence ) .As for perception of time , cannabis does impair your ability to keep track of time but unless we 're talking about a doctor who 's so stoned he/she ca n't stand up then this really is n't that much of an issue .
It 's a much bigger issue when you have nothing important to do and you forget to go out and buy more soda before the grocery store closes because you 're " busy " watching a movie.etc .
Really tired people do n't seem to have quite the same brain " skew " that someone who is stoned does.Obviously the effect is n't the same , but I 'd rather be in the hands of a doctor who 's had a few hits of a joint an hour ago than a doctor who 's been up since yesterday morning./Mikael</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure about that.
I've been around stoned people and I've been around really tired people.Oh really?
The rest of your post doesn't give that impression.
Really tired people don't seem to have the same mental differences from their normal state than stoned people.I'd agree with you if you were using "It's 22:00 and I normally go to bed at exactly 21:30" as an example of "really tired".
Now if we're talking about really tired people (like an ER surgeon who's been up for 36+ hours and working hard for most of that time) then we're looking at seriously bizarre behaviour, hallucinations and an inability to concentrate that would make my cats seem like geniuses in comparison.The average marijuana user just tends to be a bit more relaxed, giggly and goofy and most likely lacking in concentration but at least aware of these shortcomings.Stoned people seem to lose certain asepcts of their personality.What parts of their personalities would this be?
Because I can't say I've observed this outside of state-sponsored anti-drug propaganda.IQ?
Sure, maybe that doesn't go down.
But IQ isn't all you want your doctor to be.
You'd also like to have your doctor, say, empathetic to your pain, realize what time it is,...Most people don't become emotionless zombies when they are under the influence of cannabis (unless we are talking about the aforementioned state-sponsored propaganda).
If anything most people become more emotional after smoking marijuana (but will seem "emotionless" when asked to take out the trash or clean the dishes, sort of like how someone who is drunk will laugh similar things off while under the influence).As for perception of time, cannabis does impair your ability to keep track of time but unless we're talking about a doctor who's so stoned he/she can't stand up then this really isn't that much of an issue.
It's a much bigger issue when you have nothing important to do and you forget to go out and buy more soda before the grocery store closes because you're "busy" watching a movie.etc.
Really tired people don't seem to have quite the same brain "skew" that someone who is stoned does.Obviously the effect isn't the same, but I'd rather be in the hands of a doctor who's had a few hits of a joint an hour ago than a doctor who's been up since yesterday morning./Mikael
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158390</id>
	<title>feeble argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266349860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>the debates about whether schooling dulls the brain or whether newspapers damage the fabric of society seem peculiar</i>
<p>
What? It doesn't to me, actually. Modern schooling and news media give us many of nifty tools, but also do damage to our education and ability to think independently, and so in turn to society. So, I'm not sure I agree we can dismiss debate like this. I pick this quote because it's an example of why this is a poor argument.
</p><p>
The whole argument the author uses assumes we have consistently progressed using media and surpassed the problems media critics pointed out, therefore critics in the past are wrong. Maybe it's true that they are always rather negative and forget the positive aspects of change, but there have been a huge range of critics with lots of criticisms that seem to have manifested true.

Sorry, but you can't throw out an argument like this author did in a 1-page article, he just has too many presumptions for too complex an issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the debates about whether schooling dulls the brain or whether newspapers damage the fabric of society seem peculiar What ?
It does n't to me , actually .
Modern schooling and news media give us many of nifty tools , but also do damage to our education and ability to think independently , and so in turn to society .
So , I 'm not sure I agree we can dismiss debate like this .
I pick this quote because it 's an example of why this is a poor argument .
The whole argument the author uses assumes we have consistently progressed using media and surpassed the problems media critics pointed out , therefore critics in the past are wrong .
Maybe it 's true that they are always rather negative and forget the positive aspects of change , but there have been a huge range of critics with lots of criticisms that seem to have manifested true .
Sorry , but you ca n't throw out an argument like this author did in a 1-page article , he just has too many presumptions for too complex an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the debates about whether schooling dulls the brain or whether newspapers damage the fabric of society seem peculiar

What?
It doesn't to me, actually.
Modern schooling and news media give us many of nifty tools, but also do damage to our education and ability to think independently, and so in turn to society.
So, I'm not sure I agree we can dismiss debate like this.
I pick this quote because it's an example of why this is a poor argument.
The whole argument the author uses assumes we have consistently progressed using media and surpassed the problems media critics pointed out, therefore critics in the past are wrong.
Maybe it's true that they are always rather negative and forget the positive aspects of change, but there have been a huge range of critics with lots of criticisms that seem to have manifested true.
Sorry, but you can't throw out an argument like this author did in a 1-page article, he just has too many presumptions for too complex an issue.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158380</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>wwfarch</author>
	<datestamp>1266349860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, not that I trust psychiatrists that much but I guess the only thing this is telling me is that marijuana really isn't the brain destroying demon they've made it out to be.  Doesn't really convince me that email rots my brain.</p></div><p>Just to play devil's advocate regarding this point. Pot had an immediate 4 point drop while high. There may be cumulative effects that add up over time that lead to a permanent x point drop plus the 4 point drop immediately after smoking marijuana.
</p><p> Personally I don't think marijuana is bad at all but I just thought I'd throw this out there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , not that I trust psychiatrists that much but I guess the only thing this is telling me is that marijuana really is n't the brain destroying demon they 've made it out to be .
Does n't really convince me that email rots my brain.Just to play devil 's advocate regarding this point .
Pot had an immediate 4 point drop while high .
There may be cumulative effects that add up over time that lead to a permanent x point drop plus the 4 point drop immediately after smoking marijuana .
Personally I do n't think marijuana is bad at all but I just thought I 'd throw this out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, not that I trust psychiatrists that much but I guess the only thing this is telling me is that marijuana really isn't the brain destroying demon they've made it out to be.
Doesn't really convince me that email rots my brain.Just to play devil's advocate regarding this point.
Pot had an immediate 4 point drop while high.
There may be cumulative effects that add up over time that lead to a permanent x point drop plus the 4 point drop immediately after smoking marijuana.
Personally I don't think marijuana is bad at all but I just thought I'd throw this out there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31160852</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1266317700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, not that I trust psychiatrists that much but I guess the only thing this is telling me is that marijuana really isn't the brain destroying demon they've made it out to be. Doesn't really convince me that email rots my brain.</p></div><p>But you're talking about two different things here. On one hand you have transitional factors (keeping track of few things at once, being tired, being high) and then you jump to something which is long term ("brain destroying demon", "brain rot").</p><p>Being active mentally (many tasks at once), while apparently harming momentary IQ score, is actually very good for your brain, long term. Rare lack of sleep or rare(!) marihuana usage don't really register, long term. But chronic lack of sleep or frequent usage of marihuana...yeah, I can see how that can make a brain rot. I mean, I really do see that around.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , not that I trust psychiatrists that much but I guess the only thing this is telling me is that marijuana really is n't the brain destroying demon they 've made it out to be .
Does n't really convince me that email rots my brain.But you 're talking about two different things here .
On one hand you have transitional factors ( keeping track of few things at once , being tired , being high ) and then you jump to something which is long term ( " brain destroying demon " , " brain rot " ) .Being active mentally ( many tasks at once ) , while apparently harming momentary IQ score , is actually very good for your brain , long term .
Rare lack of sleep or rare ( !
) marihuana usage do n't really register , long term .
But chronic lack of sleep or frequent usage of marihuana...yeah , I can see how that can make a brain rot .
I mean , I really do see that around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, not that I trust psychiatrists that much but I guess the only thing this is telling me is that marijuana really isn't the brain destroying demon they've made it out to be.
Doesn't really convince me that email rots my brain.But you're talking about two different things here.
On one hand you have transitional factors (keeping track of few things at once, being tired, being high) and then you jump to something which is long term ("brain destroying demon", "brain rot").Being active mentally (many tasks at once), while apparently harming momentary IQ score, is actually very good for your brain, long term.
Rare lack of sleep or rare(!
) marihuana usage don't really register, long term.
But chronic lack of sleep or frequent usage of marihuana...yeah, I can see how that can make a brain rot.
I mean, I really do see that around.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31162422</id>
	<title>I turn 35 in May. Crap</title>
	<author>Quirkz</author>
	<datestamp>1266325440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guess it's been a nice run, but since I turn 35 in less than two months, if that Douglas Adams quote has any accuracy all the fun is just about over. Technology, it's been nice knowing you, but my days as a network administrator are over. It's nothing but shaking canes and offmalawns from here on out.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess it 's been a nice run , but since I turn 35 in less than two months , if that Douglas Adams quote has any accuracy all the fun is just about over .
Technology , it 's been nice knowing you , but my days as a network administrator are over .
It 's nothing but shaking canes and offmalawns from here on out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess it's been a nice run, but since I turn 35 in less than two months, if that Douglas Adams quote has any accuracy all the fun is just about over.
Technology, it's been nice knowing you, but my days as a network administrator are over.
It's nothing but shaking canes and offmalawns from here on out.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157992</id>
	<title>Suspicion is Healthy, FUD is Not</title>
	<author>moore.dustin</author>
	<datestamp>1266348420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As you get older, you generally become wiser through your experiences. For most of us, we have learned to 'believe it when we see it' after a while and tend to act accordingly when met with some new technology promoting some grand advancement. That seems a very reasonable approach considering the unforgiving world we live in.<br> <br>
That said, fear due to uncertainty is not healthy and certainly what the TFA seems to allude to. In a way, TFA is just describing how FUD affects how technology advancements are viewed by those over 35 or so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As you get older , you generally become wiser through your experiences .
For most of us , we have learned to 'believe it when we see it ' after a while and tend to act accordingly when met with some new technology promoting some grand advancement .
That seems a very reasonable approach considering the unforgiving world we live in .
That said , fear due to uncertainty is not healthy and certainly what the TFA seems to allude to .
In a way , TFA is just describing how FUD affects how technology advancements are viewed by those over 35 or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you get older, you generally become wiser through your experiences.
For most of us, we have learned to 'believe it when we see it' after a while and tend to act accordingly when met with some new technology promoting some grand advancement.
That seems a very reasonable approach considering the unforgiving world we live in.
That said, fear due to uncertainty is not healthy and certainly what the TFA seems to allude to.
In a way, TFA is just describing how FUD affects how technology advancements are viewed by those over 35 or so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158214</id>
	<title>It's madness I say!</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1266349200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An 1883 article in the weekly medical journal the Sanitarian argued that schools "exhaust the children's brains and nervous systems with complex and multiple studies, and ruin their bodies by protracted imprisonment." Meanwhile, excessive study was considered a leading cause of madness by the medical community.</p> </div><p>hmmm... I think they may be onto something....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An 1883 article in the weekly medical journal the Sanitarian argued that schools " exhaust the children 's brains and nervous systems with complex and multiple studies , and ruin their bodies by protracted imprisonment .
" Meanwhile , excessive study was considered a leading cause of madness by the medical community .
hmmm... I think they may be onto something... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An 1883 article in the weekly medical journal the Sanitarian argued that schools "exhaust the children's brains and nervous systems with complex and multiple studies, and ruin their bodies by protracted imprisonment.
" Meanwhile, excessive study was considered a leading cause of madness by the medical community.
hmmm... I think they may be onto something....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158114</id>
	<title>Re:Gessner's Book Arguing Against Books?</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1266348900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From the article:
</p><p>So he chose to release his findings in the exact form of what was 'overloading people with information'?  A printed book?</p>
 </div><p>I presumed that his book was hand written and hand copied.  But, maybe not.  I'm sure there are blogs that say how blogging will ruin the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : So he chose to release his findings in the exact form of what was 'overloading people with information ' ?
A printed book ?
I presumed that his book was hand written and hand copied .
But , maybe not .
I 'm sure there are blogs that say how blogging will ruin the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:
So he chose to release his findings in the exact form of what was 'overloading people with information'?
A printed book?
I presumed that his book was hand written and hand copied.
But, maybe not.
I'm sure there are blogs that say how blogging will ruin the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31168510</id>
	<title>I turn 35 this year</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1265037300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh oh... I turn 35 this year.  I guess I only have a few months left to appreciate new technology before I start yelling at kids to get off my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh oh... I turn 35 this year .
I guess I only have a few months left to appreciate new technology before I start yelling at kids to get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh oh... I turn 35 this year.
I guess I only have a few months left to appreciate new technology before I start yelling at kids to get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31161106</id>
	<title>Re:Gessner's Book Arguing Against Books?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266318900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Works for cigarettes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Works for cigarettes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Works for cigarettes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31162444</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected old quotes</title>
	<author>Twisted64</author>
	<datestamp>1266325560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like newspaper topics from ~100 years ago. <a href="http://100yearsagotoday.blogspot.com/search/label/sex" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">Sex education</a> [blogspot.com], <a href="http://www.vintagekansascity.com/100yearsago/labels/violence.html" title="vintagekansascity.com" rel="nofollow">violence in schools</a> [vintagekansascity.com]... nothing changes, at least in the papers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like newspaper topics from ~ 100 years ago .
Sex education [ blogspot.com ] , violence in schools [ vintagekansascity.com ] ... nothing changes , at least in the papers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like newspaper topics from ~100 years ago.
Sex education [blogspot.com], violence in schools [vintagekansascity.com]... nothing changes, at least in the papers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31160154</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected old quotes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266314460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ovid was not an English poet. The English language didn't even exist when Ovid was alive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ovid was not an English poet .
The English language did n't even exist when Ovid was alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ovid was not an English poet.
The English language didn't even exist when Ovid was alive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31161862</id>
	<title>Sig preservation</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1266322680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So he chose to release his findings in the exact form of what was 'overloading people with information'? A printed book?</p><p>Boy I'd like to design that back cover:</p></div><p>I think this fits well with your signature:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Surgeon General's Warning: Reading this [book] may cause death</p></div><p>(s/[book]/signature/ for the signature as it really was at the time of my posting)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So he chose to release his findings in the exact form of what was 'overloading people with information ' ?
A printed book ? Boy I 'd like to design that back cover : I think this fits well with your signature : Surgeon General 's Warning : Reading this [ book ] may cause death ( s/ [ book ] /signature/ for the signature as it really was at the time of my posting )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So he chose to release his findings in the exact form of what was 'overloading people with information'?
A printed book?Boy I'd like to design that back cover:I think this fits well with your signature:Surgeon General's Warning: Reading this [book] may cause death(s/[book]/signature/ for the signature as it really was at the time of my posting)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158212</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1266349200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure about that.  I've been around stoned people and I've been around really tired people.  Really tired people don't seem to have the same mental differences from their normal state than stoned people.  Stoned people seem to lose certain asepcts of their personality.  IQ?  Sure, maybe that doesn't go down.  But IQ isn't all you want your doctor to be.  You'd also like to have your doctor, say, empathetic to your pain, realize what time it is, etc.  Really tired people don't seem to have quite the same brain "skew" that someone who is stoned does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure about that .
I 've been around stoned people and I 've been around really tired people .
Really tired people do n't seem to have the same mental differences from their normal state than stoned people .
Stoned people seem to lose certain asepcts of their personality .
IQ ? Sure , maybe that does n't go down .
But IQ is n't all you want your doctor to be .
You 'd also like to have your doctor , say , empathetic to your pain , realize what time it is , etc .
Really tired people do n't seem to have quite the same brain " skew " that someone who is stoned does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure about that.
I've been around stoned people and I've been around really tired people.
Really tired people don't seem to have the same mental differences from their normal state than stoned people.
Stoned people seem to lose certain asepcts of their personality.
IQ?  Sure, maybe that doesn't go down.
But IQ isn't all you want your doctor to be.
You'd also like to have your doctor, say, empathetic to your pain, realize what time it is, etc.
Really tired people don't seem to have quite the same brain "skew" that someone who is stoned does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158058</id>
	<title>Re:Good quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266348660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still can't imagine how people live that treat technology like magic.  "I don't know how it works, I just turn the key and it goes." -- Alf.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still ca n't imagine how people live that treat technology like magic .
" I do n't know how it works , I just turn the key and it goes .
" -- Alf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still can't imagine how people live that treat technology like magic.
"I don't know how it works, I just turn the key and it goes.
" -- Alf.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31160676</id>
	<title>Looks like...</title>
	<author>C0R1D4N</author>
	<datestamp>1266316980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal, anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting, and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion.'"

Looks like Logan's Run had the right idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal , anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting , and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion .
' " Looks like Logan 's Run had the right idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were born seems normal, anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting, and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion.
'"

Looks like Logan's Run had the right idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159784</id>
	<title>Im Not 35 yet,</title>
	<author>Master Moose</author>
	<datestamp>1266312960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But there are many companies/technologies that have been around or been developed in my lifetime that I am wary/suspicious of.</p><p>Google, MicroSoft, Apple, DRM, I should own, Social Networking.</p><p>Maybe my life would be different if I was not a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. lurker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But there are many companies/technologies that have been around or been developed in my lifetime that I am wary/suspicious of.Google , MicroSoft , Apple , DRM , I should own , Social Networking.Maybe my life would be different if I was not a / .
lurker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there are many companies/technologies that have been around or been developed in my lifetime that I am wary/suspicious of.Google, MicroSoft, Apple, DRM, I should own, Social Networking.Maybe my life would be different if I was not a /.
lurker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31162528</id>
	<title>Re:Unexpected old quotes</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1266326040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>((allegedly) Socrates ca. 390 BC)</i></p><p>Socrates died 400/399 BC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( ( allegedly ) Socrates ca .
390 BC ) Socrates died 400/399 BC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>((allegedly) Socrates ca.
390 BC)Socrates died 400/399 BC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158802</id>
	<title>Mass media FUD</title>
	<author>grumling</author>
	<datestamp>1266351480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old media wants to protect its market. An easy way to do this is to discourage old media consumers from trying out new media. "Online scammers - we'll show you how to avoid them! Tonight after weather and sports." is a common teaser these days only because it helps re-enforce that the Internet is a wild, dangerous place (except for the TV station's web site, of course). Better just keep the TV on and relax, they can't get you here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old media wants to protect its market .
An easy way to do this is to discourage old media consumers from trying out new media .
" Online scammers - we 'll show you how to avoid them !
Tonight after weather and sports .
" is a common teaser these days only because it helps re-enforce that the Internet is a wild , dangerous place ( except for the TV station 's web site , of course ) .
Better just keep the TV on and relax , they ca n't get you here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old media wants to protect its market.
An easy way to do this is to discourage old media consumers from trying out new media.
"Online scammers - we'll show you how to avoid them!
Tonight after weather and sports.
" is a common teaser these days only because it helps re-enforce that the Internet is a wild, dangerous place (except for the TV station's web site, of course).
Better just keep the TV on and relax, they can't get you here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158038</id>
	<title>Re:Good quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266348600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I Can't imagine a technology that I would ever be suspicious of though, but then again I'm a nerd.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datamining#Notable\_uses" title="wikipedia.org">Really? </a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Nothing at all? I'm only 21 and I'm already suspicious of half the patent filings that get reported on here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I Ca n't imagine a technology that I would ever be suspicious of though , but then again I 'm a nerd .
Really ? [ wikipedia.org ] Nothing at all ?
I 'm only 21 and I 'm already suspicious of half the patent filings that get reported on here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I Can't imagine a technology that I would ever be suspicious of though, but then again I'm a nerd.
Really?  [wikipedia.org]Nothing at all?
I'm only 21 and I'm already suspicious of half the patent filings that get reported on here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159078</id>
	<title>Re:feeble argument</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1266352680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. Both Mark Twain and Einstein made disparaging remarks about schooling, but it was a different issue - not an "overload of information", but that they tend to stifle original thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Both Mark Twain and Einstein made disparaging remarks about schooling , but it was a different issue - not an " overload of information " , but that they tend to stifle original thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Both Mark Twain and Einstein made disparaging remarks about schooling, but it was a different issue - not an "overload of information", but that they tend to stifle original thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842</id>
	<title>Good quote</title>
	<author>markass530</author>
	<datestamp>1266347880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gotta love the Douglas Adams quote, I can agree with it to a point, as I am only 30. Also, lots of technology that I thoroughly appreciate, I find my nephew just expects to work, and work well every time. (He's 16).  I Can't imagine a technology that I would ever be suspicious of though, but then again I'm a nerd.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Got ta love the Douglas Adams quote , I can agree with it to a point , as I am only 30 .
Also , lots of technology that I thoroughly appreciate , I find my nephew just expects to work , and work well every time .
( He 's 16 ) .
I Ca n't imagine a technology that I would ever be suspicious of though , but then again I 'm a nerd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gotta love the Douglas Adams quote, I can agree with it to a point, as I am only 30.
Also, lots of technology that I thoroughly appreciate, I find my nephew just expects to work, and work well every time.
(He's 16).
I Can't imagine a technology that I would ever be suspicious of though, but then again I'm a nerd.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159212</id>
	<title>I agree with Douglas Adams</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1266353280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scientists best, most productive years are those in their twenties.   As someone that is 40, I understand that issue.  I find I don't get "tweeting".  It seems an insane activity to do or listen to.   I am sure that there must be a reason for it, but I, a computer programmer, just don't understand why people want to tell the world their random, un-edited short thoughts.  These are the things I am ashamed of.

The better the idea the longer and more involved I wish to write about it.

But I am 40, so I guess I am just too old to get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists best , most productive years are those in their twenties .
As someone that is 40 , I understand that issue .
I find I do n't get " tweeting " .
It seems an insane activity to do or listen to .
I am sure that there must be a reason for it , but I , a computer programmer , just do n't understand why people want to tell the world their random , un-edited short thoughts .
These are the things I am ashamed of .
The better the idea the longer and more involved I wish to write about it .
But I am 40 , so I guess I am just too old to get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists best, most productive years are those in their twenties.
As someone that is 40, I understand that issue.
I find I don't get "tweeting".
It seems an insane activity to do or listen to.
I am sure that there must be a reason for it, but I, a computer programmer, just don't understand why people want to tell the world their random, un-edited short thoughts.
These are the things I am ashamed of.
The better the idea the longer and more involved I wish to write about it.
But I am 40, so I guess I am just too old to get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31195624</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>unknownroad</author>
	<datestamp>1266513660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Empirical evidence seems to indicate that marijuana improves my creative problem solving capabilities substantially. Then again, it can hinder the normal solution methods at times too. For example, I once struggled for about 10 minutes to compute 3 * 0.25 (definitely an exception, it usually does not impair numeracy so severely), but I approached the problem in ways I had never imagined before. A supposed 4-point temporary drop seems well worth the longterm effects of remodeling my perspective on, well, everything. I think I owe a lot of my intellectual development to that wonderful plant.
<br> <br>
If society is open to allowing psychoactives with demonstrably negative long and short-term effects (i.e. ethanol), then why not allow psychoactives that make me creative, philosophical, non-belligerent, and in general the happiest man alive? One of my favourite inside jokes when high is to think that "Feeling this good should be a crime. Oh wait, it is" It's quite a depressing thought that it is in fact illegal to ingest (who inhales anyway? there are far more effective ways to go about it!) something to make oneself happy while not infringing on the rights of others. Unfortunately, by disobeying the law in this matter I am risking all credibility in my profession due to the strong social stigma against it. It's too bad that people fear that which they do not understand, that which they have only been told bad things about growing up and are thus nearly unable to form their own informed opinions on. However, as a greater portion of the population practices such peaceful civil disobedience, it drives the eventual rescindment of marijuana's illegality (at least one can hope).
<br> <br>
I have been surprised to learn how prevalent this form of civil disobedience is. Perhaps a lot of people conceal their use out of fear (it's illegal, and socially frowned upon) as I do. Perhaps there are more benevolent marijuana missionaries out there spreading the word of peace and happiness.
<br> <br>
These papers studying cannabis as a risk factor for steatosis and hepatitis C (a finding which is contradicted by another study that I can't find at the moment) indicate that 24-30\% of patients use it daily (in France at least, but I've seen similar numbers for other locales). <br> <br>
<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6WFX-4R7J81G-5&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_coverDate=02\%2F29\%2F2008&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=high&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;\_searchStrId=1212900528&amp;\_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=fb8c342ecca065efc61e77e527067e0f" title="sciencedirect.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6WFX-4R7J81G-5&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_coverDate=02\%2F29\%2F2008&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=high&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;\_searchStrId=1212900528&amp;\_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=fb8c342ecca065efc61e77e527067e0f</a> [sciencedirect.com]
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110493927/abstract?CRETRY=1&amp;SRETRY=0" title="wiley.com" rel="nofollow">http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110493927/abstract?CRETRY=1&amp;SRETRY=0</a> [wiley.com]
<br> <br>
If that proportion ever exceeds 50\% or so, I see no alternative for governments but to concede to the will of the people and legislate accordingly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Empirical evidence seems to indicate that marijuana improves my creative problem solving capabilities substantially .
Then again , it can hinder the normal solution methods at times too .
For example , I once struggled for about 10 minutes to compute 3 * 0.25 ( definitely an exception , it usually does not impair numeracy so severely ) , but I approached the problem in ways I had never imagined before .
A supposed 4-point temporary drop seems well worth the longterm effects of remodeling my perspective on , well , everything .
I think I owe a lot of my intellectual development to that wonderful plant .
If society is open to allowing psychoactives with demonstrably negative long and short-term effects ( i.e .
ethanol ) , then why not allow psychoactives that make me creative , philosophical , non-belligerent , and in general the happiest man alive ?
One of my favourite inside jokes when high is to think that " Feeling this good should be a crime .
Oh wait , it is " It 's quite a depressing thought that it is in fact illegal to ingest ( who inhales anyway ?
there are far more effective ways to go about it !
) something to make oneself happy while not infringing on the rights of others .
Unfortunately , by disobeying the law in this matter I am risking all credibility in my profession due to the strong social stigma against it .
It 's too bad that people fear that which they do not understand , that which they have only been told bad things about growing up and are thus nearly unable to form their own informed opinions on .
However , as a greater portion of the population practices such peaceful civil disobedience , it drives the eventual rescindment of marijuana 's illegality ( at least one can hope ) .
I have been surprised to learn how prevalent this form of civil disobedience is .
Perhaps a lot of people conceal their use out of fear ( it 's illegal , and socially frowned upon ) as I do .
Perhaps there are more benevolent marijuana missionaries out there spreading the word of peace and happiness .
These papers studying cannabis as a risk factor for steatosis and hepatitis C ( a finding which is contradicted by another study that I ca n't find at the moment ) indicate that 24-30 \ % of patients use it daily ( in France at least , but I 've seen similar numbers for other locales ) .
http : //www.sciencedirect.com/science ? \ _ob = ArticleURL&amp; \ _udi = B6WFX-4R7J81G-5&amp; \ _user = 10&amp; \ _coverDate = 02 \ % 2F29 \ % 2F2008&amp; \ _rdoc = 1&amp; \ _fmt = high&amp; \ _orig = search&amp; \ _sort = d&amp; \ _docanchor = &amp;view = c&amp; \ _searchStrId = 1212900528&amp; \ _rerunOrigin = scholar.google&amp; \ _acct = C000050221&amp; \ _version = 1&amp; \ _urlVersion = 0&amp; \ _userid = 10&amp;md5 = fb8c342ecca065efc61e77e527067e0f [ sciencedirect.com ] http : //www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110493927/abstract ? CRETRY = 1&amp;SRETRY = 0 [ wiley.com ] If that proportion ever exceeds 50 \ % or so , I see no alternative for governments but to concede to the will of the people and legislate accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Empirical evidence seems to indicate that marijuana improves my creative problem solving capabilities substantially.
Then again, it can hinder the normal solution methods at times too.
For example, I once struggled for about 10 minutes to compute 3 * 0.25 (definitely an exception, it usually does not impair numeracy so severely), but I approached the problem in ways I had never imagined before.
A supposed 4-point temporary drop seems well worth the longterm effects of remodeling my perspective on, well, everything.
I think I owe a lot of my intellectual development to that wonderful plant.
If society is open to allowing psychoactives with demonstrably negative long and short-term effects (i.e.
ethanol), then why not allow psychoactives that make me creative, philosophical, non-belligerent, and in general the happiest man alive?
One of my favourite inside jokes when high is to think that "Feeling this good should be a crime.
Oh wait, it is" It's quite a depressing thought that it is in fact illegal to ingest (who inhales anyway?
there are far more effective ways to go about it!
) something to make oneself happy while not infringing on the rights of others.
Unfortunately, by disobeying the law in this matter I am risking all credibility in my profession due to the strong social stigma against it.
It's too bad that people fear that which they do not understand, that which they have only been told bad things about growing up and are thus nearly unable to form their own informed opinions on.
However, as a greater portion of the population practices such peaceful civil disobedience, it drives the eventual rescindment of marijuana's illegality (at least one can hope).
I have been surprised to learn how prevalent this form of civil disobedience is.
Perhaps a lot of people conceal their use out of fear (it's illegal, and socially frowned upon) as I do.
Perhaps there are more benevolent marijuana missionaries out there spreading the word of peace and happiness.
These papers studying cannabis as a risk factor for steatosis and hepatitis C (a finding which is contradicted by another study that I can't find at the moment) indicate that 24-30\% of patients use it daily (in France at least, but I've seen similar numbers for other locales).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6WFX-4R7J81G-5&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_coverDate=02\%2F29\%2F2008&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=high&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;\_searchStrId=1212900528&amp;\_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=fb8c342ecca065efc61e77e527067e0f [sciencedirect.com]
 
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110493927/abstract?CRETRY=1&amp;SRETRY=0 [wiley.com]
 
If that proportion ever exceeds 50\% or so, I see no alternative for governments but to concede to the will of the people and legislate accordingly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158716</id>
	<title>Not buying it</title>
	<author>John Guilt</author>
	<datestamp>1266351180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, people have been claiming that we're close to the precipice for sheer ages, but that doesn't mean that big changes have arrived. I think the transition from hand-made books to printed books is orders of magnitude less dangerous than the sudden profusion of realistic images of things real and unreal.  The most the former required was getting it into your gut that not every book was deemed a Very Important Book; the latter means that the apparent evidence of our senses no longer can be trusted, even as the scepticism needed to distrust is dampened by the profusion.
<p>
Yes, people can tell movies and television from real life, but repeated exposure really seems to have an effect.  (Example: people think violent crime, and murder in particular, is much more common than in all but the poorest and least {cared-about-by-the-powerful} areas; why? ---because they've <i> <b>seen</b> </i> it, night after night, year after year, and the skill to avoid being influenced by this false evidence was not needed in the Serengeti.)  It is certainly possible to over-influence people with words alone, but I can't shake the feeling that the reptile brain is privileged by The Image.
</p><p>
On the other hand, maybe people will be less influence by television and radio once they've gained the experience of making their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , people have been claiming that we 're close to the precipice for sheer ages , but that does n't mean that big changes have arrived .
I think the transition from hand-made books to printed books is orders of magnitude less dangerous than the sudden profusion of realistic images of things real and unreal .
The most the former required was getting it into your gut that not every book was deemed a Very Important Book ; the latter means that the apparent evidence of our senses no longer can be trusted , even as the scepticism needed to distrust is dampened by the profusion .
Yes , people can tell movies and television from real life , but repeated exposure really seems to have an effect .
( Example : people think violent crime , and murder in particular , is much more common than in all but the poorest and least { cared-about-by-the-powerful } areas ; why ?
---because they 've seen it , night after night , year after year , and the skill to avoid being influenced by this false evidence was not needed in the Serengeti .
) It is certainly possible to over-influence people with words alone , but I ca n't shake the feeling that the reptile brain is privileged by The Image .
On the other hand , maybe people will be less influence by television and radio once they 've gained the experience of making their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, people have been claiming that we're close to the precipice for sheer ages, but that doesn't mean that big changes have arrived.
I think the transition from hand-made books to printed books is orders of magnitude less dangerous than the sudden profusion of realistic images of things real and unreal.
The most the former required was getting it into your gut that not every book was deemed a Very Important Book; the latter means that the apparent evidence of our senses no longer can be trusted, even as the scepticism needed to distrust is dampened by the profusion.
Yes, people can tell movies and television from real life, but repeated exposure really seems to have an effect.
(Example: people think violent crime, and murder in particular, is much more common than in all but the poorest and least {cared-about-by-the-powerful} areas; why?
---because they've  seen  it, night after night, year after year, and the skill to avoid being influenced by this false evidence was not needed in the Serengeti.
)  It is certainly possible to over-influence people with words alone, but I can't shake the feeling that the reptile brain is privileged by The Image.
On the other hand, maybe people will be less influence by television and radio once they've gained the experience of making their own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158560</id>
	<title>"We"?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1266350520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were<br>&gt; born seems normal, anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting,<br>&gt; and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion.</p><p>"We"?  Speak for yourself, Adams.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were &gt; born seems normal , anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting , &gt; and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion. " We " ?
Speak for yourself , Adams .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The writer Douglas Adams observed how technology that existed when we were&gt; born seems normal, anything that is developed before we turn 35 is exciting,&gt; and whatever comes after that is treated with suspicion."We"?
Speak for yourself, Adams.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159318</id>
	<title>"Amusing Ourselves to Death"</title>
	<author>MightyMait</author>
	<datestamp>1266353820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll have to RTFA since I've been reading Neil Postman's 1985 book "Amusing Ourselves to Death", which is a pre-WWW musing about how TV is changing public discourse in America.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll have to RTFA since I 've been reading Neil Postman 's 1985 book " Amusing Ourselves to Death " , which is a pre-WWW musing about how TV is changing public discourse in America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll have to RTFA since I've been reading Neil Postman's 1985 book "Amusing Ourselves to Death", which is a pre-WWW musing about how TV is changing public discourse in America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159390</id>
	<title>Why is this news worthy</title>
	<author>MrBrklyn</author>
	<datestamp>1266311100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is old news which we've all heard before.  What is new about this?  The NYC subway has a the "over 35 Year Old" quote on the walls in Barnes and Noble poster..</p><p>BTW - the better quote from that campaign is that "The limitations of a Man's view of the horizon is always mistaken for the scope of the Universe".  Children under the age of 35 most often have a very small horizons<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p><p>Ruben</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is old news which we 've all heard before .
What is new about this ?
The NYC subway has a the " over 35 Year Old " quote on the walls in Barnes and Noble poster..BTW - the better quote from that campaign is that " The limitations of a Man 's view of the horizon is always mistaken for the scope of the Universe " .
Children under the age of 35 most often have a very small horizons : ) .Ruben</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is old news which we've all heard before.
What is new about this?
The NYC subway has a the "over 35 Year Old" quote on the walls in Barnes and Noble poster..BTW - the better quote from that campaign is that "The limitations of a Man's view of the horizon is always mistaken for the scope of the Universe".
Children under the age of 35 most often have a very small horizons :).Ruben
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158672</id>
	<title>douglas adams</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1266350940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>god, or simply giant among men?</htmltext>
<tokenext>god , or simply giant among men ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>god, or simply giant among men?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157870</id>
	<title>Re:Enjoyed the Marijuana Story</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1266348000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somehow, I don't think that missing a full night's sleep causes a permanent drop in IQ, otherwise slashdotter's would probably be some of the dumbest people alive.  Same with checking email.  The effects are likely temporary.  I don't find it hard to believe that there is a permanent and compounding effect associated with drug use, however i doubt that it's a full 4 point drop EVERY time you use... likely there is a temporary drop then a rebound that's not a full recovery which over time stair-steps down.<br><br>Mind you, I have done no research in this topic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow , I do n't think that missing a full night 's sleep causes a permanent drop in IQ , otherwise slashdotter 's would probably be some of the dumbest people alive .
Same with checking email .
The effects are likely temporary .
I do n't find it hard to believe that there is a permanent and compounding effect associated with drug use , however i doubt that it 's a full 4 point drop EVERY time you use... likely there is a temporary drop then a rebound that 's not a full recovery which over time stair-steps down.Mind you , I have done no research in this topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow, I don't think that missing a full night's sleep causes a permanent drop in IQ, otherwise slashdotter's would probably be some of the dumbest people alive.
Same with checking email.
The effects are likely temporary.
I don't find it hard to believe that there is a permanent and compounding effect associated with drug use, however i doubt that it's a full 4 point drop EVERY time you use... likely there is a temporary drop then a rebound that's not a full recovery which over time stair-steps down.Mind you, I have done no research in this topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31161106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31167320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31160846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31160852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31162810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31162444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31160154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31162528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31161370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31161862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31170592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_16_1647213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31195624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1647213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1647213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1647213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31161370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1647213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31170592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31162528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31160154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31162444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1647213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1647213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31167320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1647213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31160846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1647213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1647213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31160852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158212
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158628
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159348
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159568
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31162810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31195624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1647213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31157998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31161862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31161106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1647213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31159126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_16_1647213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_16_1647213.31158174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
