<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_25_2138238</id>
	<title>ARM Designer Steve Furber On Energy-Efficient Computing</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1267090680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ChelleChelle writes <i>"By now, it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem &mdash; while our primary sources of energy are running out, the demand for energy is greatly increasing. In the face of this issue, energy-efficient computing has become a hot topic. For those looking for lessons, who better to ask then Steve Furber, the principal designer of the ARM (Acorn RISC Machine), a prime example of a chip that is simple, low power, and low cost. In this interview, conducted by David Brown of Sun's Solaris Engineering Group, Furber shares some of the <a href="http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1716385">lessons and tips on energy-efficient computing</a> that he has learned through working on this and subsequent projects."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ChelleChelle writes " By now , it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem    while our primary sources of energy are running out , the demand for energy is greatly increasing .
In the face of this issue , energy-efficient computing has become a hot topic .
For those looking for lessons , who better to ask then Steve Furber , the principal designer of the ARM ( Acorn RISC Machine ) , a prime example of a chip that is simple , low power , and low cost .
In this interview , conducted by David Brown of Sun 's Solaris Engineering Group , Furber shares some of the lessons and tips on energy-efficient computing that he has learned through working on this and subsequent projects .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ChelleChelle writes "By now, it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem — while our primary sources of energy are running out, the demand for energy is greatly increasing.
In the face of this issue, energy-efficient computing has become a hot topic.
For those looking for lessons, who better to ask then Steve Furber, the principal designer of the ARM (Acorn RISC Machine), a prime example of a chip that is simple, low power, and low cost.
In this interview, conducted by David Brown of Sun's Solaris Engineering Group, Furber shares some of the lessons and tips on energy-efficient computing that he has learned through working on this and subsequent projects.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279350</id>
	<title>Re:No always has been</title>
	<author>farble1670</author>
	<datestamp>1267099980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Computers have -always- tried to be energy-efficient in the portable sector. And quite honestly, its about the only sector that needs work on energy-efficiency to gain any benefit.</p></div><p>that couldn't be further from the truth. energy costs are just going up. for households it's mildly important as they can usually sleep their computers when not in use. for businesses, energy efficiency ranges from very important to critical when they have massive server rooms full of tens of thousands of CPUs powered and busy 24x7.</p><p>moreover, for developing countries, it's again critical. while the L in OLPC stands for laptop and therefore technically qualifies as mobile, it's more about having a battery to deal with locales where the electric grid is often shut down either on purpose to save energy or inadvertently because of a poor / out of date infrastructure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers have -always- tried to be energy-efficient in the portable sector .
And quite honestly , its about the only sector that needs work on energy-efficiency to gain any benefit.that could n't be further from the truth .
energy costs are just going up .
for households it 's mildly important as they can usually sleep their computers when not in use .
for businesses , energy efficiency ranges from very important to critical when they have massive server rooms full of tens of thousands of CPUs powered and busy 24x7.moreover , for developing countries , it 's again critical .
while the L in OLPC stands for laptop and therefore technically qualifies as mobile , it 's more about having a battery to deal with locales where the electric grid is often shut down either on purpose to save energy or inadvertently because of a poor / out of date infrastructure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers have -always- tried to be energy-efficient in the portable sector.
And quite honestly, its about the only sector that needs work on energy-efficiency to gain any benefit.that couldn't be further from the truth.
energy costs are just going up.
for households it's mildly important as they can usually sleep their computers when not in use.
for businesses, energy efficiency ranges from very important to critical when they have massive server rooms full of tens of thousands of CPUs powered and busy 24x7.moreover, for developing countries, it's again critical.
while the L in OLPC stands for laptop and therefore technically qualifies as mobile, it's more about having a battery to deal with locales where the electric grid is often shut down either on purpose to save energy or inadvertently because of a poor / out of date infrastructure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280120</id>
	<title>Re:Energy running out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267105320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We still boomed at Oil @ $200 per barrel tho (2007)... I suspect that in the end, wishy washy will win it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We still boomed at Oil @ $ 200 per barrel tho ( 2007 ) ... I suspect that in the end , wishy washy will win it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still boomed at Oil @ $200 per barrel tho (2007)... I suspect that in the end, wishy washy will win it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279644</id>
	<title>Re:Energy running out</title>
	<author>emt377</author>
	<datestamp>1267102080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just last year they found a new oilfield off of Brazil bigger than anything found yet.  Last year.  After everyone said no new large fields would ever be found.</p></div><p>The Tupi field is estimated to hold 8b barrels of oil.  Given our current global consumption that's a three month extension.  It's the biggest field discovered in 30 years - which is pretty telling.  Find ten of these and we've got a few extra years.  Find only another one or two and it makes no difference.  Meanwhile, when the global business cycle points up again our oil consumption is going to follow likewise - again.  Prices will rocket, and economic growth will be choked.  Oil is really a limited resource and the way we've built our entire economy around it is going to limit our capacity for global growth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just last year they found a new oilfield off of Brazil bigger than anything found yet .
Last year .
After everyone said no new large fields would ever be found.The Tupi field is estimated to hold 8b barrels of oil .
Given our current global consumption that 's a three month extension .
It 's the biggest field discovered in 30 years - which is pretty telling .
Find ten of these and we 've got a few extra years .
Find only another one or two and it makes no difference .
Meanwhile , when the global business cycle points up again our oil consumption is going to follow likewise - again .
Prices will rocket , and economic growth will be choked .
Oil is really a limited resource and the way we 've built our entire economy around it is going to limit our capacity for global growth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just last year they found a new oilfield off of Brazil bigger than anything found yet.
Last year.
After everyone said no new large fields would ever be found.The Tupi field is estimated to hold 8b barrels of oil.
Given our current global consumption that's a three month extension.
It's the biggest field discovered in 30 years - which is pretty telling.
Find ten of these and we've got a few extra years.
Find only another one or two and it makes no difference.
Meanwhile, when the global business cycle points up again our oil consumption is going to follow likewise - again.
Prices will rocket, and economic growth will be choked.
Oil is really a limited resource and the way we've built our entire economy around it is going to limit our capacity for global growth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278454</id>
	<title>RISC = Good</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1267095600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always been a big fan of RISC. I even have a copy of ARM System Architecture (c) 1996 by one Mr Steve Furber I pulled out of the basement of Strand Books quite a while ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always been a big fan of RISC .
I even have a copy of ARM System Architecture ( c ) 1996 by one Mr Steve Furber I pulled out of the basement of Strand Books quite a while ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always been a big fan of RISC.
I even have a copy of ARM System Architecture (c) 1996 by one Mr Steve Furber I pulled out of the basement of Strand Books quite a while ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278422</id>
	<title>Noooo!!! Tell me it isn't so!</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1267095480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Singularity must come!</p><p>Real physical limits. Energy production. Getting rid of heat.</p><p>Course we could always go nuclear and resume the exponential increase in energy available per individual which has been driving progress for the last 100,000 years, and which stopped in the 1970s (it explains the no flying cars thing, and lack of moon habitats).</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Singularity must come ! Real physical limits .
Energy production .
Getting rid of heat.Course we could always go nuclear and resume the exponential increase in energy available per individual which has been driving progress for the last 100,000 years , and which stopped in the 1970s ( it explains the no flying cars thing , and lack of moon habitats ) .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Singularity must come!Real physical limits.
Energy production.
Getting rid of heat.Course we could always go nuclear and resume the exponential increase in energy available per individual which has been driving progress for the last 100,000 years, and which stopped in the 1970s (it explains the no flying cars thing, and lack of moon habitats).
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278952</id>
	<title>ACORN Risc Machine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267097640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want NOTHING to do with a processor that fraudulently got Obama elected! We haven't even seen his BIRTH CERTIFICATE! I CAN'T BELIEV....</p><p>Wait<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. they have nothing to do with each other?</p><p>Nevermind, carry on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want NOTHING to do with a processor that fraudulently got Obama elected !
We have n't even seen his BIRTH CERTIFICATE !
I CA N'T BELIEV....Wait .. they have nothing to do with each other ? Nevermind , carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want NOTHING to do with a processor that fraudulently got Obama elected!
We haven't even seen his BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
I CAN'T BELIEV....Wait .. they have nothing to do with each other?Nevermind, carry on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278248</id>
	<title>Netbooks will make the ARM viable.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267094820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank goodness for netbooks. They will finally make the ARM a viable CPU for use in a wide range of higher-end PCs. We just need to see Windows support for ARM, and then we'll be well on our way towards it being a widely available option.</p><p>Frankly, the ARM is a much nicer architecture to target when writing compiler back-ends and when writing high-performance assembly code by hand. It just isn't riddled with the archaic crud that the x86-32 and x86-64 architectures are littered with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank goodness for netbooks .
They will finally make the ARM a viable CPU for use in a wide range of higher-end PCs .
We just need to see Windows support for ARM , and then we 'll be well on our way towards it being a widely available option.Frankly , the ARM is a much nicer architecture to target when writing compiler back-ends and when writing high-performance assembly code by hand .
It just is n't riddled with the archaic crud that the x86-32 and x86-64 architectures are littered with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank goodness for netbooks.
They will finally make the ARM a viable CPU for use in a wide range of higher-end PCs.
We just need to see Windows support for ARM, and then we'll be well on our way towards it being a widely available option.Frankly, the ARM is a much nicer architecture to target when writing compiler back-ends and when writing high-performance assembly code by hand.
It just isn't riddled with the archaic crud that the x86-32 and x86-64 architectures are littered with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279076</id>
	<title>Re:The funny part is newer computers are more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267098300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>efficient. I mean if you consider any unit of computation vs energy expended. I bet my current desktop computer would compare from a computation point of view to a super computer from the late 80's. (GFLOP to GFLOP) However my current computer pulls about 300W, I'm pretty sure that's alot better than any super computer from the 80's that would compare to it.</p></div><p>300W? I'm pretty sure a coffee maker from the 80's was even that efficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>efficient .
I mean if you consider any unit of computation vs energy expended .
I bet my current desktop computer would compare from a computation point of view to a super computer from the late 80 's .
( GFLOP to GFLOP ) However my current computer pulls about 300W , I 'm pretty sure that 's alot better than any super computer from the 80 's that would compare to it.300W ?
I 'm pretty sure a coffee maker from the 80 's was even that efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>efficient.
I mean if you consider any unit of computation vs energy expended.
I bet my current desktop computer would compare from a computation point of view to a super computer from the late 80's.
(GFLOP to GFLOP) However my current computer pulls about 300W, I'm pretty sure that's alot better than any super computer from the 80's that would compare to it.300W?
I'm pretty sure a coffee maker from the 80's was even that efficient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278888</id>
	<title>Re:so why can't i buy a !@##$\% low powered compute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267097340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Notion Ink has you covered if you can wait until June for <a href="http://www.notionink.in/adamtechspecs.php" title="notionink.in">their Adam</a> [notionink.in]. It's basically everything you just described, times 9000. And pricing in the bargain laptop range ($350 - $800). I'm not kidding, check it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Notion Ink has you covered if you can wait until June for their Adam [ notionink.in ] .
It 's basically everything you just described , times 9000 .
And pricing in the bargain laptop range ( $ 350 - $ 800 ) .
I 'm not kidding , check it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Notion Ink has you covered if you can wait until June for their Adam [notionink.in].
It's basically everything you just described, times 9000.
And pricing in the bargain laptop range ($350 - $800).
I'm not kidding, check it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278914</id>
	<title>Re:No always has been</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1267097520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>isn't that the point - energy efficient computing means software as well as hardware features.</p><p>So Office 2007 takes way more CPU and memory to run; all the intensive cloud and web based server apps take a lot of power to cope with peak demand, and so we all run out of energy and end up with brown outs and much more expensive electricity.</p><p>When that happens, maybe people will start to take notice and efficient, not bloated, software will become more fashionable. Microsoft will no doubt bring out D# and sell us all more servers and development tools all over again - see everyone wins<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is n't that the point - energy efficient computing means software as well as hardware features.So Office 2007 takes way more CPU and memory to run ; all the intensive cloud and web based server apps take a lot of power to cope with peak demand , and so we all run out of energy and end up with brown outs and much more expensive electricity.When that happens , maybe people will start to take notice and efficient , not bloated , software will become more fashionable .
Microsoft will no doubt bring out D # and sell us all more servers and development tools all over again - see everyone wins : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isn't that the point - energy efficient computing means software as well as hardware features.So Office 2007 takes way more CPU and memory to run; all the intensive cloud and web based server apps take a lot of power to cope with peak demand, and so we all run out of energy and end up with brown outs and much more expensive electricity.When that happens, maybe people will start to take notice and efficient, not bloated, software will become more fashionable.
Microsoft will no doubt bring out D# and sell us all more servers and development tools all over again - see everyone wins :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279052</id>
	<title>Re:Energy Efficient Tips</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1267098120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bit shift instead of multiply by powers of two</p></div><p>I'd think a decent compiler should do that automagically, no?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bit shift instead of multiply by powers of twoI 'd think a decent compiler should do that automagically , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bit shift instead of multiply by powers of twoI'd think a decent compiler should do that automagically, no?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280726</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks will make the ARM viable.</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1267110660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ARM has its own cruft though.  Thumb, Thumb 2, Jazelle...  The first ARM was a nice clean architecture, something worth being studied in school.  After that though you have a lot of history and tweaking and ugly necessities of being backwards compatible with older designs.<br><br>In some sense that's not a bad thing.  ARM was never designed to be in the niches that it finds itself in really.  It is low power because it is simple, and it is simple because it started life as a very small RISC architecture.  The fine article is discussing the design of the first Acorn RISC Machine, which is not at all the same thing you're going to find on a laptop or netbook.  When you get to the beefier and faster ARM varieties they are considered low power but only because it is being compared to the ridiculous competition from Intel.<br><br>The main niche it is in now is in embedded systems; the designs can be licensed to others so you have a wide variety of manufacturers to choose, lots of system-on-chip options, and you can even embed it in your own ASIC designs.  Thumb mode makes it fit nicely between tiny/low-power 8-bit designs and high performance/big-bus 32-bit options.<br><br>Netbooks is a new thing (and vaguely defined).  But it presumably wants the biggest small CPU you can get, and that's where the ARM fits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ARM has its own cruft though .
Thumb , Thumb 2 , Jazelle... The first ARM was a nice clean architecture , something worth being studied in school .
After that though you have a lot of history and tweaking and ugly necessities of being backwards compatible with older designs.In some sense that 's not a bad thing .
ARM was never designed to be in the niches that it finds itself in really .
It is low power because it is simple , and it is simple because it started life as a very small RISC architecture .
The fine article is discussing the design of the first Acorn RISC Machine , which is not at all the same thing you 're going to find on a laptop or netbook .
When you get to the beefier and faster ARM varieties they are considered low power but only because it is being compared to the ridiculous competition from Intel.The main niche it is in now is in embedded systems ; the designs can be licensed to others so you have a wide variety of manufacturers to choose , lots of system-on-chip options , and you can even embed it in your own ASIC designs .
Thumb mode makes it fit nicely between tiny/low-power 8-bit designs and high performance/big-bus 32-bit options.Netbooks is a new thing ( and vaguely defined ) .
But it presumably wants the biggest small CPU you can get , and that 's where the ARM fits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ARM has its own cruft though.
Thumb, Thumb 2, Jazelle...  The first ARM was a nice clean architecture, something worth being studied in school.
After that though you have a lot of history and tweaking and ugly necessities of being backwards compatible with older designs.In some sense that's not a bad thing.
ARM was never designed to be in the niches that it finds itself in really.
It is low power because it is simple, and it is simple because it started life as a very small RISC architecture.
The fine article is discussing the design of the first Acorn RISC Machine, which is not at all the same thing you're going to find on a laptop or netbook.
When you get to the beefier and faster ARM varieties they are considered low power but only because it is being compared to the ridiculous competition from Intel.The main niche it is in now is in embedded systems; the designs can be licensed to others so you have a wide variety of manufacturers to choose, lots of system-on-chip options, and you can even embed it in your own ASIC designs.
Thumb mode makes it fit nicely between tiny/low-power 8-bit designs and high performance/big-bus 32-bit options.Netbooks is a new thing (and vaguely defined).
But it presumably wants the biggest small CPU you can get, and that's where the ARM fits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279142</id>
	<title>Re:Energy Efficient Tips</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267098600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Use floats where doubles aren't necessary</p></div><p>That assumes that floats are more energy efficient than doubles.  Not necessarily true on architectures that have hardware floating point and save energy by omitting the float portion.  They convert the float to double, do the math, then convert back.  Check your architecture!</p><p>On my Intel Core 2, the execution speed is different by about 0.06\% between float and double (edge to double).  Can't speak to power consumption though.  On my Intel Atom 230, the floats are faster by 0.4\%.  That's almost certainly saving power, but not a lot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use floats where doubles are n't necessaryThat assumes that floats are more energy efficient than doubles .
Not necessarily true on architectures that have hardware floating point and save energy by omitting the float portion .
They convert the float to double , do the math , then convert back .
Check your architecture ! On my Intel Core 2 , the execution speed is different by about 0.06 \ % between float and double ( edge to double ) .
Ca n't speak to power consumption though .
On my Intel Atom 230 , the floats are faster by 0.4 \ % .
That 's almost certainly saving power , but not a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use floats where doubles aren't necessaryThat assumes that floats are more energy efficient than doubles.
Not necessarily true on architectures that have hardware floating point and save energy by omitting the float portion.
They convert the float to double, do the math, then convert back.
Check your architecture!On my Intel Core 2, the execution speed is different by about 0.06\% between float and double (edge to double).
Can't speak to power consumption though.
On my Intel Atom 230, the floats are faster by 0.4\%.
That's almost certainly saving power, but not a lot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279372</id>
	<title>bar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267100100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steve Foobar? Maybe its time to hit the bed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steve Foobar ?
Maybe its time to hit the bed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steve Foobar?
Maybe its time to hit the bed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278688</id>
	<title>Evident?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1267096500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By now, it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem -- while our primary sources of energy are running out, the demand for energy is greatly increasing.</p> </div><p>Evident to you and me, maybe. But there are lots of folks who insist that <a href="http://cei.org/" title="cei.org">all these issues can be explained away</a> [cei.org]. A lot of them follow Slashdot, and I'm a little surprised they haven't already chimed in.</p><p>(Forgive the double post. Should have previewed.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By now , it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem -- while our primary sources of energy are running out , the demand for energy is greatly increasing .
Evident to you and me , maybe .
But there are lots of folks who insist that all these issues can be explained away [ cei.org ] .
A lot of them follow Slashdot , and I 'm a little surprised they have n't already chimed in .
( Forgive the double post .
Should have previewed .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By now, it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem -- while our primary sources of energy are running out, the demand for energy is greatly increasing.
Evident to you and me, maybe.
But there are lots of folks who insist that all these issues can be explained away [cei.org].
A lot of them follow Slashdot, and I'm a little surprised they haven't already chimed in.
(Forgive the double post.
Should have previewed.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278726</id>
	<title>You can. But apparently are unable to use Google</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1267096620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_e-book\_readers" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_e-book\_readers</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison \ _of \ _e-book \ _readers [ wikipedia.org ]  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison\_of\_e-book\_readers [wikipedia.org]
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31282086</id>
	<title>ohai</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267126380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*than Steve Furber</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* than Steve Furber</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*than Steve Furber</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278542</id>
	<title>The funny part is newer computers are more</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1267095900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>efficient. I mean if you consider any unit of computation vs energy expended. I bet my current desktop computer would compare from a computation point of view to a super computer from the late 80's. (GFLOP to GFLOP) However my current computer pulls about 300W, I'm pretty sure that's alot better than any super computer from the 80's that would compare to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>efficient .
I mean if you consider any unit of computation vs energy expended .
I bet my current desktop computer would compare from a computation point of view to a super computer from the late 80 's .
( GFLOP to GFLOP ) However my current computer pulls about 300W , I 'm pretty sure that 's alot better than any super computer from the 80 's that would compare to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>efficient.
I mean if you consider any unit of computation vs energy expended.
I bet my current desktop computer would compare from a computation point of view to a super computer from the late 80's.
(GFLOP to GFLOP) However my current computer pulls about 300W, I'm pretty sure that's alot better than any super computer from the 80's that would compare to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278316</id>
	<title>No always has been</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1267095060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> In the face of this issue energy-efficient computing has become a hot topic</p> </div><p>

No. That has, and never was the case. The problem is A) Programs now take a lot more CPU usage (compare CPU usage for the same task in Office 2007 and Office 97) B) CPUs are designed primarily to be faster (needed because of point A) C) Battery technology isn't improving as rapidly as the rest of the components. <br> <br>

Look at the Poqet PC of the '80s, it had very aggressive power management which wouldn't work today. Computers have -always- tried to be energy-efficient in the portable sector. And quite honestly, its about the only sector that needs work on energy-efficiency to gain any benefit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the face of this issue energy-efficient computing has become a hot topic No .
That has , and never was the case .
The problem is A ) Programs now take a lot more CPU usage ( compare CPU usage for the same task in Office 2007 and Office 97 ) B ) CPUs are designed primarily to be faster ( needed because of point A ) C ) Battery technology is n't improving as rapidly as the rest of the components .
Look at the Poqet PC of the '80s , it had very aggressive power management which would n't work today .
Computers have -always- tried to be energy-efficient in the portable sector .
And quite honestly , its about the only sector that needs work on energy-efficiency to gain any benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In the face of this issue energy-efficient computing has become a hot topic 

No.
That has, and never was the case.
The problem is A) Programs now take a lot more CPU usage (compare CPU usage for the same task in Office 2007 and Office 97) B) CPUs are designed primarily to be faster (needed because of point A) C) Battery technology isn't improving as rapidly as the rest of the components.
Look at the Poqet PC of the '80s, it had very aggressive power management which wouldn't work today.
Computers have -always- tried to be energy-efficient in the portable sector.
And quite honestly, its about the only sector that needs work on energy-efficiency to gain any benefit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31292172</id>
	<title>Re:No always has been</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1267187280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> When that happens,</p> </div><p>

-if- that happens. Look, we have a lot of oil, a lot of coal and a lot of uranium plus wind energy that can be utilized, more efficient hydro-electric designs and now we are -finally- building more nuclear power plants. Mix this in with the decreasing cost of solar cells and we are going to have -very- cheap energy soon. <br> <br>

Yes, coal and oil aren't endless, but they have a pretty big supply. Nuclear power is the most promising, and if Obama doesn't screw up the free market any more (not that we still have it in the US anymore...) we will end up with even cheaper energy than we have right now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When that happens , -if- that happens .
Look , we have a lot of oil , a lot of coal and a lot of uranium plus wind energy that can be utilized , more efficient hydro-electric designs and now we are -finally- building more nuclear power plants .
Mix this in with the decreasing cost of solar cells and we are going to have -very- cheap energy soon .
Yes , coal and oil are n't endless , but they have a pretty big supply .
Nuclear power is the most promising , and if Obama does n't screw up the free market any more ( not that we still have it in the US anymore... ) we will end up with even cheaper energy than we have right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> When that happens, 

-if- that happens.
Look, we have a lot of oil, a lot of coal and a lot of uranium plus wind energy that can be utilized, more efficient hydro-electric designs and now we are -finally- building more nuclear power plants.
Mix this in with the decreasing cost of solar cells and we are going to have -very- cheap energy soon.
Yes, coal and oil aren't endless, but they have a pretty big supply.
Nuclear power is the most promising, and if Obama doesn't screw up the free market any more (not that we still have it in the US anymore...) we will end up with even cheaper energy than we have right now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278578</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks will make the ARM viable.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267096080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So because netbooks with less powerful CPUs are selling, this is going to translate into a demand for less powerful CPUs in high-end PCs?  Why?  And even if Microsoft were to back ARM that doesn't really help.  The Linux world is used to having every architecture supported because it is all done in one place - the maintainer of the distribution.  The Windows world is very fragmented, but more importantly it is (for the most part) BINARY ONLY.  If some exotic Linux app isn't distributed in binary form for your distribution/archtecture, you more than likely can get the source and build it yourself (possibly with some tweaking required).  On Windows, if Adobe doesn't offer Photoshop for ARM then you're shit out of luck.  This is a much bigger hurdle by far than whether or not Microsoft is going to support ARM.  The Windows world is still in the relative infancy of supporting the x64 platform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So because netbooks with less powerful CPUs are selling , this is going to translate into a demand for less powerful CPUs in high-end PCs ?
Why ? And even if Microsoft were to back ARM that does n't really help .
The Linux world is used to having every architecture supported because it is all done in one place - the maintainer of the distribution .
The Windows world is very fragmented , but more importantly it is ( for the most part ) BINARY ONLY .
If some exotic Linux app is n't distributed in binary form for your distribution/archtecture , you more than likely can get the source and build it yourself ( possibly with some tweaking required ) .
On Windows , if Adobe does n't offer Photoshop for ARM then you 're shit out of luck .
This is a much bigger hurdle by far than whether or not Microsoft is going to support ARM .
The Windows world is still in the relative infancy of supporting the x64 platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So because netbooks with less powerful CPUs are selling, this is going to translate into a demand for less powerful CPUs in high-end PCs?
Why?  And even if Microsoft were to back ARM that doesn't really help.
The Linux world is used to having every architecture supported because it is all done in one place - the maintainer of the distribution.
The Windows world is very fragmented, but more importantly it is (for the most part) BINARY ONLY.
If some exotic Linux app isn't distributed in binary form for your distribution/archtecture, you more than likely can get the source and build it yourself (possibly with some tweaking required).
On Windows, if Adobe doesn't offer Photoshop for ARM then you're shit out of luck.
This is a much bigger hurdle by far than whether or not Microsoft is going to support ARM.
The Windows world is still in the relative infancy of supporting the x64 platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31282038</id>
	<title>Re:so why can't i buy a !@##$\% low powered compute</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1267125720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         I'm not so certain that a decent,monochrome, computer running Linux would not sell well.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; There is a universe of high quality books at Project Gutenberg that I often enjoy and it is a shame to use a high powered PC just to read and download books. And these days a decent chess game can take place on a low powered PC as well. From my point of view there are now so many uses for computers that having numerous units for various tasks seems quite reasonable and we could actually save energy as well if we use the correct unit for most jobs. Why not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,for example, have a small PC in the kitchen that keeps track of your grocery shopping list and relates those needs to menus for the week? Other small computers might be applied to individual hobbies such as keeping your golfing history and golf contacts and schedules as its only purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not so certain that a decent,monochrome , computer running Linux would not sell well .
                  There is a universe of high quality books at Project Gutenberg that I often enjoy and it is a shame to use a high powered PC just to read and download books .
And these days a decent chess game can take place on a low powered PC as well .
From my point of view there are now so many uses for computers that having numerous units for various tasks seems quite reasonable and we could actually save energy as well if we use the correct unit for most jobs .
Why not ,for example , have a small PC in the kitchen that keeps track of your grocery shopping list and relates those needs to menus for the week ?
Other small computers might be applied to individual hobbies such as keeping your golfing history and golf contacts and schedules as its only purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         I'm not so certain that a decent,monochrome, computer running Linux would not sell well.
                  There is a universe of high quality books at Project Gutenberg that I often enjoy and it is a shame to use a high powered PC just to read and download books.
And these days a decent chess game can take place on a low powered PC as well.
From my point of view there are now so many uses for computers that having numerous units for various tasks seems quite reasonable and we could actually save energy as well if we use the correct unit for most jobs.
Why not ,for example, have a small PC in the kitchen that keeps track of your grocery shopping list and relates those needs to menus for the week?
Other small computers might be applied to individual hobbies such as keeping your golfing history and golf contacts and schedules as its only purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280224</id>
	<title>Re:Energy running out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267106040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thing is we wouldn't have to be worried about oil now because we had an incredibly powerful energy source, possibly the most concentrated amount of energy and it's processes are so simple school children know how it works, fission.  but the flower children and the neocons screwed the pooch.  Now we are having to deal with a screwed up and ancient power infrastructure and why is that? because it was much more profitible to rape the natural landscape and destabilize the heart of western civilization then to use modern technology.  Wankers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thing is we would n't have to be worried about oil now because we had an incredibly powerful energy source , possibly the most concentrated amount of energy and it 's processes are so simple school children know how it works , fission .
but the flower children and the neocons screwed the pooch .
Now we are having to deal with a screwed up and ancient power infrastructure and why is that ?
because it was much more profitible to rape the natural landscape and destabilize the heart of western civilization then to use modern technology .
Wankers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thing is we wouldn't have to be worried about oil now because we had an incredibly powerful energy source, possibly the most concentrated amount of energy and it's processes are so simple school children know how it works, fission.
but the flower children and the neocons screwed the pooch.
Now we are having to deal with a screwed up and ancient power infrastructure and why is that?
because it was much more profitible to rape the natural landscape and destabilize the heart of western civilization then to use modern technology.
Wankers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279930</id>
	<title>Re:Make Boots &amp; Scans Faster</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1267103760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many bytes was the OS on a TRS-80?</p><p>You can't really compare that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many bytes was the OS on a TRS-80 ? You ca n't really compare that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many bytes was the OS on a TRS-80?You can't really compare that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278760</id>
	<title>Connectivity and standards are the solution</title>
	<author>jhfry</author>
	<datestamp>1267096800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Internet connectivity were ubiquitous and cheap and proper standards were developed and encouraged, we would see a tremendous improvement in efficiency.<br>1. It takes a very minimal amount of power to use hosted applications, so the end users devices would be low power.<br>2. Data centers have serious incentives to be efficient, when your annual electric bill is in the $100,000+ range, even a 1\% improvement is worth considering, when was the last time you cared about saving 1\% on your electric bill.</p><p>The WWW is getting us on the right track, but what we really need is to develop a new Internet protocol for hosted applications.  I see little reason that we need to continue to try and add complexity to the WWW, HTML was never really intended for Web 2.0+ apps.  If this new protocol were properly designed, and very open, and had strictly enforced standards, hardware could be made to accelerate its more power hunger aspects (sound, video, 3d, etc.).  This would result in very low powered components that do one thing very well, coupled with a very low powered cpu you could have a full featured machine that consumes minimal power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Internet connectivity were ubiquitous and cheap and proper standards were developed and encouraged , we would see a tremendous improvement in efficiency.1 .
It takes a very minimal amount of power to use hosted applications , so the end users devices would be low power.2 .
Data centers have serious incentives to be efficient , when your annual electric bill is in the $ 100,000 + range , even a 1 \ % improvement is worth considering , when was the last time you cared about saving 1 \ % on your electric bill.The WWW is getting us on the right track , but what we really need is to develop a new Internet protocol for hosted applications .
I see little reason that we need to continue to try and add complexity to the WWW , HTML was never really intended for Web 2.0 + apps .
If this new protocol were properly designed , and very open , and had strictly enforced standards , hardware could be made to accelerate its more power hunger aspects ( sound , video , 3d , etc. ) .
This would result in very low powered components that do one thing very well , coupled with a very low powered cpu you could have a full featured machine that consumes minimal power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Internet connectivity were ubiquitous and cheap and proper standards were developed and encouraged, we would see a tremendous improvement in efficiency.1.
It takes a very minimal amount of power to use hosted applications, so the end users devices would be low power.2.
Data centers have serious incentives to be efficient, when your annual electric bill is in the $100,000+ range, even a 1\% improvement is worth considering, when was the last time you cared about saving 1\% on your electric bill.The WWW is getting us on the right track, but what we really need is to develop a new Internet protocol for hosted applications.
I see little reason that we need to continue to try and add complexity to the WWW, HTML was never really intended for Web 2.0+ apps.
If this new protocol were properly designed, and very open, and had strictly enforced standards, hardware could be made to accelerate its more power hunger aspects (sound, video, 3d, etc.).
This would result in very low powered components that do one thing very well, coupled with a very low powered cpu you could have a full featured machine that consumes minimal power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279514</id>
	<title>Re:Energy running out</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1267101120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the first I agree, but there is no such thing as clean coal. That is just a marketing stunt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the first I agree , but there is no such thing as clean coal .
That is just a marketing stunt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the first I agree, but there is no such thing as clean coal.
That is just a marketing stunt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278860</id>
	<title>I doubt it</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1267097220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the unit of computation is to put a single character on the screen for example. Today, it requires several supercomputer class processors to do the same job as one 286 during the 80s.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the unit of computation is to put a single character on the screen for example .
Today , it requires several supercomputer class processors to do the same job as one 286 during the 80s .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the unit of computation is to put a single character on the screen for example.
Today, it requires several supercomputer class processors to do the same job as one 286 during the 80s.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279678</id>
	<title>Re:where do you get your facts?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1267102380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably from a reliable source.  The chip that he designed was the Acorn RISC Machine.  When ARM was spun out as a joint venture with Apple, it was renamed.  Advanced RISC Machines is a backronym intended to keep the same initials but remove the Acorn branding (which Apple didn't want).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably from a reliable source .
The chip that he designed was the Acorn RISC Machine .
When ARM was spun out as a joint venture with Apple , it was renamed .
Advanced RISC Machines is a backronym intended to keep the same initials but remove the Acorn branding ( which Apple did n't want ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably from a reliable source.
The chip that he designed was the Acorn RISC Machine.
When ARM was spun out as a joint venture with Apple, it was renamed.
Advanced RISC Machines is a backronym intended to keep the same initials but remove the Acorn branding (which Apple didn't want).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278564</id>
	<title>Begging the Question</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1267096020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>while our primary sources of energy are running out</i></p><p>Just cleaning up our light-water reactor waste (which we cannot leave around for 300,000 years) can power the Earth's advancing societies for a century.</p><p>There are much better reasons to go for low-power computing, portability and economics chief among them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while our primary sources of energy are running outJust cleaning up our light-water reactor waste ( which we can not leave around for 300,000 years ) can power the Earth 's advancing societies for a century.There are much better reasons to go for low-power computing , portability and economics chief among them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while our primary sources of energy are running outJust cleaning up our light-water reactor waste (which we cannot leave around for 300,000 years) can power the Earth's advancing societies for a century.There are much better reasons to go for low-power computing, portability and economics chief among them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279318</id>
	<title>Re:Bull...you are not even counting coal</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1267099740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have over 250 years worth of easily available coal here in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have over 250 years worth of easily available coal here in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have over 250 years worth of easily available coal here in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280284</id>
	<title>Re:The funny part is newer computers are more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267106460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>now let's see stuffing up those energy-efficient PCs into racks which supercomputers were in '80s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>now let 's see stuffing up those energy-efficient PCs into racks which supercomputers were in '80s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now let's see stuffing up those energy-efficient PCs into racks which supercomputers were in '80s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31281180</id>
	<title>Re:so why can't i buy a !@##$\% low powered compute</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1267115340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Amazon can afford to produce the Kindle at-cost or even with a bit of a loss because they will gain sales in e-books and such.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Amazon loses money on the e-books they sell. They pay about $14 wholesale for the digital version of a newly released hardcover, and only charge the customer about $10.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazon can afford to produce the Kindle at-cost or even with a bit of a loss because they will gain sales in e-books and such .
Amazon loses money on the e-books they sell .
They pay about $ 14 wholesale for the digital version of a newly released hardcover , and only charge the customer about $ 10 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazon can afford to produce the Kindle at-cost or even with a bit of a loss because they will gain sales in e-books and such.
Amazon loses money on the e-books they sell.
They pay about $14 wholesale for the digital version of a newly released hardcover, and only charge the customer about $10.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280064</id>
	<title>Fearmongering.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267104900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Set up a couple of solar thermal power plants (e.g. in Arizona), lay a couple of high-voltage DC lines, or convert it to hydrogen, or any form or battery, and be good. We will have left this planet, long before we use more energy than the sun can deliver (especially when you add space-based power plants). And the technology is cheap, simple (a poor African nation could do it without having to having to take a loan), recyclable, and there is a lot of really dead and hot land out there (certainly deader than what our power plants stand on nowadays).</p><p>They just don&rsquo;t <em>want</em> to set them up, so they can keep their power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Set up a couple of solar thermal power plants ( e.g .
in Arizona ) , lay a couple of high-voltage DC lines , or convert it to hydrogen , or any form or battery , and be good .
We will have left this planet , long before we use more energy than the sun can deliver ( especially when you add space-based power plants ) .
And the technology is cheap , simple ( a poor African nation could do it without having to having to take a loan ) , recyclable , and there is a lot of really dead and hot land out there ( certainly deader than what our power plants stand on nowadays ) .They just don    t want to set them up , so they can keep their power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Set up a couple of solar thermal power plants (e.g.
in Arizona), lay a couple of high-voltage DC lines, or convert it to hydrogen, or any form or battery, and be good.
We will have left this planet, long before we use more energy than the sun can deliver (especially when you add space-based power plants).
And the technology is cheap, simple (a poor African nation could do it without having to having to take a loan), recyclable, and there is a lot of really dead and hot land out there (certainly deader than what our power plants stand on nowadays).They just don’t want to set them up, so they can keep their power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278244</id>
	<title>Energy Efficient Tips</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267094820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use floats where doubles aren't necessary<br>Bit shift instead of multiply by powers of two<br>xor r,r instead of mov r,0<br>Turn your computer off at night (record the uptime with a pen+paper if you want to keep a running total)<br>Compile to a 32bit target for apps that don't need 64bit addressing<br>etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use floats where doubles are n't necessaryBit shift instead of multiply by powers of twoxor r,r instead of mov r,0Turn your computer off at night ( record the uptime with a pen + paper if you want to keep a running total ) Compile to a 32bit target for apps that do n't need 64bit addressingetc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use floats where doubles aren't necessaryBit shift instead of multiply by powers of twoxor r,r instead of mov r,0Turn your computer off at night (record the uptime with a pen+paper if you want to keep a running total)Compile to a 32bit target for apps that don't need 64bit addressingetc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280054</id>
	<title>Try a "graphing" calculator</title>
	<author>irtza</author>
	<datestamp>1267104780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here are some cheap platforms that are robust, programmable and have a fairly substantial geek appeal that may meet your very needs:

TI-89, TI-92, TI-86
HP48gx

I haven't used my TI-89 or TI-85 for over five years, but I turned on the calc about a month or so ago and it runs beutifully.  I heard casio makes some as well, but never used one of those.

PS: I love putting things in "quotes"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are some cheap platforms that are robust , programmable and have a fairly substantial geek appeal that may meet your very needs : TI-89 , TI-92 , TI-86 HP48gx I have n't used my TI-89 or TI-85 for over five years , but I turned on the calc about a month or so ago and it runs beutifully .
I heard casio makes some as well , but never used one of those .
PS : I love putting things in " quotes "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are some cheap platforms that are robust, programmable and have a fairly substantial geek appeal that may meet your very needs:

TI-89, TI-92, TI-86
HP48gx

I haven't used my TI-89 or TI-85 for over five years, but I turned on the calc about a month or so ago and it runs beutifully.
I heard casio makes some as well, but never used one of those.
PS: I love putting things in "quotes"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279658</id>
	<title>ARM is viable right now, except for some drivers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267102260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck Windows.  All we need are graphics drivers that we have the source code for.  We have the source code to everything we run these days, and most of it has been made portable and compiled for and tested on ARM.  Except graphics drivers.  That one thing is holding us back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Windows .
All we need are graphics drivers that we have the source code for .
We have the source code to everything we run these days , and most of it has been made portable and compiled for and tested on ARM .
Except graphics drivers .
That one thing is holding us back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Windows.
All we need are graphics drivers that we have the source code for.
We have the source code to everything we run these days, and most of it has been made portable and compiled for and tested on ARM.
Except graphics drivers.
That one thing is holding us back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279072</id>
	<title>Energy running out</title>
	<author>coldmist</author>
	<datestamp>1267098240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>while our primary sources of energy are running out</i></p><p>And in the 1920s, they claimed we were running out of oil. In the 1970s, they claimed we were running out of oil.  Just last year they found a new oilfield off of Brazil bigger than anything found yet.  Last year.  After everyone said no new large fields would ever be found.</p><p>Coal?  Clinton locked up the Grand Staircase in Utah, the largest <i>clean</i> coal deposit, with <a href="http://geology.utah.gov/online/c/c-93/gsekcoal.htm" title="utah.gov">62 Billion tons of coal</a> [utah.gov].</p><p>I don't know. I hate scare-mongering that has been going on already for 100 years, and shown wrong for 100 years, and the next generation doesn't see how poorly it looks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while our primary sources of energy are running outAnd in the 1920s , they claimed we were running out of oil .
In the 1970s , they claimed we were running out of oil .
Just last year they found a new oilfield off of Brazil bigger than anything found yet .
Last year .
After everyone said no new large fields would ever be found.Coal ?
Clinton locked up the Grand Staircase in Utah , the largest clean coal deposit , with 62 Billion tons of coal [ utah.gov ] .I do n't know .
I hate scare-mongering that has been going on already for 100 years , and shown wrong for 100 years , and the next generation does n't see how poorly it looks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> while our primary sources of energy are running outAnd in the 1920s, they claimed we were running out of oil.
In the 1970s, they claimed we were running out of oil.
Just last year they found a new oilfield off of Brazil bigger than anything found yet.
Last year.
After everyone said no new large fields would ever be found.Coal?
Clinton locked up the Grand Staircase in Utah, the largest clean coal deposit, with 62 Billion tons of coal [utah.gov].I don't know.
I hate scare-mongering that has been going on already for 100 years, and shown wrong for 100 years, and the next generation doesn't see how poorly it looks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280194</id>
	<title>Cloud computing is energy efficient</title>
	<author>cryfreedomlove</author>
	<datestamp>1267105860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't cloud computing a better angle on energy efficient computing than trying to optimize the power usage of any one computer?  Most computers are very under utilized and suck up power doing nothing.  Cloud based computers get allocated to the next user when they fall idle so you get more useful computation per watt of energy burned.  That seems smarter than going after energy efficiency for any one computer and then letting it burn that smaller amount of energy while sitting, for the most part, idle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't cloud computing a better angle on energy efficient computing than trying to optimize the power usage of any one computer ?
Most computers are very under utilized and suck up power doing nothing .
Cloud based computers get allocated to the next user when they fall idle so you get more useful computation per watt of energy burned .
That seems smarter than going after energy efficiency for any one computer and then letting it burn that smaller amount of energy while sitting , for the most part , idle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't cloud computing a better angle on energy efficient computing than trying to optimize the power usage of any one computer?
Most computers are very under utilized and suck up power doing nothing.
Cloud based computers get allocated to the next user when they fall idle so you get more useful computation per watt of energy burned.
That seems smarter than going after energy efficiency for any one computer and then letting it burn that smaller amount of energy while sitting, for the most part, idle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279184</id>
	<title>Re:RISC = Good</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1267098900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a big fan of arm. I have two of those!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a big fan of arm .
I have two of those !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a big fan of arm.
I have two of those!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31285390</id>
	<title>Re:The funny part is newer computers are more</title>
	<author>ncc74656</author>
	<datestamp>1267201740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The funny thing is, I've seen old P4 computers drawing 250w+.</p></div></blockquote><p>They probably had less-efficient power supplies than your newer machines.  Power-supply efficiency only seems to have become a selling point in the past couple or three years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The funny thing is , I 've seen old P4 computers drawing 250w + .They probably had less-efficient power supplies than your newer machines .
Power-supply efficiency only seems to have become a selling point in the past couple or three years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The funny thing is, I've seen old P4 computers drawing 250w+.They probably had less-efficient power supplies than your newer machines.
Power-supply efficiency only seems to have become a selling point in the past couple or three years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31281984</id>
	<title>Re:so why can't i buy a !@##$\% low powered compute</title>
	<author>xpurple</author>
	<datestamp>1267125120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want something that is low power, has a nice keyboard and runs linux.  Text only mode is fine as all I really want to do is run emacs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want something that is low power , has a nice keyboard and runs linux .
Text only mode is fine as all I really want to do is run emacs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want something that is low power, has a nice keyboard and runs linux.
Text only mode is fine as all I really want to do is run emacs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278776</id>
	<title>Bull...</title>
	<author>Wyatt Earp</author>
	<datestamp>1267096860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"By now, it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem &mdash; while our primary sources of energy are running out,"</p><p>No, a primary easy source is running out, rock oil, we have like 40-80 years of that left.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Future\_of\_petroleum\_production" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Future\_of\_petroleum\_production</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Shale oil, well theres a ton of that out there, if the world wanted to, they'd be able to access that. The US has about 1,750,000,000,000 barrels<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Consumption\_statistics" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Consumption\_statistics</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil\_shale\_reserves#Definition\_of\_reserves" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil\_shale\_reserves#Definition\_of\_reserves</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>And there is a ton of natural gas, and shale gas and coal, not to mention fission, solar, and/or wind.</p><p>So, no we are not running out of our primary sources of energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" By now , it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem    while our primary sources of energy are running out , " No , a primary easy source is running out , rock oil , we have like 40-80 years of that left.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum # Future \ _of \ _petroleum \ _production [ wikipedia.org ] Shale oil , well theres a ton of that out there , if the world wanted to , they 'd be able to access that .
The US has about 1,750,000,000,000 barrelshttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum # Consumption \ _statistics [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil \ _shale \ _reserves # Definition \ _of \ _reserves [ wikipedia.org ] And there is a ton of natural gas , and shale gas and coal , not to mention fission , solar , and/or wind.So , no we are not running out of our primary sources of energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"By now, it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem — while our primary sources of energy are running out,"No, a primary easy source is running out, rock oil, we have like 40-80 years of that left.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Future\_of\_petroleum\_production [wikipedia.org]Shale oil, well theres a ton of that out there, if the world wanted to, they'd be able to access that.
The US has about 1,750,000,000,000 barrelshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Consumption\_statistics [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil\_shale\_reserves#Definition\_of\_reserves [wikipedia.org]And there is a ton of natural gas, and shale gas and coal, not to mention fission, solar, and/or wind.So, no we are not running out of our primary sources of energy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31282912</id>
	<title>Re:where do you get your facts?</title>
	<author>Xargle</author>
	<datestamp>1267180380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your credibility as a reference was lost when you fail to expand the ARM chip acronym correctly.</p></div><p>Hah! Fail, Mr AC Troll.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your credibility as a reference was lost when you fail to expand the ARM chip acronym correctly.Hah !
Fail , Mr AC Troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your credibility as a reference was lost when you fail to expand the ARM chip acronym correctly.Hah!
Fail, Mr AC Troll.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278462</id>
	<title>Re:so why can't i buy a !@##$\% low powered compute</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267095600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because there is almost no market for it. Lets see here <br> <br>

A) Monochrome displays (other than E-ink) are generally considered to be low-tech, cheap, pieces of junk. Look at how well monochrome TVs are selling... Yes, it does ease strain on eyes and increase readability, but has the other side of making most of... well anything unpleasant to look at other than text. <br> <br>

B) It will be expensive. Amazon can afford to produce the Kindle at-cost or even with a bit of a loss because they will gain sales in e-books and such. Even if they sell it at a profit they still can buy parts in bulk and make them cheaper than a product with a run of only ~1,000 units or less. <br> <br>

C) There aren't enough apps. What apps would make sense to port to this device? Lynx? Most other things would need more CPU power (making it non-energy efficient) or a colour screen. <br> <br>

Really, other than you, this wouldn't appeal to a large enough audience of people. Best thing to do would be to jailbreak an existing e-reader, its simply a bad business decision to make a product with almost no market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there is almost no market for it .
Lets see here A ) Monochrome displays ( other than E-ink ) are generally considered to be low-tech , cheap , pieces of junk .
Look at how well monochrome TVs are selling... Yes , it does ease strain on eyes and increase readability , but has the other side of making most of... well anything unpleasant to look at other than text .
B ) It will be expensive .
Amazon can afford to produce the Kindle at-cost or even with a bit of a loss because they will gain sales in e-books and such .
Even if they sell it at a profit they still can buy parts in bulk and make them cheaper than a product with a run of only ~ 1,000 units or less .
C ) There are n't enough apps .
What apps would make sense to port to this device ?
Lynx ? Most other things would need more CPU power ( making it non-energy efficient ) or a colour screen .
Really , other than you , this would n't appeal to a large enough audience of people .
Best thing to do would be to jailbreak an existing e-reader , its simply a bad business decision to make a product with almost no market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there is almost no market for it.
Lets see here  

A) Monochrome displays (other than E-ink) are generally considered to be low-tech, cheap, pieces of junk.
Look at how well monochrome TVs are selling... Yes, it does ease strain on eyes and increase readability, but has the other side of making most of... well anything unpleasant to look at other than text.
B) It will be expensive.
Amazon can afford to produce the Kindle at-cost or even with a bit of a loss because they will gain sales in e-books and such.
Even if they sell it at a profit they still can buy parts in bulk and make them cheaper than a product with a run of only ~1,000 units or less.
C) There aren't enough apps.
What apps would make sense to port to this device?
Lynx? Most other things would need more CPU power (making it non-energy efficient) or a colour screen.
Really, other than you, this wouldn't appeal to a large enough audience of people.
Best thing to do would be to jailbreak an existing e-reader, its simply a bad business decision to make a product with almost no market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279456</id>
	<title>Re:The funny part is newer computers are more</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1267100640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Athlon II X2 + 8800GS pulled 95w from the wall, according to my Kill-A-Watt.</p><p>Now I have a Phenom II X4 and GTS 250. It pulls about 107w from the wall when idle, and as much as 160w when gaming. (~175w when encoding video)</p><p>The funny thing is, I've seen old P4 computers drawing 250w+.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Athlon II X2 + 8800GS pulled 95w from the wall , according to my Kill-A-Watt.Now I have a Phenom II X4 and GTS 250 .
It pulls about 107w from the wall when idle , and as much as 160w when gaming .
( ~ 175w when encoding video ) The funny thing is , I 've seen old P4 computers drawing 250w + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Athlon II X2 + 8800GS pulled 95w from the wall, according to my Kill-A-Watt.Now I have a Phenom II X4 and GTS 250.
It pulls about 107w from the wall when idle, and as much as 160w when gaming.
(~175w when encoding video)The funny thing is, I've seen old P4 computers drawing 250w+.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31284614</id>
	<title>Interesting article</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1267197540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was well worth reading. It touches on some interesting things, like how they originally kept power usage down to allow a cheaper plastic body for the chip, and how we don't have good profilers to find <i>power</i> usage hotspots in code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was well worth reading .
It touches on some interesting things , like how they originally kept power usage down to allow a cheaper plastic body for the chip , and how we do n't have good profilers to find power usage hotspots in code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was well worth reading.
It touches on some interesting things, like how they originally kept power usage down to allow a cheaper plastic body for the chip, and how we don't have good profilers to find power usage hotspots in code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279882</id>
	<title>Wierd priorities</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1267103520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My computer?  Really?  THAT'S the power hungry device I should be worried about?  What about, oooh, I don't know, how about my electric clothes dryer with the 240V plug and the massive double circuit breaker in my breaker box?!</p><p>Priorities people, priorities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My computer ?
Really ? THAT 'S the power hungry device I should be worried about ?
What about , oooh , I do n't know , how about my electric clothes dryer with the 240V plug and the massive double circuit breaker in my breaker box ?
! Priorities people , priorities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My computer?
Really?  THAT'S the power hungry device I should be worried about?
What about, oooh, I don't know, how about my electric clothes dryer with the 240V plug and the massive double circuit breaker in my breaker box?
!Priorities people, priorities.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280692</id>
	<title>Re:Too conservative.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267110180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can compare your desktop against a supercomputer from 1995 and come out on top.</p><p>E.g., a Cray-3 from 1995 had four CPUs @ 500 MHz.  Each CPU could execute ~ two flops/clock,<br>for a total of 4 GFLOPS.  Power draw was about 40kW, not counting coolant pumps, MG<br>inefficiencies,  &amp;c.  A Y-MP/16 of that era probably about doubled that (more CPUs but<br>slower clocks) at twice the power draw.</p><p>A top-end laptop probably has about that much horsepower now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can compare your desktop against a supercomputer from 1995 and come out on top.E.g. , a Cray-3 from 1995 had four CPUs @ 500 MHz .
Each CPU could execute ~ two flops/clock,for a total of 4 GFLOPS .
Power draw was about 40kW , not counting coolant pumps , MGinefficiencies , &amp;c. A Y-MP/16 of that era probably about doubled that ( more CPUs butslower clocks ) at twice the power draw.A top-end laptop probably has about that much horsepower now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can compare your desktop against a supercomputer from 1995 and come out on top.E.g., a Cray-3 from 1995 had four CPUs @ 500 MHz.
Each CPU could execute ~ two flops/clock,for a total of 4 GFLOPS.
Power draw was about 40kW, not counting coolant pumps, MGinefficiencies,  &amp;c.  A Y-MP/16 of that era probably about doubled that (more CPUs butslower clocks) at twice the power draw.A top-end laptop probably has about that much horsepower now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279548</id>
	<title>Re:where do you get your facts?</title>
	<author>BestNicksRTaken</author>
	<datestamp>1267101420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was Acorn RISC Machine way before it became Advanced RISC Machines Ltd; by almost a decade, when Furber ran the show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was Acorn RISC Machine way before it became Advanced RISC Machines Ltd ; by almost a decade , when Furber ran the show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was Acorn RISC Machine way before it became Advanced RISC Machines Ltd; by almost a decade, when Furber ran the show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280486</id>
	<title>Re:Energy running out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267108380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No shit.  We are the saudi arabia of coal (we even have a muslim HNIC).  World War II was won thanks to diesel and gasoline that came from coal (coal liquefaction). Of course, with current technology, we're the saudi arabia of oil, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No shit .
We are the saudi arabia of coal ( we even have a muslim HNIC ) .
World War II was won thanks to diesel and gasoline that came from coal ( coal liquefaction ) .
Of course , with current technology , we 're the saudi arabia of oil , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No shit.
We are the saudi arabia of coal (we even have a muslim HNIC).
World War II was won thanks to diesel and gasoline that came from coal (coal liquefaction).
Of course, with current technology, we're the saudi arabia of oil, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278638</id>
	<title>Evident?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1267096320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By now, it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem -- while our primary sources of energy are running out, the demand for energy is greatly increasing.</p> </div><p>Evident to you and me, maybe. But there are lots of folks who insist that <i>all these issues can be explained away</i>. A lot of them follow Slashdot, and I'm a little surprised they haven't already chimed in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By now , it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem -- while our primary sources of energy are running out , the demand for energy is greatly increasing .
Evident to you and me , maybe .
But there are lots of folks who insist that all these issues can be explained away .
A lot of them follow Slashdot , and I 'm a little surprised they have n't already chimed in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By now, it has become evident that we are facing an energy problem -- while our primary sources of energy are running out, the demand for energy is greatly increasing.
Evident to you and me, maybe.
But there are lots of folks who insist that all these issues can be explained away.
A lot of them follow Slashdot, and I'm a little surprised they haven't already chimed in.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279500</id>
	<title>Re:so why can't i buy a !@##$\% low powered compute</title>
	<author>grumpyman</author>
	<datestamp>1267100940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>C) There aren't enough apps. What apps would make sense to port to this device? Lynx? Most other things would need more CPU power (making it non-energy efficient) or a colour screen.</i><p>
It's way more than Lynx.  There's elm, gopher, nn and with a built-in modem, you should be able to connect to BBS too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C ) There are n't enough apps .
What apps would make sense to port to this device ?
Lynx ? Most other things would need more CPU power ( making it non-energy efficient ) or a colour screen .
It 's way more than Lynx .
There 's elm , gopher , nn and with a built-in modem , you should be able to connect to BBS too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C) There aren't enough apps.
What apps would make sense to port to this device?
Lynx? Most other things would need more CPU power (making it non-energy efficient) or a colour screen.
It's way more than Lynx.
There's elm, gopher, nn and with a built-in modem, you should be able to connect to BBS too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279286</id>
	<title>Great job marketing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267099440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>that is simple, low power, and low cost</i></p><p><i><i>ARM may have a lot of coolness going for them right now since they are taking on big bad boy Intel. However ARM is certainly not low cost (ask anyone who has bought a source license or that pays royalties).</i></i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that is simple , low power , and low costARM may have a lot of coolness going for them right now since they are taking on big bad boy Intel .
However ARM is certainly not low cost ( ask anyone who has bought a source license or that pays royalties ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that is simple, low power, and low costARM may have a lot of coolness going for them right now since they are taking on big bad boy Intel.
However ARM is certainly not low cost (ask anyone who has bought a source license or that pays royalties).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278918</id>
	<title>The Kindle's not so bad for this, actually</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1267097520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's already running Linux out of the box, and <a href="http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/09/02/photo-and-descriptio.html" title="boingboing.net">the hacks getting everything a unix geek might want on it</a> [boingboing.net] really don't sound like they're about bypassing DRM so much as they are getting tools onto the system that Amazon just left out.</p><p>Static link cross compile a telnetd and toolchain and get 'em both on there and you're set to go.</p><p>The only reason I haven't bought in on that action yet is that as far as I know there's no decent third party full size portable keyboard. If it did bluetooth, I'd be totally sold. As it is, I'm almost sold.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's already running Linux out of the box , and the hacks getting everything a unix geek might want on it [ boingboing.net ] really do n't sound like they 're about bypassing DRM so much as they are getting tools onto the system that Amazon just left out.Static link cross compile a telnetd and toolchain and get 'em both on there and you 're set to go.The only reason I have n't bought in on that action yet is that as far as I know there 's no decent third party full size portable keyboard .
If it did bluetooth , I 'd be totally sold .
As it is , I 'm almost sold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's already running Linux out of the box, and the hacks getting everything a unix geek might want on it [boingboing.net] really don't sound like they're about bypassing DRM so much as they are getting tools onto the system that Amazon just left out.Static link cross compile a telnetd and toolchain and get 'em both on there and you're set to go.The only reason I haven't bought in on that action yet is that as far as I know there's no decent third party full size portable keyboard.
If it did bluetooth, I'd be totally sold.
As it is, I'm almost sold.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176</id>
	<title>so why can't i buy a !@##$\% low powered computer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267094580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That means a portable computer with an ARM processor and a reflective monochrome display big enough to hold normal text pages.  In other words an Amazon Kindle DX (separate wired or bluetooth keyboard is fine), but with an open OS that lets me write and run my own programs without having to jailbreak past some DRM crap.  Somebody please make something like that?  Please??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That means a portable computer with an ARM processor and a reflective monochrome display big enough to hold normal text pages .
In other words an Amazon Kindle DX ( separate wired or bluetooth keyboard is fine ) , but with an open OS that lets me write and run my own programs without having to jailbreak past some DRM crap .
Somebody please make something like that ?
Please ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That means a portable computer with an ARM processor and a reflective monochrome display big enough to hold normal text pages.
In other words an Amazon Kindle DX (separate wired or bluetooth keyboard is fine), but with an open OS that lets me write and run my own programs without having to jailbreak past some DRM crap.
Somebody please make something like that?
Please??</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279786</id>
	<title>Re:No always has been</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267102920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And quite honestly, its about the only sector that needs work on energy-efficiency to gain any benefit.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Google disagrees with you, in a really big way.
</p><p>
Also, anyone who has hooked up a Kill-A-Watt to their computer, and then calculated how much money per year they're spending on it, disagrees with you.
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.nbc-2.com/Global/story.asp?S=11606225" title="nbc-2.com">This one asshole</a> [nbc-2.com] spent an estimated <em>half a million dollars</em> (of someone else's money) on electricity (which is probably the main reason he really got in trouble), not counting the harder-to-measure increased electric bill for the air conditioning (he was doing this in Arizona).
</p><p>
Energy costs money. People care about money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And quite honestly , its about the only sector that needs work on energy-efficiency to gain any benefit .
Google disagrees with you , in a really big way .
Also , anyone who has hooked up a Kill-A-Watt to their computer , and then calculated how much money per year they 're spending on it , disagrees with you .
This one asshole [ nbc-2.com ] spent an estimated half a million dollars ( of someone else 's money ) on electricity ( which is probably the main reason he really got in trouble ) , not counting the harder-to-measure increased electric bill for the air conditioning ( he was doing this in Arizona ) .
Energy costs money .
People care about money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And quite honestly, its about the only sector that needs work on energy-efficiency to gain any benefit.
Google disagrees with you, in a really big way.
Also, anyone who has hooked up a Kill-A-Watt to their computer, and then calculated how much money per year they're spending on it, disagrees with you.
This one asshole [nbc-2.com] spent an estimated half a million dollars (of someone else's money) on electricity (which is probably the main reason he really got in trouble), not counting the harder-to-measure increased electric bill for the air conditioning (he was doing this in Arizona).
Energy costs money.
People care about money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278362</id>
	<title>Just a marketing prank!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267095240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They just want to capitalize on this whole "green" movement, especially considering their product line coincides with it.  If they waited any longer, they might not be able to pull this one off.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Market on, but don't make yourself foolish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They just want to capitalize on this whole " green " movement , especially considering their product line coincides with it .
If they waited any longer , they might not be able to pull this one off .
  Market on , but do n't make yourself foolish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just want to capitalize on this whole "green" movement, especially considering their product line coincides with it.
If they waited any longer, they might not be able to pull this one off.
  Market on, but don't make yourself foolish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278988</id>
	<title>Make Boots &amp; Scans Faster</title>
	<author>CohibaVancouver</author>
	<datestamp>1267097820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the reasons my PC is a power hog is I leave it on all the time.  Why?<br> <br>

1) Because boots take a long time.  If boots were near-instant like they were on my TRS-80 in 1979 I'd turn it off.  (Yeah, yeah, Macs boot fast, yeah yeah, I can 'suspend' but none of that junk ever works properly on WinTel.)<br> <br>
2) Because backups, patches and scans run at night time.  If I didn't need those, I'd turn it off.<br> <br>

Figure out a solution there and I'd turn my box off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the reasons my PC is a power hog is I leave it on all the time .
Why ? 1 ) Because boots take a long time .
If boots were near-instant like they were on my TRS-80 in 1979 I 'd turn it off .
( Yeah , yeah , Macs boot fast , yeah yeah , I can 'suspend ' but none of that junk ever works properly on WinTel .
) 2 ) Because backups , patches and scans run at night time .
If I did n't need those , I 'd turn it off .
Figure out a solution there and I 'd turn my box off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the reasons my PC is a power hog is I leave it on all the time.
Why? 

1) Because boots take a long time.
If boots were near-instant like they were on my TRS-80 in 1979 I'd turn it off.
(Yeah, yeah, Macs boot fast, yeah yeah, I can 'suspend' but none of that junk ever works properly on WinTel.
) 
2) Because backups, patches and scans run at night time.
If I didn't need those, I'd turn it off.
Figure out a solution there and I'd turn my box off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280822</id>
	<title>Re:Noooo!!! Tell me it isn't so!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267111800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flying cars would be noisy. But you have a point in the fact that most people still can't afford to own a decent private airplane or even to own a part in one.</p><p>The energy costs of launching a rocket into translunar orbit (or any orbit) are neglible compared to the labor costs of employing thousands of engineers, scientists and bean counters to be able to get the thing on the launchpad.</p><p>Now, if we could just invent an AI that could replace all of those. Or at least one smart enough to replace the bean counters...</p><p>We can't do that with today's understanding, even given an infinite array of CPUs and infinite energy to run them at full speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flying cars would be noisy .
But you have a point in the fact that most people still ca n't afford to own a decent private airplane or even to own a part in one.The energy costs of launching a rocket into translunar orbit ( or any orbit ) are neglible compared to the labor costs of employing thousands of engineers , scientists and bean counters to be able to get the thing on the launchpad.Now , if we could just invent an AI that could replace all of those .
Or at least one smart enough to replace the bean counters...We ca n't do that with today 's understanding , even given an infinite array of CPUs and infinite energy to run them at full speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flying cars would be noisy.
But you have a point in the fact that most people still can't afford to own a decent private airplane or even to own a part in one.The energy costs of launching a rocket into translunar orbit (or any orbit) are neglible compared to the labor costs of employing thousands of engineers, scientists and bean counters to be able to get the thing on the launchpad.Now, if we could just invent an AI that could replace all of those.
Or at least one smart enough to replace the bean counters...We can't do that with today's understanding, even given an infinite array of CPUs and infinite energy to run them at full speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31291850</id>
	<title>Re:No always has been</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1267185600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also, anyone who has hooked up a Kill-A-Watt to their computer, and then calculated how much money per year they're spending on it, disagrees with you.</p></div></blockquote><p>I've had a Kill-A-Watt for many years.  Time and time again I've thought about getting a new system, a smaller monitor, etc.</p><p>Every time I do, the payback spans out into 5+ years.  Even here in California, a 100W system is using 3 cents of electricity if it's powered-on 24/7.  If it idles lower it may be less than half that.  If you put it into standby/suspend or power it off, expect it to be less than 1/10th of that...</p><p>Let's go crazy, though, and consider a monster 300W system, running 24/7 for no good reason...  You're paying well under $33/year for electricity.  How much is it going to cost to replace this system?  If you could replace it with something that used NO ELECTRICITY AT ALL for $300USD, it would still take 10 years before you come out ahead.  Those aren't good numbers.</p><p>As always, the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is use an existing device as long as possible.  And when that's no longer tenable, buying the absolute cheapest computer/car/house you can get your hands on is the best way to go, even if it's not incredibly efficient...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , anyone who has hooked up a Kill-A-Watt to their computer , and then calculated how much money per year they 're spending on it , disagrees with you.I 've had a Kill-A-Watt for many years .
Time and time again I 've thought about getting a new system , a smaller monitor , etc.Every time I do , the payback spans out into 5 + years .
Even here in California , a 100W system is using 3 cents of electricity if it 's powered-on 24/7 .
If it idles lower it may be less than half that .
If you put it into standby/suspend or power it off , expect it to be less than 1/10th of that...Let 's go crazy , though , and consider a monster 300W system , running 24/7 for no good reason... You 're paying well under $ 33/year for electricity .
How much is it going to cost to replace this system ?
If you could replace it with something that used NO ELECTRICITY AT ALL for $ 300USD , it would still take 10 years before you come out ahead .
Those are n't good numbers.As always , the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is use an existing device as long as possible .
And when that 's no longer tenable , buying the absolute cheapest computer/car/house you can get your hands on is the best way to go , even if it 's not incredibly efficient.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, anyone who has hooked up a Kill-A-Watt to their computer, and then calculated how much money per year they're spending on it, disagrees with you.I've had a Kill-A-Watt for many years.
Time and time again I've thought about getting a new system, a smaller monitor, etc.Every time I do, the payback spans out into 5+ years.
Even here in California, a 100W system is using 3 cents of electricity if it's powered-on 24/7.
If it idles lower it may be less than half that.
If you put it into standby/suspend or power it off, expect it to be less than 1/10th of that...Let's go crazy, though, and consider a monster 300W system, running 24/7 for no good reason...  You're paying well under $33/year for electricity.
How much is it going to cost to replace this system?
If you could replace it with something that used NO ELECTRICITY AT ALL for $300USD, it would still take 10 years before you come out ahead.
Those aren't good numbers.As always, the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is use an existing device as long as possible.
And when that's no longer tenable, buying the absolute cheapest computer/car/house you can get your hands on is the best way to go, even if it's not incredibly efficient...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278610</id>
	<title>Re:where do you get your facts?</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1267096260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Your credibility as a reference was lost when you fail to expand the ARM chip acronym correctly.</i></p><p>Hey, on Slashdot <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM\_architecture" title="wikipedia.org">old school</a> [wikipedia.org] is acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your credibility as a reference was lost when you fail to expand the ARM chip acronym correctly.Hey , on Slashdot old school [ wikipedia.org ] is acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your credibility as a reference was lost when you fail to expand the ARM chip acronym correctly.Hey, on Slashdot old school [wikipedia.org] is acceptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279814</id>
	<title>Re:Make Boots &amp; Scans Faster</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1267103100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>yeah yeah, I can 'suspend' but none of that junk ever works properly on WinTel.</i></p><p>Yah it does. Unless your computer's defective. If it's defective, take it back and get one that works.</p><p>Seriously, suspend/hibernate is a solved problem for the last decade. When's the last time you tried it? Windows 98?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah yeah , I can 'suspend ' but none of that junk ever works properly on WinTel.Yah it does .
Unless your computer 's defective .
If it 's defective , take it back and get one that works.Seriously , suspend/hibernate is a solved problem for the last decade .
When 's the last time you tried it ?
Windows 98 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah yeah, I can 'suspend' but none of that junk ever works properly on WinTel.Yah it does.
Unless your computer's defective.
If it's defective, take it back and get one that works.Seriously, suspend/hibernate is a solved problem for the last decade.
When's the last time you tried it?
Windows 98?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278988</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278202</id>
	<title>where do you get your facts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267094640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your credibility as a reference was lost when you fail to expand the ARM chip acronym correctly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your credibility as a reference was lost when you fail to expand the ARM chip acronym correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your credibility as a reference was lost when you fail to expand the ARM chip acronym correctly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278924</id>
	<title>Re:so why can't i buy a !@##$\% low powered compute</title>
	<author>niko9</author>
	<datestamp>1267097520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading Joseph Jenkin's excellent book, The Humanure Handbook (http://www.jenkinspublishing.com/humanure.html and available for free here: <a href="http://humanurehandbook.com/downloads/Humanure\_Handbook\_all.pdf" title="humanurehandbook.com">http://humanurehandbook.com/downloads/Humanure\_Handbook\_all.pdf</a> [humanurehandbook.com]), I've been doing a lot of thinking recently about not just human waste but the waste that comes from everyday computing.</p><p>I think what you and I want is the combination of a Beagle Board and a Pixel Qi display (http://www.pixelqi.com/). That display has been mentioned on Slashdot before. You could also start developing super efficient programs on something like a PC Engines ALIX board (http://www.pcengines.ch/alix3d3.htm) or a Technologic  Systems ARM based board: <a href="http://www.embeddedarm.com/products/arm-sbc.php#ts-7800-series" title="embeddedarm.com">http://www.embeddedarm.com/products/arm-sbc.php#ts-7800-series</a> [embeddedarm.com] The TX boards come with Debian pre-installed and boot up in less that2-3 seconds. They seem to be very hacker friendly.</p><p>Of course, the other side of the equation is the WWW that we connect to. Is there anyone giving any consideration to efficient computing on the server side? Web forums vs. mailing lists; fancy web sites vs. lean, mean, and candid web design? Are there resources online where I can learn how to design a lean, mean, yet somewhat modern looking web site and run it off something like the aforementioned ALIX (500 Mhz AMD Geode) board? Does HTML help at all in this regard?</p><p>I even miss the old but lean Slashdot of long ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading Joseph Jenkin 's excellent book , The Humanure Handbook ( http : //www.jenkinspublishing.com/humanure.html and available for free here : http : //humanurehandbook.com/downloads/Humanure \ _Handbook \ _all.pdf [ humanurehandbook.com ] ) , I 've been doing a lot of thinking recently about not just human waste but the waste that comes from everyday computing.I think what you and I want is the combination of a Beagle Board and a Pixel Qi display ( http : //www.pixelqi.com/ ) .
That display has been mentioned on Slashdot before .
You could also start developing super efficient programs on something like a PC Engines ALIX board ( http : //www.pcengines.ch/alix3d3.htm ) or a Technologic Systems ARM based board : http : //www.embeddedarm.com/products/arm-sbc.php # ts-7800-series [ embeddedarm.com ] The TX boards come with Debian pre-installed and boot up in less that2-3 seconds .
They seem to be very hacker friendly.Of course , the other side of the equation is the WWW that we connect to .
Is there anyone giving any consideration to efficient computing on the server side ?
Web forums vs. mailing lists ; fancy web sites vs. lean , mean , and candid web design ?
Are there resources online where I can learn how to design a lean , mean , yet somewhat modern looking web site and run it off something like the aforementioned ALIX ( 500 Mhz AMD Geode ) board ?
Does HTML help at all in this regard ? I even miss the old but lean Slashdot of long ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading Joseph Jenkin's excellent book, The Humanure Handbook (http://www.jenkinspublishing.com/humanure.html and available for free here: http://humanurehandbook.com/downloads/Humanure\_Handbook\_all.pdf [humanurehandbook.com]), I've been doing a lot of thinking recently about not just human waste but the waste that comes from everyday computing.I think what you and I want is the combination of a Beagle Board and a Pixel Qi display (http://www.pixelqi.com/).
That display has been mentioned on Slashdot before.
You could also start developing super efficient programs on something like a PC Engines ALIX board (http://www.pcengines.ch/alix3d3.htm) or a Technologic  Systems ARM based board: http://www.embeddedarm.com/products/arm-sbc.php#ts-7800-series [embeddedarm.com] The TX boards come with Debian pre-installed and boot up in less that2-3 seconds.
They seem to be very hacker friendly.Of course, the other side of the equation is the WWW that we connect to.
Is there anyone giving any consideration to efficient computing on the server side?
Web forums vs. mailing lists; fancy web sites vs. lean, mean, and candid web design?
Are there resources online where I can learn how to design a lean, mean, yet somewhat modern looking web site and run it off something like the aforementioned ALIX (500 Mhz AMD Geode) board?
Does HTML help at all in this regard?I even miss the old but lean Slashdot of long ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31281984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31282038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31292172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31291850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31281180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31285390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31282912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_25_2138238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279456
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31285390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31282912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31282038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31281180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31281984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31292172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31291850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31279930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_25_2138238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31278422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_25_2138238.31280822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
