<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_04_0413215</id>
	<title>Bluetooth 4.0 To Reach Devices In Fourth Quarter</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1267707420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"The <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/338365/bluetooth\_4\_0\_reach\_devices\_fourth\_quarter/">Bluetooth 4.0 wireless specification</a> could start to appear in devices such as headsets, smartphones and PCs by the fourth quarter, said the Bluetooth Special Interest Group. The new specification will be able to be used in lower-power devices than previous versions of the technology, including watches, pedometers, smart meters and other gadgets that run on coin-cell batteries."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " The Bluetooth 4.0 wireless specification could start to appear in devices such as headsets , smartphones and PCs by the fourth quarter , said the Bluetooth Special Interest Group .
The new specification will be able to be used in lower-power devices than previous versions of the technology , including watches , pedometers , smart meters and other gadgets that run on coin-cell batteries .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "The Bluetooth 4.0 wireless specification could start to appear in devices such as headsets, smartphones and PCs by the fourth quarter, said the Bluetooth Special Interest Group.
The new specification will be able to be used in lower-power devices than previous versions of the technology, including watches, pedometers, smart meters and other gadgets that run on coin-cell batteries.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356984</id>
	<title>They're rolling out Bluetooth 4...</title>
	<author>HopefulIntern</author>
	<datestamp>1267711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>....but still USB3 is still nowhere in sight...</htmltext>
<tokenext>....but still USB3 is still nowhere in sight.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....but still USB3 is still nowhere in sight...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31366728</id>
	<title>Bluetooth totally, completely sucks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267720380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bluetooth has been a complete failure for me.  High battery drain, poor signal distance, random device amnesia requiring complete reconnect, slow syncup/connection, incompatible or intentionally crippled implementations, bad drivers that crash and require a reboot to reactivate, etc.</p><p>Wi-fi supposedly takes more power but I don't see it.  On multiple cell phones I see the opposite: quicker battery drain with bluetooth than wi-fi.  And wi-fi actually works.</p><p>I recently tried S9-HD wireless bluetooth headphones, hoping that somehow bluetooth might have finally been fixed, but they suffered all of the same problems.  Luckily it was still within 30 days so I got a refund.  The quality control on bluetooth implementations is atrocious and it'll be at least 5 more years before I give bluetooth another shot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bluetooth has been a complete failure for me .
High battery drain , poor signal distance , random device amnesia requiring complete reconnect , slow syncup/connection , incompatible or intentionally crippled implementations , bad drivers that crash and require a reboot to reactivate , etc.Wi-fi supposedly takes more power but I do n't see it .
On multiple cell phones I see the opposite : quicker battery drain with bluetooth than wi-fi .
And wi-fi actually works.I recently tried S9-HD wireless bluetooth headphones , hoping that somehow bluetooth might have finally been fixed , but they suffered all of the same problems .
Luckily it was still within 30 days so I got a refund .
The quality control on bluetooth implementations is atrocious and it 'll be at least 5 more years before I give bluetooth another shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bluetooth has been a complete failure for me.
High battery drain, poor signal distance, random device amnesia requiring complete reconnect, slow syncup/connection, incompatible or intentionally crippled implementations, bad drivers that crash and require a reboot to reactivate, etc.Wi-fi supposedly takes more power but I don't see it.
On multiple cell phones I see the opposite: quicker battery drain with bluetooth than wi-fi.
And wi-fi actually works.I recently tried S9-HD wireless bluetooth headphones, hoping that somehow bluetooth might have finally been fixed, but they suffered all of the same problems.
Luckily it was still within 30 days so I got a refund.
The quality control on bluetooth implementations is atrocious and it'll be at least 5 more years before I give bluetooth another shot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31368956</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1267786920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IR works.  Bluetooth...well, it needs support.  You'd need to pair the device(s) and the TV, to ensure you don't affect other people's TV/devices (ie your neighbours).  It needs more power.  There are licenses to pay for.  There'd be issues with the version of bluetooth, the stack used etc.</p><p>And after all that, you'd just have a remote control with which you can change channels, which you already have. So there's absolutely no point in doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IR works .
Bluetooth...well , it needs support .
You 'd need to pair the device ( s ) and the TV , to ensure you do n't affect other people 's TV/devices ( ie your neighbours ) .
It needs more power .
There are licenses to pay for .
There 'd be issues with the version of bluetooth , the stack used etc.And after all that , you 'd just have a remote control with which you can change channels , which you already have .
So there 's absolutely no point in doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IR works.
Bluetooth...well, it needs support.
You'd need to pair the device(s) and the TV, to ensure you don't affect other people's TV/devices (ie your neighbours).
It needs more power.
There are licenses to pay for.
There'd be issues with the version of bluetooth, the stack used etc.And after all that, you'd just have a remote control with which you can change channels, which you already have.
So there's absolutely no point in doing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31377204</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>svirre</author>
	<datestamp>1267794240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A two way RF remote can make sure that every key press is registered, istead of the push-button-until-tv-reacts method we use with IR remotes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A two way RF remote can make sure that every key press is registered , istead of the push-button-until-tv-reacts method we use with IR remotes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A two way RF remote can make sure that every key press is registered, istead of the push-button-until-tv-reacts method we use with IR remotes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357408</id>
	<title>Re:Wireless mouse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267714680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair, having wireless keyboards and mice that show up to the host system as plain old USB HID-compliant devices means there's generally one less thing to have to troubleshoot in case there are problems. Not to mention that you can use them to access the BIOS -- something you can't do with Bluetooth because the Bluetooth stack/driver haven't been loaded yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , having wireless keyboards and mice that show up to the host system as plain old USB HID-compliant devices means there 's generally one less thing to have to troubleshoot in case there are problems .
Not to mention that you can use them to access the BIOS -- something you ca n't do with Bluetooth because the Bluetooth stack/driver have n't been loaded yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, having wireless keyboards and mice that show up to the host system as plain old USB HID-compliant devices means there's generally one less thing to have to troubleshoot in case there are problems.
Not to mention that you can use them to access the BIOS -- something you can't do with Bluetooth because the Bluetooth stack/driver haven't been loaded yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357040</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>HopefulIntern</author>
	<datestamp>1267712100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why I use my PS3 for media. Then I can cuddle up in my sleepingbag and still have full control from within toasty goodness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I use my PS3 for media .
Then I can cuddle up in my sleepingbag and still have full control from within toasty goodness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I use my PS3 for media.
Then I can cuddle up in my sleepingbag and still have full control from within toasty goodness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31368284</id>
	<title>Re:same ol' bt audio</title>
	<author>bar-agent</author>
	<datestamp>1267821060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Currently its decompress the audio &gt; real time lossy recompression with worse codec &gt; transmit and then finally decompress.</i><br>I worked at a company that developed a very nice lossless Bluetooth codec. The tech is out there to do better, it is just a question of adoption and sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently its decompress the audio &gt; real time lossy recompression with worse codec &gt; transmit and then finally decompress.I worked at a company that developed a very nice lossless Bluetooth codec .
The tech is out there to do better , it is just a question of adoption and sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently its decompress the audio &gt; real time lossy recompression with worse codec &gt; transmit and then finally decompress.I worked at a company that developed a very nice lossless Bluetooth codec.
The tech is out there to do better, it is just a question of adoption and sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357274</id>
	<title>Bluetooth transmits where?!?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267713840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Bluetooth 4.0 To Reach Devices In Fourth Quarter</i></p><p>Holy poop!<br>I must have fallen behind the times.<br>Did not realize Bluetooth is so advanced that it can now transmit into the future!<br>When did they even start working on that sort of technology?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bluetooth 4.0 To Reach Devices In Fourth QuarterHoly poop ! I must have fallen behind the times.Did not realize Bluetooth is so advanced that it can now transmit into the future ! When did they even start working on that sort of technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bluetooth 4.0 To Reach Devices In Fourth QuarterHoly poop!I must have fallen behind the times.Did not realize Bluetooth is so advanced that it can now transmit into the future!When did they even start working on that sort of technology?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357810</id>
	<title>Devices In Fourth Quarter</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1267717320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But will it reach devices in the <i>French</i> Quarter?  This lack of coverage in New Orleans is troubling!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But will it reach devices in the French Quarter ?
This lack of coverage in New Orleans is troubling !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But will it reach devices in the French Quarter?
This lack of coverage in New Orleans is troubling!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357390</id>
	<title>Biggest Question</title>
	<author>robinstar1574</author>
	<datestamp>1267714500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it backwards compatible</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it backwards compatible</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it backwards compatible</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357368</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because new = automatically better.</p><p>If it ain't broke, don't fix it. IR remotes work just fine for devices like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because new = automatically better.If it ai n't broke , do n't fix it .
IR remotes work just fine for devices like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because new = automatically better.If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
IR remotes work just fine for devices like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31360262</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267728840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main problem in existing bluetooth (up to 3.0) is that both devices have to hop through 20 connectable channels to find each other before a connection can be made.  BT 4.0 only uses 3 connectable channels, so connect times are in the  50ms range.  Additionally, once a connection is made, BT LE (4.0) allows for data transfer before setting up upper level protocols.  A remote does not technically require any encryption, so you could easily have initial keypress in ~50ms, then maintain the connection for a short period of time to see if there are any follow ups, then disconnect.<br>A disconnected BT HID device can use ~15uA and wake on any button press.</p><p>The TV in this case can just leave it's BT radio on, but idle, and only wake the device on a connection attempt.  This is the same as a Mac that is asleep or a PS3 until you hit the home button on the controller.  Idle, but pageable BT controllers can use ~20mA or less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problem in existing bluetooth ( up to 3.0 ) is that both devices have to hop through 20 connectable channels to find each other before a connection can be made .
BT 4.0 only uses 3 connectable channels , so connect times are in the 50ms range .
Additionally , once a connection is made , BT LE ( 4.0 ) allows for data transfer before setting up upper level protocols .
A remote does not technically require any encryption , so you could easily have initial keypress in ~ 50ms , then maintain the connection for a short period of time to see if there are any follow ups , then disconnect.A disconnected BT HID device can use ~ 15uA and wake on any button press.The TV in this case can just leave it 's BT radio on , but idle , and only wake the device on a connection attempt .
This is the same as a Mac that is asleep or a PS3 until you hit the home button on the controller .
Idle , but pageable BT controllers can use ~ 20mA or less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main problem in existing bluetooth (up to 3.0) is that both devices have to hop through 20 connectable channels to find each other before a connection can be made.
BT 4.0 only uses 3 connectable channels, so connect times are in the  50ms range.
Additionally, once a connection is made, BT LE (4.0) allows for data transfer before setting up upper level protocols.
A remote does not technically require any encryption, so you could easily have initial keypress in ~50ms, then maintain the connection for a short period of time to see if there are any follow ups, then disconnect.A disconnected BT HID device can use ~15uA and wake on any button press.The TV in this case can just leave it's BT radio on, but idle, and only wake the device on a connection attempt.
This is the same as a Mac that is asleep or a PS3 until you hit the home button on the controller.
Idle, but pageable BT controllers can use ~20mA or less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356980</id>
	<title>pedometers,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>pedometers?</p></div><p>Pedometers! Think of the children! Don't let these meters anywhere near our kids</p><p>And don't sciken me with your "Bluetooth <i> <b>Special Interest</b> </i> Group", I don't want to know about your special interests.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>pedometers ? Pedometers !
Think of the children !
Do n't let these meters anywhere near our kidsAnd do n't sciken me with your " Bluetooth Special Interest Group " , I do n't want to know about your special interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pedometers?Pedometers!
Think of the children!
Don't let these meters anywhere near our kidsAnd don't sciken me with your "Bluetooth  Special Interest  Group", I don't want to know about your special interests.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357862</id>
	<title>Re:Wireless mouse</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1267717680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bluetooth headsets, and to a lesser extent keyboards and mice, all suffer from noticeable lag. This makes BT devices worthless for gaming and video, and damn annoying for everything else.</p><p>A low-lag Bluetooth is needed before it will replace USB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bluetooth headsets , and to a lesser extent keyboards and mice , all suffer from noticeable lag .
This makes BT devices worthless for gaming and video , and damn annoying for everything else.A low-lag Bluetooth is needed before it will replace USB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bluetooth headsets, and to a lesser extent keyboards and mice, all suffer from noticeable lag.
This makes BT devices worthless for gaming and video, and damn annoying for everything else.A low-lag Bluetooth is needed before it will replace USB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357062</id>
	<title>Re: pedometers,</title>
	<author>neiras</author>
	<datestamp>1267712340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pedometers! Think of the children! Don't let these meters anywhere near our kids.</p></div><p> <a href="http://boingboing.net/2010/02/06/pedobear-official-ma.html" title="boingboing.net">Pedobear</a> [boingboing.net] probably used one during his Olympic appearance.</p><p>Poor Quatchi, Miga, and Sumi.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pedometers !
Think of the children !
Do n't let these meters anywhere near our kids .
Pedobear [ boingboing.net ] probably used one during his Olympic appearance.Poor Quatchi , Miga , and Sumi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pedometers!
Think of the children!
Don't let these meters anywhere near our kids.
Pedobear [boingboing.net] probably used one during his Olympic appearance.Poor Quatchi, Miga, and Sumi.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356924</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1267711260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frist post with blutoo<tt>\%$ @<br>no carrier</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frist post with blutoo \ % $ @ no carrier</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frist post with blutoo\%$ @no carrier</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357576</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267715760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>What I want to know is why are so many people adamant about wanting Bluetooth for remotes when plain old RF remotes would work fine?</i></p> </div><p>"Plain old" remotes aren't RF. They're IR. And, as a result, a lot more susceptible to interference.<br>
<br>
That said... I agree with you. Even when there's enough interference to make the remote unreliable, it's rarely a major bother...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I want to know is why are so many people adamant about wanting Bluetooth for remotes when plain old RF remotes would work fine ?
" Plain old " remotes are n't RF .
They 're IR .
And , as a result , a lot more susceptible to interference .
That said... I agree with you .
Even when there 's enough interference to make the remote unreliable , it 's rarely a major bother.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What I want to know is why are so many people adamant about wanting Bluetooth for remotes when plain old RF remotes would work fine?
"Plain old" remotes aren't RF.
They're IR.
And, as a result, a lot more susceptible to interference.
That said... I agree with you.
Even when there's enough interference to make the remote unreliable, it's rarely a major bother...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356970</id>
	<title>Wireless mouse</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1267711620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>users will notice only nominal battery-life improvements for long-range or continuous data communication</p></div><p>No power saving for mice unfortunately.</p><p>I'm not sure why blue tooth mice are not more popular, with most companies going with their own <a href="http://www.logitech.com/" title="logitech.com">propitiatory, battery guzzling shit</a> [logitech.com] for wireless. Logitech, that means you!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>users will notice only nominal battery-life improvements for long-range or continuous data communicationNo power saving for mice unfortunately.I 'm not sure why blue tooth mice are not more popular , with most companies going with their own propitiatory , battery guzzling shit [ logitech.com ] for wireless .
Logitech , that means you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>users will notice only nominal battery-life improvements for long-range or continuous data communicationNo power saving for mice unfortunately.I'm not sure why blue tooth mice are not more popular, with most companies going with their own propitiatory, battery guzzling shit [logitech.com] for wireless.
Logitech, that means you!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31359578</id>
	<title>Re:Not Pedometers!</title>
	<author>aylons</author>
	<datestamp>1267725960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just the opposite: every children should carry a pedometer. Then, when an individual with a high pedo degree approaches, it beeps on alert.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just the opposite : every children should carry a pedometer .
Then , when an individual with a high pedo degree approaches , it beeps on alert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just the opposite: every children should carry a pedometer.
Then, when an individual with a high pedo degree approaches, it beeps on alert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31360154</id>
	<title>Re:Not Pedometers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267728300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Not Pedometers! Won't somebody think of the children??</i></p><p>If they thought of grown ups they wouldn't be pedos now would they.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not Pedometers !
Wo n't somebody think of the children ?
? If they thought of grown ups they would n't be pedos now would they .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not Pedometers!
Won't somebody think of the children?
?If they thought of grown ups they wouldn't be pedos now would they.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31358168</id>
	<title>I thought BT incorporated UWB</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267719660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought BT incorporated UWB at some point, the whole UWB story was kind of confusing. Not that it matters anymore since UWB is defunct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought BT incorporated UWB at some point , the whole UWB story was kind of confusing .
Not that it matters anymore since UWB is defunct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought BT incorporated UWB at some point, the whole UWB story was kind of confusing.
Not that it matters anymore since UWB is defunct.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357226</id>
	<title>Re:Lower power devices</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1267713480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it absorbs kinetic energy...<br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br>... after being thrown at the wall for being out of power for the sixth time in two days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it absorbs kinetic energy... ... after being thrown at the wall for being out of power for the sixth time in two days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it absorbs kinetic energy...     ... after being thrown at the wall for being out of power for the sixth time in two days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31377214</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>svirre</author>
	<datestamp>1267794420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bluetooth as it is is not well suited. Bluetooth low energy or RF4CE is very well suited to replace IR. It uses less energy (IR diodes suck down quite a bit of juice), can do two way communication so it permits guaranteed response of button presses, kan have the TV page the remote, can display information on the remote etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bluetooth as it is is not well suited .
Bluetooth low energy or RF4CE is very well suited to replace IR .
It uses less energy ( IR diodes suck down quite a bit of juice ) , can do two way communication so it permits guaranteed response of button presses , kan have the TV page the remote , can display information on the remote etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bluetooth as it is is not well suited.
Bluetooth low energy or RF4CE is very well suited to replace IR.
It uses less energy (IR diodes suck down quite a bit of juice), can do two way communication so it permits guaranteed response of button presses, kan have the TV page the remote, can display information on the remote etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31359610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357060</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>gadzook33</author>
	<datestamp>1267712340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean we'll finally get a decent pair of bluetooth headphones?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean we 'll finally get a decent pair of bluetooth headphones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean we'll finally get a decent pair of bluetooth headphones?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357006</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267711920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I once posted about that (Not in Slashdot) and someone told me it wouldn't be feasible, because of the time it takes to do the pairing and because you'd have to have a constant link between the devices, even if the TV is off (because you wouldn't be able to turn it on).

Please, someone with more knowledge, enlighten us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I once posted about that ( Not in Slashdot ) and someone told me it would n't be feasible , because of the time it takes to do the pairing and because you 'd have to have a constant link between the devices , even if the TV is off ( because you would n't be able to turn it on ) .
Please , someone with more knowledge , enlighten us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once posted about that (Not in Slashdot) and someone told me it wouldn't be feasible, because of the time it takes to do the pairing and because you'd have to have a constant link between the devices, even if the TV is off (because you wouldn't be able to turn it on).
Please, someone with more knowledge, enlighten us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31358802</id>
	<title>WiFi</title>
	<author>NicknamesAreStupid</author>
	<datestamp>1267723020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the bigger news is that the spec includes a feature to communicate over WiFi.  Only 25Mbps, but that could still be enough to take some cost out of devices that need both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the bigger news is that the spec includes a feature to communicate over WiFi .
Only 25Mbps , but that could still be enough to take some cost out of devices that need both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the bigger news is that the spec includes a feature to communicate over WiFi.
Only 25Mbps, but that could still be enough to take some cost out of devices that need both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31358466</id>
	<title>Never used Bluetooth in my life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267721280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Mac mini has Bluetooth but I didn't ask for it. It's always off and I have no devices that use it.</p><p>Cellphone? No I don't have a godamn cellphone. If I'm not home, just leave a message.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Mac mini has Bluetooth but I did n't ask for it .
It 's always off and I have no devices that use it.Cellphone ?
No I do n't have a godamn cellphone .
If I 'm not home , just leave a message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Mac mini has Bluetooth but I didn't ask for it.
It's always off and I have no devices that use it.Cellphone?
No I don't have a godamn cellphone.
If I'm not home, just leave a message.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357238</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267713660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I once posted about that (Not in Slashdot) and someone told me it wouldn't be feasible, because of the time it takes to do the pairing and because you'd have to have a constant link between the devices, even if the TV is off (because you wouldn't be able to turn it on). Please, someone with more knowledge, enlighten us.</i> <br>
<br>
The PS3 does use Bluetooth for its remote control, and it's a point of contention among a lot of people. It absolutely has its pluses, but it does have some minuses, too. For instance, it sucks batteries dry. For most remotes in my house, I need to change the batteries every 3 or 4 years. For my PS3 remote, I'm changing them about once a year (sure, it's only a couple of bucks, but it's still kind of a pain).<br>
<br>
What I want to know is why are so many people adamant about wanting Bluetooth for remotes when plain old RF remotes would work fine? Bluetooth is essentially RF with an encryption layer on top of it (which is why you need to pair devices). Do you really need your remote control signals to be encrypted?!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I once posted about that ( Not in Slashdot ) and someone told me it would n't be feasible , because of the time it takes to do the pairing and because you 'd have to have a constant link between the devices , even if the TV is off ( because you would n't be able to turn it on ) .
Please , someone with more knowledge , enlighten us .
The PS3 does use Bluetooth for its remote control , and it 's a point of contention among a lot of people .
It absolutely has its pluses , but it does have some minuses , too .
For instance , it sucks batteries dry .
For most remotes in my house , I need to change the batteries every 3 or 4 years .
For my PS3 remote , I 'm changing them about once a year ( sure , it 's only a couple of bucks , but it 's still kind of a pain ) .
What I want to know is why are so many people adamant about wanting Bluetooth for remotes when plain old RF remotes would work fine ?
Bluetooth is essentially RF with an encryption layer on top of it ( which is why you need to pair devices ) .
Do you really need your remote control signals to be encrypted ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once posted about that (Not in Slashdot) and someone told me it wouldn't be feasible, because of the time it takes to do the pairing and because you'd have to have a constant link between the devices, even if the TV is off (because you wouldn't be able to turn it on).
Please, someone with more knowledge, enlighten us.
The PS3 does use Bluetooth for its remote control, and it's a point of contention among a lot of people.
It absolutely has its pluses, but it does have some minuses, too.
For instance, it sucks batteries dry.
For most remotes in my house, I need to change the batteries every 3 or 4 years.
For my PS3 remote, I'm changing them about once a year (sure, it's only a couple of bucks, but it's still kind of a pain).
What I want to know is why are so many people adamant about wanting Bluetooth for remotes when plain old RF remotes would work fine?
Bluetooth is essentially RF with an encryption layer on top of it (which is why you need to pair devices).
Do you really need your remote control signals to be encrypted?!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31358744</id>
	<title>Ha!</title>
	<author>stakovahflow</author>
	<datestamp>1267722780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blue teeth! We don't need no stinkin' blue teeth! -Seriously, I've used bluetooth technology exactly once in my life and thought that was too much...</p><p>--The peanut gallery has chimed in...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blue teeth !
We do n't need no stinkin ' blue teeth !
-Seriously , I 've used bluetooth technology exactly once in my life and thought that was too much...--The peanut gallery has chimed in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blue teeth!
We don't need no stinkin' blue teeth!
-Seriously, I've used bluetooth technology exactly once in my life and thought that was too much...--The peanut gallery has chimed in...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356990</id>
	<title>Lower power devices</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1267711740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, the act of including Bluetooth transforms them from "run years on a single battery" to "run from outlet to outlet".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , the act of including Bluetooth transforms them from " run years on a single battery " to " run from outlet to outlet " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, the act of including Bluetooth transforms them from "run years on a single battery" to "run from outlet to outlet".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356930</id>
	<title>Not Pedometers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267711320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not Pedometers!  Won't somebody think of the children??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not Pedometers !
Wo n't somebody think of the children ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not Pedometers!
Won't somebody think of the children?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357266</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>aug24</author>
	<datestamp>1267713780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I turn my BT headset on and off and it pairs with the phone, and I turn my phone on and off and it pairs with the headset.</p><p>If you suspend the TV, then the IR receiver keeps power.  BT would be just the same.  If you turn it off properly (like unplugging it) then nothing will turn it on again.</p><p>Logically, BT == IR.</p><p>Plus, I'd be able to find the fucking thing with that little blue light<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Just.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I turn my BT headset on and off and it pairs with the phone , and I turn my phone on and off and it pairs with the headset.If you suspend the TV , then the IR receiver keeps power .
BT would be just the same .
If you turn it off properly ( like unplugging it ) then nothing will turn it on again.Logically , BT = = IR.Plus , I 'd be able to find the fucking thing with that little blue light ; - ) Just .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I turn my BT headset on and off and it pairs with the phone, and I turn my phone on and off and it pairs with the headset.If you suspend the TV, then the IR receiver keeps power.
BT would be just the same.
If you turn it off properly (like unplugging it) then nothing will turn it on again.Logically, BT == IR.Plus, I'd be able to find the fucking thing with that little blue light ;-)Just.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357018</id>
	<title>Re: pedometers,</title>
	<author>Ivan Stepaniuk</author>
	<datestamp>1267711980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>FAIL, this devices do not pose any risk for the children. On the contrary, they are used for measuring how pedophile a person is, wirelessly, and can be used to protect children from the otherwise unnoticeable offenders, either human or running bear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FAIL , this devices do not pose any risk for the children .
On the contrary , they are used for measuring how pedophile a person is , wirelessly , and can be used to protect children from the otherwise unnoticeable offenders , either human or running bear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FAIL, this devices do not pose any risk for the children.
On the contrary, they are used for measuring how pedophile a person is, wirelessly, and can be used to protect children from the otherwise unnoticeable offenders, either human or running bear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356956</id>
	<title>The Hand to Hand Protocol.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267711560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zigbee!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zigbee !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zigbee!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31377194</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>svirre</author>
	<datestamp>1267794120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A TV can just run a RF module constantly, it only draws 10-40mA. If you want a bit more agressive power saving, you can duty cycle the RF module, by listen a few times pr. second. This way you can bring average current consumed while listening for RF commands down into  5uA on average</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A TV can just run a RF module constantly , it only draws 10-40mA .
If you want a bit more agressive power saving , you can duty cycle the RF module , by listen a few times pr .
second. This way you can bring average current consumed while listening for RF commands down into 5uA on average</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A TV can just run a RF module constantly, it only draws 10-40mA.
If you want a bit more agressive power saving, you can duty cycle the RF module, by listen a few times pr.
second. This way you can bring average current consumed while listening for RF commands down into  5uA on average</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357022</id>
	<title>Re:They're rolling out Bluetooth 4...</title>
	<author>I confirm I'm not a</author>
	<datestamp>1267712040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's nothing - I'm still waiting for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX#History" title="wikipedia.org">TeX</a> [wikipedia.org] to hit version 4. It seems like it's been around the 3.14159 point <i>forever</i>!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nothing - I 'm still waiting for TeX [ wikipedia.org ] to hit version 4 .
It seems like it 's been around the 3.14159 point forever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nothing - I'm still waiting for TeX [wikipedia.org] to hit version 4.
It seems like it's been around the 3.14159 point forever!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356962</id>
	<title>That is MOST impressive</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1267711620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From science fiction to science fact!  While the time difference is much less significant than the time difference indicated in the movie "Frequency", performing a radio frequency transaction to devices in the fourth quarter while we are in the first quarter is quite impressive.  It should be enough to collect useful information such as lottery numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From science fiction to science fact !
While the time difference is much less significant than the time difference indicated in the movie " Frequency " , performing a radio frequency transaction to devices in the fourth quarter while we are in the first quarter is quite impressive .
It should be enough to collect useful information such as lottery numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From science fiction to science fact!
While the time difference is much less significant than the time difference indicated in the movie "Frequency", performing a radio frequency transaction to devices in the fourth quarter while we are in the first quarter is quite impressive.
It should be enough to collect useful information such as lottery numbers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357308</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267714080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's easy to solve:<br>Use IR to turn on the TV, have the TV and remote couple after they both turn on. This way you'd only have to point the remote at the TV to turn it on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's easy to solve : Use IR to turn on the TV , have the TV and remote couple after they both turn on .
This way you 'd only have to point the remote at the TV to turn it on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's easy to solve:Use IR to turn on the TV, have the TV and remote couple after they both turn on.
This way you'd only have to point the remote at the TV to turn it on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31380170</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267884600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My old Denon (AVR-1700) amplifier&rsquo;s remote allows me to walk into an adjacent room (door open), point it to another direction, and still have it working. It&rsquo;s because it contains 3 bright IR LEDs.</p><p>Interestingly, right now, I <em>still</em> use the same batteries. After a whopping 11 years! of course it doesn&rsquo;t go as far anymore (now about 3 meters with a small angle). But hey, that&rsquo;s still very impressive.</p><p>I wonder if there is some effect that keeps the batteries going. As I think they are long over even their expiration date. Let alone the realistic energy available.</p><p>(It&rsquo;s also programmable. Which makes it the best included remote I have ever had.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My old Denon ( AVR-1700 ) amplifier    s remote allows me to walk into an adjacent room ( door open ) , point it to another direction , and still have it working .
It    s because it contains 3 bright IR LEDs.Interestingly , right now , I still use the same batteries .
After a whopping 11 years !
of course it doesn    t go as far anymore ( now about 3 meters with a small angle ) .
But hey , that    s still very impressive.I wonder if there is some effect that keeps the batteries going .
As I think they are long over even their expiration date .
Let alone the realistic energy available .
( It    s also programmable .
Which makes it the best included remote I have ever had .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My old Denon (AVR-1700) amplifier’s remote allows me to walk into an adjacent room (door open), point it to another direction, and still have it working.
It’s because it contains 3 bright IR LEDs.Interestingly, right now, I still use the same batteries.
After a whopping 11 years!
of course it doesn’t go as far anymore (now about 3 meters with a small angle).
But hey, that’s still very impressive.I wonder if there is some effect that keeps the batteries going.
As I think they are long over even their expiration date.
Let alone the realistic energy available.
(It’s also programmable.
Which makes it the best included remote I have ever had.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357198</id>
	<title>Re:Wireless mouse</title>
	<author>Whalou</author>
	<datestamp>1267713360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have the Logitech MX 5500 keyboard and mouse and they use Bluetooth.<br> <br>
No need to use the provided USB Bluetooth adapter if your computer (or PS3 in my case) supports Bluetooth already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the Logitech MX 5500 keyboard and mouse and they use Bluetooth .
No need to use the provided USB Bluetooth adapter if your computer ( or PS3 in my case ) supports Bluetooth already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the Logitech MX 5500 keyboard and mouse and they use Bluetooth.
No need to use the provided USB Bluetooth adapter if your computer (or PS3 in my case) supports Bluetooth already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31358976</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>theJML</author>
	<datestamp>1267723620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PS3 remote is BT, and I love it. and it's lasted quite a while on it's 2 batteries. I'm sure it'll probably die slightly before a normal IR remote, but it could easily be made to use a rechargeable cradle and that'd solve that issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PS3 remote is BT , and I love it .
and it 's lasted quite a while on it 's 2 batteries .
I 'm sure it 'll probably die slightly before a normal IR remote , but it could easily be made to use a rechargeable cradle and that 'd solve that issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PS3 remote is BT, and I love it.
and it's lasted quite a while on it's 2 batteries.
I'm sure it'll probably die slightly before a normal IR remote, but it could easily be made to use a rechargeable cradle and that'd solve that issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952</id>
	<title>Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>Darth Sdlavrot</author>
	<datestamp>1267711500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My brand new TV and Blueray player still use IR remotes -- essentially the same tech as was used in the TV and VCR I bought 25 years ago - and it still sucks hind tit.</p><p>We've had BT for years now -- it's time for manufacturers to join the 21st century.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My brand new TV and Blueray player still use IR remotes -- essentially the same tech as was used in the TV and VCR I bought 25 years ago - and it still sucks hind tit.We 've had BT for years now -- it 's time for manufacturers to join the 21st century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My brand new TV and Blueray player still use IR remotes -- essentially the same tech as was used in the TV and VCR I bought 25 years ago - and it still sucks hind tit.We've had BT for years now -- it's time for manufacturers to join the 21st century.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31359610</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267726020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know why everyone in here is hating on IR.  It really is superior technology for remote controls: </p><ul>
<li>no pairing</li><li>ultra low power consumption</li><li>instant response</li></ul><p>Seriously, what advantage could bluetooth have?  If you're using a remote, you're already in line of sight of the device anyway</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why everyone in here is hating on IR .
It really is superior technology for remote controls : no pairingultra low power consumptioninstant responseSeriously , what advantage could bluetooth have ?
If you 're using a remote , you 're already in line of sight of the device anyway</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why everyone in here is hating on IR.
It really is superior technology for remote controls: 
no pairingultra low power consumptioninstant responseSeriously, what advantage could bluetooth have?
If you're using a remote, you're already in line of sight of the device anyway</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357174</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1267713180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's so bad about IR? I mean, except for the fact that most companies make remote controls which have to be held in a very narrow angle towards the device. But that's not a problem of IR per se; my first TV had an IR remote control where I wouldn't even have to point it vaguely in the direction of the TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's so bad about IR ?
I mean , except for the fact that most companies make remote controls which have to be held in a very narrow angle towards the device .
But that 's not a problem of IR per se ; my first TV had an IR remote control where I would n't even have to point it vaguely in the direction of the TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's so bad about IR?
I mean, except for the fact that most companies make remote controls which have to be held in a very narrow angle towards the device.
But that's not a problem of IR per se; my first TV had an IR remote control where I wouldn't even have to point it vaguely in the direction of the TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31360540</id>
	<title>Re:Wireless mouse</title>
	<author>SenseiLeNoir</author>
	<datestamp>1267730340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually a lot of BT keyboard and mouse sets behave as a normal USB HID compliant device when used with the provided dongle. My Microsoft Wireless 7000 KB + Mouse's dongle has a HID bridge that is on by default with a simple bluetooth stack implemented on the dongle, that only works with the mouse/keyboard. It is only when I install the drivers AND choose to install the BT stack that it switches to full BT mode (It is possible to install the Intellipoint software without enabling the bluetooth stack to save memory if you wish)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually a lot of BT keyboard and mouse sets behave as a normal USB HID compliant device when used with the provided dongle .
My Microsoft Wireless 7000 KB + Mouse 's dongle has a HID bridge that is on by default with a simple bluetooth stack implemented on the dongle , that only works with the mouse/keyboard .
It is only when I install the drivers AND choose to install the BT stack that it switches to full BT mode ( It is possible to install the Intellipoint software without enabling the bluetooth stack to save memory if you wish )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually a lot of BT keyboard and mouse sets behave as a normal USB HID compliant device when used with the provided dongle.
My Microsoft Wireless 7000 KB + Mouse's dongle has a HID bridge that is on by default with a simple bluetooth stack implemented on the dongle, that only works with the mouse/keyboard.
It is only when I install the drivers AND choose to install the BT stack that it switches to full BT mode (It is possible to install the Intellipoint software without enabling the bluetooth stack to save memory if you wish)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357278</id>
	<title>Bluetooth 3.0</title>
	<author>Crock23A</author>
	<datestamp>1267713840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I must be getting old.  I completely missed Bluetooth 3.0!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I must be getting old .
I completely missed Bluetooth 3.0 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must be getting old.
I completely missed Bluetooth 3.0!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357240</id>
	<title>same ol' bt audio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267713660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They need to improve the music streaming. Currently its decompress the audio &gt; real time lossy recompression with worse codec &gt; transmit and then finally decompress. It's less than ideal for audio quality and battery life. I think data transmission over te skin would be good for the task. My ears get warm and tender after 10 minutes from using a bt headset anyway, maybe I'm just allergic to it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to improve the music streaming .
Currently its decompress the audio &gt; real time lossy recompression with worse codec &gt; transmit and then finally decompress .
It 's less than ideal for audio quality and battery life .
I think data transmission over te skin would be good for the task .
My ears get warm and tender after 10 minutes from using a bt headset anyway , maybe I 'm just allergic to it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need to improve the music streaming.
Currently its decompress the audio &gt; real time lossy recompression with worse codec &gt; transmit and then finally decompress.
It's less than ideal for audio quality and battery life.
I think data transmission over te skin would be good for the task.
My ears get warm and tender after 10 minutes from using a bt headset anyway, maybe I'm just allergic to it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31379702</id>
	<title>Re:same ol' bt audio</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1267872540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed that bt audio doesn't measure up. The market in wireless headphones is really being hampered by the lack of audio quality.</p><p>That and range is an issue. Bt should be able to cover a 1-bedroom apartment so you can at least go to the bathroom or grab a snack without interruptions. It wouldn't even need much of a power boost, maybe 10-15\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed that bt audio does n't measure up .
The market in wireless headphones is really being hampered by the lack of audio quality.That and range is an issue .
Bt should be able to cover a 1-bedroom apartment so you can at least go to the bathroom or grab a snack without interruptions .
It would n't even need much of a power boost , maybe 10-15 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed that bt audio doesn't measure up.
The market in wireless headphones is really being hampered by the lack of audio quality.That and range is an issue.
Bt should be able to cover a 1-bedroom apartment so you can at least go to the bathroom or grab a snack without interruptions.
It wouldn't even need much of a power boost, maybe 10-15\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31360304</id>
	<title>Re:Time to retire IR for remotes</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1267729140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IR works if it has line of sight.  BT works if it feels like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IR works if it has line of sight .
BT works if it feels like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IR works if it has line of sight.
BT works if it feels like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31368956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31360540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31379702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31360304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31359578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31380170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31358976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31360154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31377214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31359610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31377204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31377194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31368284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_0413215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31360262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0413215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0413215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31358976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31359610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31377214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31377204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31368956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31380170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357238
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357308
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31377194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31360262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31360304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0413215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31360154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31359578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0413215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0413215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0413215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31368284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31379702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0413215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0413215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0413215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31356970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31360540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_0413215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_0413215.31357278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
