<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_08_0024205</id>
	<title>Time To Take the Internet Seriously</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1268062740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://twitter.com/santoshmaharhi" rel="nofollow">santosh maharshi</a> passes along an article on Edge by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David\_Gelernter">David Gelernter</a>, the man who (according to the introduction) predicted the Web and first described cloud computing; he's also a Unabomber survivor. Gelernter makes <a href="http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge313.html">35 predictions and assertions</a>, some brilliant, some dubious. <i>"6. We know that the Internet creates 'information overload,' a problem with two parts: increasing number of information sources and increasing information flow per source. The first part is harder: it's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneously than one person talking fast &mdash; especially if you can tell the one person to stop temporarily, or go back and repeat. Integrating multiple information sources is crucial to solving information overload. Blogs and other anthology-sites integrate information from many sources. But we won't be able to solve the overload problem until each Internet user can choose for himself what sources to integrate, and can add to this mix the most important source of all: his own personal information &mdash; his email and other messages, reminders and documents of all sorts. To accomplish this, we merely need to turn the whole Cybersphere on its side, so that time instead of space is the main axis. ... 14. The structure called a cyberstream or lifestream is better suited to the Internet than a conventional website because it shows information-in-motion, a rushing flow of fresh information instead of a stagnant pool."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>santosh maharshi passes along an article on Edge by David Gelernter , the man who ( according to the introduction ) predicted the Web and first described cloud computing ; he 's also a Unabomber survivor .
Gelernter makes 35 predictions and assertions , some brilliant , some dubious .
" 6. We know that the Internet creates 'information overload, ' a problem with two parts : increasing number of information sources and increasing information flow per source .
The first part is harder : it 's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneously than one person talking fast    especially if you can tell the one person to stop temporarily , or go back and repeat .
Integrating multiple information sources is crucial to solving information overload .
Blogs and other anthology-sites integrate information from many sources .
But we wo n't be able to solve the overload problem until each Internet user can choose for himself what sources to integrate , and can add to this mix the most important source of all : his own personal information    his email and other messages , reminders and documents of all sorts .
To accomplish this , we merely need to turn the whole Cybersphere on its side , so that time instead of space is the main axis .
... 14 .
The structure called a cyberstream or lifestream is better suited to the Internet than a conventional website because it shows information-in-motion , a rushing flow of fresh information instead of a stagnant pool .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>santosh maharshi passes along an article on Edge by David Gelernter, the man who (according to the introduction) predicted the Web and first described cloud computing; he's also a Unabomber survivor.
Gelernter makes 35 predictions and assertions, some brilliant, some dubious.
"6. We know that the Internet creates 'information overload,' a problem with two parts: increasing number of information sources and increasing information flow per source.
The first part is harder: it's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneously than one person talking fast — especially if you can tell the one person to stop temporarily, or go back and repeat.
Integrating multiple information sources is crucial to solving information overload.
Blogs and other anthology-sites integrate information from many sources.
But we won't be able to solve the overload problem until each Internet user can choose for himself what sources to integrate, and can add to this mix the most important source of all: his own personal information — his email and other messages, reminders and documents of all sorts.
To accomplish this, we merely need to turn the whole Cybersphere on its side, so that time instead of space is the main axis.
... 14.
The structure called a cyberstream or lifestream is better suited to the Internet than a conventional website because it shows information-in-motion, a rushing flow of fresh information instead of a stagnant pool.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398148</id>
	<title>Re:Take the internet seriously?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1268080440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the article is a joke.</p><p>On second thoughts, scratch "maybe".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the article is a joke.On second thoughts , scratch " maybe " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the article is a joke.On second thoughts, scratch "maybe".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397402</id>
	<title>What's the fuss?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267983720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So appearantly we have someone who predicts a WHOLE DAMN LOT of stuff (seriously, most people wouldn't even THINK of that much, let alone PREDICT it), and he predicted the internet. Ok. I'm fairly sure if I spend my life predicting stuff I am supposed to guess right from time to time. If you want to impress me, give me all his predictions and a percentage how many were true. More than 50\% and I will start listening.</p><p>And what does the Unabomber have to do with it at all? Is surviving an explosion now something that boosts your credibility? In that case, I'd guess demo experts should run for public offices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So appearantly we have someone who predicts a WHOLE DAMN LOT of stuff ( seriously , most people would n't even THINK of that much , let alone PREDICT it ) , and he predicted the internet .
Ok. I 'm fairly sure if I spend my life predicting stuff I am supposed to guess right from time to time .
If you want to impress me , give me all his predictions and a percentage how many were true .
More than 50 \ % and I will start listening.And what does the Unabomber have to do with it at all ?
Is surviving an explosion now something that boosts your credibility ?
In that case , I 'd guess demo experts should run for public offices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So appearantly we have someone who predicts a WHOLE DAMN LOT of stuff (seriously, most people wouldn't even THINK of that much, let alone PREDICT it), and he predicted the internet.
Ok. I'm fairly sure if I spend my life predicting stuff I am supposed to guess right from time to time.
If you want to impress me, give me all his predictions and a percentage how many were true.
More than 50\% and I will start listening.And what does the Unabomber have to do with it at all?
Is surviving an explosion now something that boosts your credibility?
In that case, I'd guess demo experts should run for public offices.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397182</id>
	<title>Time to start taking ourselves too seriously</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1267981380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Time to start taking ourselves too seriously</b> <p>No moment in technology history has ever been more exciting or dangerous than now, when I started speaking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to start taking ourselves too seriously No moment in technology history has ever been more exciting or dangerous than now , when I started speaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to start taking ourselves too seriously No moment in technology history has ever been more exciting or dangerous than now, when I started speaking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398470</id>
	<title>Serious?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268041860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet is for porn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is for porn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet is for porn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31400562</id>
	<title>Analogy failure.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1268063640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The first part is harder: it's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneously than one person talking fast -- especially if you can tell the one person to stop temporarily, or go back and repeat.</i></p><p>That's why the Internet is still mostly text. Typing is slower than talking, but reading is faster than listening, and <i>reading doesn't suffer from this problem</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first part is harder : it 's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneously than one person talking fast -- especially if you can tell the one person to stop temporarily , or go back and repeat.That 's why the Internet is still mostly text .
Typing is slower than talking , but reading is faster than listening , and reading does n't suffer from this problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first part is harder: it's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneously than one person talking fast -- especially if you can tell the one person to stop temporarily, or go back and repeat.That's why the Internet is still mostly text.
Typing is slower than talking, but reading is faster than listening, and reading doesn't suffer from this problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397668</id>
	<title>Old...</title>
	<author>nathan s</author>
	<datestamp>1267987140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I reviewed this guy and his lifestream idea back in 2004 (http://www.natesimpson.com/blog/archives/2004/08/10/scopeware/) and ultimately found myself pretty unimpressed.   I mean, the core ideas are interesting but so patent-encumbered that it will be a decade before they are touchable, and the man himself holds some pretty irritating/intolerant views (cited a few in that post) that left a bad impression on the whole.  Sad then, sad now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I reviewed this guy and his lifestream idea back in 2004 ( http : //www.natesimpson.com/blog/archives/2004/08/10/scopeware/ ) and ultimately found myself pretty unimpressed .
I mean , the core ideas are interesting but so patent-encumbered that it will be a decade before they are touchable , and the man himself holds some pretty irritating/intolerant views ( cited a few in that post ) that left a bad impression on the whole .
Sad then , sad now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I reviewed this guy and his lifestream idea back in 2004 (http://www.natesimpson.com/blog/archives/2004/08/10/scopeware/) and ultimately found myself pretty unimpressed.
I mean, the core ideas are interesting but so patent-encumbered that it will be a decade before they are touchable, and the man himself holds some pretty irritating/intolerant views (cited a few in that post) that left a bad impression on the whole.
Sad then, sad now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399584</id>
	<title>Obligatory Gates Quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268056620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>"640k (of usable ram) ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates<br><br>People try to make these kinds of far-reaching predictions without really thinking it through all the time. This is nothing new, though this guy has less balls than most in that his quotes aren't even concrete enough to truly be ridiculed in the future.<br><br>Some, like this one:<br><br>"1.&nbsp; No moment in technology history has ever been more exciting or dangerous than now. The Internet is like a new computer running a flashy, exciting demo. We have been entranced by this demo for fifteen years. But now it is time to get to work, and make the Internet do what we want it to."<br><br>at least have the decency to be stupid enough for it to be ridiculed right now.<br><br>The Internet, as it is, is in perpetual Beta. I don't know about the rest of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. but I like it that way, and its been doing everything I want it to do for several years now. This whole thing is a pile of semi-dated garbage at best, and a thinly veiled promotion of Internet censorship and legalized,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/encouraged/ monopolies at worst. The timing and wording of this entire thing shortly after a M$ announcement of a large investment in the cloud too...<br><br>Or perhaps my tin foil hat is wedged on a little too tightly this morning.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 640k ( of usable ram ) ought to be enough for anybody " - Bill GatesPeople try to make these kinds of far-reaching predictions without really thinking it through all the time .
This is nothing new , though this guy has less balls than most in that his quotes are n't even concrete enough to truly be ridiculed in the future.Some , like this one : " 1.   No moment in technology history has ever been more exciting or dangerous than now .
The Internet is like a new computer running a flashy , exciting demo .
We have been entranced by this demo for fifteen years .
But now it is time to get to work , and make the Internet do what we want it to .
" at least have the decency to be stupid enough for it to be ridiculed right now.The Internet , as it is , is in perpetual Beta .
I do n't know about the rest of / .
but I like it that way , and its been doing everything I want it to do for several years now .
This whole thing is a pile of semi-dated garbage at best , and a thinly veiled promotion of Internet censorship and legalized , /encouraged/ monopolies at worst .
The timing and wording of this entire thing shortly after a M $ announcement of a large investment in the cloud too...Or perhaps my tin foil hat is wedged on a little too tightly this morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"640k (of usable ram) ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill GatesPeople try to make these kinds of far-reaching predictions without really thinking it through all the time.
This is nothing new, though this guy has less balls than most in that his quotes aren't even concrete enough to truly be ridiculed in the future.Some, like this one:"1.  No moment in technology history has ever been more exciting or dangerous than now.
The Internet is like a new computer running a flashy, exciting demo.
We have been entranced by this demo for fifteen years.
But now it is time to get to work, and make the Internet do what we want it to.
"at least have the decency to be stupid enough for it to be ridiculed right now.The Internet, as it is, is in perpetual Beta.
I don't know about the rest of /.
but I like it that way, and its been doing everything I want it to do for several years now.
This whole thing is a pile of semi-dated garbage at best, and a thinly veiled promotion of Internet censorship and legalized, /encouraged/ monopolies at worst.
The timing and wording of this entire thing shortly after a M$ announcement of a large investment in the cloud too...Or perhaps my tin foil hat is wedged on a little too tightly this morning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397098</id>
	<title>Sure is good to know</title>
	<author>smitty\_one\_each</author>
	<datestamp>1267980660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sure is good to know that all of the OWL people <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/</a> [w3.org] have been fannying about until now.<br>
We really should take all of this stuff seriously.<br>
Oh, wait: is that a codephrase indicating that we should commence the final assault on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sure is good to know that all of the OWL people http : //www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ [ w3.org ] have been fannying about until now .
We really should take all of this stuff seriously .
Oh , wait : is that a codephrase indicating that we should commence the final assault on / .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sure is good to know that all of the OWL people http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/ [w3.org] have been fannying about until now.
We really should take all of this stuff seriously.
Oh, wait: is that a codephrase indicating that we should commence the final assault on /.
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397752</id>
	<title>Taming the Natives</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1267988460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taking the internet seriously is what leads to all these "internet laws" that slashdot seems to rally against. In fact, the internet's existence as an international object that isn't technically, on the whole, legal in most jurisdictions, for one reason or another, is due in part to the internet not being taken seriously. Now, people are taking what they read online reasonably seriously; as seriously as any other medium. The internet is now no longer just for geeky adults, but also for children, and as such, a large portion of the population will look to have it censored or at least rated, just like any other medium (the logistics of such a task is another issue entirely).</p><p>The days of the internet being a wild west of vocal freedom are in danger of coming to a close, for as much as living in a wild west can be exhilarating and can make you feel more free, there will always be people who want to develop it to make it as safe as the colonised areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taking the internet seriously is what leads to all these " internet laws " that slashdot seems to rally against .
In fact , the internet 's existence as an international object that is n't technically , on the whole , legal in most jurisdictions , for one reason or another , is due in part to the internet not being taken seriously .
Now , people are taking what they read online reasonably seriously ; as seriously as any other medium .
The internet is now no longer just for geeky adults , but also for children , and as such , a large portion of the population will look to have it censored or at least rated , just like any other medium ( the logistics of such a task is another issue entirely ) .The days of the internet being a wild west of vocal freedom are in danger of coming to a close , for as much as living in a wild west can be exhilarating and can make you feel more free , there will always be people who want to develop it to make it as safe as the colonised areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taking the internet seriously is what leads to all these "internet laws" that slashdot seems to rally against.
In fact, the internet's existence as an international object that isn't technically, on the whole, legal in most jurisdictions, for one reason or another, is due in part to the internet not being taken seriously.
Now, people are taking what they read online reasonably seriously; as seriously as any other medium.
The internet is now no longer just for geeky adults, but also for children, and as such, a large portion of the population will look to have it censored or at least rated, just like any other medium (the logistics of such a task is another issue entirely).The days of the internet being a wild west of vocal freedom are in danger of coming to a close, for as much as living in a wild west can be exhilarating and can make you feel more free, there will always be people who want to develop it to make it as safe as the colonised areas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31401378</id>
	<title>Re:Aaaah, the prediction makers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268067960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is with euro senses of humour. Why would any magazine joke that Nintendo would create a Yoshi OS. It's not even clever.</p><p>Euros are all smelly goof balls. Grow up and become productive again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is with euro senses of humour .
Why would any magazine joke that Nintendo would create a Yoshi OS .
It 's not even clever.Euros are all smelly goof balls .
Grow up and become productive again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is with euro senses of humour.
Why would any magazine joke that Nintendo would create a Yoshi OS.
It's not even clever.Euros are all smelly goof balls.
Grow up and become productive again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398948</id>
	<title>Re:condition: buzzword alert</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1268048220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/62062" title="userscripts.org">http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/62062</a> [userscripts.org] seems like just the thing for you, and trust me greasemonkey scripts work really well! Case in point: <a href="http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/5738" title="userscripts.org">http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/5738</a> [userscripts.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //userscripts.org/scripts/show/62062 [ userscripts.org ] seems like just the thing for you , and trust me greasemonkey scripts work really well !
Case in point : http : //userscripts.org/scripts/show/5738 [ userscripts.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/62062 [userscripts.org] seems like just the thing for you, and trust me greasemonkey scripts work really well!
Case in point: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/5738 [userscripts.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397448</id>
	<title>Life Streams and Feeds</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1267984380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>17. There is no clear way to blend two standard websites together, but it's obvious how to blend two streams. You simply shuffle them together like two decks of cards, maintaining time-order &mdash; putting the earlier document first. Blending is important because we must be able to add and subtract in the Cybersphere. We add streams together by blending them.</i>
<p>
---
</p><p>
This guy is half way to inventing my <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com], except he didn't see the usefulness of similarity filtering to some source, to keep the stream on topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>17 .
There is no clear way to blend two standard websites together , but it 's obvious how to blend two streams .
You simply shuffle them together like two decks of cards , maintaining time-order    putting the earlier document first .
Blending is important because we must be able to add and subtract in the Cybersphere .
We add streams together by blending them .
--- This guy is half way to inventing my Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ] , except he did n't see the usefulness of similarity filtering to some source , to keep the stream on topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>17.
There is no clear way to blend two standard websites together, but it's obvious how to blend two streams.
You simply shuffle them together like two decks of cards, maintaining time-order — putting the earlier document first.
Blending is important because we must be able to add and subtract in the Cybersphere.
We add streams together by blending them.
---

This guy is half way to inventing my Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com], except he didn't see the usefulness of similarity filtering to some source, to keep the stream on topic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397828</id>
	<title>Gelernter who. . ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, it seems that David Gelerter was blown up by the Unabomber, survived and wrote <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Life-David-Gelernter/dp/0684839121" title="amazon.com">a book</a> [amazon.com] about the experience.  In a cavalier attempt to "Take the Internet Seriously" I dredged up two reviews from Amazon's customer comments which show opposing valances of political opinion regarding the book's content.  I thought it might help to explain the kind of filters Mr. Gelerter views the world through and thus help one decide whether his little treatise on the Internet is worth anything.</p><p>Review Number One. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Drawing Life" is by David Gelernter, a computer science professor who survived one of Ted Kaczynski's mail bombs.</p><p>The book is about a well educated, intelligent man who has descended into a fear of the future and a hatred of the society that nurtured him, who dreams of a glorious American past that never really existed, who has written a venomous yet pedestrian political tract that would never have been printed without the author's notoriety, and who has come to the conclusion that sometimes people must be deliberately killed to remake society.</p><p>This book is also about the Unabomber.</p><p>Gelernter has endured an awful lot, and for this one is prepared to grant him slack. If he's cranky, he's certainly earned the right to be this way.</p><p>Yet, I've come away disappointed, not just with "Drawing Life," but with Gelernter himself. He is a profoundly bitter man who believes modern society has been ruined not just by the Unabomber but by the likes of unwed mothers, liberals, lawyers, feminists, intellectuals, working mothers, left-wing journalists, Hillary Clinton, and the usual gang of suspects straight from Rush Limbaugh's enemies list.</p><p>Tiresome and unoriginal. Not worth reading.</p><p>And David, enough with the kvetching already!</p> </div><p>Review Number Two. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the most powerfully written and elegantly thought out books I have ever read. Should be mandatory reading for every American. I used to think only Vietnam veterans had this kind of sane view of the world after adversity. I was wrong. Buy it, read it, pass it along.</p></div><p>Right.  So Gelernter is passing judgment on the great social commons known as the Internet, is he?</p><p>I'll pass, thanks.</p><p>-FL</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , it seems that David Gelerter was blown up by the Unabomber , survived and wrote a book [ amazon.com ] about the experience .
In a cavalier attempt to " Take the Internet Seriously " I dredged up two reviews from Amazon 's customer comments which show opposing valances of political opinion regarding the book 's content .
I thought it might help to explain the kind of filters Mr. Gelerter views the world through and thus help one decide whether his little treatise on the Internet is worth anything.Review Number One .
. .
" Drawing Life " is by David Gelernter , a computer science professor who survived one of Ted Kaczynski 's mail bombs.The book is about a well educated , intelligent man who has descended into a fear of the future and a hatred of the society that nurtured him , who dreams of a glorious American past that never really existed , who has written a venomous yet pedestrian political tract that would never have been printed without the author 's notoriety , and who has come to the conclusion that sometimes people must be deliberately killed to remake society.This book is also about the Unabomber.Gelernter has endured an awful lot , and for this one is prepared to grant him slack .
If he 's cranky , he 's certainly earned the right to be this way.Yet , I 've come away disappointed , not just with " Drawing Life , " but with Gelernter himself .
He is a profoundly bitter man who believes modern society has been ruined not just by the Unabomber but by the likes of unwed mothers , liberals , lawyers , feminists , intellectuals , working mothers , left-wing journalists , Hillary Clinton , and the usual gang of suspects straight from Rush Limbaugh 's enemies list.Tiresome and unoriginal .
Not worth reading.And David , enough with the kvetching already !
Review Number Two .
. .One of the most powerfully written and elegantly thought out books I have ever read .
Should be mandatory reading for every American .
I used to think only Vietnam veterans had this kind of sane view of the world after adversity .
I was wrong .
Buy it , read it , pass it along.Right .
So Gelernter is passing judgment on the great social commons known as the Internet , is he ? I 'll pass , thanks.-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, it seems that David Gelerter was blown up by the Unabomber, survived and wrote a book [amazon.com] about the experience.
In a cavalier attempt to "Take the Internet Seriously" I dredged up two reviews from Amazon's customer comments which show opposing valances of political opinion regarding the book's content.
I thought it might help to explain the kind of filters Mr. Gelerter views the world through and thus help one decide whether his little treatise on the Internet is worth anything.Review Number One.
. .
"Drawing Life" is by David Gelernter, a computer science professor who survived one of Ted Kaczynski's mail bombs.The book is about a well educated, intelligent man who has descended into a fear of the future and a hatred of the society that nurtured him, who dreams of a glorious American past that never really existed, who has written a venomous yet pedestrian political tract that would never have been printed without the author's notoriety, and who has come to the conclusion that sometimes people must be deliberately killed to remake society.This book is also about the Unabomber.Gelernter has endured an awful lot, and for this one is prepared to grant him slack.
If he's cranky, he's certainly earned the right to be this way.Yet, I've come away disappointed, not just with "Drawing Life," but with Gelernter himself.
He is a profoundly bitter man who believes modern society has been ruined not just by the Unabomber but by the likes of unwed mothers, liberals, lawyers, feminists, intellectuals, working mothers, left-wing journalists, Hillary Clinton, and the usual gang of suspects straight from Rush Limbaugh's enemies list.Tiresome and unoriginal.
Not worth reading.And David, enough with the kvetching already!
Review Number Two.
. .One of the most powerfully written and elegantly thought out books I have ever read.
Should be mandatory reading for every American.
I used to think only Vietnam veterans had this kind of sane view of the world after adversity.
I was wrong.
Buy it, read it, pass it along.Right.
So Gelernter is passing judgment on the great social commons known as the Internet, is he?I'll pass, thanks.-FL
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397840</id>
	<title>Re:Time-Based Filesystem</title>
	<author>PaintyThePirate</author>
	<datestamp>1267989600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interestingly, this is the approach that OLPC and now Sugar Labs have taken for file access in Sugar, using the <a href="http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Journal\_Activity" title="laptop.org">Journal activity</a> [laptop.org].  This is also the direction Gnome is heading in, with <a href="http://gnomejournal.org/article/70/an-introduction-to-gnome-zeitgeist" title="gnomejournal.org">Zeitgeist</a> [gnomejournal.org] and its GUIs.<br> <br>It's a little strange at first, and it certainly can't replace normal file browsers completely, but it ends up being pretty convenient in day to day use.  Of course, these aren't filesystems, just layers atop them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , this is the approach that OLPC and now Sugar Labs have taken for file access in Sugar , using the Journal activity [ laptop.org ] .
This is also the direction Gnome is heading in , with Zeitgeist [ gnomejournal.org ] and its GUIs .
It 's a little strange at first , and it certainly ca n't replace normal file browsers completely , but it ends up being pretty convenient in day to day use .
Of course , these are n't filesystems , just layers atop them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, this is the approach that OLPC and now Sugar Labs have taken for file access in Sugar, using the Journal activity [laptop.org].
This is also the direction Gnome is heading in, with Zeitgeist [gnomejournal.org] and its GUIs.
It's a little strange at first, and it certainly can't replace normal file browsers completely, but it ends up being pretty convenient in day to day use.
Of course, these aren't filesystems, just layers atop them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31410044</id>
	<title>Re:condition: buzzword alert</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1268071200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the contrary, this guy has been working on the Lifestream concept for a while, and while I agree 'cybersphere' is a rather meh name for the concept, I think he's onto something very important. Lifestreams are at the heart of blogs, Facebook and Twitter; these infrastructures aren't really doing it very well, which is why we need a new one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the contrary , this guy has been working on the Lifestream concept for a while , and while I agree 'cybersphere ' is a rather meh name for the concept , I think he 's onto something very important .
Lifestreams are at the heart of blogs , Facebook and Twitter ; these infrastructures are n't really doing it very well , which is why we need a new one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the contrary, this guy has been working on the Lifestream concept for a while, and while I agree 'cybersphere' is a rather meh name for the concept, I think he's onto something very important.
Lifestreams are at the heart of blogs, Facebook and Twitter; these infrastructures aren't really doing it very well, which is why we need a new one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397540</id>
	<title>Time-Based Filesystem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267985640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, like about 10 or 15 years ago I saw this TV presentation by a guy who swore up and down that filesystems should store &amp; display documents solely by timestamp order of creation. (Is this the same guy?) "Time instead of space... cyberstream or lifestream... shows information-in-motion, a rushing flow of fresh information...," all that jazz.</p><p>I routinely think back on that because it's one of the wrongest, most idiotic epic fails I ever remember seeing. I'm astonished to see it popping back up with a bunch of "web" buzzwords plastered on top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , like about 10 or 15 years ago I saw this TV presentation by a guy who swore up and down that filesystems should store &amp; display documents solely by timestamp order of creation .
( Is this the same guy ?
) " Time instead of space... cyberstream or lifestream... shows information-in-motion , a rushing flow of fresh information... , " all that jazz.I routinely think back on that because it 's one of the wrongest , most idiotic epic fails I ever remember seeing .
I 'm astonished to see it popping back up with a bunch of " web " buzzwords plastered on top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, like about 10 or 15 years ago I saw this TV presentation by a guy who swore up and down that filesystems should store &amp; display documents solely by timestamp order of creation.
(Is this the same guy?
) "Time instead of space... cyberstream or lifestream... shows information-in-motion, a rushing flow of fresh information...," all that jazz.I routinely think back on that because it's one of the wrongest, most idiotic epic fails I ever remember seeing.
I'm astonished to see it popping back up with a bunch of "web" buzzwords plastered on top.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398334</id>
	<title>it already exists</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1268039940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called usenet.</p><p>The web 2.0 version is RSS feed of a blog (woohoo). And the application is an RSS agregator.</p><p>Taken to it's logical end point you get Lotus Notes.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called usenet.The web 2.0 version is RSS feed of a blog ( woohoo ) .
And the application is an RSS agregator.Taken to it 's logical end point you get Lotus Notes .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called usenet.The web 2.0 version is RSS feed of a blog (woohoo).
And the application is an RSS agregator.Taken to it's logical end point you get Lotus Notes.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397284</id>
	<title>Not really the internet</title>
	<author>CustomDesigned</author>
	<datestamp>1267982520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article says "internet", but it really means "the HTTP based family of applications that use the internet".   Sometimes a customer gets me by mistake when they need help because "their internet is down".  I start to get mad because of self contradictory statements, but then I remember that they really mean, "my web browser stopped working".   (You can tell I'm not really tech support because next I try to find out what browser they are using, and they are never able to tell me.  Which means they are using IE.)</p><p>Having cleared that up, I can only see consolidation of HTTP applications under some super googly company (perhaps one the article writer envisions heading) as making things worse.  I suggest that clutter in your web browser is not much different that clutter in your house.  Get a book on Feng Shui or equivalent and start deleting the stuff that isn't helping you (making you happier, needed for work, etc).</p><p>P.S.  I discovered a very important, but little known principle of error page design.  If you put something in giant type at the top of the page, no one reads it.  It you put it in little bitty 6 point type at the very bottom, everyone will read it.  Even if they need to use their magnifier app.  I can't explain it (it must have something to do with lawyers), but now that I know, I save a lot of frustration by putting the most important message in little bitty type at the bottom.  (I still leave it at the top in big type also in case any old fashioned types like me see it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article says " internet " , but it really means " the HTTP based family of applications that use the internet " .
Sometimes a customer gets me by mistake when they need help because " their internet is down " .
I start to get mad because of self contradictory statements , but then I remember that they really mean , " my web browser stopped working " .
( You can tell I 'm not really tech support because next I try to find out what browser they are using , and they are never able to tell me .
Which means they are using IE .
) Having cleared that up , I can only see consolidation of HTTP applications under some super googly company ( perhaps one the article writer envisions heading ) as making things worse .
I suggest that clutter in your web browser is not much different that clutter in your house .
Get a book on Feng Shui or equivalent and start deleting the stuff that is n't helping you ( making you happier , needed for work , etc ) .P.S .
I discovered a very important , but little known principle of error page design .
If you put something in giant type at the top of the page , no one reads it .
It you put it in little bitty 6 point type at the very bottom , everyone will read it .
Even if they need to use their magnifier app .
I ca n't explain it ( it must have something to do with lawyers ) , but now that I know , I save a lot of frustration by putting the most important message in little bitty type at the bottom .
( I still leave it at the top in big type also in case any old fashioned types like me see it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article says "internet", but it really means "the HTTP based family of applications that use the internet".
Sometimes a customer gets me by mistake when they need help because "their internet is down".
I start to get mad because of self contradictory statements, but then I remember that they really mean, "my web browser stopped working".
(You can tell I'm not really tech support because next I try to find out what browser they are using, and they are never able to tell me.
Which means they are using IE.
)Having cleared that up, I can only see consolidation of HTTP applications under some super googly company (perhaps one the article writer envisions heading) as making things worse.
I suggest that clutter in your web browser is not much different that clutter in your house.
Get a book on Feng Shui or equivalent and start deleting the stuff that isn't helping you (making you happier, needed for work, etc).P.S.
I discovered a very important, but little known principle of error page design.
If you put something in giant type at the top of the page, no one reads it.
It you put it in little bitty 6 point type at the very bottom, everyone will read it.
Even if they need to use their magnifier app.
I can't explain it (it must have something to do with lawyers), but now that I know, I save a lot of frustration by putting the most important message in little bitty type at the bottom.
(I still leave it at the top in big type also in case any old fashioned types like me see it.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397388</id>
	<title>Re:Serious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267983540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was wondering why the Internet left some toiletries in my bathroom the other night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering why the Internet left some toiletries in my bathroom the other night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering why the Internet left some toiletries in my bathroom the other night.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399550</id>
	<title>Re:Elitist stupidity</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1268056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't read 90\% of Shakespeare, then you're not putting in enough effort, and that's not a failing on his part, its a failing on yours.  Remember, back in his time the theatre was the popular entertainment medium and that the same people who today are trolling *chan and bitching about their homework were going to see his plays and mostly groking them, linguistically if not in subtext all the time.
</p><p>I'm no great fan of Foucault myself in particular, but structuralism as a means of literary criticism really interests me and I had to read some of him in college.  Again, not too bad.  Likewise, Plato isn't necessarily going to help you "make ends meet," but once you've taken care of the basics required for living, the rest of life is about being a more interesting person capable of enjoying a wider breadth of experience, and that's what education outside of the maths department is meant to provide.
</p><p>So the fault, dear SlappyBastard, is not in your stars, but in yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't read 90 \ % of Shakespeare , then you 're not putting in enough effort , and that 's not a failing on his part , its a failing on yours .
Remember , back in his time the theatre was the popular entertainment medium and that the same people who today are trolling * chan and bitching about their homework were going to see his plays and mostly groking them , linguistically if not in subtext all the time .
I 'm no great fan of Foucault myself in particular , but structuralism as a means of literary criticism really interests me and I had to read some of him in college .
Again , not too bad .
Likewise , Plato is n't necessarily going to help you " make ends meet , " but once you 've taken care of the basics required for living , the rest of life is about being a more interesting person capable of enjoying a wider breadth of experience , and that 's what education outside of the maths department is meant to provide .
So the fault , dear SlappyBastard , is not in your stars , but in yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't read 90\% of Shakespeare, then you're not putting in enough effort, and that's not a failing on his part, its a failing on yours.
Remember, back in his time the theatre was the popular entertainment medium and that the same people who today are trolling *chan and bitching about their homework were going to see his plays and mostly groking them, linguistically if not in subtext all the time.
I'm no great fan of Foucault myself in particular, but structuralism as a means of literary criticism really interests me and I had to read some of him in college.
Again, not too bad.
Likewise, Plato isn't necessarily going to help you "make ends meet," but once you've taken care of the basics required for living, the rest of life is about being a more interesting person capable of enjoying a wider breadth of experience, and that's what education outside of the maths department is meant to provide.
So the fault, dear SlappyBastard, is not in your stars, but in yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397582</id>
	<title>Can I get a TLDR?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267986240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397072</id>
	<title>"Information overload"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>David Gelernter must be a Bing user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>David Gelernter must be a Bing user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Gelernter must be a Bing user.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399504</id>
	<title>Sokal Affair part 2</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1268055720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually read the article, it reads like one of those hack academics in 1995 trying to sound hip (and/or pompous) by writing long tedious screeds using technical words they don't understand, to discuss a culture they have no experience with.  About 1/3 of the article is about how great the guy used to be and how important and relevant his every utterance is.  However, I'm not buying it.</p><p>I think its an elaborate hoax, like a modern "Sokal affair", and most of you fell for it.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal\_affair" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal\_affair</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>'information overload,' a problem with two parts: increasing number of information sources and increasing information flow per source.</p></div><p>Yes, access to information without the mediation of the academics and priesthood, and control by multinational corporations is a big problem, for them.  Not so much for everyone else.  I think we'll survive despite their best FUD.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The first part is harder: it's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneously than one person talking fast -- especially if you can tell the one person to stop temporarily, or go back and repeat. Integrating multiple information sources is crucial to solving information overload.</p></div><p>Sorry teacher I couldn't read chapter 3 last night because chapters 4, 5, 6<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,7 all exist so I was too intimidated to read chapter 3.  I can't read my slashdot firefox tab because I have other tabs open.  WTF is this guy talking about?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But we won't be able to solve the overload problem until each Internet user can choose for himself what sources to integrate,</p></div><p>I strongly suggest each user operate their own mouse, as opposed to operating each others mices.  My kids figured this out around K or first grade, although their previous failure to follow that rule was probably more sibling rivalry and/or comic relief rather than actual ignorance.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> and can add to this mix the most important source of all: his own personal information -- his email and other messages, reminders and documents of all sorts.</p></div><p>Translation: Google docs, gmail, and google calendar is really cool.  Facebook too.  Thanks for letting us know, academic dude, without you guys we'd never have known!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>To accomplish this, we merely need to turn the whole Cybersphere on its side, so that time instead of space is the main axis</p></div><p>Cool idea dude, like a log file, but on the web.  I'm sure no one would ever think of putting a log file on a web.  Actually the log file could be human generated prose and comments instead of the insights from my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/var/log/syslog.  Why, we could call it a web log.  Or even a 'blog.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>14. The structure called a cyberstream or lifestream is better suited to the Internet than a conventional website because it shows information-in-motion, a rushing flow of fresh information instead of a stagnant pool.</p></div><p>Stagnant pool... thats kuro5hin, right?  information-in-motion, thats like the front page of slashdot.</p><p>Come on Alan Sokal, admit it, you're the one behind this hoax, aren't you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually read the article , it reads like one of those hack academics in 1995 trying to sound hip ( and/or pompous ) by writing long tedious screeds using technical words they do n't understand , to discuss a culture they have no experience with .
About 1/3 of the article is about how great the guy used to be and how important and relevant his every utterance is .
However , I 'm not buying it.I think its an elaborate hoax , like a modern " Sokal affair " , and most of you fell for it.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal \ _affair [ wikipedia.org ] 'information overload, ' a problem with two parts : increasing number of information sources and increasing information flow per source.Yes , access to information without the mediation of the academics and priesthood , and control by multinational corporations is a big problem , for them .
Not so much for everyone else .
I think we 'll survive despite their best FUD.The first part is harder : it 's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneously than one person talking fast -- especially if you can tell the one person to stop temporarily , or go back and repeat .
Integrating multiple information sources is crucial to solving information overload.Sorry teacher I could n't read chapter 3 last night because chapters 4 , 5 , 6 ,7 all exist so I was too intimidated to read chapter 3 .
I ca n't read my slashdot firefox tab because I have other tabs open .
WTF is this guy talking about ? But we wo n't be able to solve the overload problem until each Internet user can choose for himself what sources to integrate,I strongly suggest each user operate their own mouse , as opposed to operating each others mices .
My kids figured this out around K or first grade , although their previous failure to follow that rule was probably more sibling rivalry and/or comic relief rather than actual ignorance .
and can add to this mix the most important source of all : his own personal information -- his email and other messages , reminders and documents of all sorts.Translation : Google docs , gmail , and google calendar is really cool .
Facebook too .
Thanks for letting us know , academic dude , without you guys we 'd never have known ! To accomplish this , we merely need to turn the whole Cybersphere on its side , so that time instead of space is the main axisCool idea dude , like a log file , but on the web .
I 'm sure no one would ever think of putting a log file on a web .
Actually the log file could be human generated prose and comments instead of the insights from my /var/log/syslog .
Why , we could call it a web log .
Or even a 'blog.14 .
The structure called a cyberstream or lifestream is better suited to the Internet than a conventional website because it shows information-in-motion , a rushing flow of fresh information instead of a stagnant pool.Stagnant pool... thats kuro5hin , right ?
information-in-motion , thats like the front page of slashdot.Come on Alan Sokal , admit it , you 're the one behind this hoax , are n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually read the article, it reads like one of those hack academics in 1995 trying to sound hip (and/or pompous) by writing long tedious screeds using technical words they don't understand, to discuss a culture they have no experience with.
About 1/3 of the article is about how great the guy used to be and how important and relevant his every utterance is.
However, I'm not buying it.I think its an elaborate hoax, like a modern "Sokal affair", and most of you fell for it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal\_affair [wikipedia.org] 'information overload,' a problem with two parts: increasing number of information sources and increasing information flow per source.Yes, access to information without the mediation of the academics and priesthood, and control by multinational corporations is a big problem, for them.
Not so much for everyone else.
I think we'll survive despite their best FUD.The first part is harder: it's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneously than one person talking fast -- especially if you can tell the one person to stop temporarily, or go back and repeat.
Integrating multiple information sources is crucial to solving information overload.Sorry teacher I couldn't read chapter 3 last night because chapters 4, 5, 6 ,7 all exist so I was too intimidated to read chapter 3.
I can't read my slashdot firefox tab because I have other tabs open.
WTF is this guy talking about?But we won't be able to solve the overload problem until each Internet user can choose for himself what sources to integrate,I strongly suggest each user operate their own mouse, as opposed to operating each others mices.
My kids figured this out around K or first grade, although their previous failure to follow that rule was probably more sibling rivalry and/or comic relief rather than actual ignorance.
and can add to this mix the most important source of all: his own personal information -- his email and other messages, reminders and documents of all sorts.Translation: Google docs, gmail, and google calendar is really cool.
Facebook too.
Thanks for letting us know, academic dude, without you guys we'd never have known!To accomplish this, we merely need to turn the whole Cybersphere on its side, so that time instead of space is the main axisCool idea dude, like a log file, but on the web.
I'm sure no one would ever think of putting a log file on a web.
Actually the log file could be human generated prose and comments instead of the insights from my /var/log/syslog.
Why, we could call it a web log.
Or even a 'blog.14.
The structure called a cyberstream or lifestream is better suited to the Internet than a conventional website because it shows information-in-motion, a rushing flow of fresh information instead of a stagnant pool.Stagnant pool... thats kuro5hin, right?
information-in-motion, thats like the front page of slashdot.Come on Alan Sokal, admit it, you're the one behind this hoax, aren't you?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399766</id>
	<title>Re:Take the internet seriously?</title>
	<author>moeinvt</author>
	<datestamp>1268058480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's be absolutely clear in our definition of rights:</p><p>"EU adopted an internet freedom provision, stating that any measures taken by member states that may affect citizen's access to or use of the internet "must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens"</p><p>Internet access = "a human right" meaning that the state cannot infringe upon the ability of citizens, through their own volition, to access information via the Internet?  A fine idea.</p><p>Internet access = "a human right" implying that the state needs to buy hardware, software and bandwidth for everyone?  Bu||$#!t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's be absolutely clear in our definition of rights : " EU adopted an internet freedom provision , stating that any measures taken by member states that may affect citizen 's access to or use of the internet " must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens " Internet access = " a human right " meaning that the state can not infringe upon the ability of citizens , through their own volition , to access information via the Internet ?
A fine idea.Internet access = " a human right " implying that the state needs to buy hardware , software and bandwidth for everyone ?
Bu | | $ # ! t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's be absolutely clear in our definition of rights:"EU adopted an internet freedom provision, stating that any measures taken by member states that may affect citizen's access to or use of the internet "must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens"Internet access = "a human right" meaning that the state cannot infringe upon the ability of citizens, through their own volition, to access information via the Internet?
A fine idea.Internet access = "a human right" implying that the state needs to buy hardware, software and bandwidth for everyone?
Bu||$#!t</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31401484</id>
	<title>Information Overload.</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1268068500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In many ways the internet is like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology\_in\_The\_Hitchhiker's\_Guide\_to\_the\_Galaxy#Total\_Perspective\_Vortex" title="wikipedia.org">Total Perspective Vortex</a> [wikipedia.org] gone wrong.  In many ways it give people to much information then our minds can safely handle but what happened was it also allowed us a soapbox to give our response to what we learn.</p><p>So minorities can yell as loud as the majority, insane unverified half truths can get as much if not more attention then proven documents.  Analysis of actions without correct context etc... It is too much for people to handle.</p><p>There was an interesting study.  People were give anywhere from 3-10 numbers to remember. And go to an other room to give out those numbers.  Then when they were going to the other room they were asked if they wanted Cake or a fruit salad.  People who had more then 7 numbers to remember choose the cake higher then people who had less.  Linking to the theory after we get to much information our rational side of our brains stop and our emotional kicks in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In many ways the internet is like the Total Perspective Vortex [ wikipedia.org ] gone wrong .
In many ways it give people to much information then our minds can safely handle but what happened was it also allowed us a soapbox to give our response to what we learn.So minorities can yell as loud as the majority , insane unverified half truths can get as much if not more attention then proven documents .
Analysis of actions without correct context etc... It is too much for people to handle.There was an interesting study .
People were give anywhere from 3-10 numbers to remember .
And go to an other room to give out those numbers .
Then when they were going to the other room they were asked if they wanted Cake or a fruit salad .
People who had more then 7 numbers to remember choose the cake higher then people who had less .
Linking to the theory after we get to much information our rational side of our brains stop and our emotional kicks in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many ways the internet is like the Total Perspective Vortex [wikipedia.org] gone wrong.
In many ways it give people to much information then our minds can safely handle but what happened was it also allowed us a soapbox to give our response to what we learn.So minorities can yell as loud as the majority, insane unverified half truths can get as much if not more attention then proven documents.
Analysis of actions without correct context etc... It is too much for people to handle.There was an interesting study.
People were give anywhere from 3-10 numbers to remember.
And go to an other room to give out those numbers.
Then when they were going to the other room they were asked if they wanted Cake or a fruit salad.
People who had more then 7 numbers to remember choose the cake higher then people who had less.
Linking to the theory after we get to much information our rational side of our brains stop and our emotional kicks in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31405046</id>
	<title>Telnet was nice for applications</title>
	<author>John Bayko</author>
	<datestamp>1268041680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. I even started working on a user interface protocol based on TCP (actually, any serial connection - RS-232 or USB would work just as well), but I didn't have time when moving to a house, and haven't started up again.</p><p>If you've done event driven GUI programming, you probably noticed much of it is in the form of  (set up windows and controls),<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... etc, until the final   (closes windows and so on). So why not define a standard set of messages so your application can be on a server, and your GUI is on your local machine? You only need one client (viewer) for any application on any server anywhere on the internet - much like a web browser works.</p><p>As opposed to traditional solutions which have consisted of shoveling megabytes of pixels down wires, and getting thousands of mouse/pointer/keyboard events back (X windows, remote desktop), neither of which you actually want.</p><p>My prototype (Java client, Python server) can open windows, display buttons and labels, not much more. It's called HICP (Holistic Interface Control Protocol). Someone else also tried something like that, using SOAP, called <a href="http://openxup.org/" title="openxup.org">XUP</a> [openxup.org] (eXtensible User-interface Protocol) - at least they have a web site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I even started working on a user interface protocol based on TCP ( actually , any serial connection - RS-232 or USB would work just as well ) , but I did n't have time when moving to a house , and have n't started up again.If you 've done event driven GUI programming , you probably noticed much of it is in the form of ( set up windows and controls ) , ... etc , until the final ( closes windows and so on ) .
So why not define a standard set of messages so your application can be on a server , and your GUI is on your local machine ?
You only need one client ( viewer ) for any application on any server anywhere on the internet - much like a web browser works.As opposed to traditional solutions which have consisted of shoveling megabytes of pixels down wires , and getting thousands of mouse/pointer/keyboard events back ( X windows , remote desktop ) , neither of which you actually want.My prototype ( Java client , Python server ) can open windows , display buttons and labels , not much more .
It 's called HICP ( Holistic Interface Control Protocol ) .
Someone else also tried something like that , using SOAP , called XUP [ openxup.org ] ( eXtensible User-interface Protocol ) - at least they have a web site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I even started working on a user interface protocol based on TCP (actually, any serial connection - RS-232 or USB would work just as well), but I didn't have time when moving to a house, and haven't started up again.If you've done event driven GUI programming, you probably noticed much of it is in the form of  (set up windows and controls), ... etc, until the final   (closes windows and so on).
So why not define a standard set of messages so your application can be on a server, and your GUI is on your local machine?
You only need one client (viewer) for any application on any server anywhere on the internet - much like a web browser works.As opposed to traditional solutions which have consisted of shoveling megabytes of pixels down wires, and getting thousands of mouse/pointer/keyboard events back (X windows, remote desktop), neither of which you actually want.My prototype (Java client, Python server) can open windows, display buttons and labels, not much more.
It's called HICP (Holistic Interface Control Protocol).
Someone else also tried something like that, using SOAP, called XUP [openxup.org] (eXtensible User-interface Protocol) - at least they have a web site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31403760</id>
	<title>"Predicted the web" my ass</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1268079060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>David Gelernter was still a kid when Douglas Englebart and Ted Nelson were inventing all the hypertext ideas the Web was built from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>David Gelernter was still a kid when Douglas Englebart and Ted Nelson were inventing all the hypertext ideas the Web was built from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Gelernter was still a kid when Douglas Englebart and Ted Nelson were inventing all the hypertext ideas the Web was built from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31410642</id>
	<title>Re:Serious</title>
	<author>akonbrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268077560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.iexpertsforum.com/seo-software/ibp-review.html" title="iexpertsforum.com" rel="nofollow">IBP SEO</a> [iexpertsforum.com]

Read Expert Reviews &amp; Customer Reviews of IBP SEO Software. Compare iBusinessPromoter Features with other Top SEO Tools like SEO Elite &amp; Web CEO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IBP SEO [ iexpertsforum.com ] Read Expert Reviews &amp; Customer Reviews of IBP SEO Software .
Compare iBusinessPromoter Features with other Top SEO Tools like SEO Elite &amp; Web CEO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBP SEO [iexpertsforum.com]

Read Expert Reviews &amp; Customer Reviews of IBP SEO Software.
Compare iBusinessPromoter Features with other Top SEO Tools like SEO Elite &amp; Web CEO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397148</id>
	<title>condition: buzzword alert</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267981140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My language parser borked on 'cybersphere.' The words 'cyber' and 'virtual' leave a terrible aftertaste making whatever came later deteriorate into gibberish.. oh wait, this whole thing is gibberish to begin with.  gibberish that seems (not entirely sure) to be a justification for everyone to throw their data (and I mean ALL their data) into the public space for the sake of...I'm not entirely sure, but I'll assume it's in the interests of whatever social/political/economic institutions he's a member of.</p><p>I know, how about letting the user decide the 'how' as well as the 'what' when it comes to interfacing with the technology at his disposal?  I know, I know, that would be asking people to think for themselves for a few nanoseconds and we can't have that or else the terrorists win, the children lose, and 'freedom' dies. damn, what was I thinking? Gotta dumb everything down so even the most dull witted soccer mom can process it without the knees jerking upward..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My language parser borked on 'cybersphere .
' The words 'cyber ' and 'virtual ' leave a terrible aftertaste making whatever came later deteriorate into gibberish.. oh wait , this whole thing is gibberish to begin with .
gibberish that seems ( not entirely sure ) to be a justification for everyone to throw their data ( and I mean ALL their data ) into the public space for the sake of...I 'm not entirely sure , but I 'll assume it 's in the interests of whatever social/political/economic institutions he 's a member of.I know , how about letting the user decide the 'how ' as well as the 'what ' when it comes to interfacing with the technology at his disposal ?
I know , I know , that would be asking people to think for themselves for a few nanoseconds and we ca n't have that or else the terrorists win , the children lose , and 'freedom ' dies .
damn , what was I thinking ?
Got ta dumb everything down so even the most dull witted soccer mom can process it without the knees jerking upward. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My language parser borked on 'cybersphere.
' The words 'cyber' and 'virtual' leave a terrible aftertaste making whatever came later deteriorate into gibberish.. oh wait, this whole thing is gibberish to begin with.
gibberish that seems (not entirely sure) to be a justification for everyone to throw their data (and I mean ALL their data) into the public space for the sake of...I'm not entirely sure, but I'll assume it's in the interests of whatever social/political/economic institutions he's a member of.I know, how about letting the user decide the 'how' as well as the 'what' when it comes to interfacing with the technology at his disposal?
I know, I know, that would be asking people to think for themselves for a few nanoseconds and we can't have that or else the terrorists win, the children lose, and 'freedom' dies.
damn, what was I thinking?
Gotta dumb everything down so even the most dull witted soccer mom can process it without the knees jerking upward..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399606</id>
	<title>The structure called a cyberstream</title>
	<author>fred\_kroft</author>
	<datestamp>1268056980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds gayh</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds gayh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds gayh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397358</id>
	<title>Re:condition: buzzword alert</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1267983360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Encountering a "virtual" is just telling you that you are going to read a lot of rubbish and yet end up having to do all the thinking yourself anyway.</p><p>Ask any C++ programmer, he'll agree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Encountering a " virtual " is just telling you that you are going to read a lot of rubbish and yet end up having to do all the thinking yourself anyway.Ask any C + + programmer , he 'll agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Encountering a "virtual" is just telling you that you are going to read a lot of rubbish and yet end up having to do all the thinking yourself anyway.Ask any C++ programmer, he'll agree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31400700</id>
	<title>Oh, while I'm here...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1268064540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Just think, in the future you could read a sentence, and then as soon as you finish reading it, it could change right before your eyes to say the opposite of what it originally said.</i></p><p><a href="http://www.thedoghousediaries.com/?p=1267" title="thedoghousediaries.com">Google Buzz Trick - The Edit Button</a> [thedoghousediaries.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just think , in the future you could read a sentence , and then as soon as you finish reading it , it could change right before your eyes to say the opposite of what it originally said.Google Buzz Trick - The Edit Button [ thedoghousediaries.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just think, in the future you could read a sentence, and then as soon as you finish reading it, it could change right before your eyes to say the opposite of what it originally said.Google Buzz Trick - The Edit Button [thedoghousediaries.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397552</id>
	<title>Contradiction.</title>
	<author>khasim</author>
	<datestamp>1267985820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's "...someone worth paying attention to..." but he cannot make decent predictions about the material he is supposed to be worth listening to about?</p><p>He cannot even clearly define the buzz words he fills his "predictions" with. That article is not worth reading.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's " ...someone worth paying attention to... " but he can not make decent predictions about the material he is supposed to be worth listening to about ? He can not even clearly define the buzz words he fills his " predictions " with .
That article is not worth reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's "...someone worth paying attention to..." but he cannot make decent predictions about the material he is supposed to be worth listening to about?He cannot even clearly define the buzz words he fills his "predictions" with.
That article is not worth reading.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397334</id>
	<title>Re:Serious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267982940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the same as when a chick says she wants to 'get serious'?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the same as when a chick says she wants to 'get serious ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the same as when a chick says she wants to 'get serious'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397722</id>
	<title>Outlook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267988040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hate to say it, but I use MS Outlook (with lots of RSS feed subscriptions) to integrate all my communications sources, inculding Slashdot.   I get all of it in a seach folder called "Unread messages".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate to say it , but I use MS Outlook ( with lots of RSS feed subscriptions ) to integrate all my communications sources , inculding Slashdot .
I get all of it in a seach folder called " Unread messages " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hate to say it, but I use MS Outlook (with lots of RSS feed subscriptions) to integrate all my communications sources, inculding Slashdot.
I get all of it in a seach folder called "Unread messages".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397114</id>
	<title>Dear software engineers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Let's come up with something to replace HTTP/JavaScript/Flash/what-have-you.  It's huge waste, but even worse, distortion.
</p><p>
We have the technology.  We can do better than this.
</p><p>
x86 assembly, bogus sessions, they do not have to be fate.
</p><p>
Right?  Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's come up with something to replace HTTP/JavaScript/Flash/what-have-you .
It 's huge waste , but even worse , distortion .
We have the technology .
We can do better than this .
x86 assembly , bogus sessions , they do not have to be fate .
Right ? Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Let's come up with something to replace HTTP/JavaScript/Flash/what-have-you.
It's huge waste, but even worse, distortion.
We have the technology.
We can do better than this.
x86 assembly, bogus sessions, they do not have to be fate.
Right?  Right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398036</id>
	<title>Grey Ecology</title>
	<author>modustollens</author>
	<datestamp>1268079000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It could end up producing a grey ecology with a distorted space-time just as easily.  See the argument given by Paul Virilio in Open Sky:

<a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=OF\_cPrltMmsC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=open+sky&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=6LTgd95t6S&amp;sig=svNqi6GKruEYnHufc1BxMSZtgVE&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=O6KUS-CXHJSSsgPM3eT8Aw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=16&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwDw#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false" title="google.ca" rel="nofollow">http://books.google.ca/books?id=OF\_cPrltMmsC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=open+sky&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=6LTgd95t6S&amp;sig=svNqi6GKruEYnHufc1BxMSZtgVE&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=O6KUS-CXHJSSsgPM3eT8Aw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=16&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwDw#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false</a> [google.ca]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It could end up producing a grey ecology with a distorted space-time just as easily .
See the argument given by Paul Virilio in Open Sky : http : //books.google.ca/books ? id = OF \ _cPrltMmsC&amp;printsec = frontcover&amp;dq = open + sky&amp;source = bl&amp;ots = 6LTgd95t6S&amp;sig = svNqi6GKruEYnHufc1BxMSZtgVE&amp;hl = en&amp;ei = O6KUS-CXHJSSsgPM3eT8Aw&amp;sa = X&amp;oi = book \ _result&amp;ct = result&amp;resnum = 16&amp;ved = 0CDIQ6AEwDw # v = onepage&amp;q = &amp;f = false [ google.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could end up producing a grey ecology with a distorted space-time just as easily.
See the argument given by Paul Virilio in Open Sky:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=OF\_cPrltMmsC&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=open+sky&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=6LTgd95t6S&amp;sig=svNqi6GKruEYnHufc1BxMSZtgVE&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=O6KUS-CXHJSSsgPM3eT8Aw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=16&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwDw#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false [google.ca]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398420</id>
	<title>There is a very important problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that these "predictions" completely miss.</p><p>That problem is that it will be easier than ever to re-write history, or make it disappear altogether.  In point number 31, he speaks of historians using the information on the internet to re-construct what happened historically.  He implicitly assumes that no one would ever try to tamper with history.</p><p>Already today, main stream media organizations (e.g. cnn.com among many, many others) alter their articles after the fact, without even bothering to make note of it.</p><p>For example the headline "Republicans Cheat in Elections, Again", is soon changed to "Republicans Cheat in Election", then to "Republicans Accused of Cheating in Election", then "Accusations of Cheating in Election", and finally "Losers Make Accusation of Cheating in Election".</p><p>If everything is stored in the cloud, than how can we stop this from happening?</p><p>Apple removed copies of the book "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (which, ironically, describes a pre-computer version of this problem) from peoples Kindles.  Apple could just as easily have revised the book if they wanted to.</p><p>Just think, in the future you could read a sentence, and then as soon as you finish reading it, it could change right before your eyes to say the opposite of what it originally said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that these " predictions " completely miss.That problem is that it will be easier than ever to re-write history , or make it disappear altogether .
In point number 31 , he speaks of historians using the information on the internet to re-construct what happened historically .
He implicitly assumes that no one would ever try to tamper with history.Already today , main stream media organizations ( e.g .
cnn.com among many , many others ) alter their articles after the fact , without even bothering to make note of it.For example the headline " Republicans Cheat in Elections , Again " , is soon changed to " Republicans Cheat in Election " , then to " Republicans Accused of Cheating in Election " , then " Accusations of Cheating in Election " , and finally " Losers Make Accusation of Cheating in Election " .If everything is stored in the cloud , than how can we stop this from happening ? Apple removed copies of the book " Nineteen Eighty-Four " ( which , ironically , describes a pre-computer version of this problem ) from peoples Kindles .
Apple could just as easily have revised the book if they wanted to.Just think , in the future you could read a sentence , and then as soon as you finish reading it , it could change right before your eyes to say the opposite of what it originally said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that these "predictions" completely miss.That problem is that it will be easier than ever to re-write history, or make it disappear altogether.
In point number 31, he speaks of historians using the information on the internet to re-construct what happened historically.
He implicitly assumes that no one would ever try to tamper with history.Already today, main stream media organizations (e.g.
cnn.com among many, many others) alter their articles after the fact, without even bothering to make note of it.For example the headline "Republicans Cheat in Elections, Again", is soon changed to "Republicans Cheat in Election", then to "Republicans Accused of Cheating in Election", then "Accusations of Cheating in Election", and finally "Losers Make Accusation of Cheating in Election".If everything is stored in the cloud, than how can we stop this from happening?Apple removed copies of the book "Nineteen Eighty-Four" (which, ironically, describes a pre-computer version of this problem) from peoples Kindles.
Apple could just as easily have revised the book if they wanted to.Just think, in the future you could read a sentence, and then as soon as you finish reading it, it could change right before your eyes to say the opposite of what it originally said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398616</id>
	<title>trol7kore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268043720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Talk to one of the of businees and Create, manufacture how it was supposed encountered while fly...don't fear of all legitimate watershed essay, The time to meet that should be</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk to one of the of businees and Create , manufacture how it was supposed encountered while fly...do n't fear of all legitimate watershed essay , The time to meet that should be [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk to one of the of businees and Create, manufacture how it was supposed encountered while fly...don't fear of all legitimate watershed essay, The time to meet that should be [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397016</id>
	<title>Serious</title>
	<author>shird</author>
	<datestamp>1267980060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As we all know, the Internet is serious business.<br><a href="http://drunkenachura.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/internet-serious-business.jpg" title="wordpress.com">http://drunkenachura.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/internet-serious-business.jpg</a> [wordpress.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As we all know , the Internet is serious business.http : //drunkenachura.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/internet-serious-business.jpg [ wordpress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we all know, the Internet is serious business.http://drunkenachura.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/internet-serious-business.jpg [wordpress.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397038</id>
	<title>Seriously,</title>
	<author>miracle69</author>
	<datestamp>1267980240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where are we going to take it?</p><p>And did Al Gore give us a curfew?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where are we going to take it ? And did Al Gore give us a curfew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where are we going to take it?And did Al Gore give us a curfew?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397860</id>
	<title>Solve 99\% by putting every spammer in the slammer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>increasing number of information sources and increasing information flow per source. The first part is harder: it's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneously</p></div></blockquote><p>Only if they force you to listen to them.</p><p>
Igor from Cell Block 3 says he bought it all and can't wait to prove to his new mates how well their wares worked for him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>increasing number of information sources and increasing information flow per source .
The first part is harder : it 's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneouslyOnly if they force you to listen to them .
Igor from Cell Block 3 says he bought it all and ca n't wait to prove to his new mates how well their wares worked for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>increasing number of information sources and increasing information flow per source.
The first part is harder: it's more difficult to understand five people speaking simultaneouslyOnly if they force you to listen to them.
Igor from Cell Block 3 says he bought it all and can't wait to prove to his new mates how well their wares worked for him.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397366</id>
	<title>Sounds like Neurogrid to me...</title>
	<author>Julz</author>
	<datestamp>1267983360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A friend of mine, Sam Joesph, was working on a project called Neurogrid <a href="http://www.neurogrid.net/php/index.php" title="neurogrid.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.neurogrid.net/php/index.php</a> [neurogrid.net] to develop a platform for distributed information sharing.  I think he was looking into connecting some of this information using multiple dimensions like time and not just location (space).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend of mine , Sam Joesph , was working on a project called Neurogrid http : //www.neurogrid.net/php/index.php [ neurogrid.net ] to develop a platform for distributed information sharing .
I think he was looking into connecting some of this information using multiple dimensions like time and not just location ( space ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend of mine, Sam Joesph, was working on a project called Neurogrid http://www.neurogrid.net/php/index.php [neurogrid.net] to develop a platform for distributed information sharing.
I think he was looking into connecting some of this information using multiple dimensions like time and not just location (space).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399628</id>
	<title>Government funded?</title>
	<author>CustomDesigned</author>
	<datestamp>1268057280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If HTTP based applications are a "human right", then people will demand government funding for them.  The more government funds them, the more they will control the content.  The more government controls the content, the less actually useful the "internet" will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If HTTP based applications are a " human right " , then people will demand government funding for them .
The more government funds them , the more they will control the content .
The more government controls the content , the less actually useful the " internet " will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If HTTP based applications are a "human right", then people will demand government funding for them.
The more government funds them, the more they will control the content.
The more government controls the content, the less actually useful the "internet" will be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31410640</id>
	<title>Oh, Come On!  Isn't This Obvious?</title>
	<author>rickshaf</author>
	<datestamp>1268077560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We already have something that will allow folks to evaluate information from multiple sources.  It's called an EDUCATION!   We're just doing a piss-poor job of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have something that will allow folks to evaluate information from multiple sources .
It 's called an EDUCATION !
We 're just doing a piss-poor job of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have something that will allow folks to evaluate information from multiple sources.
It's called an EDUCATION!
We're just doing a piss-poor job of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31400872</id>
	<title>I stopped reading TFA at...</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1268065320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Cloud will take care that your information is safely encrypted, distributed and secure.</p></div><p>I've seen the inside of "The Cloud". It looks a lot like the "non-cloud" environment. The parts that are different <b>have nothing to do with enhancing security</b>. Fail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Cloud will take care that your information is safely encrypted , distributed and secure.I 've seen the inside of " The Cloud " .
It looks a lot like the " non-cloud " environment .
The parts that are different have nothing to do with enhancing security .
Fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Cloud will take care that your information is safely encrypted, distributed and secure.I've seen the inside of "The Cloud".
It looks a lot like the "non-cloud" environment.
The parts that are different have nothing to do with enhancing security.
Fail.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397538</id>
	<title>Elitist stupidity</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1267985580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that the internet is ever going to deliver massive quality ignores the simple fact: previous mediums were controlled by the elite.  To hold a medium controlled by everyone to the same standards as mediums controlled by a select group is to ignore the very nature of the internet!</p><p>The internet is LolCatz and Rickrolling and Facebook Pickle people talking shit on Nickelback.</p><p>Acting like this fact imperils our ever present need for another Rousseau is elitist bullshit.</p><p>Too long our humanity has been defined by assholes who sniff at the notion that our useless and infantile pursuits aren't good enough.  Fuck them!  What proof is there that Icanhazcheeseburger isn't this generation's Guernica?</p><p>We have a right to just be human, without some shit-eating prick telling us we're not doing a good enough job of meeting his definition of awesome.</p><p>Quantity is not quality.  I get it.  But, have you seen some of the shit they call quality?  90\% of Shakespeare is stupid and unreadable.  Foucault is downright fucking retarded.  And frankly I still don't get how Plato's Cave helps me make ends meet.</p><p>Quality is just elitist bullshit.  We have a right to a stupid and useless internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that the internet is ever going to deliver massive quality ignores the simple fact : previous mediums were controlled by the elite .
To hold a medium controlled by everyone to the same standards as mediums controlled by a select group is to ignore the very nature of the internet ! The internet is LolCatz and Rickrolling and Facebook Pickle people talking shit on Nickelback.Acting like this fact imperils our ever present need for another Rousseau is elitist bullshit.Too long our humanity has been defined by assholes who sniff at the notion that our useless and infantile pursuits are n't good enough .
Fuck them !
What proof is there that Icanhazcheeseburger is n't this generation 's Guernica ? We have a right to just be human , without some shit-eating prick telling us we 're not doing a good enough job of meeting his definition of awesome.Quantity is not quality .
I get it .
But , have you seen some of the shit they call quality ?
90 \ % of Shakespeare is stupid and unreadable .
Foucault is downright fucking retarded .
And frankly I still do n't get how Plato 's Cave helps me make ends meet.Quality is just elitist bullshit .
We have a right to a stupid and useless internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that the internet is ever going to deliver massive quality ignores the simple fact: previous mediums were controlled by the elite.
To hold a medium controlled by everyone to the same standards as mediums controlled by a select group is to ignore the very nature of the internet!The internet is LolCatz and Rickrolling and Facebook Pickle people talking shit on Nickelback.Acting like this fact imperils our ever present need for another Rousseau is elitist bullshit.Too long our humanity has been defined by assholes who sniff at the notion that our useless and infantile pursuits aren't good enough.
Fuck them!
What proof is there that Icanhazcheeseburger isn't this generation's Guernica?We have a right to just be human, without some shit-eating prick telling us we're not doing a good enough job of meeting his definition of awesome.Quantity is not quality.
I get it.
But, have you seen some of the shit they call quality?
90\% of Shakespeare is stupid and unreadable.
Foucault is downright fucking retarded.
And frankly I still don't get how Plato's Cave helps me make ends meet.Quality is just elitist bullshit.
We have a right to a stupid and useless internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397136</id>
	<title>Es looney I tells you, daft as a march hare!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267981080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe one too many, I says.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe one too many , I says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe one too many, I says.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397550</id>
	<title>Wait...what?</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1267985820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"...better suited to the Internet than a conventional website." What?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...better suited to the Internet than a conventional website .
" What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...better suited to the Internet than a conventional website.
" What?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397234</id>
	<title>Hahahahahahaha!</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1267981860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main\_Page" title="encycloped...matica.com" rel="nofollow">This</a> [encycloped...matica.com] <a href="http://www.4chan.org/" title="4chan.org" rel="nofollow">is</a> [4chan.org] <a href="http://www.theonion.com/" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">a</a> [theonion.com] <a href="http://www.lolcats.com/" title="lolcats.com" rel="nofollow">joke</a> [lolcats.com], <a href="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=parody+websites&amp;aq=0sx&amp;aqi=g-sx1g-s1g-msx8&amp;aql=&amp;oq=parody+web+site&amp;fp=3d121c88310e67e3" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">right</a> [google.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This [ encycloped...matica.com ] is [ 4chan.org ] a [ theonion.com ] joke [ lolcats.com ] , right [ google.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This [encycloped...matica.com] is [4chan.org] a [theonion.com] joke [lolcats.com], right [google.com]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397112</id>
	<title>NOOOOO!!!</title>
	<author>Alaren</author>
	<datestamp>1267980780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At first I thought this guy must really be Gene Ray.  I mean... I kept waiting for him to start talking about circle square 86 hour Cloud magic.

</p><p>But then...</p><blockquote><div><p>17. There is no clear way to blend two standard websites together, but it's obvious how to blend two streams.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I know the answer to this one already.

</p><p>DO NOT CROSS THE STREAMS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At first I thought this guy must really be Gene Ray .
I mean... I kept waiting for him to start talking about circle square 86 hour Cloud magic .
But then...17 .
There is no clear way to blend two standard websites together , but it 's obvious how to blend two streams .
I know the answer to this one already .
DO NOT CROSS THE STREAMS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first I thought this guy must really be Gene Ray.
I mean... I kept waiting for him to start talking about circle square 86 hour Cloud magic.
But then...17.
There is no clear way to blend two standard websites together, but it's obvious how to blend two streams.
I know the answer to this one already.
DO NOT CROSS THE STREAMS.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397416</id>
	<title>Re:Dear software engineers</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1267983900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>replace HTTP/JavaScript/Flash/what-have-you</p></div><p>Every time I do "web development", I feel like I'm duct taping popsicle sticks together to build a house and then throwing in a bit of mud to seal the holes. Even after 10+ years everything still feels like a really bad hack/kludge/bodge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>replace HTTP/JavaScript/Flash/what-have-youEvery time I do " web development " , I feel like I 'm duct taping popsicle sticks together to build a house and then throwing in a bit of mud to seal the holes .
Even after 10 + years everything still feels like a really bad hack/kludge/bodge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>replace HTTP/JavaScript/Flash/what-have-youEvery time I do "web development", I feel like I'm duct taping popsicle sticks together to build a house and then throwing in a bit of mud to seal the holes.
Even after 10+ years everything still feels like a really bad hack/kludge/bodge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397734</id>
	<title>I suspect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267988160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this might just be rambling nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this might just be rambling nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this might just be rambling nonsense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397662</id>
	<title>Linked Data / Semantic Web</title>
	<author>TwistedPants</author>
	<datestamp>1267987020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds suspiciously like a lot of what <a href="http://linkeddata.org/" title="linkeddata.org" rel="nofollow">http://linkeddata.org/</a> [linkeddata.org] + friendly end user tools could give us - data from multiple sources which can be combined to enhance what you are looking at, viewed through a 'lense' (specific application) to make it meaningful - say, an interactive graph.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds suspiciously like a lot of what http : //linkeddata.org/ [ linkeddata.org ] + friendly end user tools could give us - data from multiple sources which can be combined to enhance what you are looking at , viewed through a 'lense ' ( specific application ) to make it meaningful - say , an interactive graph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds suspiciously like a lot of what http://linkeddata.org/ [linkeddata.org] + friendly end user tools could give us - data from multiple sources which can be combined to enhance what you are looking at, viewed through a 'lense' (specific application) to make it meaningful - say, an interactive graph.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31401892</id>
	<title>"Blogs and other anthology-site integrates" what?</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1268070660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Blogs and other anthology-sites integrate information from many sources.</p></div><p>Oh, hyphens. Are there two words you <em>can't</em> improperly join?</p><p>Here we have an adjective joined by hyphen with a noun and the compound improperly being used as a noun when it must be used as an adjective, casting the following word not as a verb but as a noun, leaving the sentence without a verb. And of course the plural is misapplied on the compound adjective and must shift to the 'nounified' verb, so you have:</p><p>"Blogs and other <b>anthology-site</b> [<i>adj.</i>] <b>integrates</b> [<i>n.</i>] <i>&lt;missing verb&gt; </i> information from many sources."</p><p>Unless of course you 'verbify' "information" to "informationize", which leaves open whether or not you can "informationize from" something. Or would it be "informationate"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blogs and other anthology-sites integrate information from many sources.Oh , hyphens .
Are there two words you ca n't improperly join ? Here we have an adjective joined by hyphen with a noun and the compound improperly being used as a noun when it must be used as an adjective , casting the following word not as a verb but as a noun , leaving the sentence without a verb .
And of course the plural is misapplied on the compound adjective and must shift to the 'nounified ' verb , so you have : " Blogs and other anthology-site [ adj .
] integrates [ n. ] information from many sources .
" Unless of course you 'verbify ' " information " to " informationize " , which leaves open whether or not you can " informationize from " something .
Or would it be " informationate " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blogs and other anthology-sites integrate information from many sources.Oh, hyphens.
Are there two words you can't improperly join?Here we have an adjective joined by hyphen with a noun and the compound improperly being used as a noun when it must be used as an adjective, casting the following word not as a verb but as a noun, leaving the sentence without a verb.
And of course the plural is misapplied on the compound adjective and must shift to the 'nounified' verb, so you have:"Blogs and other anthology-site [adj.
] integrates [n.]   information from many sources.
"Unless of course you 'verbify' "information" to "informationize", which leaves open whether or not you can "informationize from" something.
Or would it be "informationate"?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397792</id>
	<title>Re:condition: buzzword alert</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267989000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got farther than you, thought <i>maybe</i> he has something to say, but then gave up when he said this:<p><div class="quote"><p>users of any computing system ought to have a simple, uniform operating system and interface. Users of the Internet still don't.</p></div><p>Sure, keep building your dream world, I'll stay in the real world, thanks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got farther than you , thought maybe he has something to say , but then gave up when he said this : users of any computing system ought to have a simple , uniform operating system and interface .
Users of the Internet still do n't.Sure , keep building your dream world , I 'll stay in the real world , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got farther than you, thought maybe he has something to say, but then gave up when he said this:users of any computing system ought to have a simple, uniform operating system and interface.
Users of the Internet still don't.Sure, keep building your dream world, I'll stay in the real world, thanks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397846</id>
	<title>Go ahead and make fun</title>
	<author>Bob Cat - NYMPHS</author>
	<datestamp>1267989720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy is smarter than you, and he might be right only 10\% of the time. I've seen a few ideas of his not gain traction.</p><p>He still has you beat.</p><p>Have you read <i>anything else</i> he's written, or are you just snarking it up with your ignorance?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy is smarter than you , and he might be right only 10 \ % of the time .
I 've seen a few ideas of his not gain traction.He still has you beat.Have you read anything else he 's written , or are you just snarking it up with your ignorance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy is smarter than you, and he might be right only 10\% of the time.
I've seen a few ideas of his not gain traction.He still has you beat.Have you read anything else he's written, or are you just snarking it up with your ignorance?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31400222</id>
	<title>Israeli Shill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268061360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He doesnt have any credibility anymore . . . sadly he just another necon isreali propagandist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He doesnt have any credibility anymore .
. .
sadly he just another necon isreali propagandist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He doesnt have any credibility anymore .
. .
sadly he just another necon isreali propagandist</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397496</id>
	<title>Nobody expects the internet censorship</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1267984920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the worst part is how similar is becoming to the spanish inquisition</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the worst part is how similar is becoming to the spanish inquisition</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the worst part is how similar is becoming to the spanish inquisition</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31400404</id>
	<title>Re:Gelernter who. . ?</title>
	<author>afxgrin</author>
	<datestamp>1268062500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow - that almost reads like Ted's manifesto.</p><p>Kaczynski also blamed the same groups of people for society's ills.  Then again, Ted pretty much blamed all of society for just letting capitalism run amok. However, his ideology comes down to anarcho-primitivism, but even among leftist anarchists it's controversial,  particularly Ted's views on feminism.</p><p>meh, just checked to see if the near-by university's library has any of his works<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... results show zero.  Maybe another day I'll get to read this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... heh however some people are selling  used copies for $0.01.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow - that almost reads like Ted 's manifesto.Kaczynski also blamed the same groups of people for society 's ills .
Then again , Ted pretty much blamed all of society for just letting capitalism run amok .
However , his ideology comes down to anarcho-primitivism , but even among leftist anarchists it 's controversial , particularly Ted 's views on feminism.meh , just checked to see if the near-by university 's library has any of his works ... results show zero .
Maybe another day I 'll get to read this ... heh however some people are selling used copies for $ 0.01 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow - that almost reads like Ted's manifesto.Kaczynski also blamed the same groups of people for society's ills.
Then again, Ted pretty much blamed all of society for just letting capitalism run amok.
However, his ideology comes down to anarcho-primitivism, but even among leftist anarchists it's controversial,  particularly Ted's views on feminism.meh, just checked to see if the near-by university's library has any of his works ... results show zero.
Maybe another day I'll get to read this ... heh however some people are selling  used copies for $0.01.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31400858</id>
	<title>Hooray for the Crazy Yenta Gossip Line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268065260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"With the Internet, the greatest disseminator of bad data and bad information the universe has ever known, it's become impossible to trust any news from any source at all, because it's all filtered through this crazy yenta gossip line. It's impossible to know anything."</i></p><p>Soft-science academics have been complaining about the Crazy Yenta Gossip Line ever since it got big enough for them to notice.</p><p>Doesn't stop them from being a hugely active part of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" With the Internet , the greatest disseminator of bad data and bad information the universe has ever known , it 's become impossible to trust any news from any source at all , because it 's all filtered through this crazy yenta gossip line .
It 's impossible to know anything .
" Soft-science academics have been complaining about the Crazy Yenta Gossip Line ever since it got big enough for them to notice.Does n't stop them from being a hugely active part of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"With the Internet, the greatest disseminator of bad data and bad information the universe has ever known, it's become impossible to trust any news from any source at all, because it's all filtered through this crazy yenta gossip line.
It's impossible to know anything.
"Soft-science academics have been complaining about the Crazy Yenta Gossip Line ever since it got big enough for them to notice.Doesn't stop them from being a hugely active part of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397162</id>
	<title>Whaaaa?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267981260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Internet's future is not Web 2.0 or 200.0 but the post-Web, where time instead of space is the organizing principle &mdash; instead of many stained-glass windows, instead of information laid out in space, like vegetables at a market &mdash; the Net will be many streams of information flowing through time. The Cybersphere as a whole equals every stream in the Internet blended together: the whole world telling its own story. (But the world's own story is full of private information &mdash; and so, unfortunately, no human being is allowed to hear it.)</p></div><p>The future of the Internet is information streams blending together? What the fudge does this even mean?

</p><p>Hey, if you like this guy, you will probably enjoy reading <a href="http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/" title="elsewhere.org">this</a> [elsewhere.org] as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet 's future is not Web 2.0 or 200.0 but the post-Web , where time instead of space is the organizing principle    instead of many stained-glass windows , instead of information laid out in space , like vegetables at a market    the Net will be many streams of information flowing through time .
The Cybersphere as a whole equals every stream in the Internet blended together : the whole world telling its own story .
( But the world 's own story is full of private information    and so , unfortunately , no human being is allowed to hear it .
) The future of the Internet is information streams blending together ?
What the fudge does this even mean ?
Hey , if you like this guy , you will probably enjoy reading this [ elsewhere.org ] as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet's future is not Web 2.0 or 200.0 but the post-Web, where time instead of space is the organizing principle — instead of many stained-glass windows, instead of information laid out in space, like vegetables at a market — the Net will be many streams of information flowing through time.
The Cybersphere as a whole equals every stream in the Internet blended together: the whole world telling its own story.
(But the world's own story is full of private information — and so, unfortunately, no human being is allowed to hear it.
)The future of the Internet is information streams blending together?
What the fudge does this even mean?
Hey, if you like this guy, you will probably enjoy reading this [elsewhere.org] as well.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397252</id>
	<title>He does sometimes make sense</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1267981980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gerlenter has some really off the wall ideas (see for example this post by Prof. Jeffrey Shallit <a href="http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/02/religion-makes-smart-people-stupid.html" title="blogspot.com">http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/02/religion-makes-smart-people-stupid.html</a> [blogspot.com]). But in this case, some of what Gerlenter has to say might make sense and he certainly has shown from his prior work that he's someone worth paying attention to when he is talking about computers. However, the labeling this as 35 predictions is clearly not a good descriptor of TFA. For example, 12 is not at all a prediction but simply a recap "In short: it's time to think about the Internet instead of just letting it happen." About a third of these are not predictions but rather observations. Of the predictions many of them are so vague or ill-defined as to be nearly meaningless. If he were a psychic I'd consider them to be in the category where people are deliberately vague so they can claim hits later, and in fact in 25 he humorously acknowledges this issue by saying "writers should remember to put their predictions in suitably poetic language, so it's easy to say they were right." There's also a terrible amount of buzzwords: virtual,cyber, lifestream. They don't help making this essay more readable. So if that's what he thinks constitutes poetry I have to wonder if he grew up among Vogons.
<p>
Some of his predictions seem also to be very interesting if true but possibly wrong. For example, in regards to 11 which states that "the Internet will never create a new economy based on voluntary instead of paid work" which is probably true under some interpretations and is already possibly falsified under other interpretations (Larry Lessig's "Remix" discusses this issue in detail).
</p><p>
Other predictions such as 9 and 10 which discuss how daily work-live will change are  interesting although they sound somewhat pseudo-utopian.
</p><p>
Overall, this is interesting speculation but probably could have been summarized in about a third the length. Still worth reading though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gerlenter has some really off the wall ideas ( see for example this post by Prof. Jeffrey Shallit http : //recursed.blogspot.com/2009/02/religion-makes-smart-people-stupid.html [ blogspot.com ] ) .
But in this case , some of what Gerlenter has to say might make sense and he certainly has shown from his prior work that he 's someone worth paying attention to when he is talking about computers .
However , the labeling this as 35 predictions is clearly not a good descriptor of TFA .
For example , 12 is not at all a prediction but simply a recap " In short : it 's time to think about the Internet instead of just letting it happen .
" About a third of these are not predictions but rather observations .
Of the predictions many of them are so vague or ill-defined as to be nearly meaningless .
If he were a psychic I 'd consider them to be in the category where people are deliberately vague so they can claim hits later , and in fact in 25 he humorously acknowledges this issue by saying " writers should remember to put their predictions in suitably poetic language , so it 's easy to say they were right .
" There 's also a terrible amount of buzzwords : virtual,cyber , lifestream .
They do n't help making this essay more readable .
So if that 's what he thinks constitutes poetry I have to wonder if he grew up among Vogons .
Some of his predictions seem also to be very interesting if true but possibly wrong .
For example , in regards to 11 which states that " the Internet will never create a new economy based on voluntary instead of paid work " which is probably true under some interpretations and is already possibly falsified under other interpretations ( Larry Lessig 's " Remix " discusses this issue in detail ) .
Other predictions such as 9 and 10 which discuss how daily work-live will change are interesting although they sound somewhat pseudo-utopian .
Overall , this is interesting speculation but probably could have been summarized in about a third the length .
Still worth reading though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gerlenter has some really off the wall ideas (see for example this post by Prof. Jeffrey Shallit http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/02/religion-makes-smart-people-stupid.html [blogspot.com]).
But in this case, some of what Gerlenter has to say might make sense and he certainly has shown from his prior work that he's someone worth paying attention to when he is talking about computers.
However, the labeling this as 35 predictions is clearly not a good descriptor of TFA.
For example, 12 is not at all a prediction but simply a recap "In short: it's time to think about the Internet instead of just letting it happen.
" About a third of these are not predictions but rather observations.
Of the predictions many of them are so vague or ill-defined as to be nearly meaningless.
If he were a psychic I'd consider them to be in the category where people are deliberately vague so they can claim hits later, and in fact in 25 he humorously acknowledges this issue by saying "writers should remember to put their predictions in suitably poetic language, so it's easy to say they were right.
" There's also a terrible amount of buzzwords: virtual,cyber, lifestream.
They don't help making this essay more readable.
So if that's what he thinks constitutes poetry I have to wonder if he grew up among Vogons.
Some of his predictions seem also to be very interesting if true but possibly wrong.
For example, in regards to 11 which states that "the Internet will never create a new economy based on voluntary instead of paid work" which is probably true under some interpretations and is already possibly falsified under other interpretations (Larry Lessig's "Remix" discusses this issue in detail).
Other predictions such as 9 and 10 which discuss how daily work-live will change are  interesting although they sound somewhat pseudo-utopian.
Overall, this is interesting speculation but probably could have been summarized in about a third the length.
Still worth reading though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398820</id>
	<title>Anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268046720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what a load of shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what a load of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what a load of shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397256</id>
	<title>Arbitrary Problem Creation</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1267981980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care if he predicted Nostradamus and first described self-sustaining fusion. The points and problems brought up are in large part already known and understood in other terms, with many of them dismissed by those who understand the problems in the terms commonly used.</p><p>6. The internet does not create information overload. It doesn't create information, or anything for that matter. It is constructed and filled by people who either handle the information load well or do not (hence over-load). The number of sources and amount received from them is under the control of the receiver. This is only a problem if the person does not develop a suitable technique for handling the flow, or is prevented from using it. Simultaneity is not a way to handle a large flow except in unprocessed pass-though. Regardless of the technologies that might be employed for any of this, sucessful collection of new material requires serial reception with the majority of attention focused on the item is interest.</p><p>Far more useful in developing the ability to absorb more information faster is the concept of 'media richness'. Plain text is just that, very plain, while human behavior is very rich (language plus nonverbals, etc.). Most of the net is low richness. It could be made more dense, but to be richer would then also have to be made cleaner, with less noise within the signal.</p><p>14. Creating your own new ideas and presenting them as validated concepts by comparing them with existing concepts is a technique well used in fiction writing. In non-fiction people expect to be able to compare the old and new and see justification for why the latter is useful before they should be expected to see arguments as to why one is better. Nobody can agree with what they can't understand. You can't even say to understand it if you can't explain it, you can only say you know what you mean.</p><p>I strongly recommend getting a job selling, installing and supporting a large installation so you can see just how much thought and work goes into making the internet happen. It has never just happened on its own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if he predicted Nostradamus and first described self-sustaining fusion .
The points and problems brought up are in large part already known and understood in other terms , with many of them dismissed by those who understand the problems in the terms commonly used.6 .
The internet does not create information overload .
It does n't create information , or anything for that matter .
It is constructed and filled by people who either handle the information load well or do not ( hence over-load ) .
The number of sources and amount received from them is under the control of the receiver .
This is only a problem if the person does not develop a suitable technique for handling the flow , or is prevented from using it .
Simultaneity is not a way to handle a large flow except in unprocessed pass-though .
Regardless of the technologies that might be employed for any of this , sucessful collection of new material requires serial reception with the majority of attention focused on the item is interest.Far more useful in developing the ability to absorb more information faster is the concept of 'media richness' .
Plain text is just that , very plain , while human behavior is very rich ( language plus nonverbals , etc. ) .
Most of the net is low richness .
It could be made more dense , but to be richer would then also have to be made cleaner , with less noise within the signal.14 .
Creating your own new ideas and presenting them as validated concepts by comparing them with existing concepts is a technique well used in fiction writing .
In non-fiction people expect to be able to compare the old and new and see justification for why the latter is useful before they should be expected to see arguments as to why one is better .
Nobody can agree with what they ca n't understand .
You ca n't even say to understand it if you ca n't explain it , you can only say you know what you mean.I strongly recommend getting a job selling , installing and supporting a large installation so you can see just how much thought and work goes into making the internet happen .
It has never just happened on its own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if he predicted Nostradamus and first described self-sustaining fusion.
The points and problems brought up are in large part already known and understood in other terms, with many of them dismissed by those who understand the problems in the terms commonly used.6.
The internet does not create information overload.
It doesn't create information, or anything for that matter.
It is constructed and filled by people who either handle the information load well or do not (hence over-load).
The number of sources and amount received from them is under the control of the receiver.
This is only a problem if the person does not develop a suitable technique for handling the flow, or is prevented from using it.
Simultaneity is not a way to handle a large flow except in unprocessed pass-though.
Regardless of the technologies that might be employed for any of this, sucessful collection of new material requires serial reception with the majority of attention focused on the item is interest.Far more useful in developing the ability to absorb more information faster is the concept of 'media richness'.
Plain text is just that, very plain, while human behavior is very rich (language plus nonverbals, etc.).
Most of the net is low richness.
It could be made more dense, but to be richer would then also have to be made cleaner, with less noise within the signal.14.
Creating your own new ideas and presenting them as validated concepts by comparing them with existing concepts is a technique well used in fiction writing.
In non-fiction people expect to be able to compare the old and new and see justification for why the latter is useful before they should be expected to see arguments as to why one is better.
Nobody can agree with what they can't understand.
You can't even say to understand it if you can't explain it, you can only say you know what you mean.I strongly recommend getting a job selling, installing and supporting a large installation so you can see just how much thought and work goes into making the internet happen.
It has never just happened on its own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31403888</id>
	<title>Re:Gelernter who. . ?</title>
	<author>baruz</author>
	<datestamp>1268079600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may not like his politics or his prognostications, but Gelernter has made solid contributions to computer science, especially in the field of distributed information spaces. <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.113.9679" title="psu.edu" rel="nofollow">http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.113.9679</a> [psu.edu]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may not like his politics or his prognostications , but Gelernter has made solid contributions to computer science , especially in the field of distributed information spaces .
http : //citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary ? doi = 10.1.1.113.9679 [ psu.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may not like his politics or his prognostications, but Gelernter has made solid contributions to computer science, especially in the field of distributed information spaces.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.113.9679 [psu.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397932</id>
	<title>I saw the same thing...</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1267991220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure if this is the same guy, but I think it is.  In the video I saw the concept was called a "lifestream" then as well.</p><p>To me the idea also seems bad.  I understand the motivation, he was trying to get people away from filesystems and into some more natural system for understanding how to find data.  But temporal based is just not it.  Humans can have a hard time ordering things absolutely in time, so to make access time based only obscures how to get to things, and also makes things that happened long in the past very hard to access - basically like storing all data in an array instead of a hashmap.  People want to be able to get to things quickly and a time based interface does not really help much with that except for the most immediate things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if this is the same guy , but I think it is .
In the video I saw the concept was called a " lifestream " then as well.To me the idea also seems bad .
I understand the motivation , he was trying to get people away from filesystems and into some more natural system for understanding how to find data .
But temporal based is just not it .
Humans can have a hard time ordering things absolutely in time , so to make access time based only obscures how to get to things , and also makes things that happened long in the past very hard to access - basically like storing all data in an array instead of a hashmap .
People want to be able to get to things quickly and a time based interface does not really help much with that except for the most immediate things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if this is the same guy, but I think it is.
In the video I saw the concept was called a "lifestream" then as well.To me the idea also seems bad.
I understand the motivation, he was trying to get people away from filesystems and into some more natural system for understanding how to find data.
But temporal based is just not it.
Humans can have a hard time ordering things absolutely in time, so to make access time based only obscures how to get to things, and also makes things that happened long in the past very hard to access - basically like storing all data in an array instead of a hashmap.
People want to be able to get to things quickly and a time based interface does not really help much with that except for the most immediate things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397778</id>
	<title>Detracting Point 3#</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1267988880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>3. Here is a simpler puzzle, with an obvious solution. Wherever computers exist, nearly everyone who writes uses a word processor. The word processor is one of history's most successful inventions. Most people call it not just useful but indispensable. Granted that the word processor is indeed indispensable, what good has it done? We say we can't do without it; but if we had to give it up, what difference would it make? Have word processors improved the quality of modern writing? What has the indispensable word processor accomplished?</p></div><p>Free speech, that's what. Not only free as in libre, but free as in gratis. It's possible to replicate ideas across the world at real-world cost far too small to meter.
<br> <br>
One of my ancestors wrote a book, the only copy of the manuscript was destroyed when the house was flooded by a nearby river. The publishers also lost the only other copy of the text, but the family considered they'd be unlikely to actually accept it and publish.
<br> <br>
So one can see the fundamental advantage of not being bound by a pencil or a typewriter. In the information age what we really have in excess is truly inexpensive <i>duplication</i>.
<br> <br>
It's ironic then that data can still go missing, although this is for other reasons rather than cost of making a backup, like intellectual property.
<br> <br>
The question the author poses is not quite the right one to ask. What has been ubounded by digital word processing is <i>quantity</i>. <i>Quality</i> is different, a subjective and arbitrary value.
<br> <br>
Looking at it another way, I consider readily ubiqutious free speech too cheap to meter as a pretty nice<i>quality</i>.
<br> <br>
Indeed the 'du-' in duplication implies you create a second identical copy which is what you'd have to do with a pen or typewriter. This word is no longer accurate for what is possible with the Internet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 .
Here is a simpler puzzle , with an obvious solution .
Wherever computers exist , nearly everyone who writes uses a word processor .
The word processor is one of history 's most successful inventions .
Most people call it not just useful but indispensable .
Granted that the word processor is indeed indispensable , what good has it done ?
We say we ca n't do without it ; but if we had to give it up , what difference would it make ?
Have word processors improved the quality of modern writing ?
What has the indispensable word processor accomplished ? Free speech , that 's what .
Not only free as in libre , but free as in gratis .
It 's possible to replicate ideas across the world at real-world cost far too small to meter .
One of my ancestors wrote a book , the only copy of the manuscript was destroyed when the house was flooded by a nearby river .
The publishers also lost the only other copy of the text , but the family considered they 'd be unlikely to actually accept it and publish .
So one can see the fundamental advantage of not being bound by a pencil or a typewriter .
In the information age what we really have in excess is truly inexpensive duplication .
It 's ironic then that data can still go missing , although this is for other reasons rather than cost of making a backup , like intellectual property .
The question the author poses is not quite the right one to ask .
What has been ubounded by digital word processing is quantity .
Quality is different , a subjective and arbitrary value .
Looking at it another way , I consider readily ubiqutious free speech too cheap to meter as a pretty nicequality .
Indeed the 'du- ' in duplication implies you create a second identical copy which is what you 'd have to do with a pen or typewriter .
This word is no longer accurate for what is possible with the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3.
Here is a simpler puzzle, with an obvious solution.
Wherever computers exist, nearly everyone who writes uses a word processor.
The word processor is one of history's most successful inventions.
Most people call it not just useful but indispensable.
Granted that the word processor is indeed indispensable, what good has it done?
We say we can't do without it; but if we had to give it up, what difference would it make?
Have word processors improved the quality of modern writing?
What has the indispensable word processor accomplished?Free speech, that's what.
Not only free as in libre, but free as in gratis.
It's possible to replicate ideas across the world at real-world cost far too small to meter.
One of my ancestors wrote a book, the only copy of the manuscript was destroyed when the house was flooded by a nearby river.
The publishers also lost the only other copy of the text, but the family considered they'd be unlikely to actually accept it and publish.
So one can see the fundamental advantage of not being bound by a pencil or a typewriter.
In the information age what we really have in excess is truly inexpensive duplication.
It's ironic then that data can still go missing, although this is for other reasons rather than cost of making a backup, like intellectual property.
The question the author poses is not quite the right one to ask.
What has been ubounded by digital word processing is quantity.
Quality is different, a subjective and arbitrary value.
Looking at it another way, I consider readily ubiqutious free speech too cheap to meter as a pretty nicequality.
Indeed the 'du-' in duplication implies you create a second identical copy which is what you'd have to do with a pen or typewriter.
This word is no longer accurate for what is possible with the Internet.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398534</id>
	<title>Al Gore</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268042640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anybody else thinking of Al Gore complainig "nobody takes me cereal!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody else thinking of Al Gore complainig " nobody takes me cereal !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody else thinking of Al Gore complainig "nobody takes me cereal!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31401526</id>
	<title>Reminds me of those Popular Science articles....</title>
	<author>rclandrum</author>
	<datestamp>1268068680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...describing the "world of tomorrow", showing flying cars, people movers, and personal jet packs. Most detailed, meaningful predictions - even by informed people - are almost invariably wrong.  I can agree that the internet is basically an information conduit that focuses us on what is happening "now", but as for the ways in which it will morph in the future and become something much more, I disagree.  In the early days of television, it could easily have been predicted (and probably was) that the medium would be used to do away with classrooms and bring education into the home, but in reality it turned into a vehicle for watching trailer trash win prizes and distributing serial stories of meaningless drivel.  Thus are the noble dreams of the educated and visionary elite hammered into reality by the voracious appetites of the masses for ever-increasing couch-based entertainment.</p><p>Lesson:  If you have a noble ambition for your invention, never, ever, let the public "help" you mold it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...describing the " world of tomorrow " , showing flying cars , people movers , and personal jet packs .
Most detailed , meaningful predictions - even by informed people - are almost invariably wrong .
I can agree that the internet is basically an information conduit that focuses us on what is happening " now " , but as for the ways in which it will morph in the future and become something much more , I disagree .
In the early days of television , it could easily have been predicted ( and probably was ) that the medium would be used to do away with classrooms and bring education into the home , but in reality it turned into a vehicle for watching trailer trash win prizes and distributing serial stories of meaningless drivel .
Thus are the noble dreams of the educated and visionary elite hammered into reality by the voracious appetites of the masses for ever-increasing couch-based entertainment.Lesson : If you have a noble ambition for your invention , never , ever , let the public " help " you mold it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...describing the "world of tomorrow", showing flying cars, people movers, and personal jet packs.
Most detailed, meaningful predictions - even by informed people - are almost invariably wrong.
I can agree that the internet is basically an information conduit that focuses us on what is happening "now", but as for the ways in which it will morph in the future and become something much more, I disagree.
In the early days of television, it could easily have been predicted (and probably was) that the medium would be used to do away with classrooms and bring education into the home, but in reality it turned into a vehicle for watching trailer trash win prizes and distributing serial stories of meaningless drivel.
Thus are the noble dreams of the educated and visionary elite hammered into reality by the voracious appetites of the masses for ever-increasing couch-based entertainment.Lesson:  If you have a noble ambition for your invention, never, ever, let the public "help" you mold it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397656</id>
	<title>So when did this guy predict the internet?</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1267987020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when did he predict 'the internet' ? Was this before or after Al Gore invented it?</p><p>AFAIK Shoghi Effendi predicted the internet back in 1936:</p><p>"A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when did he predict 'the internet ' ?
Was this before or after Al Gore invented it ? AFAIK Shoghi Effendi predicted the internet back in 1936 : " A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised , embracing the whole planet , freed from national hindrances and restrictions , and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when did he predict 'the internet' ?
Was this before or after Al Gore invented it?AFAIK Shoghi Effendi predicted the internet back in 1936:"A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399212</id>
	<title>Re:NOOOOO!!!</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1268051820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, that's an overstatement.</p><p>The real limitation is you can't cross the same river TWICE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , that 's an overstatement.The real limitation is you ca n't cross the same river TWICE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, that's an overstatement.The real limitation is you can't cross the same river TWICE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398106</id>
	<title>Old, a de-inflationary view of the Internet</title>
	<author>beachdog</author>
	<datestamp>1268079900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His comments about the Internet, while they do seem  dated, did push me on to a further view of the Internet.</p><p>One of the recent formulations points out that the Internet is so fast and so vast that the resource now in short supply is human attention. I thought about Gelernter's "information streams" and demur: There is data on the Internet that sometimes becomes information in the mind of the beholder. Natural language text processing does only modest specific tasks in a data processing manner. Attention is the thing a human applies to data to reach a state of "readiness to act" that Donald MacKay once defined.</p><p>Here is what I suggest is a further view:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The Internet is a data transmission medium of revolutionary low cost. There is an abundance of low quality data but the higher levels are stalled due to the shortage of high quality input data. An instance of solving the high quality input data problem is Wikipedia. But symphony music, Building Codes, scientific papers, journals and books are stalled for economic reasons. Our society with it's economic structure is mismatched with the cheap bandwidth and flexibility of the Internet as a publishing solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His comments about the Internet , while they do seem dated , did push me on to a further view of the Internet.One of the recent formulations points out that the Internet is so fast and so vast that the resource now in short supply is human attention .
I thought about Gelernter 's " information streams " and demur : There is data on the Internet that sometimes becomes information in the mind of the beholder .
Natural language text processing does only modest specific tasks in a data processing manner .
Attention is the thing a human applies to data to reach a state of " readiness to act " that Donald MacKay once defined.Here is what I suggest is a further view :                   The Internet is a data transmission medium of revolutionary low cost .
There is an abundance of low quality data but the higher levels are stalled due to the shortage of high quality input data .
An instance of solving the high quality input data problem is Wikipedia .
But symphony music , Building Codes , scientific papers , journals and books are stalled for economic reasons .
Our society with it 's economic structure is mismatched with the cheap bandwidth and flexibility of the Internet as a publishing solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His comments about the Internet, while they do seem  dated, did push me on to a further view of the Internet.One of the recent formulations points out that the Internet is so fast and so vast that the resource now in short supply is human attention.
I thought about Gelernter's "information streams" and demur: There is data on the Internet that sometimes becomes information in the mind of the beholder.
Natural language text processing does only modest specific tasks in a data processing manner.
Attention is the thing a human applies to data to reach a state of "readiness to act" that Donald MacKay once defined.Here is what I suggest is a further view:
                  The Internet is a data transmission medium of revolutionary low cost.
There is an abundance of low quality data but the higher levels are stalled due to the shortage of high quality input data.
An instance of solving the high quality input data problem is Wikipedia.
But symphony music, Building Codes, scientific papers, journals and books are stalled for economic reasons.
Our society with it's economic structure is mismatched with the cheap bandwidth and flexibility of the Internet as a publishing solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397754</id>
	<title>Re:condition: buzzword alert</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267988460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously... "lifestream"? Isn't that the energy force of the planet in Final Fantasy VII?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously... " lifestream " ? Is n't that the energy force of the planet in Final Fantasy VII ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously... "lifestream"? Isn't that the energy force of the planet in Final Fantasy VII?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398658</id>
	<title>Re:Elitist stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268044380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I admire your courage. OTOH, it coming from an Anonymous Coward<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I admire your courage .
OTOH , it coming from an Anonymous Coward .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I admire your courage.
OTOH, it coming from an Anonymous Coward ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31402056</id>
	<title>Netvibes 4 teh win</title>
	<author>allcoolnameswheretak</author>
	<datestamp>1268071380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Integrating multiple information sources is crucial to solving information overload. Blogs and other anthology-sites integrate information from many sources. But we won't be able to solve the overload problem until each Internet user can choose for himself what sources to integrate, and can add to this mix the most important source of all: his own personal information &mdash; his email and other messages, reminders and documents of all sorts. To accomplish this, we merely need to turn the whole Cybersphere on its side...</p></div><p>Or you just need <a href="http://www.netvibes.com/" title="netvibes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.netvibes.com/</a> [netvibes.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Integrating multiple information sources is crucial to solving information overload .
Blogs and other anthology-sites integrate information from many sources .
But we wo n't be able to solve the overload problem until each Internet user can choose for himself what sources to integrate , and can add to this mix the most important source of all : his own personal information    his email and other messages , reminders and documents of all sorts .
To accomplish this , we merely need to turn the whole Cybersphere on its side...Or you just need http : //www.netvibes.com/ [ netvibes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Integrating multiple information sources is crucial to solving information overload.
Blogs and other anthology-sites integrate information from many sources.
But we won't be able to solve the overload problem until each Internet user can choose for himself what sources to integrate, and can add to this mix the most important source of all: his own personal information — his email and other messages, reminders and documents of all sorts.
To accomplish this, we merely need to turn the whole Cybersphere on its side...Or you just need http://www.netvibes.com/ [netvibes.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397508</id>
	<title>Aaaah, the prediction makers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267985040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s like religion, but without as much power. Kinda like a predecessor.</p><p>The only revelation that ever stunned me, was the following:<br>I was still a teenager, and I read in the German computer magazine PC Welt about Nostradamus and what of that &ldquo;actually happened&rdquo; in the computer area.<br>And one prediction for the very close future was, that a new OS would come, to rule the world. Something big.<br>Mind you that was long before Linux (created 1991-92) was even remotely mainstream. I constantly read computer magazines, and know that it was not mentioned once or known.<br>They joked that maybe Nintendo would create a Yoshi OS. (Super Mario World, the first game to feature Yoshi, was released in 1990-91. Which gives you a feeling of when this was written.)</p><p>Years later, when I heard more and more about Linux, and even IBM started to pick it up, I started to realize that this was that OS!<br>Doesn&rsquo;t mean anything, but somehow that was such a moment that really made me think. Like: Was he an Alien and/or time traveler from the future?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>To this day I wish I could get that article back. I know it was in the summer as we were at the beach. But the oldest issues they have in their archive are from 2007. So if you got an old archive from maybe 1990-92, please contact me!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s like religion , but without as much power .
Kinda like a predecessor.The only revelation that ever stunned me , was the following : I was still a teenager , and I read in the German computer magazine PC Welt about Nostradamus and what of that    actually happened    in the computer area.And one prediction for the very close future was , that a new OS would come , to rule the world .
Something big.Mind you that was long before Linux ( created 1991-92 ) was even remotely mainstream .
I constantly read computer magazines , and know that it was not mentioned once or known.They joked that maybe Nintendo would create a Yoshi OS .
( Super Mario World , the first game to feature Yoshi , was released in 1990-91 .
Which gives you a feeling of when this was written .
) Years later , when I heard more and more about Linux , and even IBM started to pick it up , I started to realize that this was that OS ! Doesn    t mean anything , but somehow that was such a moment that really made me think .
Like : Was he an Alien and/or time traveler from the future ?
; ) To this day I wish I could get that article back .
I know it was in the summer as we were at the beach .
But the oldest issues they have in their archive are from 2007 .
So if you got an old archive from maybe 1990-92 , please contact me !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s like religion, but without as much power.
Kinda like a predecessor.The only revelation that ever stunned me, was the following:I was still a teenager, and I read in the German computer magazine PC Welt about Nostradamus and what of that “actually happened” in the computer area.And one prediction for the very close future was, that a new OS would come, to rule the world.
Something big.Mind you that was long before Linux (created 1991-92) was even remotely mainstream.
I constantly read computer magazines, and know that it was not mentioned once or known.They joked that maybe Nintendo would create a Yoshi OS.
(Super Mario World, the first game to feature Yoshi, was released in 1990-91.
Which gives you a feeling of when this was written.
)Years later, when I heard more and more about Linux, and even IBM started to pick it up, I started to realize that this was that OS!Doesn’t mean anything, but somehow that was such a moment that really made me think.
Like: Was he an Alien and/or time traveler from the future?
;)To this day I wish I could get that article back.
I know it was in the summer as we were at the beach.
But the oldest issues they have in their archive are from 2007.
So if you got an old archive from maybe 1990-92, please contact me!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398926</id>
	<title>Re:Serious</title>
	<author>Teun</author>
	<datestamp>1268047980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You probably paid for a licence, that's akin to prostitution so complain to the pimp.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You probably paid for a licence , that 's akin to prostitution so complain to the pimp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You probably paid for a licence, that's akin to prostitution so complain to the pimp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397866</id>
	<title>Yawn!</title>
	<author>HooliganIntellectual</author>
	<datestamp>1267989900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gelernter is going to win the 2010 Ig Nobel for Vacuous Internet Punditry. Your average Facebook user can come up with more insightful takes on new technology than this tired hack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gelernter is going to win the 2010 Ig Nobel for Vacuous Internet Punditry .
Your average Facebook user can come up with more insightful takes on new technology than this tired hack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gelernter is going to win the 2010 Ig Nobel for Vacuous Internet Punditry.
Your average Facebook user can come up with more insightful takes on new technology than this tired hack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397020</id>
	<title>Take the internet seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267980060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somebody help me understand this statement, it does not compute.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody help me understand this statement , it does not compute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody help me understand this statement, it does not compute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398180</id>
	<title>Guessing games</title>
	<author>AndrewBC</author>
	<datestamp>1268080740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People who make predictions for the sake of making predictions are only doing so because they lack the required attributes to make their ideas reality, but want the smug satisfaction of thinking they're at least equal to or better than the person that does have those attributes because they thought of it first. If you want to be impressive, predict it and then make it happen (which, by the way, is a good way to be right about your predictions.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who make predictions for the sake of making predictions are only doing so because they lack the required attributes to make their ideas reality , but want the smug satisfaction of thinking they 're at least equal to or better than the person that does have those attributes because they thought of it first .
If you want to be impressive , predict it and then make it happen ( which , by the way , is a good way to be right about your predictions .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who make predictions for the sake of making predictions are only doing so because they lack the required attributes to make their ideas reality, but want the smug satisfaction of thinking they're at least equal to or better than the person that does have those attributes because they thought of it first.
If you want to be impressive, predict it and then make it happen (which, by the way, is a good way to be right about your predictions.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397220</id>
	<title>Re:Take the internet seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267981740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The BBC  <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk] says access to the internet is a human right. That sounds serious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] says access to the internet is a human right .
That sounds serious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm [bbc.co.uk] says access to the internet is a human right.
That sounds serious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397020</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31410642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31405046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31403888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31400700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31400404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31401378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_0024205_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31410044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31400700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31401378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397334
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397388
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31410642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31405046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31399628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31410044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31398820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31400858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_0024205.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31397828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31400404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_0024205.31403888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
