<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_08_1533243</id>
	<title>How the Internet Didn't Fail As Predicted</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1268065320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Lord Byron Eee PC writes <i>"Newsweek is carrying a navel-gazing piece on <a href="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonicshifts/archive/2010/03/02/let-s-talk-about-the-1995-newsweek-piece-that-says-the-internet-will-fail.aspx">how wrong they were</a> when in <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/106554">1995 they published a story</a> about how the Internet would fail. The original article states, 'Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we'll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Intenet. Uh, sure.' The article continues to say that online shopping will never happen, that airline tickets won't be purchased over the web, and that newspapers have nothing to fear. It's an interesting look back at a time when the Internet was still a novelty and not yet a necessity."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lord Byron Eee PC writes " Newsweek is carrying a navel-gazing piece on how wrong they were when in 1995 they published a story about how the Internet would fail .
The original article states , 'Nicholas Negroponte , director of the MIT Media Lab , predicts that we 'll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Intenet .
Uh , sure .
' The article continues to say that online shopping will never happen , that airline tickets wo n't be purchased over the web , and that newspapers have nothing to fear .
It 's an interesting look back at a time when the Internet was still a novelty and not yet a necessity .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lord Byron Eee PC writes "Newsweek is carrying a navel-gazing piece on how wrong they were when in 1995 they published a story about how the Internet would fail.
The original article states, 'Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we'll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Intenet.
Uh, sure.
' The article continues to say that online shopping will never happen, that airline tickets won't be purchased over the web, and that newspapers have nothing to fear.
It's an interesting look back at a time when the Internet was still a novelty and not yet a necessity.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401744</id>
	<title>Government crackdowns</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1268069880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did they predict that governments will attempt to crack down on free speech on the internet by dreaming up fake terror threats and copyright nonsense to control the internet, and thus please the governments corporate whore masters?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they predict that governments will attempt to crack down on free speech on the internet by dreaming up fake terror threats and copyright nonsense to control the internet , and thus please the governments corporate whore masters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they predict that governments will attempt to crack down on free speech on the internet by dreaming up fake terror threats and copyright nonsense to control the internet, and thus please the governments corporate whore masters?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404062</id>
	<title>Re:Wish he was wrong about the salespeople</title>
	<author>egcagrac0</author>
	<datestamp>1268080500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The best part was doing DNS reverse lookups of domain names</p></div><p>Isn't that a forward lookup?</p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse\_DNS\_lookup" title="wikipedia.org">Reverse DNS Lookup</a> [wikipedia.org] should turn a number into a name.  A lookup turns a name into a number. </p><p>(Yes, there's always one in the group.  I'm usually him.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best part was doing DNS reverse lookups of domain namesIs n't that a forward lookup ?
Reverse DNS Lookup [ wikipedia.org ] should turn a number into a name .
A lookup turns a name into a number .
( Yes , there 's always one in the group .
I 'm usually him .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best part was doing DNS reverse lookups of domain namesIsn't that a forward lookup?
Reverse DNS Lookup [wikipedia.org] should turn a number into a name.
A lookup turns a name into a number.
(Yes, there's always one in the group.
I'm usually him.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402146</id>
	<title>Tomorrow's World</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268071860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I predict that within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I predict that within 100 years , computers will be twice as powerful , 10,000 times larger , and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predict that within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404474</id>
	<title>Re:Internet search has come a long way.</title>
	<author>WWWWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1268038980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Heh. Lets cut and past "date of the Battle of Trafalgar" into the location bar of Chrome here...</p><p>and instantly...</p><p>"Battle of Trafalgar &mdash; Date: 21 October 1805
According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Trafalgar" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Trafalgar</a> [wikipedia.org]"</p><p>Proving that internet search made the internet useful. The article's author had a stunning failure of vision.</p></div><p>Search? Search and <em>content.</em> We've had working search, but it has only been in the recent years when people started demanding some sort of reliability out of all of this stuff that's posted on web. And it was haphazard and not very well collected and people didn't try to work together. In short, we didn't have Wikipedia in 1995. Encyclopedia makers were busy figuring out this "CD-ROM" thing and wishing that Microsoft wouldn't ruin this market by providing Encarta to customers without charging an arm and leg (as if people would actually buy cheap products, <em>the bastards</em>). Your most reliable free source on all things Battle of Trafalgar? Uncle Armchairgeneralsson's Battle Page (in danger of being evicted from geocities.com due to not having enough animated GIFs). Other reliable sources? Probably behind a pay wall of some sort.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh .
Lets cut and past " date of the Battle of Trafalgar " into the location bar of Chrome here...and instantly... " Battle of Trafalgar    Date : 21 October 1805 According to http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle \ _of \ _Trafalgar [ wikipedia.org ] " Proving that internet search made the internet useful .
The article 's author had a stunning failure of vision.Search ?
Search and content .
We 've had working search , but it has only been in the recent years when people started demanding some sort of reliability out of all of this stuff that 's posted on web .
And it was haphazard and not very well collected and people did n't try to work together .
In short , we did n't have Wikipedia in 1995 .
Encyclopedia makers were busy figuring out this " CD-ROM " thing and wishing that Microsoft would n't ruin this market by providing Encarta to customers without charging an arm and leg ( as if people would actually buy cheap products , the bastards ) .
Your most reliable free source on all things Battle of Trafalgar ?
Uncle Armchairgeneralsson 's Battle Page ( in danger of being evicted from geocities.com due to not having enough animated GIFs ) .
Other reliable sources ?
Probably behind a pay wall of some sort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh.
Lets cut and past "date of the Battle of Trafalgar" into the location bar of Chrome here...and instantly..."Battle of Trafalgar — Date: 21 October 1805
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Trafalgar [wikipedia.org]"Proving that internet search made the internet useful.
The article's author had a stunning failure of vision.Search?
Search and content.
We've had working search, but it has only been in the recent years when people started demanding some sort of reliability out of all of this stuff that's posted on web.
And it was haphazard and not very well collected and people didn't try to work together.
In short, we didn't have Wikipedia in 1995.
Encyclopedia makers were busy figuring out this "CD-ROM" thing and wishing that Microsoft wouldn't ruin this market by providing Encarta to customers without charging an arm and leg (as if people would actually buy cheap products, the bastards).
Your most reliable free source on all things Battle of Trafalgar?
Uncle Armchairgeneralsson's Battle Page (in danger of being evicted from geocities.com due to not having enough animated GIFs).
Other reliable sources?
Probably behind a pay wall of some sort.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31408568</id>
	<title>Memories</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1268057640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bill Gates said, "Nobody will ever need more than 640K Bytes of memory" space. Ah, the gaffs of the rich, powerful and foolish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates said , " Nobody will ever need more than 640K Bytes of memory " space .
Ah , the gaffs of the rich , powerful and foolish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates said, "Nobody will ever need more than 640K Bytes of memory" space.
Ah, the gaffs of the rich, powerful and foolish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404792</id>
	<title>Re:I've never understoof Stoll's about face</title>
	<author>topham</author>
	<datestamp>1268040360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He turned on the Internet because he felt it turned on him.</p><p>Repeating his adventure ad-nausium, touring the country, etc all contributed to his deteriorating personal life.<br>During that time he changed as a personal and blamed the Internet and computers for his problems.</p><p>In truth he no longer lived the filtered, protected life he dreamt that he had and his friends/family still thought they lived in.</p><p>Opening your eyes and seeing the world for what it is, when everyone around you sees it through rose coloured glasses, or as simply black-and-white; good-vs-evil has a tendency to destroy people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He turned on the Internet because he felt it turned on him.Repeating his adventure ad-nausium , touring the country , etc all contributed to his deteriorating personal life.During that time he changed as a personal and blamed the Internet and computers for his problems.In truth he no longer lived the filtered , protected life he dreamt that he had and his friends/family still thought they lived in.Opening your eyes and seeing the world for what it is , when everyone around you sees it through rose coloured glasses , or as simply black-and-white ; good-vs-evil has a tendency to destroy people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He turned on the Internet because he felt it turned on him.Repeating his adventure ad-nausium, touring the country, etc all contributed to his deteriorating personal life.During that time he changed as a personal and blamed the Internet and computers for his problems.In truth he no longer lived the filtered, protected life he dreamt that he had and his friends/family still thought they lived in.Opening your eyes and seeing the world for what it is, when everyone around you sees it through rose coloured glasses, or as simply black-and-white; good-vs-evil has a tendency to destroy people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404884</id>
	<title>You know whose prediction is coming true?</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1268040840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html" title="gnu.org">This one.</a> [gnu.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This one .
[ gnu.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This one.
[gnu.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31407418</id>
	<title>Clifford Stoll</title>
	<author>Pseudonymus Bosch</author>
	<datestamp>1268050800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the article was written by journalists with editors</i></p><p>Clifford Stoll was (is?) a hacker, a Physics PhD that was thought a computer expert by physicists and a physicist by computer experts. He wrote a book about his almost single-handed fight against German crackers at the service of the Soviet bloc. And it is a good read, even with Unix commands. So whatever but a "journalist".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the article was written by journalists with editorsClifford Stoll was ( is ?
) a hacker , a Physics PhD that was thought a computer expert by physicists and a physicist by computer experts .
He wrote a book about his almost single-handed fight against German crackers at the service of the Soviet bloc .
And it is a good read , even with Unix commands .
So whatever but a " journalist " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the article was written by journalists with editorsClifford Stoll was (is?
) a hacker, a Physics PhD that was thought a computer expert by physicists and a physicist by computer experts.
He wrote a book about his almost single-handed fight against German crackers at the service of the Soviet bloc.
And it is a good read, even with Unix commands.
So whatever but a "journalist".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404024</id>
	<title>Re:Internet search has come a long way.</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1268080260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Proving that internet search made the internet useful.</p></div><p>Google made the internet useful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Proving that internet search made the internet useful.Google made the internet useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proving that internet search made the internet useful.Google made the internet useful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402076</id>
	<title>one thing right anyway</title>
	<author>jfruhlinger</author>
	<datestamp>1268071500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...predicts that we'll soon buy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... newspapers straight over the Intenet. Uh, sure.</i></p><p>Well, it's true that nobody's <i>buying</i> newspapers over the Internet.  Isn't that one of the newspapers' biggest problems?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...predicts that we 'll soon buy ... newspapers straight over the Intenet .
Uh , sure.Well , it 's true that nobody 's buying newspapers over the Internet .
Is n't that one of the newspapers ' biggest problems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...predicts that we'll soon buy ... newspapers straight over the Intenet.
Uh, sure.Well, it's true that nobody's buying newspapers over the Internet.
Isn't that one of the newspapers' biggest problems?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401888</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, he really missed the opportunity</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1268070600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You point was so insightful I sent the link to my wife. No doubt you will be moderated rightly into orbit, but due to lack of points not by me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You point was so insightful I sent the link to my wife .
No doubt you will be moderated rightly into orbit , but due to lack of points not by me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You point was so insightful I sent the link to my wife.
No doubt you will be moderated rightly into orbit, but due to lack of points not by me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402252</id>
	<title>Stoll?</title>
	<author>Sperbels</author>
	<datestamp>1268072400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clifford Stoll?  Seriously?  That guy has never been much of an authority on computers.  He was just a guy who capitalized on the little bit of street credit he got from bringing down the hacker Markus Hess.  Stoll's opinions were never worth much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clifford Stoll ?
Seriously ? That guy has never been much of an authority on computers .
He was just a guy who capitalized on the little bit of street credit he got from bringing down the hacker Markus Hess .
Stoll 's opinions were never worth much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clifford Stoll?
Seriously?  That guy has never been much of an authority on computers.
He was just a guy who capitalized on the little bit of street credit he got from bringing down the hacker Markus Hess.
Stoll's opinions were never worth much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403072</id>
	<title>Re:Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1268076060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, no, he didn't.  But it makes a nice urban legend.  As a footnote, he supposedly said it in 1943, which would mean his prediction was correct for about ten years, which is better than a lot of people have done forecasting technological progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , no , he did n't .
But it makes a nice urban legend .
As a footnote , he supposedly said it in 1943 , which would mean his prediction was correct for about ten years , which is better than a lot of people have done forecasting technological progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, no, he didn't.
But it makes a nice urban legend.
As a footnote, he supposedly said it in 1943, which would mean his prediction was correct for about ten years, which is better than a lot of people have done forecasting technological progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401986</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, he really missed the opportunity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268071140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zuckerberg and Anderson are not rich because they had vision to bring human contact to the internet.</p><p>Zuckerberg and Anderson are rich because they realized that most internet users cannot or will not learn to use use their computers well enough to handle an email application, an IM application, a news reader, and a web browser, and that most internet users are not online for content but for mindless entertainment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zuckerberg and Anderson are not rich because they had vision to bring human contact to the internet.Zuckerberg and Anderson are rich because they realized that most internet users can not or will not learn to use use their computers well enough to handle an email application , an IM application , a news reader , and a web browser , and that most internet users are not online for content but for mindless entertainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zuckerberg and Anderson are not rich because they had vision to bring human contact to the internet.Zuckerberg and Anderson are rich because they realized that most internet users cannot or will not learn to use use their computers well enough to handle an email application, an IM application, a news reader, and a web browser, and that most internet users are not online for content but for mindless entertainment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31410200</id>
	<title>Re:Wish he was wrong about the salespeople</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1268072820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;That said, I don't think I could go back to 1995</p><p>That's a good question, actually.  How have things improved since the 90's?</p><p>WHAT'S CHANGED:</p><p>Slashdot is less trolled, more predictable<br>Better shopping sites with reviews (Amazon, Newegg)<br>Wikipedia replaces Everything2<br>Google replaces AltaVista<br>Bittorrent replaces <a href="ftp://" title="ftp" rel="nofollow">ftp://</a> [ftp]<br>Connection speed wayyyyy up<br>Comments on anything, anywhere<br>Insane amounts of Flash games<br>XML/DOM/Jscript is sweet, if you still care by now<br>Pretty much every TV clip is on YouTube<br>Newspapers have gotten worse<br>Everyone blogs<br>Everything is db-backed with a PHP forum on top of it<br>Craigslist<br>All idiots have been corralled into MySpace/FB where they will be electronically set on fire</p><p>HASN'T CHANGED:</p><p>Pricewatch<br>ArsTechnica<br>Yahoo!<br>Slashdot still buggy, worst codebase ever.<br>Web pages do not render instantaneously<br>Most news articles still do not contain pictures<br>Still reading news online<br>HTML maxed out at 4.01<br>Still no videophone<br>Still not using a Microsoft browser<br>Still using a Microsoft OS<br>Still credit-card shopping<br>Checking email still crucial</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; That said , I do n't think I could go back to 1995That 's a good question , actually .
How have things improved since the 90 's ? WHAT 'S CHANGED : Slashdot is less trolled , more predictableBetter shopping sites with reviews ( Amazon , Newegg ) Wikipedia replaces Everything2Google replaces AltaVistaBittorrent replaces ftp : // [ ftp ] Connection speed wayyyyy upComments on anything , anywhereInsane amounts of Flash gamesXML/DOM/Jscript is sweet , if you still care by nowPretty much every TV clip is on YouTubeNewspapers have gotten worseEveryone blogsEverything is db-backed with a PHP forum on top of itCraigslistAll idiots have been corralled into MySpace/FB where they will be electronically set on fireHAS N'T CHANGED : PricewatchArsTechnicaYahoo ! Slashdot still buggy , worst codebase ever.Web pages do not render instantaneouslyMost news articles still do not contain picturesStill reading news onlineHTML maxed out at 4.01Still no videophoneStill not using a Microsoft browserStill using a Microsoft OSStill credit-card shoppingChecking email still crucial</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;That said, I don't think I could go back to 1995That's a good question, actually.
How have things improved since the 90's?WHAT'S CHANGED:Slashdot is less trolled, more predictableBetter shopping sites with reviews (Amazon, Newegg)Wikipedia replaces Everything2Google replaces AltaVistaBittorrent replaces ftp:// [ftp]Connection speed wayyyyy upComments on anything, anywhereInsane amounts of Flash gamesXML/DOM/Jscript is sweet, if you still care by nowPretty much every TV clip is on YouTubeNewspapers have gotten worseEveryone blogsEverything is db-backed with a PHP forum on top of itCraigslistAll idiots have been corralled into MySpace/FB where they will be electronically set on fireHASN'T CHANGED:PricewatchArsTechnicaYahoo!Slashdot still buggy, worst codebase ever.Web pages do not render instantaneouslyMost news articles still do not contain picturesStill reading news onlineHTML maxed out at 4.01Still no videophoneStill not using a Microsoft browserStill using a Microsoft OSStill credit-card shoppingChecking email still crucial</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31405738</id>
	<title>He isnt alone.</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1268044620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of us never thought the 'internet' would even be heard of outside the hardcore geek community.</p><p>Lesson learned: never say never.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of us never thought the 'internet ' would even be heard of outside the hardcore geek community.Lesson learned : never say never .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of us never thought the 'internet' would even be heard of outside the hardcore geek community.Lesson learned: never say never.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402636</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1268073900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except he most likely never said such a thing.</p><blockquote><div><p>When IBM introduced its PC in 1981, many people attacked Microsoft for its<br>role. These critics said that 8-bit computers, which had 64K of address space,<br>would last forever. They said we were wastefully throwing out great 8-bit<br>programming by moving the world toward 16-bit computers.</p><p>We at Microsoft disagreed. We knew that even 16-bit computers, which had 640K<br>of available address space, would be adequate for only four or five years. (The<br>IBM PC had 1 megabyte of logical address space. But 384K of this was assigned<br>to special purposes, leaving 640K of memory available. That's where the<br>now-infamous ``640K barrier'' came from.)</p><p>-Bill Gates</p></div></blockquote><p>Source Bloomberg Business News circa '96.</p><p>Snopes also has some useful info:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill\_Gates#Misattributed" title="wikiquote.org">http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill\_Gates#Misattributed</a> [wikiquote.org]</p><p>Much like the virility of your comment, my CAPTCHA was "limpness"...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except he most likely never said such a thing.When IBM introduced its PC in 1981 , many people attacked Microsoft for itsrole .
These critics said that 8-bit computers , which had 64K of address space,would last forever .
They said we were wastefully throwing out great 8-bitprogramming by moving the world toward 16-bit computers.We at Microsoft disagreed .
We knew that even 16-bit computers , which had 640Kof available address space , would be adequate for only four or five years .
( TheIBM PC had 1 megabyte of logical address space .
But 384K of this was assignedto special purposes , leaving 640K of memory available .
That 's where thenow-infamous ` ` 640K barrier' ' came from .
) -Bill GatesSource Bloomberg Business News circa '96.Snopes also has some useful info : http : //en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill \ _Gates # Misattributed [ wikiquote.org ] Much like the virility of your comment , my CAPTCHA was " limpness " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except he most likely never said such a thing.When IBM introduced its PC in 1981, many people attacked Microsoft for itsrole.
These critics said that 8-bit computers, which had 64K of address space,would last forever.
They said we were wastefully throwing out great 8-bitprogramming by moving the world toward 16-bit computers.We at Microsoft disagreed.
We knew that even 16-bit computers, which had 640Kof available address space, would be adequate for only four or five years.
(TheIBM PC had 1 megabyte of logical address space.
But 384K of this was assignedto special purposes, leaving 640K of memory available.
That's where thenow-infamous ``640K barrier'' came from.
)-Bill GatesSource Bloomberg Business News circa '96.Snopes also has some useful info:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill\_Gates#Misattributed [wikiquote.org]Much like the virility of your comment, my CAPTCHA was "limpness"...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403008</id>
	<title>Stoll versus Lanier</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1268075760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's instructive to look at the differences in what Clifford Stoll says versus what someone like Jaron Lanier says.</p><p>Clifford Stoll reminds us that technology is not a panacea, and to stay human.</p><p>Jaron Lanier is upset by "numb mobs composed of people who are no longer acting as individuals" - you know, that the <i>peasants</i> were let onto the ARPAnet. His main gripe with the Internet is that he <a href="http://newstechnica.com/2010/02/27/jaron-lanier-why-people-should-pay-more-attention-to-me-and-not-web-2-0/" title="newstechnica.com">doesn't get the attention any more</a> [newstechnica.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's instructive to look at the differences in what Clifford Stoll says versus what someone like Jaron Lanier says.Clifford Stoll reminds us that technology is not a panacea , and to stay human.Jaron Lanier is upset by " numb mobs composed of people who are no longer acting as individuals " - you know , that the peasants were let onto the ARPAnet .
His main gripe with the Internet is that he does n't get the attention any more [ newstechnica.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's instructive to look at the differences in what Clifford Stoll says versus what someone like Jaron Lanier says.Clifford Stoll reminds us that technology is not a panacea, and to stay human.Jaron Lanier is upset by "numb mobs composed of people who are no longer acting as individuals" - you know, that the peasants were let onto the ARPAnet.
His main gripe with the Internet is that he doesn't get the attention any more [newstechnica.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403204</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, he really missed the opportunity</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1268076540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So he was able to see that human contact was the thing that was missing from the internet - and then blew it. Because of his lack of vision, he's still eating Ramen Noodles. Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc. solving exactly those problems.</p></div><p>Well they haven't really solved those problems.  Nobody has solved those problems yet.  Instead, I'd say they did something like... provide us with such an addictive semi-social activity that we don't realize how isolated we are.  It is indeed very clever and profitable.
</p><p>Reading and posting on a social networking site is not "human contact".  Maybe we will someday have such a terrific VR system on the Internet that we can emulate genuine human contact and provide most of the physical/psychology health benefits of interacting people other people, but Facebook aint it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So he was able to see that human contact was the thing that was missing from the internet - and then blew it .
Because of his lack of vision , he 's still eating Ramen Noodles .
Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc .
solving exactly those problems.Well they have n't really solved those problems .
Nobody has solved those problems yet .
Instead , I 'd say they did something like... provide us with such an addictive semi-social activity that we do n't realize how isolated we are .
It is indeed very clever and profitable .
Reading and posting on a social networking site is not " human contact " .
Maybe we will someday have such a terrific VR system on the Internet that we can emulate genuine human contact and provide most of the physical/psychology health benefits of interacting people other people , but Facebook aint it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So he was able to see that human contact was the thing that was missing from the internet - and then blew it.
Because of his lack of vision, he's still eating Ramen Noodles.
Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc.
solving exactly those problems.Well they haven't really solved those problems.
Nobody has solved those problems yet.
Instead, I'd say they did something like... provide us with such an addictive semi-social activity that we don't realize how isolated we are.
It is indeed very clever and profitable.
Reading and posting on a social networking site is not "human contact".
Maybe we will someday have such a terrific VR system on the Internet that we can emulate genuine human contact and provide most of the physical/psychology health benefits of interacting people other people, but Facebook aint it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31409710</id>
	<title>Redundant much?</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1268067240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's an interesting look back at a time when the Internet was <b>still a novelty</b> and <b>not yet a necessity</b>.</p></div><p>I'd be interested to see something that is both a novelty and a necessity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an interesting look back at a time when the Internet was still a novelty and not yet a necessity.I 'd be interested to see something that is both a novelty and a necessity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an interesting look back at a time when the Internet was still a novelty and not yet a necessity.I'd be interested to see something that is both a novelty and a necessity.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401924</id>
	<title>What makes it really ironic</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1268070840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com/2010/02/this-is-why-you-shouldnt-try-to-predict-the-future/" title="codemonkeyramblings.com">As I said on my blog</a> [codemonkeyramblings.com]****, the irony was that within 1 year of his article JavaScript was released in Netscape Navigator 2.0 and Brin and Page began Google. The former played a key role in enabling a lot of the usefulness in the web and the latter played a key role in organizing it effectively from the viewpoint of the public, especially to the extent that his point about how hard it was to find useful data was negated by Google.
<br> <br>
I have to agree with Newsweek's writer who criticized him by saying that his problem wasn't in stating what the problems were, but his blithe assumption that they would never be overcome. That, right there, was the fatal flaw as it assumed that the computer industry was not invested in the Internet's future. That's almost like assuming that the established auto companies have no interest in the electric car market and would gladly let Tesla take it over unmolested.

<br> <br>
****Just an ironic dig since he figured that blogging would never become mainstream, let alone that some bloggers (myself excluded) would become powerful players in the media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I said on my blog [ codemonkeyramblings.com ] * * * * , the irony was that within 1 year of his article JavaScript was released in Netscape Navigator 2.0 and Brin and Page began Google .
The former played a key role in enabling a lot of the usefulness in the web and the latter played a key role in organizing it effectively from the viewpoint of the public , especially to the extent that his point about how hard it was to find useful data was negated by Google .
I have to agree with Newsweek 's writer who criticized him by saying that his problem was n't in stating what the problems were , but his blithe assumption that they would never be overcome .
That , right there , was the fatal flaw as it assumed that the computer industry was not invested in the Internet 's future .
That 's almost like assuming that the established auto companies have no interest in the electric car market and would gladly let Tesla take it over unmolested .
* * * * Just an ironic dig since he figured that blogging would never become mainstream , let alone that some bloggers ( myself excluded ) would become powerful players in the media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I said on my blog [codemonkeyramblings.com]****, the irony was that within 1 year of his article JavaScript was released in Netscape Navigator 2.0 and Brin and Page began Google.
The former played a key role in enabling a lot of the usefulness in the web and the latter played a key role in organizing it effectively from the viewpoint of the public, especially to the extent that his point about how hard it was to find useful data was negated by Google.
I have to agree with Newsweek's writer who criticized him by saying that his problem wasn't in stating what the problems were, but his blithe assumption that they would never be overcome.
That, right there, was the fatal flaw as it assumed that the computer industry was not invested in the Internet's future.
That's almost like assuming that the established auto companies have no interest in the electric car market and would gladly let Tesla take it over unmolested.
****Just an ironic dig since he figured that blogging would never become mainstream, let alone that some bloggers (myself excluded) would become powerful players in the media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31415840</id>
	<title>Re:15 years later</title>
	<author>RobertB-DC</author>
	<datestamp>1268158500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're the Klein Bottle Guy?  That's got to be the best tongue-in-cheek site selling an actual product, in the history of ever.</p><p>Not surprisingly, you were too modest to plug your site, so I'll do it for you: <a href="http://www.kleinbottle.com/" title="kleinbottle.com">Acme Klein Bottle</a> [kleinbottle.com].</p><p>Sample awesomeness, from the Conditions of Acme's Unconditional Guarantee:</p><blockquote><div><p>We at Acme Klein Bottle strive to create the finest nonorientable surfaces and hope that you will be satisfied with your new Acme manifold. For this reason, we are pleased to offer this UNCONDITIONAL GUARANTEE complete with these conditions:</p><p>* We unconditionally guarantee your Acme Klein Bottle to be free of any defects in workmanship or workwomanship for a period of ONE YEAR following purchase. If you aren't satisfied with your Acme Klein Bottle -- for any reason -- just return it for a refund or replacement. You pick up shipping charges.</p><p>* We guarantee safe arrival. If your Klein Bottle arrives broken, call or send email and we will immediately send a replacement.</p><p>* We slightly guarantee your Klein Bottle for THREE MONTHS against any cracks or breakage, whether due to earthquakes, clumsy undergrads, or greasy fingers. Just mail us a fragment and $10, and we will send a replacement.</p><p>* We warrant each Acme Klein Bottle for a period of FIVE YEARS to be absolutely free of any magnetic monopoles. If you discover one, contact us immediately and we will refund your purchase price right after claiming the Nobel Prize.</p><p>* Furthermore, we guarantee for TEN YEARS that any polyhedron spanning your unbroken Acme Klein Bottle will have about as many edges as the sum of its vertices plus faces.</p><p>* We further warrant for ONE MILLION YEARS that within a Euclidean plane, the square of a right triangle's hypotenuse will equal the sum of the squares of the two remaining legs.</p><p>In addition, Acme's provides this exclusive LIFETIME GUARANTEE: We guarantee that you will live your entire lifetime, or double your money back.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're the Klein Bottle Guy ?
That 's got to be the best tongue-in-cheek site selling an actual product , in the history of ever.Not surprisingly , you were too modest to plug your site , so I 'll do it for you : Acme Klein Bottle [ kleinbottle.com ] .Sample awesomeness , from the Conditions of Acme 's Unconditional Guarantee : We at Acme Klein Bottle strive to create the finest nonorientable surfaces and hope that you will be satisfied with your new Acme manifold .
For this reason , we are pleased to offer this UNCONDITIONAL GUARANTEE complete with these conditions : * We unconditionally guarantee your Acme Klein Bottle to be free of any defects in workmanship or workwomanship for a period of ONE YEAR following purchase .
If you are n't satisfied with your Acme Klein Bottle -- for any reason -- just return it for a refund or replacement .
You pick up shipping charges .
* We guarantee safe arrival .
If your Klein Bottle arrives broken , call or send email and we will immediately send a replacement .
* We slightly guarantee your Klein Bottle for THREE MONTHS against any cracks or breakage , whether due to earthquakes , clumsy undergrads , or greasy fingers .
Just mail us a fragment and $ 10 , and we will send a replacement .
* We warrant each Acme Klein Bottle for a period of FIVE YEARS to be absolutely free of any magnetic monopoles .
If you discover one , contact us immediately and we will refund your purchase price right after claiming the Nobel Prize .
* Furthermore , we guarantee for TEN YEARS that any polyhedron spanning your unbroken Acme Klein Bottle will have about as many edges as the sum of its vertices plus faces .
* We further warrant for ONE MILLION YEARS that within a Euclidean plane , the square of a right triangle 's hypotenuse will equal the sum of the squares of the two remaining legs.In addition , Acme 's provides this exclusive LIFETIME GUARANTEE : We guarantee that you will live your entire lifetime , or double your money back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're the Klein Bottle Guy?
That's got to be the best tongue-in-cheek site selling an actual product, in the history of ever.Not surprisingly, you were too modest to plug your site, so I'll do it for you: Acme Klein Bottle [kleinbottle.com].Sample awesomeness, from the Conditions of Acme's Unconditional Guarantee:We at Acme Klein Bottle strive to create the finest nonorientable surfaces and hope that you will be satisfied with your new Acme manifold.
For this reason, we are pleased to offer this UNCONDITIONAL GUARANTEE complete with these conditions:* We unconditionally guarantee your Acme Klein Bottle to be free of any defects in workmanship or workwomanship for a period of ONE YEAR following purchase.
If you aren't satisfied with your Acme Klein Bottle -- for any reason -- just return it for a refund or replacement.
You pick up shipping charges.
* We guarantee safe arrival.
If your Klein Bottle arrives broken, call or send email and we will immediately send a replacement.
* We slightly guarantee your Klein Bottle for THREE MONTHS against any cracks or breakage, whether due to earthquakes, clumsy undergrads, or greasy fingers.
Just mail us a fragment and $10, and we will send a replacement.
* We warrant each Acme Klein Bottle for a period of FIVE YEARS to be absolutely free of any magnetic monopoles.
If you discover one, contact us immediately and we will refund your purchase price right after claiming the Nobel Prize.
* Furthermore, we guarantee for TEN YEARS that any polyhedron spanning your unbroken Acme Klein Bottle will have about as many edges as the sum of its vertices plus faces.
* We further warrant for ONE MILLION YEARS that within a Euclidean plane, the square of a right triangle's hypotenuse will equal the sum of the squares of the two remaining legs.In addition, Acme's provides this exclusive LIFETIME GUARANTEE: We guarantee that you will live your entire lifetime, or double your money back.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756</id>
	<title>Wow, he really missed the opportunity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268069940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the original internet criticism:<p><div class="quote"><p>What's missing from this electronic wonderland? Human contact. Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities. Computers and networks isolate us from one another.</p></div><p>
So he was able to see that human contact was the thing that was missing from the internet - and then blew it.  Because of his lack of vision, he's still eating Ramen Noodles.  Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc. solving exactly those problems.  </p><p>Actually, that's a nice lesson for the Slashdot crowd.  Remember that idea you were just panning as stupid and unworkable because of xyz flaw that only you could spot?  Yep, that's opportunity knocking.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the original internet criticism : What 's missing from this electronic wonderland ?
Human contact .
Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities .
Computers and networks isolate us from one another .
So he was able to see that human contact was the thing that was missing from the internet - and then blew it .
Because of his lack of vision , he 's still eating Ramen Noodles .
Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc .
solving exactly those problems .
Actually , that 's a nice lesson for the Slashdot crowd .
Remember that idea you were just panning as stupid and unworkable because of xyz flaw that only you could spot ?
Yep , that 's opportunity knocking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the original internet criticism:What's missing from this electronic wonderland?
Human contact.
Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities.
Computers and networks isolate us from one another.
So he was able to see that human contact was the thing that was missing from the internet - and then blew it.
Because of his lack of vision, he's still eating Ramen Noodles.
Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc.
solving exactly those problems.
Actually, that's a nice lesson for the Slashdot crowd.
Remember that idea you were just panning as stupid and unworkable because of xyz flaw that only you could spot?
Yep, that's opportunity knocking.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402438</id>
	<title>Re:Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1268073060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes their not-gonna-happen predictions especially bad is the fact that some of those things were already happening in 1995.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes their not-gon na-happen predictions especially bad is the fact that some of those things were already happening in 1995 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes their not-gonna-happen predictions especially bad is the fact that some of those things were already happening in 1995.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402596</id>
	<title>But he's actually been to the future!!!</title>
	<author>yamamushi</author>
	<datestamp>1268073720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's easy to see how one would make this mistake, when they've actually been to the future : <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNGJkkkagGw" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNGJkkkagGw</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy to see how one would make this mistake , when they 've actually been to the future : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = GNGJkkkagGw [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy to see how one would make this mistake, when they've actually been to the future : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNGJkkkagGw [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31407124</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, he really missed the opportunity</title>
	<author>Hillgiant</author>
	<datestamp>1268049360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Precisely.  Back in the day we used Gopher to find our pictures of women with onions on their belt.  AND WE LIKED IT JUST FINE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Precisely .
Back in the day we used Gopher to find our pictures of women with onions on their belt .
AND WE LIKED IT JUST FINE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Precisely.
Back in the day we used Gopher to find our pictures of women with onions on their belt.
AND WE LIKED IT JUST FINE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404284</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about the Editor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268081460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You apparently don't know who Clifford Stoll is.<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford\_Stoll</p><p>Cuckoo's Egg is a great read, even now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You apparently do n't know who Clifford Stoll is.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford \ _StollCuckoo 's Egg is a great read , even now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You apparently don't know who Clifford Stoll is.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford\_StollCuckoo's Egg is a great read, even now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404538</id>
	<title>Tag:  "navalgazing?"</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1268039220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure what sailors would be looking at things has to do with the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what sailors would be looking at things has to do with the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what sailors would be looking at things has to do with the article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401718</id>
	<title>Wish he was wrong about the salespeople</title>
	<author>RobertB-DC</author>
	<datestamp>1268069700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TF95A:</p><blockquote><div><p>Stores will become obselete. So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month? Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet--which there isn't--the network is missing a most essential ingredient of capitalism: salespeople.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, how I wish the network were still missing that "essential ingredient".  On the page containing the 1995 lament, I now see ads for:<br>* Hugh Downs' Artery Cleaning "Secret" (now with 50\% more Nobel Prize Laureate!)<br>* Acai Berry Exposed - Official Test<br>* Drivers from Minnesota wanted! (of course, I'm in Dallas... with a MN proxy server)<br>* Saint Paul - Mom Lost 46lbs Following 1 Rule (MN mislocalization again)<br>* DON'T Pay for White Teeth (with the requisite sugar cube clenched in teeth, WTF?)</p><p>Meanwhile, *my* neighborhood mall -- the first air-conditioned mall west of the Mississippi -- is now a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big\_Town\_Mall" title="wikipedia.org">grass-covered field</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>That said, I don't think I could go back to 1995, though it would be a fun challenge.  The best part was doing DNS reverse lookups of domain names, since the company's network didn't have a DNS server.  I could read David Letterman's Top Ten list the next morning, if I plugged the right octets into something called "Netscape" -- I thought I was livin' large.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TF95A : Stores will become obselete .
So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month ?
Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet--which there is n't--the network is missing a most essential ingredient of capitalism : salespeople.Oh , how I wish the network were still missing that " essential ingredient " .
On the page containing the 1995 lament , I now see ads for : * Hugh Downs ' Artery Cleaning " Secret " ( now with 50 \ % more Nobel Prize Laureate !
) * Acai Berry Exposed - Official Test * Drivers from Minnesota wanted !
( of course , I 'm in Dallas... with a MN proxy server ) * Saint Paul - Mom Lost 46lbs Following 1 Rule ( MN mislocalization again ) * DO N'T Pay for White Teeth ( with the requisite sugar cube clenched in teeth , WTF ?
) Meanwhile , * my * neighborhood mall -- the first air-conditioned mall west of the Mississippi -- is now a grass-covered field [ wikipedia.org ] .That said , I do n't think I could go back to 1995 , though it would be a fun challenge .
The best part was doing DNS reverse lookups of domain names , since the company 's network did n't have a DNS server .
I could read David Letterman 's Top Ten list the next morning , if I plugged the right octets into something called " Netscape " -- I thought I was livin ' large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TF95A:Stores will become obselete.
So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month?
Even if there were a trustworthy way to send money over the Internet--which there isn't--the network is missing a most essential ingredient of capitalism: salespeople.Oh, how I wish the network were still missing that "essential ingredient".
On the page containing the 1995 lament, I now see ads for:* Hugh Downs' Artery Cleaning "Secret" (now with 50\% more Nobel Prize Laureate!
)* Acai Berry Exposed - Official Test* Drivers from Minnesota wanted!
(of course, I'm in Dallas... with a MN proxy server)* Saint Paul - Mom Lost 46lbs Following 1 Rule (MN mislocalization again)* DON'T Pay for White Teeth (with the requisite sugar cube clenched in teeth, WTF?
)Meanwhile, *my* neighborhood mall -- the first air-conditioned mall west of the Mississippi -- is now a grass-covered field [wikipedia.org].That said, I don't think I could go back to 1995, though it would be a fun challenge.
The best part was doing DNS reverse lookups of domain names, since the company's network didn't have a DNS server.
I could read David Letterman's Top Ten list the next morning, if I plugged the right octets into something called "Netscape" -- I thought I was livin' large.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403148</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, he really missed the opportunity</title>
	<author>kristjansson</author>
	<datestamp>1268076360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, if <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford\_Stoll" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Clifford Stoll</a> [wikipedia.org] is eating Ramen at this point, I think it's because he wants to...  I also have to wonder if everybody here is really this ignorant of who the man is...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , if Clifford Stoll [ wikipedia.org ] is eating Ramen at this point , I think it 's because he wants to... I also have to wonder if everybody here is really this ignorant of who the man is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, if Clifford Stoll [wikipedia.org] is eating Ramen at this point, I think it's because he wants to...  I also have to wonder if everybody here is really this ignorant of who the man is...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401726</id>
	<title>Negroponte</title>
	<author>gibson123</author>
	<datestamp>1268069700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you have not done so, a must read is Negroponte's book "Being Digital", it's amazing how far in the future he can look, one of the best books talking about digital technology I've read, still, 15 years later:
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Being-Digital-Nicholas-Negroponte/dp/0679762906" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Being-Digital-Nicholas-Negroponte/dp/0679762906</a> [amazon.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have not done so , a must read is Negroponte 's book " Being Digital " , it 's amazing how far in the future he can look , one of the best books talking about digital technology I 've read , still , 15 years later : http : //www.amazon.com/Being-Digital-Nicholas-Negroponte/dp/0679762906 [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have not done so, a must read is Negroponte's book "Being Digital", it's amazing how far in the future he can look, one of the best books talking about digital technology I've read, still, 15 years later:
http://www.amazon.com/Being-Digital-Nicholas-Negroponte/dp/0679762906 [amazon.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403380</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, he really missed the opportunity</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1268077320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc. solving exactly those problems.</i>
<br> <br>
I have to wonder if he wasn't talking about something more fundamental than "lack of user profiles".  Saying that Facebook et al outright "solved" the problem of substituting communication for human contact seems a little short-sighted.
<br> <br>
<i>"Computers and networks isolate us from one another."</i>
<br> <br>
That quote annoys me about as much as any snide aphorism would, but there's some truth to it, as well.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc .
solving exactly those problems .
I have to wonder if he was n't talking about something more fundamental than " lack of user profiles " .
Saying that Facebook et al outright " solved " the problem of substituting communication for human contact seems a little short-sighted .
" Computers and networks isolate us from one another .
" That quote annoys me about as much as any snide aphorism would , but there 's some truth to it , as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc.
solving exactly those problems.
I have to wonder if he wasn't talking about something more fundamental than "lack of user profiles".
Saying that Facebook et al outright "solved" the problem of substituting communication for human contact seems a little short-sighted.
"Computers and networks isolate us from one another.
"
 
That quote annoys me about as much as any snide aphorism would, but there's some truth to it, as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402362</id>
	<title>Risks of contrarianism</title>
	<author>SiliconEntity</author>
	<datestamp>1268072760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the article, Stoll's excuse is that he was trying to play the contrarian:</p><blockquote><div><p> At the time, I was trying to speak against the tide of futuristic commentary on how The Internet Will Solve Our Problems.</p></div></blockquote><p>Contrarianism helps sell magazines (and garners pageviews) but let us not forget that it is usually WRONG. Yes, humbling as it may be to admit, the great unwashed masses, the "sheeple", are usually right in their collective opinions. Contrarians often escape punishment for their folly because no one cares, but in this case Stoll got properly burned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the article , Stoll 's excuse is that he was trying to play the contrarian : At the time , I was trying to speak against the tide of futuristic commentary on how The Internet Will Solve Our Problems.Contrarianism helps sell magazines ( and garners pageviews ) but let us not forget that it is usually WRONG .
Yes , humbling as it may be to admit , the great unwashed masses , the " sheeple " , are usually right in their collective opinions .
Contrarians often escape punishment for their folly because no one cares , but in this case Stoll got properly burned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the article, Stoll's excuse is that he was trying to play the contrarian: At the time, I was trying to speak against the tide of futuristic commentary on how The Internet Will Solve Our Problems.Contrarianism helps sell magazines (and garners pageviews) but let us not forget that it is usually WRONG.
Yes, humbling as it may be to admit, the great unwashed masses, the "sheeple", are usually right in their collective opinions.
Contrarians often escape punishment for their folly because no one cares, but in this case Stoll got properly burned.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402316</id>
	<title>Re:Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too</title>
	<author>Eggbloke</author>
	<datestamp>1268072640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A big-wig at I.B.M. predicted the entire world market for computers would be restricted to about 5 units.</p></div><p>'But I predict that within one-hundred years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will be able to afford one....'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A big-wig at I.B.M .
predicted the entire world market for computers would be restricted to about 5 units .
'But I predict that within one-hundred years , computers will be twice as powerful , 10,000 times larger and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will be able to afford one.... '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big-wig at I.B.M.
predicted the entire world market for computers would be restricted to about 5 units.
'But I predict that within one-hundred years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will be able to afford one....'
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401984</id>
	<title>Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268071140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>-Bill Gates</htmltext>
<tokenext>-Bill Gates</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-Bill Gates</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403866</id>
	<title>Re:my piss is the frostiest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268079480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But does it have "Drinkability"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But does it have " Drinkability " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But does it have "Drinkability"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406526</id>
	<title>15 years later</title>
	<author>Cliff Stoll</author>
	<datestamp>1268047260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with many of the Slashdot posters who've commented on my article of 15 years ago.  There's a great deal to munch on - plenty of hilarious mistakes as well as several ideas still worth thinking about.</p><p>That 1995 article grew from my questioning attitude.  When I hear nearly unanimous commentary without any critical dialog, I become skeptical. Perhaps too skeptical, as that article shows.</p><p>At the time, I saw my role as encouraging questions about then-common predictions.  As a way of introducing dialog through debate, if not deliberation.</p><p>Clearly, I'm no futurist, able to extrapolate across decades.  If anyone, I suspect that school teachers are the most in touch with future generations.</p><p>Now?  Oh, I try to stay away from predictions; two teenagers gleefully keep me informed of my daily mistakes.  I teach physics, speak at meetings, and write the occasional article for Scientific American.   I make Klein Bottles<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and, yes, I sell them online, in obvious contradiction to that 1995 article.</p><p>Best wishes to all,<br>-Cliff (in Oakland California, on a Monday afternoon without sunspots)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with many of the Slashdot posters who 've commented on my article of 15 years ago .
There 's a great deal to munch on - plenty of hilarious mistakes as well as several ideas still worth thinking about.That 1995 article grew from my questioning attitude .
When I hear nearly unanimous commentary without any critical dialog , I become skeptical .
Perhaps too skeptical , as that article shows.At the time , I saw my role as encouraging questions about then-common predictions .
As a way of introducing dialog through debate , if not deliberation.Clearly , I 'm no futurist , able to extrapolate across decades .
If anyone , I suspect that school teachers are the most in touch with future generations.Now ?
Oh , I try to stay away from predictions ; two teenagers gleefully keep me informed of my daily mistakes .
I teach physics , speak at meetings , and write the occasional article for Scientific American .
I make Klein Bottles ... and , yes , I sell them online , in obvious contradiction to that 1995 article.Best wishes to all,-Cliff ( in Oakland California , on a Monday afternoon without sunspots )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with many of the Slashdot posters who've commented on my article of 15 years ago.
There's a great deal to munch on - plenty of hilarious mistakes as well as several ideas still worth thinking about.That 1995 article grew from my questioning attitude.
When I hear nearly unanimous commentary without any critical dialog, I become skeptical.
Perhaps too skeptical, as that article shows.At the time, I saw my role as encouraging questions about then-common predictions.
As a way of introducing dialog through debate, if not deliberation.Clearly, I'm no futurist, able to extrapolate across decades.
If anyone, I suspect that school teachers are the most in touch with future generations.Now?
Oh, I try to stay away from predictions; two teenagers gleefully keep me informed of my daily mistakes.
I teach physics, speak at meetings, and write the occasional article for Scientific American.
I make Klein Bottles ... and, yes, I sell them online, in obvious contradiction to that 1995 article.Best wishes to all,-Cliff (in Oakland California, on a Monday afternoon without sunspots)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402756</id>
	<title>Things Change at a Rapid Rate</title>
	<author>Sagelinka</author>
	<datestamp>1268074500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember the "internet" around that time.  Windows 3.1 and AOL were the big shots.  14.4kbps modems and computers that had only 386MHZ.  Good times.  But only a narrow minded person would believe that the internet, or computers for that matter, would fail.

All technology updates at a very rapid rate.  From Tapes to Compact Discs to Flash Media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the " internet " around that time .
Windows 3.1 and AOL were the big shots .
14.4kbps modems and computers that had only 386MHZ .
Good times .
But only a narrow minded person would believe that the internet , or computers for that matter , would fail .
All technology updates at a very rapid rate .
From Tapes to Compact Discs to Flash Media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the "internet" around that time.
Windows 3.1 and AOL were the big shots.
14.4kbps modems and computers that had only 386MHZ.
Good times.
But only a narrow minded person would believe that the internet, or computers for that matter, would fail.
All technology updates at a very rapid rate.
From Tapes to Compact Discs to Flash Media.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401946</id>
	<title>It's from Clifford Stoll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268070960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, seriously: This is the guy who wrote an entire book about how e-commerce was "baloney" and who now makes a living selling things on the Net.  He thought the Internet would kill libraries and make schools close. He claimed that "information, better communications, and electronic programs" could never "cure social problems" (tell Obama that).
<br> <br>

What else would you expect from him?
<br> <br>

-B</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , seriously : This is the guy who wrote an entire book about how e-commerce was " baloney " and who now makes a living selling things on the Net .
He thought the Internet would kill libraries and make schools close .
He claimed that " information , better communications , and electronic programs " could never " cure social problems " ( tell Obama that ) .
What else would you expect from him ?
-B</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, seriously: This is the guy who wrote an entire book about how e-commerce was "baloney" and who now makes a living selling things on the Net.
He thought the Internet would kill libraries and make schools close.
He claimed that "information, better communications, and electronic programs" could never "cure social problems" (tell Obama that).
What else would you expect from him?
-B</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404508</id>
	<title>navel-gazing</title>
	<author>Kadoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268039100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do a lot of navel-gazing on the internet!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do a lot of navel-gazing on the internet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do a lot of navel-gazing on the internet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31405098</id>
	<title>Re:Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1268041920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think with the right perspective, both that claim and the internet claim were mostly right, and their mistake was in not seeing the change in society.  The internet as it existed in the two decades before 1995 were not the sort of thing you could predict the average technically illiterate person to go nuts over, and the computers from 1950s were also things that you would never imagine to be household items (much less multiple computers in some households).  The definition and scope of these things have changed.<br><br>For instance, a computer that filled a room is impractical for the average person to own at home.  But even beyond that a miniaturized version of that computer is still impractical.  The typical home computer user doesn't need to calculate artillery trajectories, tabulate the US census, or design a nuclear bomb.  Even when the first micro computers were invented, the typical home computer had little use for those toys, and the main frame and mini computers of even the early 80s were too esoteric.  You didn't need a computer to type memos, that is what typewriters were for (and high end typewriters did a far better job of it for a fraction of the price).  You didn't need a computer to add numbers, that's what a calculator or adding machine were for.  Even when IBM PCs started invading the workplace few people saw these as devices for the home or for more than the financial number crunchers.<br><br>The average person does not need or want a calculating machine.  What changed is the emergence of the killer app of the web browser.  The "calculating machine" turned into an information device and an entertainment device.  We had internet before the browser, the loose collection of networks let people send email internationally or read news, exchange information, etc.  But it was pointless for the average person who had no access, so it was the domain of universities and research institutions and some corporations.  What's the point of an extremely expensive device to send email to Aunt Margaret when you could just phone her instead?  What changed after 1995 was just a mass change in public attitudes towards computers, so that they were no longer geek toys.  As soon as a critical mass of people were connected it became useful to the masses and its use use blossomed.<br><br>In some sense, it's still incredibly illogical.  Incredibly powerful "calculating machines" being used for entertainment purposes, a complex interconnection of high speed links designed through military funding is being used to get news before the morning paper arrives.  Inconceivable!  I do think that if the graphical browser went away completely that the computer and internet would go back to what it was before 1995; tools for engineers and researchers and hobbyists and nerds.<br><br>(speaking of, the early telephone companies assumed their invention was going to be a business tool and were surprised and annoyed when a large chunk of the bandwidth was taken up with chatting and gossip)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think with the right perspective , both that claim and the internet claim were mostly right , and their mistake was in not seeing the change in society .
The internet as it existed in the two decades before 1995 were not the sort of thing you could predict the average technically illiterate person to go nuts over , and the computers from 1950s were also things that you would never imagine to be household items ( much less multiple computers in some households ) .
The definition and scope of these things have changed.For instance , a computer that filled a room is impractical for the average person to own at home .
But even beyond that a miniaturized version of that computer is still impractical .
The typical home computer user does n't need to calculate artillery trajectories , tabulate the US census , or design a nuclear bomb .
Even when the first micro computers were invented , the typical home computer had little use for those toys , and the main frame and mini computers of even the early 80s were too esoteric .
You did n't need a computer to type memos , that is what typewriters were for ( and high end typewriters did a far better job of it for a fraction of the price ) .
You did n't need a computer to add numbers , that 's what a calculator or adding machine were for .
Even when IBM PCs started invading the workplace few people saw these as devices for the home or for more than the financial number crunchers.The average person does not need or want a calculating machine .
What changed is the emergence of the killer app of the web browser .
The " calculating machine " turned into an information device and an entertainment device .
We had internet before the browser , the loose collection of networks let people send email internationally or read news , exchange information , etc .
But it was pointless for the average person who had no access , so it was the domain of universities and research institutions and some corporations .
What 's the point of an extremely expensive device to send email to Aunt Margaret when you could just phone her instead ?
What changed after 1995 was just a mass change in public attitudes towards computers , so that they were no longer geek toys .
As soon as a critical mass of people were connected it became useful to the masses and its use use blossomed.In some sense , it 's still incredibly illogical .
Incredibly powerful " calculating machines " being used for entertainment purposes , a complex interconnection of high speed links designed through military funding is being used to get news before the morning paper arrives .
Inconceivable ! I do think that if the graphical browser went away completely that the computer and internet would go back to what it was before 1995 ; tools for engineers and researchers and hobbyists and nerds .
( speaking of , the early telephone companies assumed their invention was going to be a business tool and were surprised and annoyed when a large chunk of the bandwidth was taken up with chatting and gossip )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think with the right perspective, both that claim and the internet claim were mostly right, and their mistake was in not seeing the change in society.
The internet as it existed in the two decades before 1995 were not the sort of thing you could predict the average technically illiterate person to go nuts over, and the computers from 1950s were also things that you would never imagine to be household items (much less multiple computers in some households).
The definition and scope of these things have changed.For instance, a computer that filled a room is impractical for the average person to own at home.
But even beyond that a miniaturized version of that computer is still impractical.
The typical home computer user doesn't need to calculate artillery trajectories, tabulate the US census, or design a nuclear bomb.
Even when the first micro computers were invented, the typical home computer had little use for those toys, and the main frame and mini computers of even the early 80s were too esoteric.
You didn't need a computer to type memos, that is what typewriters were for (and high end typewriters did a far better job of it for a fraction of the price).
You didn't need a computer to add numbers, that's what a calculator or adding machine were for.
Even when IBM PCs started invading the workplace few people saw these as devices for the home or for more than the financial number crunchers.The average person does not need or want a calculating machine.
What changed is the emergence of the killer app of the web browser.
The "calculating machine" turned into an information device and an entertainment device.
We had internet before the browser, the loose collection of networks let people send email internationally or read news, exchange information, etc.
But it was pointless for the average person who had no access, so it was the domain of universities and research institutions and some corporations.
What's the point of an extremely expensive device to send email to Aunt Margaret when you could just phone her instead?
What changed after 1995 was just a mass change in public attitudes towards computers, so that they were no longer geek toys.
As soon as a critical mass of people were connected it became useful to the masses and its use use blossomed.In some sense, it's still incredibly illogical.
Incredibly powerful "calculating machines" being used for entertainment purposes, a complex interconnection of high speed links designed through military funding is being used to get news before the morning paper arrives.
Inconceivable!  I do think that if the graphical browser went away completely that the computer and internet would go back to what it was before 1995; tools for engineers and researchers and hobbyists and nerds.
(speaking of, the early telephone companies assumed their invention was going to be a business tool and were surprised and annoyed when a large chunk of the bandwidth was taken up with chatting and gossip)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406470</id>
	<title>Re:Wish he was wrong about the salespeople</title>
	<author>Trouvist</author>
	<datestamp>1268047080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should go reread the GP's post.  He was typing "octets" into Netscape... I believe that refers directly to IP adresses... or do IP addresses not use octets in quadruple anymore?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should go reread the GP 's post .
He was typing " octets " into Netscape... I believe that refers directly to IP adresses... or do IP addresses not use octets in quadruple anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should go reread the GP's post.
He was typing "octets" into Netscape... I believe that refers directly to IP adresses... or do IP addresses not use octets in quadruple anymore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401790</id>
	<title>DUPE!</title>
	<author>BeardedChimp</author>
	<datestamp>1268070120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I swore I read about this 15 years ago. Slashdots getting worse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I swore I read about this 15 years ago .
Slashdots getting worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swore I read about this 15 years ago.
Slashdots getting worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401604</id>
	<title>my piss is the frostiest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268069160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Taste it if you dont believe me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Taste it if you dont believe me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Taste it if you dont believe me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402026</id>
	<title>Re:Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268071320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People who think they are very self-important tend to underestimate the impact of things they did not directly influence.  Perhaps he was not involved with the PC and thus thought it was destined to failure.</p></div><p>Well even if it wasn't <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas\_J.\_Watson#Famous\_misquote" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">a misquote</a> [wikipedia.org], that quotation supposedly originated <b>in 1943</b>.  I don't think <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline\_of\_computing\_2400\_BC\%E2\%80\%931949#1940.E2.80.931949" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">anyone</a> [wikipedia.org] was working on personnel computers back then, so we should excuse Mr. Thomas J. Watson from considering market that wouldn't exist until after he died!  So your sentiment, while laudable, is rather misdirected in this instance.:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who think they are very self-important tend to underestimate the impact of things they did not directly influence .
Perhaps he was not involved with the PC and thus thought it was destined to failure.Well even if it was n't a misquote [ wikipedia.org ] , that quotation supposedly originated in 1943 .
I do n't think anyone [ wikipedia.org ] was working on personnel computers back then , so we should excuse Mr. Thomas J. Watson from considering market that would n't exist until after he died !
So your sentiment , while laudable , is rather misdirected in this instance .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who think they are very self-important tend to underestimate the impact of things they did not directly influence.
Perhaps he was not involved with the PC and thus thought it was destined to failure.Well even if it wasn't a misquote [wikipedia.org], that quotation supposedly originated in 1943.
I don't think anyone [wikipedia.org] was working on personnel computers back then, so we should excuse Mr. Thomas J. Watson from considering market that wouldn't exist until after he died!
So your sentiment, while laudable, is rather misdirected in this instance.
:P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401974</id>
	<title>Cliff Stoll in 1995ish</title>
	<author>fatboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268071080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 1995 or 1996 Cliff was the keynote speaker at the Dayton Hamvention. He really got those old men fired up and hating on the Internet. He was promoting a book named "Silicon Snake Oil", IIRC. It was quite humorous for the next two or three years to watch the reaction of some of those guys asking about manuals for stuff I was selling in the Dayton boneyard. I would direct them to check in the Internet, and they would loose all manner of sensibility. Too funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1995 or 1996 Cliff was the keynote speaker at the Dayton Hamvention .
He really got those old men fired up and hating on the Internet .
He was promoting a book named " Silicon Snake Oil " , IIRC .
It was quite humorous for the next two or three years to watch the reaction of some of those guys asking about manuals for stuff I was selling in the Dayton boneyard .
I would direct them to check in the Internet , and they would loose all manner of sensibility .
Too funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1995 or 1996 Cliff was the keynote speaker at the Dayton Hamvention.
He really got those old men fired up and hating on the Internet.
He was promoting a book named "Silicon Snake Oil", IIRC.
It was quite humorous for the next two or three years to watch the reaction of some of those guys asking about manuals for stuff I was selling in the Dayton boneyard.
I would direct them to check in the Internet, and they would loose all manner of sensibility.
Too funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401860</id>
	<title>I knew this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268070480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are all figments of my imagination.</p><p>Now I imagine you all naked.</p><p>If you feel a tingling sensation, don't be concerned...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are all figments of my imagination.Now I imagine you all naked.If you feel a tingling sensation , do n't be concerned.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are all figments of my imagination.Now I imagine you all naked.If you feel a tingling sensation, don't be concerned...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401950</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, he really missed the opportunity</title>
	<author>Marcika</author>
	<datestamp>1268070960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From the original internet criticism:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What's missing from this electronic wonderland? Human contact. Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities. Computers and networks isolate us from one another.</p></div><p>
So he was able to see that human contact was the thing that was missing from the internet - and then blew it.  Because of his lack of vision, he's still eating Ramen Noodles.  Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc. solving exactly those problems.  </p><p>Actually, that's a nice lesson for the Slashdot crowd.  Remember that idea you were just panning as stupid and unworkable because of xyz flaw that only you could spot?  Yep, that's opportunity knocking.
</p></div><p>And he didn't have much of an excuse to bemoan the lack of human contact and virtual communities either... Cliff Stoll back then was a net guru and quite active on usenet, so it's not like he wouldn't have imagined how the net connects people...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the original internet criticism : What 's missing from this electronic wonderland ?
Human contact .
Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities .
Computers and networks isolate us from one another .
So he was able to see that human contact was the thing that was missing from the internet - and then blew it .
Because of his lack of vision , he 's still eating Ramen Noodles .
Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc .
solving exactly those problems .
Actually , that 's a nice lesson for the Slashdot crowd .
Remember that idea you were just panning as stupid and unworkable because of xyz flaw that only you could spot ?
Yep , that 's opportunity knocking .
And he did n't have much of an excuse to bemoan the lack of human contact and virtual communities either... Cliff Stoll back then was a net guru and quite active on usenet , so it 's not like he would n't have imagined how the net connects people.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the original internet criticism:What's missing from this electronic wonderland?
Human contact.
Discount the fawning techno-burble about virtual communities.
Computers and networks isolate us from one another.
So he was able to see that human contact was the thing that was missing from the internet - and then blew it.
Because of his lack of vision, he's still eating Ramen Noodles.
Meanwhile Zuckerberg and Tom Anderson and many others made billions on Facebook and Myspace etc.
solving exactly those problems.
Actually, that's a nice lesson for the Slashdot crowd.
Remember that idea you were just panning as stupid and unworkable because of xyz flaw that only you could spot?
Yep, that's opportunity knocking.
And he didn't have much of an excuse to bemoan the lack of human contact and virtual communities either... Cliff Stoll back then was a net guru and quite active on usenet, so it's not like he wouldn't have imagined how the net connects people...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404662</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about the Editor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What the Internet hucksters won't tell you is that the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don't know what to ignore and what's worth reading.</p><p>And along comes Slashdot et al with moderation and meta-moderation schemes to allow the crowd to edit the stream.  Problem solved (sort of).  Hard to imagine that it was impossible to see lack of editing as anything other than an insurmountable obstacle.  But the article was written by journalists with editors, so maybe that explains their limited vision.</p></div><p>You must be new here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the Internet hucksters wo n't tell you is that the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data , without any pretense of completeness .
Lacking editors , reviewers or critics , the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data .
You do n't know what to ignore and what 's worth reading.And along comes Slashdot et al with moderation and meta-moderation schemes to allow the crowd to edit the stream .
Problem solved ( sort of ) .
Hard to imagine that it was impossible to see lack of editing as anything other than an insurmountable obstacle .
But the article was written by journalists with editors , so maybe that explains their limited vision.You must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the Internet hucksters won't tell you is that the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness.
Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data.
You don't know what to ignore and what's worth reading.And along comes Slashdot et al with moderation and meta-moderation schemes to allow the crowd to edit the stream.
Problem solved (sort of).
Hard to imagine that it was impossible to see lack of editing as anything other than an insurmountable obstacle.
But the article was written by journalists with editors, so maybe that explains their limited vision.You must be new here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401786</id>
	<title>Sales</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268070060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFA</p><p>"So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month?"</p><p>Today, my local mall in St. Louis couldn't outsell a 24-Hr period on the internet in a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA " So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month ?
" Today , my local mall in St. Louis could n't outsell a 24-Hr period on the internet in a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA"So how come my local mall does more business in an afternoon than the entire Internet handles in a month?
"Today, my local mall in St. Louis couldn't outsell a 24-Hr period on the internet in a year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406698</id>
	<title>Re:What makes it really ironic</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1268047740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, there were already search engines before Google came on the scene. It took a little bit for Google to take off, match, and surpass the others.. Web portals were the rage, and dedicated search boxes in the browser had not been thought of. What initially set Google apart, was it's speed more than it's results. They had a winning combination though.. speed, no ads, and good search results.. and deserved to win their place.. What is sad, is the state of web portals today.. very few are even worth considering, and even less that you can customize to your liking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there were already search engines before Google came on the scene .
It took a little bit for Google to take off , match , and surpass the others.. Web portals were the rage , and dedicated search boxes in the browser had not been thought of .
What initially set Google apart , was it 's speed more than it 's results .
They had a winning combination though.. speed , no ads , and good search results.. and deserved to win their place.. What is sad , is the state of web portals today.. very few are even worth considering , and even less that you can customize to your liking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there were already search engines before Google came on the scene.
It took a little bit for Google to take off, match, and surpass the others.. Web portals were the rage, and dedicated search boxes in the browser had not been thought of.
What initially set Google apart, was it's speed more than it's results.
They had a winning combination though.. speed, no ads, and good search results.. and deserved to win their place.. What is sad, is the state of web portals today.. very few are even worth considering, and even less that you can customize to your liking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31411418</id>
	<title>'Silicon Snake Oil'</title>
	<author>dugeen</author>
	<datestamp>1268132880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This story reminded me of a grumpy book 'Silicon Snake Oil' I once read, which advanced the same thesis. I was going to ask whether anyone had heard from author of that recently, till I found that he and Mr C. Stoll are one and the same person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This story reminded me of a grumpy book 'Silicon Snake Oil ' I once read , which advanced the same thesis .
I was going to ask whether anyone had heard from author of that recently , till I found that he and Mr C. Stoll are one and the same person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story reminded me of a grumpy book 'Silicon Snake Oil' I once read, which advanced the same thesis.
I was going to ask whether anyone had heard from author of that recently, till I found that he and Mr C. Stoll are one and the same person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402548</id>
	<title>Reminds me of the NYT</title>
	<author>damburger</author>
	<datestamp>1268073480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 1920 they published an incredibly snotty editorial ripping on Robert Goddard, arrogantly stating scientific errors (such as that a rocket could not work in a vacuum as it lacked something to 'push against'), and generally claiming that even a high school student could see that this Goddard fellow was a crazy loon.</p><p>They published a 'correction' of the editorial on July 17th, 1969.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1920 they published an incredibly snotty editorial ripping on Robert Goddard , arrogantly stating scientific errors ( such as that a rocket could not work in a vacuum as it lacked something to 'push against ' ) , and generally claiming that even a high school student could see that this Goddard fellow was a crazy loon.They published a 'correction ' of the editorial on July 17th , 1969 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1920 they published an incredibly snotty editorial ripping on Robert Goddard, arrogantly stating scientific errors (such as that a rocket could not work in a vacuum as it lacked something to 'push against'), and generally claiming that even a high school student could see that this Goddard fellow was a crazy loon.They published a 'correction' of the editorial on July 17th, 1969.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404978</id>
	<title>Re:I've never understoof Stoll's about face</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268041380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was no about-face.  The Cuckoo's Egg is a great book because of its human elements: Berkeley hippie lectures CIA on security; jumping out of shower when pager signals hacker is online, only to be caught by housemate, wet and naked in front of computer; burning only pair of shoes in microwave, trying to dry them out before company arrives.  Anyone who can write so well about those things must love real life experiences more than he loves the Net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was no about-face .
The Cuckoo 's Egg is a great book because of its human elements : Berkeley hippie lectures CIA on security ; jumping out of shower when pager signals hacker is online , only to be caught by housemate , wet and naked in front of computer ; burning only pair of shoes in microwave , trying to dry them out before company arrives .
Anyone who can write so well about those things must love real life experiences more than he loves the Net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was no about-face.
The Cuckoo's Egg is a great book because of its human elements: Berkeley hippie lectures CIA on security; jumping out of shower when pager signals hacker is online, only to be caught by housemate, wet and naked in front of computer; burning only pair of shoes in microwave, trying to dry them out before company arrives.
Anyone who can write so well about those things must love real life experiences more than he loves the Net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31405554</id>
	<title>If only the MSM would go back and ...</title>
	<author>quax</author>
	<datestamp>1268043780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... examine the other 99\% of cases where they were wrong:</p><p>1) Selling the Iraq war<br>2) Cheering on the first bubble (.com)<br>3) Then the second (real estate)<br>4) At the same time treating every utterance from Alan Greenspan like a missive from god</p><p>The list goes on and on.  I for once can hardly wait until the economic pressure from the Internet puts them out of their misery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... examine the other 99 \ % of cases where they were wrong : 1 ) Selling the Iraq war2 ) Cheering on the first bubble ( .com ) 3 ) Then the second ( real estate ) 4 ) At the same time treating every utterance from Alan Greenspan like a missive from godThe list goes on and on .
I for once can hardly wait until the economic pressure from the Internet puts them out of their misery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... examine the other 99\% of cases where they were wrong:1) Selling the Iraq war2) Cheering on the first bubble (.com)3) Then the second (real estate)4) At the same time treating every utterance from Alan Greenspan like a missive from godThe list goes on and on.
I for once can hardly wait until the economic pressure from the Internet puts them out of their misery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401824</id>
	<title>Internet search has come a long way.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268070240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Logged onto the World Wide Web, I hunt for the date of the Battle of Trafalgar. Hundreds of files show up, and it takes 15 minutes to unravel them&mdash;one's a biography written by an eighth grader, the second is a computer game that doesn't work and the third is an image of a London monument. None answers my question,</p> </div><p>Heh. Lets cut and past "date of the Battle of Trafalgar" into the location bar of Chrome here...</p><p>and instantly...</p><p>"Battle of Trafalgar &mdash; Date: 21 October 1805<br>According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Trafalgar" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Trafalgar</a> [wikipedia.org]"</p><p>Proving that internet search made the internet useful. The article's author had a stunning failure of vision.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Logged onto the World Wide Web , I hunt for the date of the Battle of Trafalgar .
Hundreds of files show up , and it takes 15 minutes to unravel them    one 's a biography written by an eighth grader , the second is a computer game that does n't work and the third is an image of a London monument .
None answers my question , Heh .
Lets cut and past " date of the Battle of Trafalgar " into the location bar of Chrome here...and instantly... " Battle of Trafalgar    Date : 21 October 1805According to http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle \ _of \ _Trafalgar [ wikipedia.org ] " Proving that internet search made the internet useful .
The article 's author had a stunning failure of vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logged onto the World Wide Web, I hunt for the date of the Battle of Trafalgar.
Hundreds of files show up, and it takes 15 minutes to unravel them—one's a biography written by an eighth grader, the second is a computer game that doesn't work and the third is an image of a London monument.
None answers my question, Heh.
Lets cut and past "date of the Battle of Trafalgar" into the location bar of Chrome here...and instantly..."Battle of Trafalgar — Date: 21 October 1805According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Trafalgar [wikipedia.org]"Proving that internet search made the internet useful.
The article's author had a stunning failure of vision.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31411292</id>
	<title>Re:The interwebs!</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1268130600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Not that people would die in large numbers or anything.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that people would die in large numbers or anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that people would die in large numbers or anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31410346</id>
	<title>Re:Internet search has come a long way.</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1268074200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The article's author had a stunning failure of vision.</p><p>Do you realize the monumental volume of blood, sweat, and tears that went into making Wikipedia?  It's 1\% technology, 99\% human effort.</p><p>I don't think it was easy to imagine that hundreds of thousands of people would just suddenly start writing everything down.  Not to mention, db-backed sites were so rare in '95 that Cliff Stoll may have never seen one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The article 's author had a stunning failure of vision.Do you realize the monumental volume of blood , sweat , and tears that went into making Wikipedia ?
It 's 1 \ % technology , 99 \ % human effort.I do n't think it was easy to imagine that hundreds of thousands of people would just suddenly start writing everything down .
Not to mention , db-backed sites were so rare in '95 that Cliff Stoll may have never seen one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The article's author had a stunning failure of vision.Do you realize the monumental volume of blood, sweat, and tears that went into making Wikipedia?
It's 1\% technology, 99\% human effort.I don't think it was easy to imagine that hundreds of thousands of people would just suddenly start writing everything down.
Not to mention, db-backed sites were so rare in '95 that Cliff Stoll may have never seen one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402336</id>
	<title>Note</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1268072700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am old enough to remember reading this article back in 1995.  His view was uncommon back then, though shared by a lot of anti-Internet curmudgeons.  His article was a reaction to all the people touting the Internet as something that would swallow up all commerce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am old enough to remember reading this article back in 1995 .
His view was uncommon back then , though shared by a lot of anti-Internet curmudgeons .
His article was a reaction to all the people touting the Internet as something that would swallow up all commerce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am old enough to remember reading this article back in 1995.
His view was uncommon back then, though shared by a lot of anti-Internet curmudgeons.
His article was a reaction to all the people touting the Internet as something that would swallow up all commerce.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401972</id>
	<title>Right idea wrong approach</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268071080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read his response...<p><div class="quote"><p>At the time, I was trying to speak against the tide of futuristic commentary on how The Internet Will Solve Our Problems.</p></div><p>Sounds like a perfectly fine thing to caution people about. Problem is he then goes on to say these THINGS won't happen when in fact they DID happen but they still didn't solve our problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read his response...At the time , I was trying to speak against the tide of futuristic commentary on how The Internet Will Solve Our Problems.Sounds like a perfectly fine thing to caution people about .
Problem is he then goes on to say these THINGS wo n't happen when in fact they DID happen but they still did n't solve our problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read his response...At the time, I was trying to speak against the tide of futuristic commentary on how The Internet Will Solve Our Problems.Sounds like a perfectly fine thing to caution people about.
Problem is he then goes on to say these THINGS won't happen when in fact they DID happen but they still didn't solve our problems.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401702</id>
	<title>It's all about the Editor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268069580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>from the original article<p><div class="quote"><p>What the Internet hucksters won't tell you is that the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don't know what to ignore and what's worth reading.</p></div><p>And along comes Slashdot et al with moderation and meta-moderation schemes to allow the crowd to edit the stream.  Problem solved (sort of).  Hard to imagine that it was impossible to see lack of editing as anything other than an insurmountable obstacle.  But the article was written by journalists with editors, so maybe that explains their limited vision.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>from the original articleWhat the Internet hucksters wo n't tell you is that the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data , without any pretense of completeness .
Lacking editors , reviewers or critics , the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data .
You do n't know what to ignore and what 's worth reading.And along comes Slashdot et al with moderation and meta-moderation schemes to allow the crowd to edit the stream .
Problem solved ( sort of ) .
Hard to imagine that it was impossible to see lack of editing as anything other than an insurmountable obstacle .
But the article was written by journalists with editors , so maybe that explains their limited vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the original articleWhat the Internet hucksters won't tell you is that the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness.
Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data.
You don't know what to ignore and what's worth reading.And along comes Slashdot et al with moderation and meta-moderation schemes to allow the crowd to edit the stream.
Problem solved (sort of).
Hard to imagine that it was impossible to see lack of editing as anything other than an insurmountable obstacle.
But the article was written by journalists with editors, so maybe that explains their limited vision.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31411614</id>
	<title>Re:The interwebs!</title>
	<author>akonbrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268135340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.iexpertsforum.com/seo-software/web-ceo-review.html" title="iexpertsforum.com" rel="nofollow">Web CEO</a> [iexpertsforum.com]

Read Web CEO Reviews and compare with seo softwares like IBP, SEO Elite and SEO Studio that are rated by professional SEO Experts on the basis of customer reviews.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web CEO [ iexpertsforum.com ] Read Web CEO Reviews and compare with seo softwares like IBP , SEO Elite and SEO Studio that are rated by professional SEO Experts on the basis of customer reviews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web CEO [iexpertsforum.com]

Read Web CEO Reviews and compare with seo softwares like IBP, SEO Elite and SEO Studio that are rated by professional SEO Experts on the basis of customer reviews.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401634</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>mewshi\_nya</author>
	<datestamp>1268069220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to read this.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. needs more articles that are actually interesting to read.  Maybe more about the past predictions, even?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to read this .
/. needs more articles that are actually interesting to read .
Maybe more about the past predictions , even ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to read this.
/. needs more articles that are actually interesting to read.
Maybe more about the past predictions, even?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402766</id>
	<title>so we could say</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1268074500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He neglected to see the Eighteen Wheelers cruising down the Information Superhighway that would make roadkill of his article, and didn't realize that If You Build It They Will Come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He neglected to see the Eighteen Wheelers cruising down the Information Superhighway that would make roadkill of his article , and did n't realize that If You Build It They Will Come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He neglected to see the Eighteen Wheelers cruising down the Information Superhighway that would make roadkill of his article, and didn't realize that If You Build It They Will Come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31410702</id>
	<title>Newsweek's Assertion "Not Even Wrong"</title>
	<author>rickshaf</author>
	<datestamp>1268164800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, at the time of that article, the Internet had already become much more than a novelty.  Newsweek just didn't notice.  And I'd have to agree that the Internet had NOT become a necessity.  I'd even agree that, if the Internet isn't available to me for say, 48-hours, it's no biggie.  I'd just have to deal with a bunch of emails that have been accumulating.  However, if the Internet as a whole went down for an extended period of time, there would be hell to pay.  Just look at the economic consequences to businesses in Egypt when that ship hit and cut an undersea cable carrying much of the Internet connectivity between there and Europe.  It wasn't pretty for them....</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , at the time of that article , the Internet had already become much more than a novelty .
Newsweek just did n't notice .
And I 'd have to agree that the Internet had NOT become a necessity .
I 'd even agree that , if the Internet is n't available to me for say , 48-hours , it 's no biggie .
I 'd just have to deal with a bunch of emails that have been accumulating .
However , if the Internet as a whole went down for an extended period of time , there would be hell to pay .
Just look at the economic consequences to businesses in Egypt when that ship hit and cut an undersea cable carrying much of the Internet connectivity between there and Europe .
It was n't pretty for them... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, at the time of that article, the Internet had already become much more than a novelty.
Newsweek just didn't notice.
And I'd have to agree that the Internet had NOT become a necessity.
I'd even agree that, if the Internet isn't available to me for say, 48-hours, it's no biggie.
I'd just have to deal with a bunch of emails that have been accumulating.
However, if the Internet as a whole went down for an extended period of time, there would be hell to pay.
Just look at the economic consequences to businesses in Egypt when that ship hit and cut an undersea cable carrying much of the Internet connectivity between there and Europe.
It wasn't pretty for them....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406266</id>
	<title>Re:The interwebs!</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1268046420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on your definition of "failed".</p><p>If you call a network full of privacy invading corporations, advertising, marketing and crap a "success", then by my definition, it has failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on your definition of " failed " .If you call a network full of privacy invading corporations , advertising , marketing and crap a " success " , then by my definition , it has failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on your definition of "failed".If you call a network full of privacy invading corporations, advertising, marketing and crap a "success", then by my definition, it has failed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404954</id>
	<title>Good Read</title>
	<author>OrangeMonkey11</author>
	<datestamp>1268041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a good reflecting article; oh the things we say when we're ignorant and afraid of change.</p><p>It's like when Sliced Bread came out; people were skeptical and afraid and wanted their hands hold with a soft spoken voice saying "it's ok change is good it will make your life better"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good reflecting article ; oh the things we say when we 're ignorant and afraid of change.It 's like when Sliced Bread came out ; people were skeptical and afraid and wanted their hands hold with a soft spoken voice saying " it 's ok change is good it will make your life better "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good reflecting article; oh the things we say when we're ignorant and afraid of change.It's like when Sliced Bread came out; people were skeptical and afraid and wanted their hands hold with a soft spoken voice saying "it's ok change is good it will make your life better"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401832</id>
	<title>I predict my own doom !!!</title>
	<author>Foske</author>
	<datestamp>1268070300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read my lips, in fifteen years I'll be as famous and important as this internet thingie !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read my lips , in fifteen years I 'll be as famous and important as this internet thingie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read my lips, in fifteen years I'll be as famous and important as this internet thingie !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401878</id>
	<title>To be fair...</title>
	<author>Jiro</author>
	<datestamp>1268070540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair, if you <i>actually read the original article</i> he mentions books and newspapers right after talking about books on disk--in context he's obviously referring to ebooks and not ordering a book and having it physically delivered (which would be nonsense for newspapers anyway).  Paying for electronic books and newspapers is better than in 1995, but it hasn't exactly taken over, and newspapers are more outcompeted by free sites than by anything you buy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , if you actually read the original article he mentions books and newspapers right after talking about books on disk--in context he 's obviously referring to ebooks and not ordering a book and having it physically delivered ( which would be nonsense for newspapers anyway ) .
Paying for electronic books and newspapers is better than in 1995 , but it has n't exactly taken over , and newspapers are more outcompeted by free sites than by anything you buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, if you actually read the original article he mentions books and newspapers right after talking about books on disk--in context he's obviously referring to ebooks and not ordering a book and having it physically delivered (which would be nonsense for newspapers anyway).
Paying for electronic books and newspapers is better than in 1995, but it hasn't exactly taken over, and newspapers are more outcompeted by free sites than by anything you buy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402882</id>
	<title>The internet didn't fail as predicted...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268075100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It failed in ways no one predicted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It failed in ways no one predicted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It failed in ways no one predicted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401600</id>
	<title>The interwebs!</title>
	<author>spammeister</author>
	<datestamp>1268069160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The internet is "failing"...if all the big media fatcats have their way, the internet will have "failed".<br> <br>Now the use of the term "internet" is far-reaching, so I suppose for all of it to actually fail, every backhoe in the world would have to find a buried pipe and start digging at the same time. But I digress...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is " failing " ...if all the big media fatcats have their way , the internet will have " failed " .
Now the use of the term " internet " is far-reaching , so I suppose for all of it to actually fail , every backhoe in the world would have to find a buried pipe and start digging at the same time .
But I digress.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet is "failing"...if all the big media fatcats have their way, the internet will have "failed".
Now the use of the term "internet" is far-reaching, so I suppose for all of it to actually fail, every backhoe in the world would have to find a buried pipe and start digging at the same time.
But I digress...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402704</id>
	<title>Cliff Stoll?</title>
	<author>smd75</author>
	<datestamp>1268074200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For someone with worthy experience to talk about the internet, Im quite surprised he wrote A) That article from 1995 and B) Silicon Snake Oil. His book The Cuckoo's Egg was excellent. I felt he had a firm grasp as to where the internet could go. I admired the guy for his work. I guess all those Berkeley kids aren't on top of their game. The guy \_was\_ an astronomer after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For someone with worthy experience to talk about the internet , Im quite surprised he wrote A ) That article from 1995 and B ) Silicon Snake Oil .
His book The Cuckoo 's Egg was excellent .
I felt he had a firm grasp as to where the internet could go .
I admired the guy for his work .
I guess all those Berkeley kids are n't on top of their game .
The guy \ _was \ _ an astronomer after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For someone with worthy experience to talk about the internet, Im quite surprised he wrote A) That article from 1995 and B) Silicon Snake Oil.
His book The Cuckoo's Egg was excellent.
I felt he had a firm grasp as to where the internet could go.
I admired the guy for his work.
I guess all those Berkeley kids aren't on top of their game.
The guy \_was\_ an astronomer after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402380</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, he really missed the opportunity</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268072880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, ICQ solved that problem in 1996! It already had the ability to create user profiles, (chat) groups, and search for people with similar interests. Then came the imitators (AIM, MSN, etc), who chose to imitate it in a way that was basically only good for instant messages anymore.<br>And <em>then</em>, much much later, came Facebook, MySpace, etc. Who did the same thing. Except in the crappy website fashion. Plus they sold off the users&rsquo; data.</p><p>Meanwhile, I still use ICQ. (Amongst others like XMPP or IRC.) Via Kopete, but still...</p><p>P.S.: Perhaps you could say, that IRC preceded them all. But IRC did not really have much of a user profile and matchmaking functionality. But it could have easily. Sad that that was missed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , ICQ solved that problem in 1996 !
It already had the ability to create user profiles , ( chat ) groups , and search for people with similar interests .
Then came the imitators ( AIM , MSN , etc ) , who chose to imitate it in a way that was basically only good for instant messages anymore.And then , much much later , came Facebook , MySpace , etc .
Who did the same thing .
Except in the crappy website fashion .
Plus they sold off the users    data.Meanwhile , I still use ICQ .
( Amongst others like XMPP or IRC .
) Via Kopete , but still...P.S .
: Perhaps you could say , that IRC preceded them all .
But IRC did not really have much of a user profile and matchmaking functionality .
But it could have easily .
Sad that that was missed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, ICQ solved that problem in 1996!
It already had the ability to create user profiles, (chat) groups, and search for people with similar interests.
Then came the imitators (AIM, MSN, etc), who chose to imitate it in a way that was basically only good for instant messages anymore.And then, much much later, came Facebook, MySpace, etc.
Who did the same thing.
Except in the crappy website fashion.
Plus they sold off the users’ data.Meanwhile, I still use ICQ.
(Amongst others like XMPP or IRC.
) Via Kopete, but still...P.S.
: Perhaps you could say, that IRC preceded them all.
But IRC did not really have much of a user profile and matchmaking functionality.
But it could have easily.
Sad that that was missed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31407582</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, he really missed the opportunity</title>
	<author>Quirkz</author>
	<datestamp>1268051580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Zuckerberg and Anderson are not rich because they had vision to bring human contact to the internet.</p><p>Zuckerberg and Anderson are rich because they realized that most internet users cannot or will not learn to use use their computers well enough to handle an email application, an IM application, a news reader, and a web browser, and that most internet users are not online for content but for mindless entertainment.</p></div><p>Ah, you're both right. Honestly, I think the real key is, in the interim what counts as "human contact" has changed. Half of the ground was made up by the internet. Broadband has allowed us to take in a lot more a lot faster, and also put up a lot more. It's not just words, it's picture, it's videos, it's sound. You can play games together. (I can't tell you what a joy it was the first time I could play scrabble with my brother 1000 miles away, for instance. Nevermind skyping with my 93-year-old grandmother.) There's a lot more real contact to be had now than there was then.<br> <br>

I think the other half has been made up by people becoming willing to loosen the definition of "human contact." Particularly for younger people who have grown up with it, the digital interface IS contact with someone else. I'm not quite middle aged, and have adjusted some. I still don't think anything tops being there in person, but I can feel pretty connected from my web contacts. I've got "friends" I've never met in person and don't ever expect to. I've had business partners, or business clients, who I've never met in person -- though I don't think I've ever done business without at least one phone call.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zuckerberg and Anderson are not rich because they had vision to bring human contact to the internet.Zuckerberg and Anderson are rich because they realized that most internet users can not or will not learn to use use their computers well enough to handle an email application , an IM application , a news reader , and a web browser , and that most internet users are not online for content but for mindless entertainment.Ah , you 're both right .
Honestly , I think the real key is , in the interim what counts as " human contact " has changed .
Half of the ground was made up by the internet .
Broadband has allowed us to take in a lot more a lot faster , and also put up a lot more .
It 's not just words , it 's picture , it 's videos , it 's sound .
You can play games together .
( I ca n't tell you what a joy it was the first time I could play scrabble with my brother 1000 miles away , for instance .
Nevermind skyping with my 93-year-old grandmother .
) There 's a lot more real contact to be had now than there was then .
I think the other half has been made up by people becoming willing to loosen the definition of " human contact .
" Particularly for younger people who have grown up with it , the digital interface IS contact with someone else .
I 'm not quite middle aged , and have adjusted some .
I still do n't think anything tops being there in person , but I can feel pretty connected from my web contacts .
I 've got " friends " I 've never met in person and do n't ever expect to .
I 've had business partners , or business clients , who I 've never met in person -- though I do n't think I 've ever done business without at least one phone call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zuckerberg and Anderson are not rich because they had vision to bring human contact to the internet.Zuckerberg and Anderson are rich because they realized that most internet users cannot or will not learn to use use their computers well enough to handle an email application, an IM application, a news reader, and a web browser, and that most internet users are not online for content but for mindless entertainment.Ah, you're both right.
Honestly, I think the real key is, in the interim what counts as "human contact" has changed.
Half of the ground was made up by the internet.
Broadband has allowed us to take in a lot more a lot faster, and also put up a lot more.
It's not just words, it's picture, it's videos, it's sound.
You can play games together.
(I can't tell you what a joy it was the first time I could play scrabble with my brother 1000 miles away, for instance.
Nevermind skyping with my 93-year-old grandmother.
) There's a lot more real contact to be had now than there was then.
I think the other half has been made up by people becoming willing to loosen the definition of "human contact.
" Particularly for younger people who have grown up with it, the digital interface IS contact with someone else.
I'm not quite middle aged, and have adjusted some.
I still don't think anything tops being there in person, but I can feel pretty connected from my web contacts.
I've got "friends" I've never met in person and don't ever expect to.
I've had business partners, or business clients, who I've never met in person -- though I don't think I've ever done business without at least one phone call.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403430</id>
	<title>Re:It's from Clifford Stoll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268077500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>He claimed that "information, better communications, and electronic programs" could never "cure social problems" (tell Obama that).</i>
<br> <br>
Are there many examples of social problems that have been cured by "information, better communications, and electronic programs"?
<br> <br>
(I'm not sure what Obama has to do with anything)</htmltext>
<tokenext>He claimed that " information , better communications , and electronic programs " could never " cure social problems " ( tell Obama that ) .
Are there many examples of social problems that have been cured by " information , better communications , and electronic programs " ?
( I 'm not sure what Obama has to do with anything )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He claimed that "information, better communications, and electronic programs" could never "cure social problems" (tell Obama that).
Are there many examples of social problems that have been cured by "information, better communications, and electronic programs"?
(I'm not sure what Obama has to do with anything)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694</id>
	<title>Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too</title>
	<author>Shuh</author>
	<datestamp>1268069580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>
A big-wig at I.B.M. predicted the entire world market for computers would be restricted to about 5 units.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A big-wig at I.B.M .
predicted the entire world market for computers would be restricted to about 5 units .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
A big-wig at I.B.M.
predicted the entire world market for computers would be restricted to about 5 units.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402406</id>
	<title>Re:Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1268073000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That quote might be apocryphal, but his quote <i>"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."</i> on page 265 of the first edition of <i>The Road Ahead</i> is well established fact. (I have the book.)</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That quote might be apocryphal , but his quote " The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers .
" on page 265 of the first edition of The Road Ahead is well established fact .
( I have the book .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That quote might be apocryphal, but his quote "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers.
" on page 265 of the first edition of The Road Ahead is well established fact.
(I have the book.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402396</id>
	<title>"This invention X will fix the school system"</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1268072940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The flip side of the coin is that every new media since Edison's phonograph (and probably before) has been touted as fixing the broken education system.  yet for the most part, they dont.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The flip side of the coin is that every new media since Edison 's phonograph ( and probably before ) has been touted as fixing the broken education system .
yet for the most part , they dont .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flip side of the coin is that every new media since Edison's phonograph (and probably before) has been touted as fixing the broken education system.
yet for the most part, they dont.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31408556</id>
	<title>Re:What makes it really ironic</title>
	<author>tbuskey</author>
	<datestamp>1268057520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IRC predates ICQ by many years.</p><p>Going back further, some mainframes had chat room type apps.</p><p>I started using the conferencing on DTSS in 1980.  I met lots of people and even dated one or two.<br>Dartmouth College provided accounts to all the Dartmouth community and even local high school students (which was how I got mine).<br>There were other colleges on the east coast that could connect into the conferencing as well.<br>I heard of a few people that met &amp; married this way.</p><p>There was an explosion of use when Dartmouth brought in Macintoshes and dorm access in 1984+.  There was a decline in the quality of chat (distracted users) when Multifinder started getting used (1990?) and people put chat in the background.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IRC predates ICQ by many years.Going back further , some mainframes had chat room type apps.I started using the conferencing on DTSS in 1980 .
I met lots of people and even dated one or two.Dartmouth College provided accounts to all the Dartmouth community and even local high school students ( which was how I got mine ) .There were other colleges on the east coast that could connect into the conferencing as well.I heard of a few people that met &amp; married this way.There was an explosion of use when Dartmouth brought in Macintoshes and dorm access in 1984 + .
There was a decline in the quality of chat ( distracted users ) when Multifinder started getting used ( 1990 ?
) and people put chat in the background .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IRC predates ICQ by many years.Going back further, some mainframes had chat room type apps.I started using the conferencing on DTSS in 1980.
I met lots of people and even dated one or two.Dartmouth College provided accounts to all the Dartmouth community and even local high school students (which was how I got mine).There were other colleges on the east coast that could connect into the conferencing as well.I heard of a few people that met &amp; married this way.There was an explosion of use when Dartmouth brought in Macintoshes and dorm access in 1984+.
There was a decline in the quality of chat (distracted users) when Multifinder started getting used (1990?
) and people put chat in the background.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403420</id>
	<title>I've never understoof Stoll's about face</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1268077440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he got his 15 minutes of fame from Cuckoo's Egg, the book AND the movie. He's a PhD astonomer who was in the right place at the right time. I've heard him speak. He's witty, funny, and energetic, a delight to hear, really. I've never understood why he turned on the Net. He was, after all, on the bleeding edge for a time, and seemed poised to take off on a career of internet promotion rather than demotion. Strange.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he got his 15 minutes of fame from Cuckoo 's Egg , the book AND the movie .
He 's a PhD astonomer who was in the right place at the right time .
I 've heard him speak .
He 's witty , funny , and energetic , a delight to hear , really .
I 've never understood why he turned on the Net .
He was , after all , on the bleeding edge for a time , and seemed poised to take off on a career of internet promotion rather than demotion .
Strange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he got his 15 minutes of fame from Cuckoo's Egg, the book AND the movie.
He's a PhD astonomer who was in the right place at the right time.
I've heard him speak.
He's witty, funny, and energetic, a delight to hear, really.
I've never understood why he turned on the Net.
He was, after all, on the bleeding edge for a time, and seemed poised to take off on a career of internet promotion rather than demotion.
Strange.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402932</id>
	<title>Re:It's all about the Editor</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1268075400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The great irony is that nothing changed, "professionals" were always biased, Wikileaks had more scoops on important issues then all major newspapers had in decades.  "amateurs" = 1, Pro's = 0, the internet has it's drawbacks because anyone can open their mouth but it also means ANYONE WHO KNOWS can open their mouth in response, discussion has added so much to news stories and propaganda and newspapers basically had to add user comments or risk having less of an audience and less investment in their site. It' hilarious that thesE MARKET NEEDS were never catered to by so called private sector, sites run by passionate people were copied and mimicked by the business world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The great irony is that nothing changed , " professionals " were always biased , Wikileaks had more scoops on important issues then all major newspapers had in decades .
" amateurs " = 1 , Pro 's = 0 , the internet has it 's drawbacks because anyone can open their mouth but it also means ANYONE WHO KNOWS can open their mouth in response , discussion has added so much to news stories and propaganda and newspapers basically had to add user comments or risk having less of an audience and less investment in their site .
It ' hilarious that thesE MARKET NEEDS were never catered to by so called private sector , sites run by passionate people were copied and mimicked by the business world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The great irony is that nothing changed, "professionals" were always biased, Wikileaks had more scoops on important issues then all major newspapers had in decades.
"amateurs" = 1, Pro's = 0, the internet has it's drawbacks because anyone can open their mouth but it also means ANYONE WHO KNOWS can open their mouth in response, discussion has added so much to news stories and propaganda and newspapers basically had to add user comments or risk having less of an audience and less investment in their site.
It' hilarious that thesE MARKET NEEDS were never catered to by so called private sector, sites run by passionate people were copied and mimicked by the business world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401796</id>
	<title>Re:Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268070120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People who think they are very self-important tend to underestimate the impact of things they did not directly influence.  Perhaps he was not involved with the PC and thus thought it was destined to failure.  You think I'm crazy?  Not so.  Just think of the old adage, "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself" and similar such phrases.  True in some cases, sure... but the more self-important one starts seeing one's self, the less able that person is to view the innovation of others as worthwhile and lasting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who think they are very self-important tend to underestimate the impact of things they did not directly influence .
Perhaps he was not involved with the PC and thus thought it was destined to failure .
You think I 'm crazy ?
Not so .
Just think of the old adage , " If you want something done right , you have to do it yourself " and similar such phrases .
True in some cases , sure... but the more self-important one starts seeing one 's self , the less able that person is to view the innovation of others as worthwhile and lasting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who think they are very self-important tend to underestimate the impact of things they did not directly influence.
Perhaps he was not involved with the PC and thus thought it was destined to failure.
You think I'm crazy?
Not so.
Just think of the old adage, "If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself" and similar such phrases.
True in some cases, sure... but the more self-important one starts seeing one's self, the less able that person is to view the innovation of others as worthwhile and lasting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404498</id>
	<title>You don't remember very well</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1268039100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How old were you in 1995, if you don't mind my asking?</p><p>You don't need to use the quotes, it really was the same Internet. Windows 95 came out in... 1995. In 1995, I was using Linux at home, and Novell Netware at work. Yes, AOL was still around. Yes, there were still 14.4k modems and 80386 processors. They didn't run at 386MHZ. The most common modems ran at 28.8Kbps and 33.6Kbps. The most common microprocessor was the 80486.</p><p>Yes, this guy was wrong about the Internet, but so were the many more commentators who took the opposite view, that the Internet would fundamentally change all aspects of human society and behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How old were you in 1995 , if you do n't mind my asking ? You do n't need to use the quotes , it really was the same Internet .
Windows 95 came out in... 1995. In 1995 , I was using Linux at home , and Novell Netware at work .
Yes , AOL was still around .
Yes , there were still 14.4k modems and 80386 processors .
They did n't run at 386MHZ .
The most common modems ran at 28.8Kbps and 33.6Kbps .
The most common microprocessor was the 80486.Yes , this guy was wrong about the Internet , but so were the many more commentators who took the opposite view , that the Internet would fundamentally change all aspects of human society and behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How old were you in 1995, if you don't mind my asking?You don't need to use the quotes, it really was the same Internet.
Windows 95 came out in... 1995. In 1995, I was using Linux at home, and Novell Netware at work.
Yes, AOL was still around.
Yes, there were still 14.4k modems and 80386 processors.
They didn't run at 386MHZ.
The most common modems ran at 28.8Kbps and 33.6Kbps.
The most common microprocessor was the 80486.Yes, this guy was wrong about the Internet, but so were the many more commentators who took the opposite view, that the Internet would fundamentally change all aspects of human society and behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404090</id>
	<title>Newsweek is trash.</title>
	<author>pigwiggle</author>
	<datestamp>1268080620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Had a subscription for a year.  I quit reading after just a few issues.  The news is stale, which is fine for a weekly periodical.  But the analysis was terrible.  Shallow, biased, often misinformed.   Not surprised they missed this.  Just one among a titanic pile of crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Had a subscription for a year .
I quit reading after just a few issues .
The news is stale , which is fine for a weekly periodical .
But the analysis was terrible .
Shallow , biased , often misinformed .
Not surprised they missed this .
Just one among a titanic pile of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Had a subscription for a year.
I quit reading after just a few issues.
The news is stale, which is fine for a weekly periodical.
But the analysis was terrible.
Shallow, biased, often misinformed.
Not surprised they missed this.
Just one among a titanic pile of crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402040</id>
	<title>To err is human...</title>
	<author>drewhk</author>
	<datestamp>1268071320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should read the end of TFA:</p><p>"At the time, I was trying to speak against the tide of futuristic commentary on how The Internet Will Solve Our Problems.</p><p>[...]</p><p>And, as I&rsquo;ve laughed at others&rsquo; foibles, I think back to some of my own cringeworthy contributions.</p><p>Now, whenever I think I know what&rsquo;s happening, I temper my thoughts: Might be wrong, Cliff </p><p>Warm cheers to all,</p><p>&mdash;Cliff Stoll on a rainy Friday afternoon in Oakland"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should read the end of TFA : " At the time , I was trying to speak against the tide of futuristic commentary on how The Internet Will Solve Our Problems. [ .. .
] And , as I    ve laughed at others    foibles , I think back to some of my own cringeworthy contributions.Now , whenever I think I know what    s happening , I temper my thoughts : Might be wrong , Cliff Warm cheers to all ,    Cliff Stoll on a rainy Friday afternoon in Oakland "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should read the end of TFA:"At the time, I was trying to speak against the tide of futuristic commentary on how The Internet Will Solve Our Problems.[...
]And, as I’ve laughed at others’ foibles, I think back to some of my own cringeworthy contributions.Now, whenever I think I know what’s happening, I temper my thoughts: Might be wrong, Cliff Warm cheers to all,—Cliff Stoll on a rainy Friday afternoon in Oakland"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404564</id>
	<title>He did get some things right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268039280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*"What the Internet hucksters won't tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data."*</p><p>That hasn't changed.</p><p>*"What's missing from this electronic wonderland? Human contact."*<br>Still no real change. Despite social networking sites. It just isn't the same.</p><p>His point about teachers is still true. Technology is secondary to good teachers.</p><p>I love this quote:<br>*"But today, I'm uneasy about this most trendy and oversold community."*</p><p>The interweb is still trendy and oversold.</p><p>So, somethings have not changed. Not at the core anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* " What the Internet hucksters wo n't tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data , without any pretense of completeness .
Lacking editors , reviewers or critics , the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data .
" * That has n't changed .
* " What 's missing from this electronic wonderland ?
Human contact .
" * Still no real change .
Despite social networking sites .
It just is n't the same.His point about teachers is still true .
Technology is secondary to good teachers.I love this quote : * " But today , I 'm uneasy about this most trendy and oversold community .
" * The interweb is still trendy and oversold.So , somethings have not changed .
Not at the core anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*"What the Internet hucksters won't tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness.
Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data.
"*That hasn't changed.
*"What's missing from this electronic wonderland?
Human contact.
"*Still no real change.
Despite social networking sites.
It just isn't the same.His point about teachers is still true.
Technology is secondary to good teachers.I love this quote:*"But today, I'm uneasy about this most trendy and oversold community.
"*The interweb is still trendy and oversold.So, somethings have not changed.
Not at the core anyway.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31410586</id>
	<title>Re:15 years later</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1268077020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes!!!!  I just spent 2 hours reading this thread and then I find this.</p><p>Your article wasn't wrong, bro.  As usual, people mistook editorial tone for substance.  It's like yelling at someone, "YOU'RE A GREAT PERSON," and they cry and say, "Why did you yell at meeee..."</p><p>I remember when people worried about "brick and mortar" going away.  Meanwhile, the most recent addition to the mall is a giant fucking bookstore.</p><p>And the internet does suck for social interaction.  Unfortunately everybody else got online.  Now <i>we're</i> the heroes.  Imagine that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes ! ! ! !
I just spent 2 hours reading this thread and then I find this.Your article was n't wrong , bro .
As usual , people mistook editorial tone for substance .
It 's like yelling at someone , " YOU 'RE A GREAT PERSON , " and they cry and say , " Why did you yell at meeee... " I remember when people worried about " brick and mortar " going away .
Meanwhile , the most recent addition to the mall is a giant fucking bookstore.And the internet does suck for social interaction .
Unfortunately everybody else got online .
Now we 're the heroes .
Imagine that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes!!!!
I just spent 2 hours reading this thread and then I find this.Your article wasn't wrong, bro.
As usual, people mistook editorial tone for substance.
It's like yelling at someone, "YOU'RE A GREAT PERSON," and they cry and say, "Why did you yell at meeee..."I remember when people worried about "brick and mortar" going away.
Meanwhile, the most recent addition to the mall is a giant fucking bookstore.And the internet does suck for social interaction.
Unfortunately everybody else got online.
Now we're the heroes.
Imagine that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402430</id>
	<title>Re:What makes it really ironic</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268073060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, what makes it really ironic, is that one year later (1996), ICQ was released. The first social network. (Yes, it had all the functions to count as a real social network. I know because I had my first blind date because of it. [Turned out not so well though.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , what makes it really ironic , is that one year later ( 1996 ) , ICQ was released .
The first social network .
( Yes , it had all the functions to count as a real social network .
I know because I had my first blind date because of it .
[ Turned out not so well though .
; ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, what makes it really ironic, is that one year later (1996), ICQ was released.
The first social network.
(Yes, it had all the functions to count as a real social network.
I know because I had my first blind date because of it.
[Turned out not so well though.
;])</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401942</id>
	<title>How do we know it hasn't failed?</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1268070960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it has split into multiple bubble universes, and the people who are dealing with the consequences of the collapse of the Internet multiverse are simply beyond our cosmological horizon.</p><p>We are unaware that anything has gone wrong, because *our* universe continues to expand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it has split into multiple bubble universes , and the people who are dealing with the consequences of the collapse of the Internet multiverse are simply beyond our cosmological horizon.We are unaware that anything has gone wrong , because * our * universe continues to expand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it has split into multiple bubble universes, and the people who are dealing with the consequences of the collapse of the Internet multiverse are simply beyond our cosmological horizon.We are unaware that anything has gone wrong, because *our* universe continues to expand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402566</id>
	<title>Re:How do we know it hasn't failed?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268073540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, depends if you look at it from the 4chan realm.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , depends if you look at it from the 4chan realm .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, depends if you look at it from the 4chan realm.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402152</id>
	<title>Re:Computers Were Supposed To Fail Big Too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268071860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of my favorites was from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.\_Daniel\_Hillis" title="wikipedia.org">Danny Hillis</a> [wikipedia.org], a pioneer in parallel computing.  "I went to my first computer conference at the New York Hilton about 20 years ago. When somebody there predicted the market for microprocessors would eventually be in the millions, someone else asked, 'Where are they all going to go? It's not like you need a computer in every doorknob!"</p><p>Years later, Hillis went back to the same hotel. He noticed that the room keys had been replaced by electronic cards you slide into slots in the doors. There was indeed a computer in every doorknob..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my favorites was from Danny Hillis [ wikipedia.org ] , a pioneer in parallel computing .
" I went to my first computer conference at the New York Hilton about 20 years ago .
When somebody there predicted the market for microprocessors would eventually be in the millions , someone else asked , 'Where are they all going to go ?
It 's not like you need a computer in every doorknob !
" Years later , Hillis went back to the same hotel .
He noticed that the room keys had been replaced by electronic cards you slide into slots in the doors .
There was indeed a computer in every doorknob. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my favorites was from Danny Hillis [wikipedia.org], a pioneer in parallel computing.
"I went to my first computer conference at the New York Hilton about 20 years ago.
When somebody there predicted the market for microprocessors would eventually be in the millions, someone else asked, 'Where are they all going to go?
It's not like you need a computer in every doorknob!
"Years later, Hillis went back to the same hotel.
He noticed that the room keys had been replaced by electronic cards you slide into slots in the doors.
There was indeed a computer in every doorknob..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31405340</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, he really missed the opportunity</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1268043000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's part of the scientist's and engineer's problem in this field (ie, Clifford Stoll).  Stupidity does not often stand in the way of success.  The intelligence that is needed is the ability to sell a stupid idea to the masses.  Ie, the Pet Rock.  Scientists and engineers are not the best people to go to for stock picks.<br><br>The lack of human contact is a major flaw in the internet, and yet people keep coming up with ways around that, ways to ameliorate it, and ways to substitute for it.  It succeeds despite the flaw and despite the fact that it's a product people don't need.<br><br>Perhaps only cynics could have foreseen the success of the internet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's part of the scientist 's and engineer 's problem in this field ( ie , Clifford Stoll ) .
Stupidity does not often stand in the way of success .
The intelligence that is needed is the ability to sell a stupid idea to the masses .
Ie , the Pet Rock .
Scientists and engineers are not the best people to go to for stock picks.The lack of human contact is a major flaw in the internet , and yet people keep coming up with ways around that , ways to ameliorate it , and ways to substitute for it .
It succeeds despite the flaw and despite the fact that it 's a product people do n't need.Perhaps only cynics could have foreseen the success of the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's part of the scientist's and engineer's problem in this field (ie, Clifford Stoll).
Stupidity does not often stand in the way of success.
The intelligence that is needed is the ability to sell a stupid idea to the masses.
Ie, the Pet Rock.
Scientists and engineers are not the best people to go to for stock picks.The lack of human contact is a major flaw in the internet, and yet people keep coming up with ways around that, ways to ameliorate it, and ways to substitute for it.
It succeeds despite the flaw and despite the fact that it's a product people don't need.Perhaps only cynics could have foreseen the success of the internet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404376</id>
	<title>The difference between pundits and people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268081760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The pundit that wrote this very lame story, Bill Gates and my father (an IRS mainframe programmer) all have one thing in common, they believe they have an ability to review, sort and analyze data that the average person does not have and as a result believe that data should be limited or filtered for most people making analysis much easier.  If we only tell them what is relevant (what we want them to know) they can "analyze" (come to the conclusion we want them to) much more efficiently.  The reason the internet succeeded was because of the expansiveness and availability of the data.  Anyone can find out anything as long as we keep the censors hiding in their dark little holes.  Open minded people discuss opposing viewpoints anywhere and everywhere on any and all topics, learning and growing faster than anyone could have predicted because the information can be found that is not filtered by a church or a government or a corporation or a censor or a propagandist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The pundit that wrote this very lame story , Bill Gates and my father ( an IRS mainframe programmer ) all have one thing in common , they believe they have an ability to review , sort and analyze data that the average person does not have and as a result believe that data should be limited or filtered for most people making analysis much easier .
If we only tell them what is relevant ( what we want them to know ) they can " analyze " ( come to the conclusion we want them to ) much more efficiently .
The reason the internet succeeded was because of the expansiveness and availability of the data .
Anyone can find out anything as long as we keep the censors hiding in their dark little holes .
Open minded people discuss opposing viewpoints anywhere and everywhere on any and all topics , learning and growing faster than anyone could have predicted because the information can be found that is not filtered by a church or a government or a corporation or a censor or a propagandist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pundit that wrote this very lame story, Bill Gates and my father (an IRS mainframe programmer) all have one thing in common, they believe they have an ability to review, sort and analyze data that the average person does not have and as a result believe that data should be limited or filtered for most people making analysis much easier.
If we only tell them what is relevant (what we want them to know) they can "analyze" (come to the conclusion we want them to) much more efficiently.
The reason the internet succeeded was because of the expansiveness and availability of the data.
Anyone can find out anything as long as we keep the censors hiding in their dark little holes.
Open minded people discuss opposing viewpoints anywhere and everywhere on any and all topics, learning and growing faster than anyone could have predicted because the information can be found that is not filtered by a church or a government or a corporation or a censor or a propagandist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401956</id>
	<title>Not surprising</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268071020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in 1995, I was just finishing up a Journalism degree at a Big Ten university, and in more than one media class, the subject of the internet (and its future) came up. But it was the students that brought it up...not the professors or the teaching assistants.</p><p>Unfortunately, the subject was always dismissed as some kind of fad. In fact, in one class, the assistant refused to even discuss the subject at all, almost as if he was annoyed by it. So, I'm not surprised at all that some in the mainstream media have been slow to really comprehend the subject, let alone adapt their business models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in 1995 , I was just finishing up a Journalism degree at a Big Ten university , and in more than one media class , the subject of the internet ( and its future ) came up .
But it was the students that brought it up...not the professors or the teaching assistants.Unfortunately , the subject was always dismissed as some kind of fad .
In fact , in one class , the assistant refused to even discuss the subject at all , almost as if he was annoyed by it .
So , I 'm not surprised at all that some in the mainstream media have been slow to really comprehend the subject , let alone adapt their business models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in 1995, I was just finishing up a Journalism degree at a Big Ten university, and in more than one media class, the subject of the internet (and its future) came up.
But it was the students that brought it up...not the professors or the teaching assistants.Unfortunately, the subject was always dismissed as some kind of fad.
In fact, in one class, the assistant refused to even discuss the subject at all, almost as if he was annoyed by it.
So, I'm not surprised at all that some in the mainstream media have been slow to really comprehend the subject, let alone adapt their business models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402870</id>
	<title>This is a nice example</title>
	<author>al0ha</author>
	<datestamp>1268075040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A nice example of why reporters should stick to reporting and quit with the constant conjecture and personal opinion.  Too much personal opinion, paid opinion and otherwise influenced opinion and conjecture fill what passes for "News" these days.  A reporter's only job is to report the facts, but somehow that lesson, learned in journalism 101, does not make it out of academia anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A nice example of why reporters should stick to reporting and quit with the constant conjecture and personal opinion .
Too much personal opinion , paid opinion and otherwise influenced opinion and conjecture fill what passes for " News " these days .
A reporter 's only job is to report the facts , but somehow that lesson , learned in journalism 101 , does not make it out of academia anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A nice example of why reporters should stick to reporting and quit with the constant conjecture and personal opinion.
Too much personal opinion, paid opinion and otherwise influenced opinion and conjecture fill what passes for "News" these days.
A reporter's only job is to report the facts, but somehow that lesson, learned in journalism 101, does not make it out of academia anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31405098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31415840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31407418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31411614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31407124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31408556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31410586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31405340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31410200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31410346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31407582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_08_1533243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31410200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31410346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31411614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31415840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31410586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31406698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31408556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31405098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31407418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31404662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31405340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31407582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31407124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31401888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31403148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_08_1533243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_08_1533243.31402882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
