<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_17_2227215</id>
	<title>Solar-Powered Augmented Reality Contact Lenses</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1268829900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ByronScott writes <i>"Want eyesight that could put your neighborhood cyborg to shame? Well, University of Washington professor Babak Amir Parviz and his students are working on <a href="http://su.pr/1NPMqx">solar-powered contact lenses</a> embedded with hundreds of semitransparent LEDs, letting wearers experience augmented reality right through their eyes. If their research proves successful, the applications &mdash; from health monitoring to gameplay to just plain bionic sight &mdash; could be endless."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ByronScott writes " Want eyesight that could put your neighborhood cyborg to shame ?
Well , University of Washington professor Babak Amir Parviz and his students are working on solar-powered contact lenses embedded with hundreds of semitransparent LEDs , letting wearers experience augmented reality right through their eyes .
If their research proves successful , the applications    from health monitoring to gameplay to just plain bionic sight    could be endless .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ByronScott writes "Want eyesight that could put your neighborhood cyborg to shame?
Well, University of Washington professor Babak Amir Parviz and his students are working on solar-powered contact lenses embedded with hundreds of semitransparent LEDs, letting wearers experience augmented reality right through their eyes.
If their research proves successful, the applications — from health monitoring to gameplay to just plain bionic sight — could be endless.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520988</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268917200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, they are Contact lenses!!! Oh yeah and what you said was deep</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , they are Contact lenses ! ! !
Oh yeah and what you said was deep</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, they are Contact lenses!!!
Oh yeah and what you said was deep</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521374</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268919780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...</p></div><p>People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it. The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your "virtual reality" to replace competitors advertisements, add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously, and what you'll end up with is drowning in useless information just as much now, sitting at your keyboard reading this, except you won't be able to unplug.</p></div><p>um, if you took the contacts out, you'd be unplugged.</p><p>I mean, seriously, they are contact lenses, not new eyeballs.</p><p>=)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though now that I think a little more , a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created , forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that 's going to use and pervert it .
The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your " virtual reality " to replace competitors advertisements , add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously , and what you 'll end up with is drowning in useless information just as much now , sitting at your keyboard reading this , except you wo n't be able to unplug.um , if you took the contacts out , you 'd be unplugged.I mean , seriously , they are contact lenses , not new eyeballs. = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it.
The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your "virtual reality" to replace competitors advertisements, add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously, and what you'll end up with is drowning in useless information just as much now, sitting at your keyboard reading this, except you won't be able to unplug.um, if you took the contacts out, you'd be unplugged.I mean, seriously, they are contact lenses, not new eyeballs.=)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520544</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268911800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suddenly, everybody has goatse faces!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suddenly , everybody has goatse faces !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suddenly, everybody has goatse faces!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31524432</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268934720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is old news</p><p>http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/01/1619248/Augmented-Reality-In-a-Contact-Lens?from=rss</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is old newshttp : //science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/01/1619248/Augmented-Reality-In-a-Contact-Lens ? from = rss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is old newshttp://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/01/1619248/Augmented-Reality-In-a-Contact-Lens?from=rss</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519502</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Degro</author>
	<datestamp>1268852400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it.</p></div><p>But, people perverting it is what I'm looking forward too...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created , forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that 's going to use and pervert it.But , people perverting it is what I 'm looking forward too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it.But, people perverting it is what I'm looking forward too...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31522616</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Espressor</author>
	<datestamp>1268926140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created</i>
<p>
This statement is a bit too clear-cut. AFAIK, history - and in particular the Industrial Revolution - begs to differ with you. It seems technological progress is often met with rejection - sometimes even accompanied with violence. People being scared of the potentially devastating effects of machines on their lives. A famous example is related here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite</a> [wikipedia.org]
</p><p>
Excerpt: "The principal objection of the Luddites was against the introduction of new wide-framed automated looms that could be operated by cheap, relatively unskilled labour, resulting in the loss of jobs for many skilled textile workers."
</p><p>
Could this possibly sound familiar?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created This statement is a bit too clear-cut .
AFAIK , history - and in particular the Industrial Revolution - begs to differ with you .
It seems technological progress is often met with rejection - sometimes even accompanied with violence .
People being scared of the potentially devastating effects of machines on their lives .
A famous example is related here : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite [ wikipedia.org ] Excerpt : " The principal objection of the Luddites was against the introduction of new wide-framed automated looms that could be operated by cheap , relatively unskilled labour , resulting in the loss of jobs for many skilled textile workers .
" Could this possibly sound familiar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created

This statement is a bit too clear-cut.
AFAIK, history - and in particular the Industrial Revolution - begs to differ with you.
It seems technological progress is often met with rejection - sometimes even accompanied with violence.
People being scared of the potentially devastating effects of machines on their lives.
A famous example is related here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite [wikipedia.org]

Excerpt: "The principal objection of the Luddites was against the introduction of new wide-framed automated looms that could be operated by cheap, relatively unskilled labour, resulting in the loss of jobs for many skilled textile workers.
"

Could this possibly sound familiar?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521318</id>
	<title>Reminds me of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268919540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn\%C5\%8D\_Coil" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Denno Coil</a> [wikipedia.org][Wikipedia]. After reading this summary I realized that Denno Coil is all about an augmented reality interface with the real world. This would be an amazing outcome if the tech pans out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Denno Coil [ wikipedia.org ] [ Wikipedia ] .
After reading this summary I realized that Denno Coil is all about an augmented reality interface with the real world .
This would be an amazing outcome if the tech pans out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Denno Coil [wikipedia.org][Wikipedia].
After reading this summary I realized that Denno Coil is all about an augmented reality interface with the real world.
This would be an amazing outcome if the tech pans out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521294</id>
	<title>A different contact...</title>
	<author>Genda</author>
	<datestamp>1268919420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be more interested in seeing a contact lens with a photonic array embedding in it. Small crystal lasers fashioned into arrays such that they can cause a beam to be projected in virtually any direction through interference. Such an array could scan the retina and create a display with potentially higher resolution that any standard technology today, and would be the perfect heart of immersive visual virtual reality. That would be augmentation worth talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be more interested in seeing a contact lens with a photonic array embedding in it .
Small crystal lasers fashioned into arrays such that they can cause a beam to be projected in virtually any direction through interference .
Such an array could scan the retina and create a display with potentially higher resolution that any standard technology today , and would be the perfect heart of immersive visual virtual reality .
That would be augmentation worth talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be more interested in seeing a contact lens with a photonic array embedding in it.
Small crystal lasers fashioned into arrays such that they can cause a beam to be projected in virtually any direction through interference.
Such an array could scan the retina and create a display with potentially higher resolution that any standard technology today, and would be the perfect heart of immersive visual virtual reality.
That would be augmentation worth talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31522638</id>
	<title>Those images look a lot like...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268926200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the ones on the <a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/augmented-reality-in-a-contact-lens/0" title="ieee.org" rel="nofollow">IEEE Spectrum article about the same topic</a> [ieee.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the ones on the IEEE Spectrum article about the same topic [ ieee.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the ones on the IEEE Spectrum article about the same topic [ieee.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518978</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>opposabledumbs</author>
	<datestamp>1268845440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the best posts I've read in a long time, and definitely on topic - what the hell is going on with the moderating here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the best posts I 've read in a long time , and definitely on topic - what the hell is going on with the moderating here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the best posts I've read in a long time, and definitely on topic - what the hell is going on with the moderating here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521442</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1268920200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the hard part.   Focusing on the data that is at a location that your eyes are incapable of focusing on.</p><p>One small hurdle... Otherwise it's the colorful light blob experiment</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the hard part .
Focusing on the data that is at a location that your eyes are incapable of focusing on.One small hurdle... Otherwise it 's the colorful light blob experiment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the hard part.
Focusing on the data that is at a location that your eyes are incapable of focusing on.One small hurdle... Otherwise it's the colorful light blob experiment</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518804</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1268843760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?</p></div></blockquote><p>I leaves us as members of the hive that is defined as a wired society.</p><p>I say this because I'm in an agreement with you. We are quickly losing our individuality and freedom as you so stated. I'm already at my breaking point of just "unplugging" myself from all this noise. I'm sure it will lead to depression and loneliness at first. Eventually however, I will feel liberated!</p><p>I need a very very long walk in the desert...alone. Just give me water and the clothes on my back. I will figure the rest out later.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So tell me , where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable ? I leaves us as members of the hive that is defined as a wired society.I say this because I 'm in an agreement with you .
We are quickly losing our individuality and freedom as you so stated .
I 'm already at my breaking point of just " unplugging " myself from all this noise .
I 'm sure it will lead to depression and loneliness at first .
Eventually however , I will feel liberated ! I need a very very long walk in the desert...alone .
Just give me water and the clothes on my back .
I will figure the rest out later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?I leaves us as members of the hive that is defined as a wired society.I say this because I'm in an agreement with you.
We are quickly losing our individuality and freedom as you so stated.
I'm already at my breaking point of just "unplugging" myself from all this noise.
I'm sure it will lead to depression and loneliness at first.
Eventually however, I will feel liberated!I need a very very long walk in the desert...alone.
Just give me water and the clothes on my back.
I will figure the rest out later.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519744</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Space Guerilla</author>
	<datestamp>1268943060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very well written:  girlintraining
The only way we can have true improvement (quality of life): is to increase lifespans and build a better human brain.
There are so many bad incentives designed into the human mind.
We do things that are bad for us, we do them a lot. We eat junk food when we know we shouldn't.
We prefer to entertain ourselves with movies, tv shows and games. These things have no functional value.
I think of the resources squandered on the creation of faster and faster gaming rigs, all for people to have that dopamine rush.
<p>
Would it be any different if we had electrodes hooked up to our brains in that same area?
We seek immediate gratification rather than the long term reward.
The greatest underminer of democracy, and capitalism is the human mind.
Capitalism would work better if there weren't so many greedy people.
You have a democracy for long enough and it boils down to group think decisions and mob rule.
With each successive generation the society becomes dumbed down.
</p><p>
On the opposite spectrum we have poor people who don't work who think they are entitled what higher classes work for.
Mean while the middle class (the Engineers, Doctors, Architects, Programmers, Fire Fighters) gets squeezed with additional taxes.
</p><p>
In theory a benevolent leader would be ideal, in theory communism would work.
These things will never work, can never work with humans with such short lifespans, brains with bad incentives and illogical tendencies.
</p><p>
Just imagine what the world would be like if people were born unselfish, were logical (not just some people, but all people).
I'm not encouraging a Gattaca style future either. I think people should be able to change their tendencies and lifespan even after they are born. Maybe even some kind of "soul transfer" (moving whatever part of us to another, that makes me me and you you).
</p><p>
~Wouldn't these contacts be a little blurry, it is so close to your peripheral vision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very well written : girlintraining The only way we can have true improvement ( quality of life ) : is to increase lifespans and build a better human brain .
There are so many bad incentives designed into the human mind .
We do things that are bad for us , we do them a lot .
We eat junk food when we know we should n't .
We prefer to entertain ourselves with movies , tv shows and games .
These things have no functional value .
I think of the resources squandered on the creation of faster and faster gaming rigs , all for people to have that dopamine rush .
Would it be any different if we had electrodes hooked up to our brains in that same area ?
We seek immediate gratification rather than the long term reward .
The greatest underminer of democracy , and capitalism is the human mind .
Capitalism would work better if there were n't so many greedy people .
You have a democracy for long enough and it boils down to group think decisions and mob rule .
With each successive generation the society becomes dumbed down .
On the opposite spectrum we have poor people who do n't work who think they are entitled what higher classes work for .
Mean while the middle class ( the Engineers , Doctors , Architects , Programmers , Fire Fighters ) gets squeezed with additional taxes .
In theory a benevolent leader would be ideal , in theory communism would work .
These things will never work , can never work with humans with such short lifespans , brains with bad incentives and illogical tendencies .
Just imagine what the world would be like if people were born unselfish , were logical ( not just some people , but all people ) .
I 'm not encouraging a Gattaca style future either .
I think people should be able to change their tendencies and lifespan even after they are born .
Maybe even some kind of " soul transfer " ( moving whatever part of us to another , that makes me me and you you ) .
~ Would n't these contacts be a little blurry , it is so close to your peripheral vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very well written:  girlintraining
The only way we can have true improvement (quality of life): is to increase lifespans and build a better human brain.
There are so many bad incentives designed into the human mind.
We do things that are bad for us, we do them a lot.
We eat junk food when we know we shouldn't.
We prefer to entertain ourselves with movies, tv shows and games.
These things have no functional value.
I think of the resources squandered on the creation of faster and faster gaming rigs, all for people to have that dopamine rush.
Would it be any different if we had electrodes hooked up to our brains in that same area?
We seek immediate gratification rather than the long term reward.
The greatest underminer of democracy, and capitalism is the human mind.
Capitalism would work better if there weren't so many greedy people.
You have a democracy for long enough and it boils down to group think decisions and mob rule.
With each successive generation the society becomes dumbed down.
On the opposite spectrum we have poor people who don't work who think they are entitled what higher classes work for.
Mean while the middle class (the Engineers, Doctors, Architects, Programmers, Fire Fighters) gets squeezed with additional taxes.
In theory a benevolent leader would be ideal, in theory communism would work.
These things will never work, can never work with humans with such short lifespans, brains with bad incentives and illogical tendencies.
Just imagine what the world would be like if people were born unselfish, were logical (not just some people, but all people).
I'm not encouraging a Gattaca style future either.
I think people should be able to change their tendencies and lifespan even after they are born.
Maybe even some kind of "soul transfer" (moving whatever part of us to another, that makes me me and you you).
~Wouldn't these contacts be a little blurry, it is so close to your peripheral vision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519320</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268849580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All these things we value will die, and we can't blame technology for it.</p></div><p>You know what I value? Bionic fucking vision!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All these things we value will die , and we ca n't blame technology for it.You know what I value ?
Bionic fucking vision !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All these things we value will die, and we can't blame technology for it.You know what I value?
Bionic fucking vision!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519548</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1268853180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't get is why they haven't been trying this with glasses instead, since they're a lot larger and don't have to be as clean.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't get is why they have n't been trying this with glasses instead , since they 're a lot larger and do n't have to be as clean .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't get is why they haven't been trying this with glasses instead, since they're a lot larger and don't have to be as clean.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519100</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1268846760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How quickly before these are adjusted so you can see through clothes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How quickly before these are adjusted so you can see through clothes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How quickly before these are adjusted so you can see through clothes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31533708</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1269031680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Technology does not change the way people think.</i></p><p>Depends:</p><p>1. If technology involves chemicals or invasive measures to the neural system.</p><p>or</p><p>2. If the technology involved traumatic or behavior changing events that result in a self induced neural change of sorts.</p><p>You may think I'm being funny...</p><p>But check out this guy's talk at <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8bPbHuOZXg" title="youtube.com">standford and a video demonstration on who he basically changed the way rats behaved with fiber optics in their brain</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>And he's stops in the middle of the presentation and turns to the audience and says "You know... This is actually scary."</p><p>Oh and don't forget about the military use of Pro-Vigil etc in their fighter pilots.</p><p>Yes... I know you mostly mean how technology hasn't really changed the way people think in terms of cell phones and the internet, but some technology is actually changing the biology of the human mind.</p><p>And also... One last think. Instead of replacing competitors ads with your, when not the user just replace them with nothing at all.</p><p>I was watching TV the other night and thought how cool it would be if I just have add block for my eyes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technology does not change the way people think.Depends : 1 .
If technology involves chemicals or invasive measures to the neural system.or2 .
If the technology involved traumatic or behavior changing events that result in a self induced neural change of sorts.You may think I 'm being funny...But check out this guy 's talk at standford and a video demonstration on who he basically changed the way rats behaved with fiber optics in their brain [ youtube.com ] .And he 's stops in the middle of the presentation and turns to the audience and says " You know... This is actually scary .
" Oh and do n't forget about the military use of Pro-Vigil etc in their fighter pilots.Yes... I know you mostly mean how technology has n't really changed the way people think in terms of cell phones and the internet , but some technology is actually changing the biology of the human mind.And also... One last think .
Instead of replacing competitors ads with your , when not the user just replace them with nothing at all.I was watching TV the other night and thought how cool it would be if I just have add block for my eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technology does not change the way people think.Depends:1.
If technology involves chemicals or invasive measures to the neural system.or2.
If the technology involved traumatic or behavior changing events that result in a self induced neural change of sorts.You may think I'm being funny...But check out this guy's talk at standford and a video demonstration on who he basically changed the way rats behaved with fiber optics in their brain [youtube.com].And he's stops in the middle of the presentation and turns to the audience and says "You know... This is actually scary.
"Oh and don't forget about the military use of Pro-Vigil etc in their fighter pilots.Yes... I know you mostly mean how technology hasn't really changed the way people think in terms of cell phones and the internet, but some technology is actually changing the biology of the human mind.And also... One last think.
Instead of replacing competitors ads with your, when not the user just replace them with nothing at all.I was watching TV the other night and thought how cool it would be if I just have add block for my eyes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518266</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268839140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A well thought-out, on-topic response being modded as redundant? Even if you don't agree with the poster's reasoning, this certainly isn't redundant.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A well thought-out , on-topic response being modded as redundant ?
Even if you do n't agree with the poster 's reasoning , this certainly is n't redundant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A well thought-out, on-topic response being modded as redundant?
Even if you don't agree with the poster's reasoning, this certainly isn't redundant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519474</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268851800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, I agree, it was thought-out. I wouldn't go so far as to say "well" thought-out, and it was clearly wrong, but it was thought-out.
<br> <br>
Seriously, the part about the DUI?<p><div class="quote"><p> People being thrown in jail because of the possibility that a crime could have occurred</p></div><p>Yeah, you ever heard of "conspiracy to commit murder", "attempted murder", etc.? Those are all charges for crimes that "could have occurred", as you say, and which - by definition - did not occur (well, at least in most jurisdictions you can't be convicted of both attempted murder and murder).
<br> <br>
And to pick on your Minnesota example, I don't know about Minnesota in particular, but in many other states DUI is something like "driving or being in control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol" (I don't particularly care to look the exact wording up right now). The courts have simply expanded the meaning of "being in control" to even include people who are "sleeping it off" in their cars. Considering how unpredictable some people are when drunk, I don't think that's completely unreasonable. If you're drunk, don't go near your car (unless you have a designated driver). Did the Minnesota court convict a person who was drunk but not in or near a car? I don't think so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I agree , it was thought-out .
I would n't go so far as to say " well " thought-out , and it was clearly wrong , but it was thought-out .
Seriously , the part about the DUI ?
People being thrown in jail because of the possibility that a crime could have occurredYeah , you ever heard of " conspiracy to commit murder " , " attempted murder " , etc. ?
Those are all charges for crimes that " could have occurred " , as you say , and which - by definition - did not occur ( well , at least in most jurisdictions you ca n't be convicted of both attempted murder and murder ) .
And to pick on your Minnesota example , I do n't know about Minnesota in particular , but in many other states DUI is something like " driving or being in control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol " ( I do n't particularly care to look the exact wording up right now ) .
The courts have simply expanded the meaning of " being in control " to even include people who are " sleeping it off " in their cars .
Considering how unpredictable some people are when drunk , I do n't think that 's completely unreasonable .
If you 're drunk , do n't go near your car ( unless you have a designated driver ) .
Did the Minnesota court convict a person who was drunk but not in or near a car ?
I do n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I agree, it was thought-out.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "well" thought-out, and it was clearly wrong, but it was thought-out.
Seriously, the part about the DUI?
People being thrown in jail because of the possibility that a crime could have occurredYeah, you ever heard of "conspiracy to commit murder", "attempted murder", etc.?
Those are all charges for crimes that "could have occurred", as you say, and which - by definition - did not occur (well, at least in most jurisdictions you can't be convicted of both attempted murder and murder).
And to pick on your Minnesota example, I don't know about Minnesota in particular, but in many other states DUI is something like "driving or being in control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol" (I don't particularly care to look the exact wording up right now).
The courts have simply expanded the meaning of "being in control" to even include people who are "sleeping it off" in their cars.
Considering how unpredictable some people are when drunk, I don't think that's completely unreasonable.
If you're drunk, don't go near your car (unless you have a designated driver).
Did the Minnesota court convict a person who was drunk but not in or near a car?
I don't think so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521586</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>KlaymenDK</author>
	<datestamp>1268921100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Funny, I sort of have the opposite impression; that when a new technology is created, people [here] often think of how the cesspool we call humanity (and the corporations they've unleashed) is going to use and pervert it, forgetting the best outcome.</p><p>That's an ingenious idea though, installing AdBlockPlusPlus directly on your retina instead of having to install AdBlockPlus on every browser you come in contact with.</p><p>I'm not sure I follow (and pretty sure I don't agree with) your screed on the destruction of civilisation <i>solely</i> because of personalised in-eye displays. Alas, I do agree that we'll get there soon enough by any event, but I don't think this "eye" thing is going to be <i>that</i> much of a step forward.</p><p>I expect that we'll be interfacing with our pda's and entertainment devices using neuro and brain wave readers long before the judicial system will rely on that kind of tech. As you say, technology does not change the way people think, and the governing/judicial system is a rather sluggish thing. But yes, regardless of what the governing/judicial system is up to, the <i>social change</i> is going to imprison the non-believers. Really: mail, the telegraph, the Internet, and Facebook; these are all iterations towards greater coherence. For an average individual, not having a Facebook account today is comparable to not having a phone twenty years ago. Twenty years from now, I'm sure you'll be allowed to not wear "digi-eyes", but the resulting social isolation is going to make it mindbogglingly less acceptable, not to mention totally impractical (after all, in our present day it <i>is</i> still possible to lead some manner of social life without a Facebook account, but that of course ends if you can no longer get a meal or a job without digi-eyes).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?</p></div><p>Seriously? That's not an easy question to answer, but I do believe that --assuming we ever find a way to <i>not</i> start WWIII --- we'll continue on the path towards greater intellectuality, past the point where we leave our physical bodies behind. Imagine what <i>that</i> will do to concepts of identity, privacy, family and so on!.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and then, there'll be a power outage and kill us all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Funny , I sort of have the opposite impression ; that when a new technology is created , people [ here ] often think of how the cesspool we call humanity ( and the corporations they 've unleashed ) is going to use and pervert it , forgetting the best outcome.That 's an ingenious idea though , installing AdBlockPlusPlus directly on your retina instead of having to install AdBlockPlus on every browser you come in contact with.I 'm not sure I follow ( and pretty sure I do n't agree with ) your screed on the destruction of civilisation solely because of personalised in-eye displays .
Alas , I do agree that we 'll get there soon enough by any event , but I do n't think this " eye " thing is going to be that much of a step forward.I expect that we 'll be interfacing with our pda 's and entertainment devices using neuro and brain wave readers long before the judicial system will rely on that kind of tech .
As you say , technology does not change the way people think , and the governing/judicial system is a rather sluggish thing .
But yes , regardless of what the governing/judicial system is up to , the social change is going to imprison the non-believers .
Really : mail , the telegraph , the Internet , and Facebook ; these are all iterations towards greater coherence .
For an average individual , not having a Facebook account today is comparable to not having a phone twenty years ago .
Twenty years from now , I 'm sure you 'll be allowed to not wear " digi-eyes " , but the resulting social isolation is going to make it mindbogglingly less acceptable , not to mention totally impractical ( after all , in our present day it is still possible to lead some manner of social life without a Facebook account , but that of course ends if you can no longer get a meal or a job without digi-eyes ) .So tell me , where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable ? Seriously ?
That 's not an easy question to answer , but I do believe that --assuming we ever find a way to not start WWIII --- we 'll continue on the path towards greater intellectuality , past the point where we leave our physical bodies behind .
Imagine what that will do to concepts of identity , privacy , family and so on ! .
...and then , there 'll be a power outage and kill us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Funny, I sort of have the opposite impression; that when a new technology is created, people [here] often think of how the cesspool we call humanity (and the corporations they've unleashed) is going to use and pervert it, forgetting the best outcome.That's an ingenious idea though, installing AdBlockPlusPlus directly on your retina instead of having to install AdBlockPlus on every browser you come in contact with.I'm not sure I follow (and pretty sure I don't agree with) your screed on the destruction of civilisation solely because of personalised in-eye displays.
Alas, I do agree that we'll get there soon enough by any event, but I don't think this "eye" thing is going to be that much of a step forward.I expect that we'll be interfacing with our pda's and entertainment devices using neuro and brain wave readers long before the judicial system will rely on that kind of tech.
As you say, technology does not change the way people think, and the governing/judicial system is a rather sluggish thing.
But yes, regardless of what the governing/judicial system is up to, the social change is going to imprison the non-believers.
Really: mail, the telegraph, the Internet, and Facebook; these are all iterations towards greater coherence.
For an average individual, not having a Facebook account today is comparable to not having a phone twenty years ago.
Twenty years from now, I'm sure you'll be allowed to not wear "digi-eyes", but the resulting social isolation is going to make it mindbogglingly less acceptable, not to mention totally impractical (after all, in our present day it is still possible to lead some manner of social life without a Facebook account, but that of course ends if you can no longer get a meal or a job without digi-eyes).So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?Seriously?
That's not an easy question to answer, but I do believe that --assuming we ever find a way to not start WWIII --- we'll continue on the path towards greater intellectuality, past the point where we leave our physical bodies behind.
Imagine what that will do to concepts of identity, privacy, family and so on!.
...and then, there'll be a power outage and kill us all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518414</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Ranzear</author>
	<datestamp>1268840640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funnily enough theres a literature example of that. Persons with nanotechnologic eye implants in The Diamond Age are frequently hacked to show spam and advertisements at all waking hours, even when trying to sleep. Its cited as the biggest reason they aren't very popular.<br> <br>I suppose contact lenses with much the same function wouldn't be so hard to be rid of in such a case though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funnily enough theres a literature example of that .
Persons with nanotechnologic eye implants in The Diamond Age are frequently hacked to show spam and advertisements at all waking hours , even when trying to sleep .
Its cited as the biggest reason they are n't very popular .
I suppose contact lenses with much the same function would n't be so hard to be rid of in such a case though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funnily enough theres a literature example of that.
Persons with nanotechnologic eye implants in The Diamond Age are frequently hacked to show spam and advertisements at all waking hours, even when trying to sleep.
Its cited as the biggest reason they aren't very popular.
I suppose contact lenses with much the same function wouldn't be so hard to be rid of in such a case though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519094</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1268846700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?</p></div><p>Very, very interesting post. My guess would be that we'll be left exactly where we are now, but with an added element. We'll still trust our senses (or more accurately, our interpretation of our senses) above all. Those senses will just be technologically improved. There will still be cases where our senses are deceived, but that happens today (think camouflage, optical illusions and so on), these situations will just be different. We'll just include the hardware and software involved in our sensory augments in the black box of 'senses' that we must choose to trust.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So tell me , where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable ? Very , very interesting post .
My guess would be that we 'll be left exactly where we are now , but with an added element .
We 'll still trust our senses ( or more accurately , our interpretation of our senses ) above all .
Those senses will just be technologically improved .
There will still be cases where our senses are deceived , but that happens today ( think camouflage , optical illusions and so on ) , these situations will just be different .
We 'll just include the hardware and software involved in our sensory augments in the black box of 'senses ' that we must choose to trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?Very, very interesting post.
My guess would be that we'll be left exactly where we are now, but with an added element.
We'll still trust our senses (or more accurately, our interpretation of our senses) above all.
Those senses will just be technologically improved.
There will still be cases where our senses are deceived, but that happens today (think camouflage, optical illusions and so on), these situations will just be different.
We'll just include the hardware and software involved in our sensory augments in the black box of 'senses' that we must choose to trust.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520260</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1268907900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up! Better to veer towards looking at things on the bright side - often it actually turns out that your fears are unfounded. My life has much improved since I started trying to focus on the positive parts of life. I still like to play devil's advocate and still could be considered cynical or at least detachedly rational at times, but I also try to foster good in myself and other people.</p><p>I was thinking similar things about her post but it's impossible to say that the things she mentions will not come true.. they'd certainly be possible in certain political climates - for example the current China - but I like to think that there are enough checks and balances in human nature to make sure that there will still be people in government who work to preserve dignity and privacy in our lives. There's also the fact that politicians have more to fear than most out of their lives being monitored, so I don't think they'd be too happy about this kind of tech being mandated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up !
Better to veer towards looking at things on the bright side - often it actually turns out that your fears are unfounded .
My life has much improved since I started trying to focus on the positive parts of life .
I still like to play devil 's advocate and still could be considered cynical or at least detachedly rational at times , but I also try to foster good in myself and other people.I was thinking similar things about her post but it 's impossible to say that the things she mentions will not come true.. they 'd certainly be possible in certain political climates - for example the current China - but I like to think that there are enough checks and balances in human nature to make sure that there will still be people in government who work to preserve dignity and privacy in our lives .
There 's also the fact that politicians have more to fear than most out of their lives being monitored , so I do n't think they 'd be too happy about this kind of tech being mandated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up!
Better to veer towards looking at things on the bright side - often it actually turns out that your fears are unfounded.
My life has much improved since I started trying to focus on the positive parts of life.
I still like to play devil's advocate and still could be considered cynical or at least detachedly rational at times, but I also try to foster good in myself and other people.I was thinking similar things about her post but it's impossible to say that the things she mentions will not come true.. they'd certainly be possible in certain political climates - for example the current China - but I like to think that there are enough checks and balances in human nature to make sure that there will still be people in government who work to preserve dignity and privacy in our lives.
There's also the fact that politicians have more to fear than most out of their lives being monitored, so I don't think they'd be too happy about this kind of tech being mandated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519252</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268848740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>very interesting, but if i didnt undersand you wrong, the only downside you see is that there would be no turn off functionality right? And I agree, it would be kind of great to be able to take the contact lenses out, oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>very interesting , but if i didnt undersand you wrong , the only downside you see is that there would be no turn off functionality right ?
And I agree , it would be kind of great to be able to take the contact lenses out , oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very interesting, but if i didnt undersand you wrong, the only downside you see is that there would be no turn off functionality right?
And I agree, it would be kind of great to be able to take the contact lenses out, oh wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521464</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1268920320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look up wearable computing and Prof Steve Mann.   He's the one that is the father of all this technology.   He invented it and even invented a system to BLOCK advertisements from your vision... or at least started the research in that direction.</p><p>All of this stuff is old hat.   I was working on Wearable computing and augmented reality in the 90's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look up wearable computing and Prof Steve Mann .
He 's the one that is the father of all this technology .
He invented it and even invented a system to BLOCK advertisements from your vision... or at least started the research in that direction.All of this stuff is old hat .
I was working on Wearable computing and augmented reality in the 90 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look up wearable computing and Prof Steve Mann.
He's the one that is the father of all this technology.
He invented it and even invented a system to BLOCK advertisements from your vision... or at least started the research in that direction.All of this stuff is old hat.
I was working on Wearable computing and augmented reality in the 90's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519608</id>
	<title>So what. I have Steam powered Contacts</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1268854500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I trip my balls off on them... Bitches</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I trip my balls off on them... Bitches</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I trip my balls off on them... Bitches</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519388</id>
	<title>engorgement</title>
	<author>XeroSine</author>
	<datestamp>1268850540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>heh, penis enlargement ads will become MUCH more personal....
"6 inches....is that ALL? Try extenze FREE today"</htmltext>
<tokenext>heh , penis enlargement ads will become MUCH more personal... . " 6 inches....is that ALL ?
Try extenze FREE today "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heh, penis enlargement ads will become MUCH more personal....
"6 inches....is that ALL?
Try extenze FREE today"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517630</id>
	<title>first post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268833620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FIRST POST you niggers</htmltext>
<tokenext>FIRST POST you niggers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FIRST POST you niggers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519620</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>davidbofinger</author>
	<datestamp>1268854680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it.</p></div><p>
I don't think this is true. I often hear people saying something new is undesirable.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your "virtual reality" to replace competitors advertisements, add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously</p></div><p>
As long as they're offering me the money, and I can decide whether or not to accept, I don't see this is a problem. Personally I shall decline.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>except you won't be able to unplug.</p></div><p>
It's a contact lens. If I want to unplug I take it out.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Not fifteen years ago when the internet was in its infancy, most of what was out there was high quality scientific research and most of the e-mails being sent were between real people, having real conversations. Today, it's a cesspool where 99\% of what your inbox gets hit with is someone trying to sell you something.</p></div><p>
And yet the internet remains useful, and is indeed even more useful than it was then. So these problems must be tolerable. Even spam is less of a problem now than it was recently, mostly because filters are better.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All technology does, this one included, is expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human.</p></div><p>
This is obviously not true, especially for the dogs amongst us.
</p><p>
Seriously, I don't know whether this is true because it's impossible to tell what activities might fall under the umbrella of "expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human". But this is one of those sentences Twain was talking about when he said that it sounded very fine, but there wasn't a shred of sense to it or meaning in it.
</p><p>
The parent post was intended as an axeing of the modern net, amongst other things. But the fact a content-free rant like the parent post was modded "+5, insightful" is really a better indictment than anything the parent post itself can provide.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created , forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that 's going to use and pervert it .
I do n't think this is true .
I often hear people saying something new is undesirable .
The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your " virtual reality " to replace competitors advertisements , add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously As long as they 're offering me the money , and I can decide whether or not to accept , I do n't see this is a problem .
Personally I shall decline .
except you wo n't be able to unplug .
It 's a contact lens .
If I want to unplug I take it out .
Not fifteen years ago when the internet was in its infancy , most of what was out there was high quality scientific research and most of the e-mails being sent were between real people , having real conversations .
Today , it 's a cesspool where 99 \ % of what your inbox gets hit with is someone trying to sell you something .
And yet the internet remains useful , and is indeed even more useful than it was then .
So these problems must be tolerable .
Even spam is less of a problem now than it was recently , mostly because filters are better .
All technology does , this one included , is expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human .
This is obviously not true , especially for the dogs amongst us .
Seriously , I do n't know whether this is true because it 's impossible to tell what activities might fall under the umbrella of " expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human " .
But this is one of those sentences Twain was talking about when he said that it sounded very fine , but there was n't a shred of sense to it or meaning in it .
The parent post was intended as an axeing of the modern net , amongst other things .
But the fact a content-free rant like the parent post was modded " + 5 , insightful " is really a better indictment than anything the parent post itself can provide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it.
I don't think this is true.
I often hear people saying something new is undesirable.
The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your "virtual reality" to replace competitors advertisements, add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously
As long as they're offering me the money, and I can decide whether or not to accept, I don't see this is a problem.
Personally I shall decline.
except you won't be able to unplug.
It's a contact lens.
If I want to unplug I take it out.
Not fifteen years ago when the internet was in its infancy, most of what was out there was high quality scientific research and most of the e-mails being sent were between real people, having real conversations.
Today, it's a cesspool where 99\% of what your inbox gets hit with is someone trying to sell you something.
And yet the internet remains useful, and is indeed even more useful than it was then.
So these problems must be tolerable.
Even spam is less of a problem now than it was recently, mostly because filters are better.
All technology does, this one included, is expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human.
This is obviously not true, especially for the dogs amongst us.
Seriously, I don't know whether this is true because it's impossible to tell what activities might fall under the umbrella of "expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human".
But this is one of those sentences Twain was talking about when he said that it sounded very fine, but there wasn't a shred of sense to it or meaning in it.
The parent post was intended as an axeing of the modern net, amongst other things.
But the fact a content-free rant like the parent post was modded "+5, insightful" is really a better indictment than anything the parent post itself can provide.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519732</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>zerospeaks</author>
	<datestamp>1268942880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your a religious nutcase, and you sig proves it.
Your a buzzkill.
It is people like you that wanted Galileo in prison because he dared to challenge your world view.

Just like the roman empire, American capitalism will fail. We will be dead and gone, and the world will have a new and better system of government and economics, and religion. Yes, that is right, your christianity will take it's place in the history books next to greek mythology.

However, technology, science, reason, logic etc...  will survive. And mankind will survive because of this.
You and your beliefs will be extinct.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your a religious nutcase , and you sig proves it .
Your a buzzkill .
It is people like you that wanted Galileo in prison because he dared to challenge your world view .
Just like the roman empire , American capitalism will fail .
We will be dead and gone , and the world will have a new and better system of government and economics , and religion .
Yes , that is right , your christianity will take it 's place in the history books next to greek mythology .
However , technology , science , reason , logic etc... will survive .
And mankind will survive because of this .
You and your beliefs will be extinct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your a religious nutcase, and you sig proves it.
Your a buzzkill.
It is people like you that wanted Galileo in prison because he dared to challenge your world view.
Just like the roman empire, American capitalism will fail.
We will be dead and gone, and the world will have a new and better system of government and economics, and religion.
Yes, that is right, your christianity will take it's place in the history books next to greek mythology.
However, technology, science, reason, logic etc...  will survive.
And mankind will survive because of this.
You and your beliefs will be extinct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519400</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>ghmh</author>
	<datestamp>1268850660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe most of us will wait until theres an equivalent version that has adblock/noscript functionality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe most of us will wait until theres an equivalent version that has adblock/noscript functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe most of us will wait until theres an equivalent version that has adblock/noscript functionality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519336</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>siloko</author>
	<datestamp>1268849760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They'll make their use mandatory because it results in zero crime. Or so they'll say.</p></div><p>Given that this is extremely unlikely it sort of makes the rest of your post redundant. Even if I wore these multi-faceted, augmented reality, net aware, government monitored eye wear I could easily just take them out. You know, like regular contact lenses. And as to your nightmare scenario of a future 1984, please remember that the vast majority of people on this planet are not even on the net and unless and until we alter the economic framework on which we distribute wealth this ain't gonna change anytime soon!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll make their use mandatory because it results in zero crime .
Or so they 'll say.Given that this is extremely unlikely it sort of makes the rest of your post redundant .
Even if I wore these multi-faceted , augmented reality , net aware , government monitored eye wear I could easily just take them out .
You know , like regular contact lenses .
And as to your nightmare scenario of a future 1984 , please remember that the vast majority of people on this planet are not even on the net and unless and until we alter the economic framework on which we distribute wealth this ai n't gon na change anytime soon !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll make their use mandatory because it results in zero crime.
Or so they'll say.Given that this is extremely unlikely it sort of makes the rest of your post redundant.
Even if I wore these multi-faceted, augmented reality, net aware, government monitored eye wear I could easily just take them out.
You know, like regular contact lenses.
And as to your nightmare scenario of a future 1984, please remember that the vast majority of people on this planet are not even on the net and unless and until we alter the economic framework on which we distribute wealth this ain't gonna change anytime soon!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521808</id>
	<title>Solar powered?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268922360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So where do you put the solar panel or are they suggesting wearers look at the sun all day?</p><p>(No I've not read TFA - it didn't sound very interesting)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So where do you put the solar panel or are they suggesting wearers look at the sun all day ?
( No I 've not read TFA - it did n't sound very interesting )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So where do you put the solar panel or are they suggesting wearers look at the sun all day?
(No I've not read TFA - it didn't sound very interesting)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31539530</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>bostongraf</author>
	<datestamp>1269019260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Good question!  If only there were some way of partnering this without the need for wires...Perhaps pair it with some device that is generally carried by most members of society that would be able to afford something like this.  There might even be some device like that that tracks where the user is via some form of satellite system.  Now if only this type of device also had a means of establishing a connection to some sort of vast world wide network!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good question !
If only there were some way of partnering this without the need for wires...Perhaps pair it with some device that is generally carried by most members of society that would be able to afford something like this .
There might even be some device like that that tracks where the user is via some form of satellite system .
Now if only this type of device also had a means of establishing a connection to some sort of vast world wide network !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Good question!
If only there were some way of partnering this without the need for wires...Perhaps pair it with some device that is generally carried by most members of society that would be able to afford something like this.
There might even be some device like that that tracks where the user is via some form of satellite system.
Now if only this type of device also had a means of establishing a connection to some sort of vast world wide network!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517974</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1268836620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're doing this with LED's and not LSD?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're doing this with LED 's and not LSD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're doing this with LED's and not LSD?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521920</id>
	<title>Awesome future awaits us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268922960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't this type of augmented reality products remind you of 'Denno Coil'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't this type of augmented reality products remind you of 'Denno Coil'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't this type of augmented reality products remind you of 'Denno Coil'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518214</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268838540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A well thought-out, on-topic response being modded as redundant? Even if you don't agree with the poster's reasoning, this certainly isn't redundant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A well thought-out , on-topic response being modded as redundant ?
Even if you do n't agree with the poster 's reasoning , this certainly is n't redundant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A well thought-out, on-topic response being modded as redundant?
Even if you don't agree with the poster's reasoning, this certainly isn't redundant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517870</id>
	<title>Re:first post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268835660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this won't be popular here, but I don't care. I HATE pirates. They are ruining it for the rest of us, and frankly they ARE damaging the industry and they JUST. DON'T. CARE. It's like banging my head against a brick wall sometimes talking to my friends who brag about downloading dozens or even hundreds of movies and albums and god knows what else. But I have the last laugh anyway, because I know for sure I enjoy every movie I buy or rent myself, and every CD that I purchase from the store way more than pirates will for stealing. In the end, they are only stealing from themselves. Stealing their own enjoyment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this wo n't be popular here , but I do n't care .
I HATE pirates .
They are ruining it for the rest of us , and frankly they ARE damaging the industry and they JUST .
DO N'T. CARE .
It 's like banging my head against a brick wall sometimes talking to my friends who brag about downloading dozens or even hundreds of movies and albums and god knows what else .
But I have the last laugh anyway , because I know for sure I enjoy every movie I buy or rent myself , and every CD that I purchase from the store way more than pirates will for stealing .
In the end , they are only stealing from themselves .
Stealing their own enjoyment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this won't be popular here, but I don't care.
I HATE pirates.
They are ruining it for the rest of us, and frankly they ARE damaging the industry and they JUST.
DON'T. CARE.
It's like banging my head against a brick wall sometimes talking to my friends who brag about downloading dozens or even hundreds of movies and albums and god knows what else.
But I have the last laugh anyway, because I know for sure I enjoy every movie I buy or rent myself, and every CD that I purchase from the store way more than pirates will for stealing.
In the end, they are only stealing from themselves.
Stealing their own enjoyment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520384</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268909760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We were "given" free will?<br>"Technology does not change the way people think."<br>I think technology is a tool through which truths of our physical universe can be revealed.  Technology has clearly changed the way people think about a myriad of things.<br>There is a vast wasteland on the internet all of which you can ignore.  You imply that the high quality scientific research has been replaced with rubbish.  All that has really happened is that a bunch of stuff that doesn't interest you has been added.  The good is still there.  And the means to filter the crap get better and better.<br>People are too pessimistic.  Fact: you are almost certainly better off living now then at any other point in history.  Yes, a lot of shitty things still go on.<br>People who thought the world was flat did have something wrong with their brains.  Less knowledge in it.  New technologies are sometimes critical for gaining new knowledge.  Sure people will do shitty things.  But most people are pretty cool.<br>Do you really expect us to believe 99\% of your email is spam?  I barely get any at all now.  It's almost as if the great weight of humanity falls on the side of people outdoing the shits.  Circumventing their shittyness with awesomeness and coming out on top almost all of the time ridiculously quickly.<br>Lighten up and keep it in perspective.  It's not like you had a life expectancy of 22 years and had to fight a sabre tooth tiger today with nothing but a fire hardened stick..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We were " given " free will ?
" Technology does not change the way people think .
" I think technology is a tool through which truths of our physical universe can be revealed .
Technology has clearly changed the way people think about a myriad of things.There is a vast wasteland on the internet all of which you can ignore .
You imply that the high quality scientific research has been replaced with rubbish .
All that has really happened is that a bunch of stuff that does n't interest you has been added .
The good is still there .
And the means to filter the crap get better and better.People are too pessimistic .
Fact : you are almost certainly better off living now then at any other point in history .
Yes , a lot of shitty things still go on.People who thought the world was flat did have something wrong with their brains .
Less knowledge in it .
New technologies are sometimes critical for gaining new knowledge .
Sure people will do shitty things .
But most people are pretty cool.Do you really expect us to believe 99 \ % of your email is spam ?
I barely get any at all now .
It 's almost as if the great weight of humanity falls on the side of people outdoing the shits .
Circumventing their shittyness with awesomeness and coming out on top almost all of the time ridiculously quickly.Lighten up and keep it in perspective .
It 's not like you had a life expectancy of 22 years and had to fight a sabre tooth tiger today with nothing but a fire hardened stick. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We were "given" free will?
"Technology does not change the way people think.
"I think technology is a tool through which truths of our physical universe can be revealed.
Technology has clearly changed the way people think about a myriad of things.There is a vast wasteland on the internet all of which you can ignore.
You imply that the high quality scientific research has been replaced with rubbish.
All that has really happened is that a bunch of stuff that doesn't interest you has been added.
The good is still there.
And the means to filter the crap get better and better.People are too pessimistic.
Fact: you are almost certainly better off living now then at any other point in history.
Yes, a lot of shitty things still go on.People who thought the world was flat did have something wrong with their brains.
Less knowledge in it.
New technologies are sometimes critical for gaining new knowledge.
Sure people will do shitty things.
But most people are pretty cool.Do you really expect us to believe 99\% of your email is spam?
I barely get any at all now.
It's almost as if the great weight of humanity falls on the side of people outdoing the shits.
Circumventing their shittyness with awesomeness and coming out on top almost all of the time ridiculously quickly.Lighten up and keep it in perspective.
It's not like you had a life expectancy of 22 years and had to fight a sabre tooth tiger today with nothing but a fire hardened stick..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31527328</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Miser</author>
	<datestamp>1268945280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I had mod points, as this so far as the most insightful comment I've seen on slashdot today.</p><p>Cheers,</p><p>Miser</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I had mod points , as this so far as the most insightful comment I 've seen on slashdot today.Cheers,Miser</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I had mod points, as this so far as the most insightful comment I've seen on slashdot today.Cheers,Miser</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31547338</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1269019980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And as to your nightmare scenario of a future 1984, please remember that the vast majority of people on this planet are not even on the net and unless and until we alter the economic framework on which we distribute wealth this ain't gonna change anytime soon!</p></div><p>Yeah, about that wealth distribution so how are those unemployment checks working out for you? Buy anything that wasn't made in China lately?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And as to your nightmare scenario of a future 1984 , please remember that the vast majority of people on this planet are not even on the net and unless and until we alter the economic framework on which we distribute wealth this ai n't gon na change anytime soon ! Yeah , about that wealth distribution so how are those unemployment checks working out for you ?
Buy anything that was n't made in China lately ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as to your nightmare scenario of a future 1984, please remember that the vast majority of people on this planet are not even on the net and unless and until we alter the economic framework on which we distribute wealth this ain't gonna change anytime soon!Yeah, about that wealth distribution so how are those unemployment checks working out for you?
Buy anything that wasn't made in China lately?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521806</id>
	<title>Too little, too late!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268922300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TV-contacts ? Oh my, is this all those slackers have to show? This late in the game. In this day and age ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^</p><p>Let's skip the small stuff, shall we? Just point me to my dalek-pod, give me the keys, and I'll go it from there!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TV-contacts ?
Oh my , is this all those slackers have to show ?
This late in the game .
In this day and age ?
: ^ Let 's skip the small stuff , shall we ?
Just point me to my dalek-pod , give me the keys , and I 'll go it from there !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TV-contacts ?
Oh my, is this all those slackers have to show?
This late in the game.
In this day and age ?
:^Let's skip the small stuff, shall we?
Just point me to my dalek-pod, give me the keys, and I'll go it from there!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517652</id>
	<title>Fascinating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268833860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems the goggles and glove VR dreams of 15 years ago are being replaced with AR devices that are smaller and smaller.  Makes me wonder however if it would be self-contained (unlikely) or have to communicate with some hardware either broadcasting near your location or probably worn on your person somewhere.
<br>
The only added feature that I would want for something like this is for it to work also as a corrective lens. Or else those of us without perfect sight are well... left in the dark.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems the goggles and glove VR dreams of 15 years ago are being replaced with AR devices that are smaller and smaller .
Makes me wonder however if it would be self-contained ( unlikely ) or have to communicate with some hardware either broadcasting near your location or probably worn on your person somewhere .
The only added feature that I would want for something like this is for it to work also as a corrective lens .
Or else those of us without perfect sight are well... left in the dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems the goggles and glove VR dreams of 15 years ago are being replaced with AR devices that are smaller and smaller.
Makes me wonder however if it would be self-contained (unlikely) or have to communicate with some hardware either broadcasting near your location or probably worn on your person somewhere.
The only added feature that I would want for something like this is for it to work also as a corrective lens.
Or else those of us without perfect sight are well... left in the dark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520234</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268907600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only problem: The resolution is still crap. (Yes, I assume it will improve. But it will take a few years.)<br>And of course you won&rsquo;t be able to wear them forever, because just like throwaway lenses, I bet they will be designed so you have to throw them away once a week &ldquo;for comfort&rdquo;.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem : The resolution is still crap .
( Yes , I assume it will improve .
But it will take a few years .
) And of course you won    t be able to wear them forever , because just like throwaway lenses , I bet they will be designed so you have to throw them away once a week    for comfort    .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem: The resolution is still crap.
(Yes, I assume it will improve.
But it will take a few years.
)And of course you won’t be able to wear them forever, because just like throwaway lenses, I bet they will be designed so you have to throw them away once a week “for comfort”.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517914</id>
	<title>du-du-du-du</title>
	<author>sanman2</author>
	<datestamp>1268836020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Yes indeed, if that is not the coolest sounding thing I've heard all day, I don't know what is."<p>

No, this is the coolest sounding thing:</p><p>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYj31Y\_IbcM" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYj31Y\_IbcM</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yes indeed , if that is not the coolest sounding thing I 've heard all day , I do n't know what is .
" No , this is the coolest sounding thing : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = UYj31Y \ _IbcM [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yes indeed, if that is not the coolest sounding thing I've heard all day, I don't know what is.
"

No, this is the coolest sounding thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYj31Y\_IbcM [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520606</id>
	<title>Last one I saw with those lenses...</title>
	<author>PePe242</author>
	<datestamp>1268912400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sent my on a suicidal mission to kill collectors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>sent my on a suicidal mission to kill collectors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sent my on a suicidal mission to kill collectors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31525162</id>
	<title>Only one problem...</title>
	<author>GameMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1268938080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only problem with their design is that you have to spend half an hour staring, directly, at the noon day sun in order to charge them up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem with their design is that you have to spend half an hour staring , directly , at the noon day sun in order to charge them up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem with their design is that you have to spend half an hour staring, directly, at the noon day sun in order to charge them up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31522236</id>
	<title>a minor detail....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268924340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, the point is to image a point from an LED on the contact lens to a point on the retina, right?  How can this happen if the LEDs aren't at a distance greater than the focal length of the eye away from the front of the lens?  How do they avoid getting just an illegibly blurred image on the user's retina?  That's part of what made old VR goggles so big, you had to create an image, but you also had to optically collimate it so that the user could see it.</p><p>If they already have an answer to that (I'm guessing that they do), this could be really cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , the point is to image a point from an LED on the contact lens to a point on the retina , right ?
How can this happen if the LEDs are n't at a distance greater than the focal length of the eye away from the front of the lens ?
How do they avoid getting just an illegibly blurred image on the user 's retina ?
That 's part of what made old VR goggles so big , you had to create an image , but you also had to optically collimate it so that the user could see it.If they already have an answer to that ( I 'm guessing that they do ) , this could be really cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, the point is to image a point from an LED on the contact lens to a point on the retina, right?
How can this happen if the LEDs aren't at a distance greater than the focal length of the eye away from the front of the lens?
How do they avoid getting just an illegibly blurred image on the user's retina?
That's part of what made old VR goggles so big, you had to create an image, but you also had to optically collimate it so that the user could see it.If they already have an answer to that (I'm guessing that they do), this could be really cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520430</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Scrab</author>
	<datestamp>1268910420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's quite a difference between what you're proposing and what TFA talks about.  <br>
<br>
These not bionic eyes, they are contact lenses, and they don't have cameras in them.<br>
<br>
You're right that such things could happen, and in some nightmare society, we could end up with compulsary bionics for monitoring purposes.<br>
<br>
Buit this isn't anything to do with that.<br>
<br>
And you could make this argument about any technological advance.  "We've found a way to write in the sky!"  "But what if the government uses it for propaganda?"<br>
<br>
I also take issue with the social expectations paragraph.  If your friends require you to respond that quickly, then you're telling me that you never take a shower, you never sleep, and you never have a social life that involves going to the theatre, the cinema, ice skating... need I continue?<br>
<br>
And it IS fear-mongering to expect that.  You're telling me that a government organisation (and it'll have to be one that does it) can organise bionic implants for every person in (your country name here) AND manage the massive network and storage infrastructure that would be required to make it work?  Given my (the Uk) government's experiences with technological projects, I'm seriously not worried.<br>
<br>
We've also had stupid laws for a long time.  I don't know if it still is one, but there was a law in the UK that said that you could shoot a man from the walls of York, I think it was, as long as he was Welsh.  But you know what?  We had an attack of common sense and got rid of it.<br>
<br>
And yes, there will be trials and freedom and democracy, because there are still people out there that give a damn, and are willing to swim against the tide.<br>
<br>
And you know what?  Occaisionally, it works.<br>
<br>
Stop being such a pessimist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's quite a difference between what you 're proposing and what TFA talks about .
These not bionic eyes , they are contact lenses , and they do n't have cameras in them .
You 're right that such things could happen , and in some nightmare society , we could end up with compulsary bionics for monitoring purposes .
Buit this is n't anything to do with that .
And you could make this argument about any technological advance .
" We 've found a way to write in the sky !
" " But what if the government uses it for propaganda ?
" I also take issue with the social expectations paragraph .
If your friends require you to respond that quickly , then you 're telling me that you never take a shower , you never sleep , and you never have a social life that involves going to the theatre , the cinema , ice skating... need I continue ?
And it IS fear-mongering to expect that .
You 're telling me that a government organisation ( and it 'll have to be one that does it ) can organise bionic implants for every person in ( your country name here ) AND manage the massive network and storage infrastructure that would be required to make it work ?
Given my ( the Uk ) government 's experiences with technological projects , I 'm seriously not worried .
We 've also had stupid laws for a long time .
I do n't know if it still is one , but there was a law in the UK that said that you could shoot a man from the walls of York , I think it was , as long as he was Welsh .
But you know what ?
We had an attack of common sense and got rid of it .
And yes , there will be trials and freedom and democracy , because there are still people out there that give a damn , and are willing to swim against the tide .
And you know what ?
Occaisionally , it works .
Stop being such a pessimist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's quite a difference between what you're proposing and what TFA talks about.
These not bionic eyes, they are contact lenses, and they don't have cameras in them.
You're right that such things could happen, and in some nightmare society, we could end up with compulsary bionics for monitoring purposes.
Buit this isn't anything to do with that.
And you could make this argument about any technological advance.
"We've found a way to write in the sky!
"  "But what if the government uses it for propaganda?
"

I also take issue with the social expectations paragraph.
If your friends require you to respond that quickly, then you're telling me that you never take a shower, you never sleep, and you never have a social life that involves going to the theatre, the cinema, ice skating... need I continue?
And it IS fear-mongering to expect that.
You're telling me that a government organisation (and it'll have to be one that does it) can organise bionic implants for every person in (your country name here) AND manage the massive network and storage infrastructure that would be required to make it work?
Given my (the Uk) government's experiences with technological projects, I'm seriously not worried.
We've also had stupid laws for a long time.
I don't know if it still is one, but there was a law in the UK that said that you could shoot a man from the walls of York, I think it was, as long as he was Welsh.
But you know what?
We had an attack of common sense and got rid of it.
And yes, there will be trials and freedom and democracy, because there are still people out there that give a damn, and are willing to swim against the tide.
And you know what?
Occaisionally, it works.
Stop being such a pessimist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520836</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1268915220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Possibly it could replace a display of a smartphone, which would be more than sufficient to support it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Possibly it could replace a display of a smartphone , which would be more than sufficient to support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possibly it could replace a display of a smartphone, which would be more than sufficient to support it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521354</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268919720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bravo.  In the age of evolution, it's refreshing to read that someone still realizes that humans really haven't "evolved" or gotten better in any sense of the word.  I don't want to make this a theological rant, but we must consider this before we go off worshiping at the alter of tech: what does it mean to be human, to live, to love, and to die.  Will this tech make us more human?  Seriously, we still can't get fresh water to billions of people in the world.  Not that we can't do both (the tech and the humanity), but we don't.  I doubt it's all just an economic consideration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo .
In the age of evolution , it 's refreshing to read that someone still realizes that humans really have n't " evolved " or gotten better in any sense of the word .
I do n't want to make this a theological rant , but we must consider this before we go off worshiping at the alter of tech : what does it mean to be human , to live , to love , and to die .
Will this tech make us more human ?
Seriously , we still ca n't get fresh water to billions of people in the world .
Not that we ca n't do both ( the tech and the humanity ) , but we do n't .
I doubt it 's all just an economic consideration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo.
In the age of evolution, it's refreshing to read that someone still realizes that humans really haven't "evolved" or gotten better in any sense of the word.
I don't want to make this a theological rant, but we must consider this before we go off worshiping at the alter of tech: what does it mean to be human, to live, to love, and to die.
Will this tech make us more human?
Seriously, we still can't get fresh water to billions of people in the world.
Not that we can't do both (the tech and the humanity), but we don't.
I doubt it's all just an economic consideration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520276</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>JosKarith</author>
	<datestamp>1268908200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine a Goatse (or Tubgirl, or Lemon party or whatever) that didn't go away when you closed your eyes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine a Goatse ( or Tubgirl , or Lemon party or whatever ) that did n't go away when you closed your eyes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine a Goatse (or Tubgirl, or Lemon party or whatever) that didn't go away when you closed your eyes...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31522930</id>
	<title>Want eyesight that could put your neighborhood cyb</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268927580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Want eyesight that could put your neighborhood cyborg to shame?"</p><p>OK, I'm a cyborg with a crystalens implant in my left eye that gives me better than 20/20 vision at all distances, but don't you think we cyborgs could use this tech as well? I'd still have better vision than you!</p><p>You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Want eyesight that could put your neighborhood cyborg to shame ?
" OK , I 'm a cyborg with a crystalens implant in my left eye that gives me better than 20/20 vision at all distances , but do n't you think we cyborgs could use this tech as well ?
I 'd still have better vision than you ! You will be assimilated .
Resistance is futile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Want eyesight that could put your neighborhood cyborg to shame?
"OK, I'm a cyborg with a crystalens implant in my left eye that gives me better than 20/20 vision at all distances, but don't you think we cyborgs could use this tech as well?
I'd still have better vision than you!You will be assimilated.
Resistance is futile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518324</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yesterday transcontinental high speed rail, today this.  Beyond awesome, the 2020's could be good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yesterday transcontinental high speed rail , today this .
Beyond awesome , the 2020 's could be good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yesterday transcontinental high speed rail, today this.
Beyond awesome, the 2020's could be good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518704</id>
	<title>Re:first post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268842860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A link to a tinyurl-esque site that links to the stumbleupon page for the site in question? What is this I don't even</htmltext>
<tokenext>A link to a tinyurl-esque site that links to the stumbleupon page for the site in question ?
What is this I do n't even</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A link to a tinyurl-esque site that links to the stumbleupon page for the site in question?
What is this I don't even</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31522946</id>
	<title>Night Vision Please</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1268927640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like night vision is the ultimate first application for something like this. Solar power might be problematic, but recent advances in non-wasteful wireless power transmission give me hope that it could be executed anyway. You can already get earplugs that give you enhanced hearing, where's my super-vision?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like night vision is the ultimate first application for something like this .
Solar power might be problematic , but recent advances in non-wasteful wireless power transmission give me hope that it could be executed anyway .
You can already get earplugs that give you enhanced hearing , where 's my super-vision ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like night vision is the ultimate first application for something like this.
Solar power might be problematic, but recent advances in non-wasteful wireless power transmission give me hope that it could be executed anyway.
You can already get earplugs that give you enhanced hearing, where's my super-vision?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517650</id>
	<title>The joy of teh ganja</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268833860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Microsoft,</p><p>Thank you for producing your recent ad showing that Europeans are complete fucking morons.  I hadn't really thought of this before.  I mean, niggers and kikes, sure,<br>retard city.  But them so-phis-tee-kate-ed European badass motherfuckers?  Never'd'a thunk it my friend!  So thank you again for enlightening the world and<br>me that europeans ain't no better'n the rest of us, and probly worse.</p><p>Sincerely and Thankfully,</p><p>Hee-Haww Motherfucker!</p><p>i am SO high right now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Microsoft,Thank you for producing your recent ad showing that Europeans are complete fucking morons .
I had n't really thought of this before .
I mean , niggers and kikes , sure,retard city .
But them so-phis-tee-kate-ed European badass motherfuckers ?
Never 'd'a thunk it my friend !
So thank you again for enlightening the world andme that europeans ai n't no better'n the rest of us , and probly worse.Sincerely and Thankfully,Hee-Haww Motherfucker ! i am SO high right now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Microsoft,Thank you for producing your recent ad showing that Europeans are complete fucking morons.
I hadn't really thought of this before.
I mean, niggers and kikes, sure,retard city.
But them so-phis-tee-kate-ed European badass motherfuckers?
Never'd'a thunk it my friend!
So thank you again for enlightening the world andme that europeans ain't no better'n the rest of us, and probly worse.Sincerely and Thankfully,Hee-Haww Motherfucker!i am SO high right now</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517786</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>yukk</author>
	<datestamp>1268834820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  Makes me wonder however if it would be self-contained (unlikely) or have to communicate with some hardware either broadcasting near your location or probably worn on your person somewhere.</p></div><p>Well, it's unlikely to have much processing power and still actually stay in your eye, but I don't see too much downside of it connecting to a small (or large depending on the requirements) wearable computer on a personal network for the processing of information or connecting to the web for information to correlate or display.  e.g. If it's giving you directions to the closest ATM the wearable could get your GPS position, look up the ATM and then display little arrows on the lens.  I doubt they can build this into the lens itself.  That functionality may even be an app on your Android phone.  That;s probably powerful enough to manage much of what folks would want.  No need to lug around a whole PC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes me wonder however if it would be self-contained ( unlikely ) or have to communicate with some hardware either broadcasting near your location or probably worn on your person somewhere.Well , it 's unlikely to have much processing power and still actually stay in your eye , but I do n't see too much downside of it connecting to a small ( or large depending on the requirements ) wearable computer on a personal network for the processing of information or connecting to the web for information to correlate or display .
e.g. If it 's giving you directions to the closest ATM the wearable could get your GPS position , look up the ATM and then display little arrows on the lens .
I doubt they can build this into the lens itself .
That functionality may even be an app on your Android phone .
That ; s probably powerful enough to manage much of what folks would want .
No need to lug around a whole PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Makes me wonder however if it would be self-contained (unlikely) or have to communicate with some hardware either broadcasting near your location or probably worn on your person somewhere.Well, it's unlikely to have much processing power and still actually stay in your eye, but I don't see too much downside of it connecting to a small (or large depending on the requirements) wearable computer on a personal network for the processing of information or connecting to the web for information to correlate or display.
e.g. If it's giving you directions to the closest ATM the wearable could get your GPS position, look up the ATM and then display little arrows on the lens.
I doubt they can build this into the lens itself.
That functionality may even be an app on your Android phone.
That;s probably powerful enough to manage much of what folks would want.
No need to lug around a whole PC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519570</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268853540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why I will just use the fully open alternative (hardware / software) so I can control my own perception of reality.

<a href="http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/ActiveVision/" title="ox.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/ActiveVision/</a> [ox.ac.uk]

<a href="http://www.eyetap.org/" title="eyetap.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.eyetap.org/</a> [eyetap.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I will just use the fully open alternative ( hardware / software ) so I can control my own perception of reality .
http : //www.robots.ox.ac.uk/ActiveVision/ [ ox.ac.uk ] http : //www.eyetap.org/ [ eyetap.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I will just use the fully open alternative (hardware / software) so I can control my own perception of reality.
http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/ActiveVision/ [ox.ac.uk]

http://www.eyetap.org/ [eyetap.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</id>
	<title>Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>alex\_guy\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1268833680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh my. Yes indeed, if that is not the coolest sounding thing I've heard all day, I don't know what is.
<p>
Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my .
Yes indeed , if that is not the coolest sounding thing I 've heard all day , I do n't know what is .
Though now that I think a little more , a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my.
Yes indeed, if that is not the coolest sounding thing I've heard all day, I don't know what is.
Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31522366</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>criterzzz</author>
	<datestamp>1268925000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Am I reading you wrong?  Maybe I'm not remembering the character of your prior posts very well.  Are you not cynical?  Do you ever qualify any proclamations with "well, I'm not entirely sure...", "I think...", or "it could be..."?  Or is it really all "damn straight -- people suck is how it is and I'm the person to tell it to ya, ya foolish dreamers"?  Maybe it's more performance than measured analysis.</p></div><p>Right on brother! I like the way you think.

It is a pattern with most radicals that they are so convinced of their ideas, they never see the duality of the world. You put it in the words very well. I am going to use this logical chain in the next argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I reading you wrong ?
Maybe I 'm not remembering the character of your prior posts very well .
Are you not cynical ?
Do you ever qualify any proclamations with " well , I 'm not entirely sure... " , " I think... " , or " it could be... " ?
Or is it really all " damn straight -- people suck is how it is and I 'm the person to tell it to ya , ya foolish dreamers " ?
Maybe it 's more performance than measured analysis.Right on brother !
I like the way you think .
It is a pattern with most radicals that they are so convinced of their ideas , they never see the duality of the world .
You put it in the words very well .
I am going to use this logical chain in the next argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I reading you wrong?
Maybe I'm not remembering the character of your prior posts very well.
Are you not cynical?
Do you ever qualify any proclamations with "well, I'm not entirely sure...", "I think...", or "it could be..."?
Or is it really all "damn straight -- people suck is how it is and I'm the person to tell it to ya, ya foolish dreamers"?
Maybe it's more performance than measured analysis.Right on brother!
I like the way you think.
It is a pattern with most radicals that they are so convinced of their ideas, they never see the duality of the world.
You put it in the words very well.
I am going to use this logical chain in the next argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268835720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...</p></div><p>People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it. The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your "virtual reality" to replace competitors advertisements, add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously, and what you'll end up with is drowning in useless information just as much now, sitting at your keyboard reading this, except you won't be able to unplug.</p><p>Most of my friends have the social expectation that if they send me a text or email, I reply in a few minutes, a half hour tops. Any longer, and they think something's gone wrong, and start calling me and everyone I know to find out what happened. God help us all the day we're linked continuously with each other over a massive communications network; Kiss democracy goodbye, privacy, anonymity, freedom, and the right to choose how you life your life goodbye. It'll all be auctioned off to the highest bidder. It'll be like Ghost in the Shell, with police, government agents, and large corporations being able to cloak themselves from being seen.  And there won't be trials anymore -- the bionic eye's constant connection with the network will mean everything you see from the moment you wakeup until you go to bed will be available for review. They'll make their use mandatory because it results in zero crime. Or so they'll say.</p><p>It isn't fear-mongering to expect this. Not fifteen years ago when the internet was in its infancy, most of what was out there was high quality scientific research and most of the e-mails being sent were between real people, having real conversations. Today, it's a cesspool where 99\% of what your inbox gets hit with is someone trying to sell you something. Every window into the web has advertisements hanging off of it. And here in Minnesota, the Supreme Court recently ruled that it was okay for people to be convicted of DUI <i>if they could have</i> been capable of operating a motor vehicle. People being thrown in jail because of the possibility that a crime could have occurred -- it is no longer necessary that the public (or yourself) be harmed for the law to reach into your lives. Today we live in a society where the merest possibility of a person engaging in a criminal act is sufficient grounds for conviction.</p><p><b>Technology does not change the way people think.</b> Human intellectual capacity has not altered in the past 4,000 years (at least) as far as we can tell. We can laugh at people who believed the world was flat, but the fault is ours for doing so -- we did not understand how they saw the world. There wasn't anything wrong with their eyes, or their brains. We're fundamentally no smarter than they were. But we think we are. And we're so confident, so smugly superior to our predecessors that we <i>know</i> this future can't happen.</p><p>Of course there will be trials. And freedom. And democracy. And all that good stuff. We know it because, well, gosh darn it, that's how it has to be.</p><p>No.</p><p>No it doesn't.</p><p>All these things we value will die, and we can't blame technology for it. All technology does, this one included, is expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human. And let me just say -- that definition is not sunshine and rainbows. We were given free will. Nowhere in that does it say we are in any way inclined to do good; When it comes right down to it, very few people truly trust one another, and we'd believe our own direct sensory experiences over what anyone would tell us. We imitate others. That's all culture is -- the direct observation of our environment, which is translated into coping mechanisms (behaviors) that we then interpose between ourselves and it.</p><p>So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though now that I think a little more , a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created , forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that 's going to use and pervert it .
The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your " virtual reality " to replace competitors advertisements , add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously , and what you 'll end up with is drowning in useless information just as much now , sitting at your keyboard reading this , except you wo n't be able to unplug.Most of my friends have the social expectation that if they send me a text or email , I reply in a few minutes , a half hour tops .
Any longer , and they think something 's gone wrong , and start calling me and everyone I know to find out what happened .
God help us all the day we 're linked continuously with each other over a massive communications network ; Kiss democracy goodbye , privacy , anonymity , freedom , and the right to choose how you life your life goodbye .
It 'll all be auctioned off to the highest bidder .
It 'll be like Ghost in the Shell , with police , government agents , and large corporations being able to cloak themselves from being seen .
And there wo n't be trials anymore -- the bionic eye 's constant connection with the network will mean everything you see from the moment you wakeup until you go to bed will be available for review .
They 'll make their use mandatory because it results in zero crime .
Or so they 'll say.It is n't fear-mongering to expect this .
Not fifteen years ago when the internet was in its infancy , most of what was out there was high quality scientific research and most of the e-mails being sent were between real people , having real conversations .
Today , it 's a cesspool where 99 \ % of what your inbox gets hit with is someone trying to sell you something .
Every window into the web has advertisements hanging off of it .
And here in Minnesota , the Supreme Court recently ruled that it was okay for people to be convicted of DUI if they could have been capable of operating a motor vehicle .
People being thrown in jail because of the possibility that a crime could have occurred -- it is no longer necessary that the public ( or yourself ) be harmed for the law to reach into your lives .
Today we live in a society where the merest possibility of a person engaging in a criminal act is sufficient grounds for conviction.Technology does not change the way people think .
Human intellectual capacity has not altered in the past 4,000 years ( at least ) as far as we can tell .
We can laugh at people who believed the world was flat , but the fault is ours for doing so -- we did not understand how they saw the world .
There was n't anything wrong with their eyes , or their brains .
We 're fundamentally no smarter than they were .
But we think we are .
And we 're so confident , so smugly superior to our predecessors that we know this future ca n't happen.Of course there will be trials .
And freedom .
And democracy .
And all that good stuff .
We know it because , well , gosh darn it , that 's how it has to be.No.No it does n't.All these things we value will die , and we ca n't blame technology for it .
All technology does , this one included , is expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human .
And let me just say -- that definition is not sunshine and rainbows .
We were given free will .
Nowhere in that does it say we are in any way inclined to do good ; When it comes right down to it , very few people truly trust one another , and we 'd believe our own direct sensory experiences over what anyone would tell us .
We imitate others .
That 's all culture is -- the direct observation of our environment , which is translated into coping mechanisms ( behaviors ) that we then interpose between ourselves and it.So tell me , where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it.
The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your "virtual reality" to replace competitors advertisements, add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously, and what you'll end up with is drowning in useless information just as much now, sitting at your keyboard reading this, except you won't be able to unplug.Most of my friends have the social expectation that if they send me a text or email, I reply in a few minutes, a half hour tops.
Any longer, and they think something's gone wrong, and start calling me and everyone I know to find out what happened.
God help us all the day we're linked continuously with each other over a massive communications network; Kiss democracy goodbye, privacy, anonymity, freedom, and the right to choose how you life your life goodbye.
It'll all be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
It'll be like Ghost in the Shell, with police, government agents, and large corporations being able to cloak themselves from being seen.
And there won't be trials anymore -- the bionic eye's constant connection with the network will mean everything you see from the moment you wakeup until you go to bed will be available for review.
They'll make their use mandatory because it results in zero crime.
Or so they'll say.It isn't fear-mongering to expect this.
Not fifteen years ago when the internet was in its infancy, most of what was out there was high quality scientific research and most of the e-mails being sent were between real people, having real conversations.
Today, it's a cesspool where 99\% of what your inbox gets hit with is someone trying to sell you something.
Every window into the web has advertisements hanging off of it.
And here in Minnesota, the Supreme Court recently ruled that it was okay for people to be convicted of DUI if they could have been capable of operating a motor vehicle.
People being thrown in jail because of the possibility that a crime could have occurred -- it is no longer necessary that the public (or yourself) be harmed for the law to reach into your lives.
Today we live in a society where the merest possibility of a person engaging in a criminal act is sufficient grounds for conviction.Technology does not change the way people think.
Human intellectual capacity has not altered in the past 4,000 years (at least) as far as we can tell.
We can laugh at people who believed the world was flat, but the fault is ours for doing so -- we did not understand how they saw the world.
There wasn't anything wrong with their eyes, or their brains.
We're fundamentally no smarter than they were.
But we think we are.
And we're so confident, so smugly superior to our predecessors that we know this future can't happen.Of course there will be trials.
And freedom.
And democracy.
And all that good stuff.
We know it because, well, gosh darn it, that's how it has to be.No.No it doesn't.All these things we value will die, and we can't blame technology for it.
All technology does, this one included, is expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human.
And let me just say -- that definition is not sunshine and rainbows.
We were given free will.
Nowhere in that does it say we are in any way inclined to do good; When it comes right down to it, very few people truly trust one another, and we'd believe our own direct sensory experiences over what anyone would tell us.
We imitate others.
That's all culture is -- the direct observation of our environment, which is translated into coping mechanisms (behaviors) that we then interpose between ourselves and it.So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517854</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1268835600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...</p></div><p>Yes, you'd have to [shivers] take off your contacts!</p><p>I kid, yes it would be troubling in situations like driving, doing surgery, or doing surgery while driving, all of which could be helped by these things conceivably.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though now that I think a little more , a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...Yes , you 'd have to [ shivers ] take off your contacts ! I kid , yes it would be troubling in situations like driving , doing surgery , or doing surgery while driving , all of which could be helped by these things conceivably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...Yes, you'd have to [shivers] take off your contacts!I kid, yes it would be troubling in situations like driving, doing surgery, or doing surgery while driving, all of which could be helped by these things conceivably.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31525052</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1268937660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's something about your posts that I find grating. I should try to figure out what it is.</p></div><p>I'm very intelligent, but unlike most, I'm also very direct. I don't sugar-coat, and I'm world-weary and don't care much about whether or not I hurt somebody else's feelings. I also do tend to over-generalize and draw on stereotypes because those are things people can emotionally relate to. It's that mixture of facts and emotional appeal that makes me both persuasive and irritating at the same time. So you're on the right track.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>but I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to acknowledge prosocial inclinations.</p></div><p>Well, actually I believe that at the root of human nature is the need for social acceptance. This need is so entrenched in us (being social creatures as all mammals are) that it often overrides our judgement or blinds us to the pain we cause others. For a far better elucidation on this, look up the speech <i>The Perils of Indifference</i>, by Elie Wiesel. As a holocaust survivor, he struggled to understand why so many people would be indifferent to the suffering of others like him. See also: Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment for additional insight. I'm not saying people are fundamentally evil. I'm saying we're fundamentally social creatures -- and our desire for acceptance (amongst other things) often leads us to abuse our fellow human beings in ways not easily understood or, if understood, are dismissed as cognitive dissonance -- "I'm not responsible. It's not my fault."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe this hyperbole isn't warranted? Especially just on the heels of a counterexample?</p></div><p>Or maybe I just wanted to attach my post as high up on the tree as I could so as many people could read and comment on this as possible, rather than on a more relevant, but lower-ranked thread.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but technology can be leveraged. And that's a critical point which we ought not sweep under the rug mid-rant.</p></div><p>You're saying technology is just a tool. It's neither good nor evil. I don't disagree.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Self-gratifyingly vent your gall bladder about the inherent and irremediable evil of humankind? But meanwhile thus paint an ugly picture of humanity for others to absorb? Did you know that the more we contemn and so fear others the less helpful we become? Indeed, the more we become the things we're hating? Selfish, ungenerous, unkind? Get my drift? If we call humans ugly we make it so. Technology has amplified your mouth. Watch your mouth.</p></div><p>People need to be held up to the mirror every now and then and reminded that they aren't perfect. They need reminders of our history -- they need to remember that many of the most tragic things that happened in the history of our race started with words like "It's for your own good," or "think of how much this could benefit others!"  We have nuclear reactors now that power many of our cities. That same knowledge was used to destroy two cities. We should have a guarded vigilance towards any new technology -- that isn't to say don't develop it, or don't use it, but that we should carefully consider the rammifications of their widespread use <i>before</i> it becomes widely used. An ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure. You say I'm cynical and spit vitrol at the human condition -- no. Emphatically, no. What I say is we should be aware of it, and consider that although individually we may be moral and good people, the world as a whole is not filled with people like us, and we need to put our technology forward with that in mind from the beginning, not waiting until after and then going "Damn! Didn't see that one coming."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Next time I'm in Minnesota, you wanna grab a coffee?</p></div><p>Hmmm. You really do read most of my posts. Sure. Uptown, a place called Uncommon Grounds. They make the best chai tea you'll find this side of the mississippi.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something about your posts that I find grating .
I should try to figure out what it is.I 'm very intelligent , but unlike most , I 'm also very direct .
I do n't sugar-coat , and I 'm world-weary and do n't care much about whether or not I hurt somebody else 's feelings .
I also do tend to over-generalize and draw on stereotypes because those are things people can emotionally relate to .
It 's that mixture of facts and emotional appeal that makes me both persuasive and irritating at the same time .
So you 're on the right track.but I 'm guessing you 'd be hard pressed to acknowledge prosocial inclinations.Well , actually I believe that at the root of human nature is the need for social acceptance .
This need is so entrenched in us ( being social creatures as all mammals are ) that it often overrides our judgement or blinds us to the pain we cause others .
For a far better elucidation on this , look up the speech The Perils of Indifference , by Elie Wiesel .
As a holocaust survivor , he struggled to understand why so many people would be indifferent to the suffering of others like him .
See also : Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment for additional insight .
I 'm not saying people are fundamentally evil .
I 'm saying we 're fundamentally social creatures -- and our desire for acceptance ( amongst other things ) often leads us to abuse our fellow human beings in ways not easily understood or , if understood , are dismissed as cognitive dissonance -- " I 'm not responsible .
It 's not my fault .
" Maybe this hyperbole is n't warranted ?
Especially just on the heels of a counterexample ? Or maybe I just wanted to attach my post as high up on the tree as I could so as many people could read and comment on this as possible , rather than on a more relevant , but lower-ranked thread .
...but technology can be leveraged .
And that 's a critical point which we ought not sweep under the rug mid-rant.You 're saying technology is just a tool .
It 's neither good nor evil .
I do n't disagree.Self-gratifyingly vent your gall bladder about the inherent and irremediable evil of humankind ?
But meanwhile thus paint an ugly picture of humanity for others to absorb ?
Did you know that the more we contemn and so fear others the less helpful we become ?
Indeed , the more we become the things we 're hating ?
Selfish , ungenerous , unkind ?
Get my drift ?
If we call humans ugly we make it so .
Technology has amplified your mouth .
Watch your mouth.People need to be held up to the mirror every now and then and reminded that they are n't perfect .
They need reminders of our history -- they need to remember that many of the most tragic things that happened in the history of our race started with words like " It 's for your own good , " or " think of how much this could benefit others !
" We have nuclear reactors now that power many of our cities .
That same knowledge was used to destroy two cities .
We should have a guarded vigilance towards any new technology -- that is n't to say do n't develop it , or do n't use it , but that we should carefully consider the rammifications of their widespread use before it becomes widely used .
An ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure .
You say I 'm cynical and spit vitrol at the human condition -- no .
Emphatically , no .
What I say is we should be aware of it , and consider that although individually we may be moral and good people , the world as a whole is not filled with people like us , and we need to put our technology forward with that in mind from the beginning , not waiting until after and then going " Damn !
Did n't see that one coming .
" Next time I 'm in Minnesota , you wan na grab a coffee ? Hmmm .
You really do read most of my posts .
Sure. Uptown , a place called Uncommon Grounds .
They make the best chai tea you 'll find this side of the mississippi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something about your posts that I find grating.
I should try to figure out what it is.I'm very intelligent, but unlike most, I'm also very direct.
I don't sugar-coat, and I'm world-weary and don't care much about whether or not I hurt somebody else's feelings.
I also do tend to over-generalize and draw on stereotypes because those are things people can emotionally relate to.
It's that mixture of facts and emotional appeal that makes me both persuasive and irritating at the same time.
So you're on the right track.but I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to acknowledge prosocial inclinations.Well, actually I believe that at the root of human nature is the need for social acceptance.
This need is so entrenched in us (being social creatures as all mammals are) that it often overrides our judgement or blinds us to the pain we cause others.
For a far better elucidation on this, look up the speech The Perils of Indifference, by Elie Wiesel.
As a holocaust survivor, he struggled to understand why so many people would be indifferent to the suffering of others like him.
See also: Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment for additional insight.
I'm not saying people are fundamentally evil.
I'm saying we're fundamentally social creatures -- and our desire for acceptance (amongst other things) often leads us to abuse our fellow human beings in ways not easily understood or, if understood, are dismissed as cognitive dissonance -- "I'm not responsible.
It's not my fault.
"Maybe this hyperbole isn't warranted?
Especially just on the heels of a counterexample?Or maybe I just wanted to attach my post as high up on the tree as I could so as many people could read and comment on this as possible, rather than on a more relevant, but lower-ranked thread.
...but technology can be leveraged.
And that's a critical point which we ought not sweep under the rug mid-rant.You're saying technology is just a tool.
It's neither good nor evil.
I don't disagree.Self-gratifyingly vent your gall bladder about the inherent and irremediable evil of humankind?
But meanwhile thus paint an ugly picture of humanity for others to absorb?
Did you know that the more we contemn and so fear others the less helpful we become?
Indeed, the more we become the things we're hating?
Selfish, ungenerous, unkind?
Get my drift?
If we call humans ugly we make it so.
Technology has amplified your mouth.
Watch your mouth.People need to be held up to the mirror every now and then and reminded that they aren't perfect.
They need reminders of our history -- they need to remember that many of the most tragic things that happened in the history of our race started with words like "It's for your own good," or "think of how much this could benefit others!
"  We have nuclear reactors now that power many of our cities.
That same knowledge was used to destroy two cities.
We should have a guarded vigilance towards any new technology -- that isn't to say don't develop it, or don't use it, but that we should carefully consider the rammifications of their widespread use before it becomes widely used.
An ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure.
You say I'm cynical and spit vitrol at the human condition -- no.
Emphatically, no.
What I say is we should be aware of it, and consider that although individually we may be moral and good people, the world as a whole is not filled with people like us, and we need to put our technology forward with that in mind from the beginning, not waiting until after and then going "Damn!
Didn't see that one coming.
"Next time I'm in Minnesota, you wanna grab a coffee?Hmmm.
You really do read most of my posts.
Sure. Uptown, a place called Uncommon Grounds.
They make the best chai tea you'll find this side of the mississippi.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519318</id>
	<title>The Perfect Accessory for my Cyberbrain!</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1268849520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They can link this into my new iBrain and can overlay direction information over my field of vision or even find other iBrain users in a crowd as they will have a Rotating 3-D Apple Logo over their heads.</p><p>Could be a good first step before they integrate the iBrain interface directly into the visual cortex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They can link this into my new iBrain and can overlay direction information over my field of vision or even find other iBrain users in a crowd as they will have a Rotating 3-D Apple Logo over their heads.Could be a good first step before they integrate the iBrain interface directly into the visual cortex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can link this into my new iBrain and can overlay direction information over my field of vision or even find other iBrain users in a crowd as they will have a Rotating 3-D Apple Logo over their heads.Could be a good first step before they integrate the iBrain interface directly into the visual cortex.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519468</id>
	<title>Re:Fascinating</title>
	<author>Benaiah</author>
	<datestamp>1268851740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it will be more likely that you have a wireless net connection to the cloud which does your processing for you. and sends you back the results. Bandwidth will be infinately cheaper then computer power. Will make us more connected but as previous posters have said, possibly more enslaved should this technology be used for control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it will be more likely that you have a wireless net connection to the cloud which does your processing for you .
and sends you back the results .
Bandwidth will be infinately cheaper then computer power .
Will make us more connected but as previous posters have said , possibly more enslaved should this technology be used for control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it will be more likely that you have a wireless net connection to the cloud which does your processing for you.
and sends you back the results.
Bandwidth will be infinately cheaper then computer power.
Will make us more connected but as previous posters have said, possibly more enslaved should this technology be used for control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518322</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A well thought-out, on-topic response being modded as redundant? Even if you don't agree with the poster's reasoning, this certainly isn't redundant.</p></div><p>You must be new here, so I'll make this simple: Most of my posts are well thought-out, on-topic, and therefore piss off a lot of people, who make it a point whenever they get mod points to nuke any post with my username associated with it into oblivion. So you need to make a diversionary post, like this:</p><p><b>Attention Moderator Who Put Me Down As Redundant:</b></p><p><b>You Have a Small Penis. No Amount of Mod Points Can Fix This.</b></p><p><b>Sincerely, The Girl Who's Pants You'll Never Get Into.<br></b></p><p>See? Works nicely. Now they'll waste their points moderating this down (with hopefully a few +1, Funny, to keep it afloat for awhile), thus providing the necessary diversion to get the well-thought out post past the haters. Now sit back and watch the fireworks, kiddo.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A well thought-out , on-topic response being modded as redundant ?
Even if you do n't agree with the poster 's reasoning , this certainly is n't redundant.You must be new here , so I 'll make this simple : Most of my posts are well thought-out , on-topic , and therefore piss off a lot of people , who make it a point whenever they get mod points to nuke any post with my username associated with it into oblivion .
So you need to make a diversionary post , like this : Attention Moderator Who Put Me Down As Redundant : You Have a Small Penis .
No Amount of Mod Points Can Fix This.Sincerely , The Girl Who 's Pants You 'll Never Get Into.See ?
Works nicely .
Now they 'll waste their points moderating this down ( with hopefully a few + 1 , Funny , to keep it afloat for awhile ) , thus providing the necessary diversion to get the well-thought out post past the haters .
Now sit back and watch the fireworks , kiddo .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A well thought-out, on-topic response being modded as redundant?
Even if you don't agree with the poster's reasoning, this certainly isn't redundant.You must be new here, so I'll make this simple: Most of my posts are well thought-out, on-topic, and therefore piss off a lot of people, who make it a point whenever they get mod points to nuke any post with my username associated with it into oblivion.
So you need to make a diversionary post, like this:Attention Moderator Who Put Me Down As Redundant:You Have a Small Penis.
No Amount of Mod Points Can Fix This.Sincerely, The Girl Who's Pants You'll Never Get Into.See?
Works nicely.
Now they'll waste their points moderating this down (with hopefully a few +1, Funny, to keep it afloat for awhile), thus providing the necessary diversion to get the well-thought out post past the haters.
Now sit back and watch the fireworks, kiddo.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518214</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519480</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Onymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1268851860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's something about your posts that I find grating.  I should try to figure out what it is.</p><p>I think maybe...  pronounced certainty...  that exacerbates the irritation of caustic cynicism...  and contempt for non-cynical thinking which you polarize into a hyperbolic strawman to mock, gosh darn it...  A kind of exaggerated, hateful, pessimistic misanthropic venting.</p><p>You "hold forth" rather than posit or ponder.</p><p>You talk about human nature and are quick to point out failings, but I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to acknowledge prosocial inclinations.</p><p>Am I reading you wrong?  Maybe I'm not remembering the character of your prior posts very well.  Are you not cynical?  Do you ever qualify any proclamations with "well, I'm not entirely sure...", "I think...", or "it could be..."?  Or is it really all "damn straight -- people suck is how it is and I'm the person to tell it to ya, ya foolish dreamers"?  Maybe it's more performance than measured analysis.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it.</p></div><p>But the very thing you were responding to was someone pointing out a negative application of technology?  Yet, "people <em>always</em> think of the best..."  Maybe this hyperbole isn't warranted?  Especially just on the heels of a counterexample?</p><p>Experiences change the way people think.  Sure, there are tendencies, but evidently a wide variety of outcomes -- have you noticed? -- which suggests thinking is pliable.  Technology can enable experiences.  Talk therapy is itself a kind of technology.  Maybe technology itself doesn't change the way people think (modulo mood drugs...  hm... and probably neurofeedback machines...  okay, and maybe a number of other technologies), but technology can be leveraged.  And that's a critical point which we ought not sweep under the rug mid-rant.</p><p>Message boards allow individuals to speak to a public of thousands or hundreds of thousands.  That's powerful technology.  What would you do with that kind of technology?  Self-gratifyingly vent your gall bladder about the inherent and irremediable evil of humankind?  But meanwhile thus paint an ugly picture of humanity for others to absorb?  Did you know that the more we contemn and so fear others the less helpful we become?  Indeed, the more we become the things we're hating?  Selfish, ungenerous, unkind?  Get my drift?  <b>If we call humans ugly we make it so.</b>  Technology has amplified your mouth.  Watch your mouth.</p><p>I'm not suggesting we turn a blind eye to fault.  Indeed, this post is all about calling you out on yours.  We absolutely should be critical.  Meaning we should apply  our intellects to make fine distinctions in judgement.  Being overly biased towards either gloom or rainbows is harmful.  (Albeit, biased towards gloom more so.)  Let us judge, and judge <em>accurately</em>, being wary of our emotions.  Let's judge, but let's not be hateful or contemptuous.  I don't hate you for your curmudgeonly ranting; hate doesn't improve anything.  If you're upset about humanity's failings, I might suggest highlighting and promoting its good qualities.  For example, you're obviously a clever thinker.  Quite sharp.  Seemingly a good arguer.  I suggest that you take your mental gifts and apply them with a less cynical bias.  Your life will be more pleasant, without losing any realism, and so will the lives of those around you.  Including me.  I make this recommendation for all our sake.</p><p>Next time I'm in Minnesota, you wanna grab a coffee?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something about your posts that I find grating .
I should try to figure out what it is.I think maybe... pronounced certainty... that exacerbates the irritation of caustic cynicism... and contempt for non-cynical thinking which you polarize into a hyperbolic strawman to mock , gosh darn it... A kind of exaggerated , hateful , pessimistic misanthropic venting.You " hold forth " rather than posit or ponder.You talk about human nature and are quick to point out failings , but I 'm guessing you 'd be hard pressed to acknowledge prosocial inclinations.Am I reading you wrong ?
Maybe I 'm not remembering the character of your prior posts very well .
Are you not cynical ?
Do you ever qualify any proclamations with " well , I 'm not entirely sure... " , " I think... " , or " it could be... " ?
Or is it really all " damn straight -- people suck is how it is and I 'm the person to tell it to ya , ya foolish dreamers " ?
Maybe it 's more performance than measured analysis.People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created , forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that 's going to use and pervert it.But the very thing you were responding to was someone pointing out a negative application of technology ?
Yet , " people always think of the best... " Maybe this hyperbole is n't warranted ?
Especially just on the heels of a counterexample ? Experiences change the way people think .
Sure , there are tendencies , but evidently a wide variety of outcomes -- have you noticed ?
-- which suggests thinking is pliable .
Technology can enable experiences .
Talk therapy is itself a kind of technology .
Maybe technology itself does n't change the way people think ( modulo mood drugs... hm... and probably neurofeedback machines... okay , and maybe a number of other technologies ) , but technology can be leveraged .
And that 's a critical point which we ought not sweep under the rug mid-rant.Message boards allow individuals to speak to a public of thousands or hundreds of thousands .
That 's powerful technology .
What would you do with that kind of technology ?
Self-gratifyingly vent your gall bladder about the inherent and irremediable evil of humankind ?
But meanwhile thus paint an ugly picture of humanity for others to absorb ?
Did you know that the more we contemn and so fear others the less helpful we become ?
Indeed , the more we become the things we 're hating ?
Selfish , ungenerous , unkind ?
Get my drift ?
If we call humans ugly we make it so .
Technology has amplified your mouth .
Watch your mouth.I 'm not suggesting we turn a blind eye to fault .
Indeed , this post is all about calling you out on yours .
We absolutely should be critical .
Meaning we should apply our intellects to make fine distinctions in judgement .
Being overly biased towards either gloom or rainbows is harmful .
( Albeit , biased towards gloom more so .
) Let us judge , and judge accurately , being wary of our emotions .
Let 's judge , but let 's not be hateful or contemptuous .
I do n't hate you for your curmudgeonly ranting ; hate does n't improve anything .
If you 're upset about humanity 's failings , I might suggest highlighting and promoting its good qualities .
For example , you 're obviously a clever thinker .
Quite sharp .
Seemingly a good arguer .
I suggest that you take your mental gifts and apply them with a less cynical bias .
Your life will be more pleasant , without losing any realism , and so will the lives of those around you .
Including me .
I make this recommendation for all our sake.Next time I 'm in Minnesota , you wan na grab a coffee ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something about your posts that I find grating.
I should try to figure out what it is.I think maybe...  pronounced certainty...  that exacerbates the irritation of caustic cynicism...  and contempt for non-cynical thinking which you polarize into a hyperbolic strawman to mock, gosh darn it...  A kind of exaggerated, hateful, pessimistic misanthropic venting.You "hold forth" rather than posit or ponder.You talk about human nature and are quick to point out failings, but I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to acknowledge prosocial inclinations.Am I reading you wrong?
Maybe I'm not remembering the character of your prior posts very well.
Are you not cynical?
Do you ever qualify any proclamations with "well, I'm not entirely sure...", "I think...", or "it could be..."?
Or is it really all "damn straight -- people suck is how it is and I'm the person to tell it to ya, ya foolish dreamers"?
Maybe it's more performance than measured analysis.People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it.But the very thing you were responding to was someone pointing out a negative application of technology?
Yet, "people always think of the best..."  Maybe this hyperbole isn't warranted?
Especially just on the heels of a counterexample?Experiences change the way people think.
Sure, there are tendencies, but evidently a wide variety of outcomes -- have you noticed?
-- which suggests thinking is pliable.
Technology can enable experiences.
Talk therapy is itself a kind of technology.
Maybe technology itself doesn't change the way people think (modulo mood drugs...  hm... and probably neurofeedback machines...  okay, and maybe a number of other technologies), but technology can be leveraged.
And that's a critical point which we ought not sweep under the rug mid-rant.Message boards allow individuals to speak to a public of thousands or hundreds of thousands.
That's powerful technology.
What would you do with that kind of technology?
Self-gratifyingly vent your gall bladder about the inherent and irremediable evil of humankind?
But meanwhile thus paint an ugly picture of humanity for others to absorb?
Did you know that the more we contemn and so fear others the less helpful we become?
Indeed, the more we become the things we're hating?
Selfish, ungenerous, unkind?
Get my drift?
If we call humans ugly we make it so.
Technology has amplified your mouth.
Watch your mouth.I'm not suggesting we turn a blind eye to fault.
Indeed, this post is all about calling you out on yours.
We absolutely should be critical.
Meaning we should apply  our intellects to make fine distinctions in judgement.
Being overly biased towards either gloom or rainbows is harmful.
(Albeit, biased towards gloom more so.
)  Let us judge, and judge accurately, being wary of our emotions.
Let's judge, but let's not be hateful or contemptuous.
I don't hate you for your curmudgeonly ranting; hate doesn't improve anything.
If you're upset about humanity's failings, I might suggest highlighting and promoting its good qualities.
For example, you're obviously a clever thinker.
Quite sharp.
Seemingly a good arguer.
I suggest that you take your mental gifts and apply them with a less cynical bias.
Your life will be more pleasant, without losing any realism, and so will the lives of those around you.
Including me.
I make this recommendation for all our sake.Next time I'm in Minnesota, you wanna grab a coffee?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31538674</id>
	<title>Re:Yes I Do Want</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1269016620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I looked at TFA, and didn't see where they were delivering the internets to your eye.
<p>
You Slashdotters are starting to complain about every technological achievement any more. What's worse, you are looking at every technological achievement with blinders on.</p><p>

Seriously, I can see it now.... The just invented a rocket that can travel faster than light - reply is "Wait until spam clogs it up". Alternate replay, "Iis there a hostfile for that?"</p><p>

A cure for cancer is found -  the response is "But does it run on Linux?", or "Now the Government is trying to take away my right to a horrible death!"
</p><p>
I'm here to help you prepare for your future, repeat after me:
</p><p>
Get off my lawn
</p><p>
Get off MY lawn!
</p><p>
Get the Hell off my LAWN!
</p><p>
GEt the HELL off MY Damn LAWN!
</p><p>
That's all you need to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked at TFA , and did n't see where they were delivering the internets to your eye .
You Slashdotters are starting to complain about every technological achievement any more .
What 's worse , you are looking at every technological achievement with blinders on .
Seriously , I can see it now.... The just invented a rocket that can travel faster than light - reply is " Wait until spam clogs it up " .
Alternate replay , " Iis there a hostfile for that ?
" A cure for cancer is found - the response is " But does it run on Linux ?
" , or " Now the Government is trying to take away my right to a horrible death !
" I 'm here to help you prepare for your future , repeat after me : Get off my lawn Get off MY lawn !
Get the Hell off my LAWN !
GEt the HELL off MY Damn LAWN !
That 's all you need to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked at TFA, and didn't see where they were delivering the internets to your eye.
You Slashdotters are starting to complain about every technological achievement any more.
What's worse, you are looking at every technological achievement with blinders on.
Seriously, I can see it now.... The just invented a rocket that can travel faster than light - reply is "Wait until spam clogs it up".
Alternate replay, "Iis there a hostfile for that?
"

A cure for cancer is found -  the response is "But does it run on Linux?
", or "Now the Government is trying to take away my right to a horrible death!
"

I'm here to help you prepare for your future, repeat after me:

Get off my lawn

Get off MY lawn!
Get the Hell off my LAWN!
GEt the HELL off MY Damn LAWN!
That's all you need to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31525052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31533708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31522616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31522366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31524432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31538674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31539530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31547338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31522930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_2227215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31527328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2227215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31522930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31524432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519480
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520260
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31522366
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31525052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519336
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31547338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31533708
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31527328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519732
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518214
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518322
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518266
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31522616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520988
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31538674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31521374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2227215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2227215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31518704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_2227215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31539530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31517786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31520836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_2227215.31519468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
