<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_18_1150247</id>
	<title>I Want My GTV</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1268918940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"The NY Times reports that Google and Intel have teamed with Sony to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/technology/18webtv.html">develop a platform called Google TV</a> to bring the Web into the living room through a new generation of TVs and set-top boxes. The three companies have tapped Logitech for peripheral devices, including a remote with a tiny keyboard. Based on Google's Android operating system, the TV technology runs on Intel's Atom chips. Google is expected to deliver a toolkit to outside programmers within the next couple of months, and products based on the software could appear as soon as this summer."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " The NY Times reports that Google and Intel have teamed with Sony to develop a platform called Google TV to bring the Web into the living room through a new generation of TVs and set-top boxes .
The three companies have tapped Logitech for peripheral devices , including a remote with a tiny keyboard .
Based on Google 's Android operating system , the TV technology runs on Intel 's Atom chips .
Google is expected to deliver a toolkit to outside programmers within the next couple of months , and products based on the software could appear as soon as this summer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "The NY Times reports that Google and Intel have teamed with Sony to develop a platform called Google TV to bring the Web into the living room through a new generation of TVs and set-top boxes.
The three companies have tapped Logitech for peripheral devices, including a remote with a tiny keyboard.
Based on Google's Android operating system, the TV technology runs on Intel's Atom chips.
Google is expected to deliver a toolkit to outside programmers within the next couple of months, and products based on the software could appear as soon as this summer.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</id>
	<title>Internet on TV?  Really?</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1268923020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're seriously doing this again?  Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?  Most of us have at least one computer nowadays, and many people have at least a netbook or laptop if they don't have a desktop computer.  Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're seriously doing this again ?
Aside from video services like YouTube , Hulu , Netflix , etc , have n't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame ?
Most of us have at least one computer nowadays , and many people have at least a netbook or laptop if they do n't have a desktop computer .
Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're seriously doing this again?
Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?
Most of us have at least one computer nowadays, and many people have at least a netbook or laptop if they don't have a desktop computer.
Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524280</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>FatAlb3rt</author>
	<datestamp>1268934060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that 640K is still more than enough, huh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 640K is still more than enough , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that 640K is still more than enough, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31525156</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268938020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's something that's changed since the initial set-top boxes: CRTs have been replaced. Browsing the 'nets on a 30" 480i CRT was godawful. Now, the same money will get you at least a 40" 720p LCD. Less eyestrain, clearer display, higher resolution, larger overall size.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something that 's changed since the initial set-top boxes : CRTs have been replaced .
Browsing the 'nets on a 30 " 480i CRT was godawful .
Now , the same money will get you at least a 40 " 720p LCD .
Less eyestrain , clearer display , higher resolution , larger overall size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something that's changed since the initial set-top boxes: CRTs have been replaced.
Browsing the 'nets on a 30" 480i CRT was godawful.
Now, the same money will get you at least a 40" 720p LCD.
Less eyestrain, clearer display, higher resolution, larger overall size.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522680</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268926440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You do realize that Sony has been moving \_away\_ from proprietary formats for the last couple years? Honestly, Sony bashing on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.<br></i></p><p>So when they introduced the new PSP which requires you to utilize a singular SONY site as a gateway to acquire your games, that wasn't a move to push for more proprietary control?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that Sony has been moving \ _away \ _ from proprietary formats for the last couple years ?
Honestly , Sony bashing on / .
has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.So when they introduced the new PSP which requires you to utilize a singular SONY site as a gateway to acquire your games , that was n't a move to push for more proprietary control ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that Sony has been moving \_away\_ from proprietary formats for the last couple years?
Honestly, Sony bashing on /.
has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.So when they introduced the new PSP which requires you to utilize a singular SONY site as a gateway to acquire your games, that wasn't a move to push for more proprietary control?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523684</id>
	<title>One Plus</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1268931360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the plus side that A4 powered Apple TV built on the iPhone OS sold at almost no margin code named "Frak Google" will be pretty cool.</p><p>PS Palm, Nokia, MS you might want to step back from the mobile phone market. If you get caught in this crossfire you'll be dead in seconds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the plus side that A4 powered Apple TV built on the iPhone OS sold at almost no margin code named " Frak Google " will be pretty cool.PS Palm , Nokia , MS you might want to step back from the mobile phone market .
If you get caught in this crossfire you 'll be dead in seconds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the plus side that A4 powered Apple TV built on the iPhone OS sold at almost no margin code named "Frak Google" will be pretty cool.PS Palm, Nokia, MS you might want to step back from the mobile phone market.
If you get caught in this crossfire you'll be dead in seconds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522344</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268924820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But if that company is willing to walk away from China</p></div><p>Google isn't willing to walk from China.  The current disagreements are just posturing.  Google will cave eventually, there's too much money at stake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if that company is willing to walk away from ChinaGoogle is n't willing to walk from China .
The current disagreements are just posturing .
Google will cave eventually , there 's too much money at stake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if that company is willing to walk away from ChinaGoogle isn't willing to walk from China.
The current disagreements are just posturing.
Google will cave eventually, there's too much money at stake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523974</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1268932800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pretty much to break into consumer market, and expect people to actually pay for the product, Google has to partner with a company that has consumer credibility.  Right now consumers expect Google to give everything away, while providing no support.  Lost you email, sorry, nothing we can do about it.  That is ok with a free product, but not something for which you pay good money.  Sony is such a brand.
<p>
We see that Google has little intention of funding direct human support.  Look at the Nexus One.  It is a Google phone, but Google denies having anything to do with it other than selling it.  Once you buy it, it is your problem.  I know that is not true, but given the way it sold, that is the way it is perceived.  It is clear that that strategy is not working for mass sales.
</p><p>
A TV set top box requies a fair amount of handholding.   Sony knows how to provide that hand holding and price products in such a way that it can make a profit.  This may require a closed system.  But the system will have to be sold on quality and support, not low cost and openess.  After all, the only reason Intel would be involved is to move high end inventory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty much to break into consumer market , and expect people to actually pay for the product , Google has to partner with a company that has consumer credibility .
Right now consumers expect Google to give everything away , while providing no support .
Lost you email , sorry , nothing we can do about it .
That is ok with a free product , but not something for which you pay good money .
Sony is such a brand .
We see that Google has little intention of funding direct human support .
Look at the Nexus One .
It is a Google phone , but Google denies having anything to do with it other than selling it .
Once you buy it , it is your problem .
I know that is not true , but given the way it sold , that is the way it is perceived .
It is clear that that strategy is not working for mass sales .
A TV set top box requies a fair amount of handholding .
Sony knows how to provide that hand holding and price products in such a way that it can make a profit .
This may require a closed system .
But the system will have to be sold on quality and support , not low cost and openess .
After all , the only reason Intel would be involved is to move high end inventory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty much to break into consumer market, and expect people to actually pay for the product, Google has to partner with a company that has consumer credibility.
Right now consumers expect Google to give everything away, while providing no support.
Lost you email, sorry, nothing we can do about it.
That is ok with a free product, but not something for which you pay good money.
Sony is such a brand.
We see that Google has little intention of funding direct human support.
Look at the Nexus One.
It is a Google phone, but Google denies having anything to do with it other than selling it.
Once you buy it, it is your problem.
I know that is not true, but given the way it sold, that is the way it is perceived.
It is clear that that strategy is not working for mass sales.
A TV set top box requies a fair amount of handholding.
Sony knows how to provide that hand holding and price products in such a way that it can make a profit.
This may require a closed system.
But the system will have to be sold on quality and support, not low cost and openess.
After all, the only reason Intel would be involved is to move high end inventory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523428</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268930160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like the PS3 is region locked...oh wait. Or the weird storage type the PS3 uses that means you have to buy their formatted overpriced harddrive...oh wait.  etc...etc...<br>All the major tech companies have had their transgressions, but stop yelling about it before you actually hear that it does or does not use those things.<br>And why Sony? I thought...great, now Google will know what I'm watching when I'm watching, etc... You do remember the recent statement from Google guy that amounted to...if you don't want people to know about it, don't do it. Evil Evil Google. blargh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like the PS3 is region locked...oh wait .
Or the weird storage type the PS3 uses that means you have to buy their formatted overpriced harddrive...oh wait .
etc...etc...All the major tech companies have had their transgressions , but stop yelling about it before you actually hear that it does or does not use those things.And why Sony ?
I thought...great , now Google will know what I 'm watching when I 'm watching , etc... You do remember the recent statement from Google guy that amounted to...if you do n't want people to know about it , do n't do it .
Evil Evil Google .
blargh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like the PS3 is region locked...oh wait.
Or the weird storage type the PS3 uses that means you have to buy their formatted overpriced harddrive...oh wait.
etc...etc...All the major tech companies have had their transgressions, but stop yelling about it before you actually hear that it does or does not use those things.And why Sony?
I thought...great, now Google will know what I'm watching when I'm watching, etc... You do remember the recent statement from Google guy that amounted to...if you don't want people to know about it, don't do it.
Evil Evil Google.
blargh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522792</id>
	<title>Re:GTV on PS3?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268926920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is real convergence. A PC that is also a TV. I want that. I don't know if this is going to be the perfect expression of that, but if they can build a set-top box for $50 (and that sounds like it could be coming soon) I'd pick one up in a heartbeat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is real convergence .
A PC that is also a TV .
I want that .
I do n't know if this is going to be the perfect expression of that , but if they can build a set-top box for $ 50 ( and that sounds like it could be coming soon ) I 'd pick one up in a heartbeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is real convergence.
A PC that is also a TV.
I want that.
I don't know if this is going to be the perfect expression of that, but if they can build a set-top box for $50 (and that sounds like it could be coming soon) I'd pick one up in a heartbeat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522120</id>
	<title>Infinite Solutions</title>
	<author>domulys</author>
	<datestamp>1268923800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Infinite Solutions broke this story over two years ago.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9SK\_M\_nVWA" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9SK\_M\_nVWA</a> [youtube.com] <br> <br>

Once you get past the easter egg, it's great!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Infinite Solutions broke this story over two years ago .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = J9SK \ _M \ _nVWA [ youtube.com ] Once you get past the easter egg , it 's great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Infinite Solutions broke this story over two years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9SK\_M\_nVWA [youtube.com]  

Once you get past the easter egg, it's great!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523874</id>
	<title>Re:GTV on PS3?</title>
	<author>Orange Crush</author>
	<datestamp>1268932320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Another</i> one?  I already have six.  Roku player (Netflix, Amazon), Vudu player (Bought before I got Netflix and the box, waste of money), DVR/Cable Box, D-link media lounge (also a waste of money, but streams video from my computer to the living room reasonably well), Wii, Netbook . . .  Every damn one of them duplicates the same essential functionality, most run Linux variants, and all could be easily combined into a single device that does it all (this is happening with newer TVs and BluRay players).</p><p>Screw it.  I refuse to buy another damn box to plug in to my TV unless it actually consolidates functions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another one ?
I already have six .
Roku player ( Netflix , Amazon ) , Vudu player ( Bought before I got Netflix and the box , waste of money ) , DVR/Cable Box , D-link media lounge ( also a waste of money , but streams video from my computer to the living room reasonably well ) , Wii , Netbook .
. .
Every damn one of them duplicates the same essential functionality , most run Linux variants , and all could be easily combined into a single device that does it all ( this is happening with newer TVs and BluRay players ) .Screw it .
I refuse to buy another damn box to plug in to my TV unless it actually consolidates functions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Another one?
I already have six.
Roku player (Netflix, Amazon), Vudu player (Bought before I got Netflix and the box, waste of money), DVR/Cable Box, D-link media lounge (also a waste of money, but streams video from my computer to the living room reasonably well), Wii, Netbook .
. .
Every damn one of them duplicates the same essential functionality, most run Linux variants, and all could be easily combined into a single device that does it all (this is happening with newer TVs and BluRay players).Screw it.
I refuse to buy another damn box to plug in to my TV unless it actually consolidates functions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522484</id>
	<title>Re:everywhere</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1268925600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect that consumption of benzodiazepines and SSRIs at Neilson HQ has spiked on this particular announcement...<br> <br>

Complaints about Neilson being kind of retro have been around for a while now, and having Google's brand of sinister, hypermodern, advertising analytics baked into traditional TV set top boxes, in addition to the biggest video streaming site on the planet, and a huge number of third party sites, cannot be good news for them.<br> <br>

On the plus side, the Neilson CEO's shrink and cardiologist are probably happy...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that consumption of benzodiazepines and SSRIs at Neilson HQ has spiked on this particular announcement.. . Complaints about Neilson being kind of retro have been around for a while now , and having Google 's brand of sinister , hypermodern , advertising analytics baked into traditional TV set top boxes , in addition to the biggest video streaming site on the planet , and a huge number of third party sites , can not be good news for them .
On the plus side , the Neilson CEO 's shrink and cardiologist are probably happy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that consumption of benzodiazepines and SSRIs at Neilson HQ has spiked on this particular announcement... 

Complaints about Neilson being kind of retro have been around for a while now, and having Google's brand of sinister, hypermodern, advertising analytics baked into traditional TV set top boxes, in addition to the biggest video streaming site on the planet, and a huge number of third party sites, cannot be good news for them.
On the plus side, the Neilson CEO's shrink and cardiologist are probably happy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522586</id>
	<title>When does the madness end?</title>
	<author>Frankenshteen</author>
	<datestamp>1268926080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The statement above becomes even more true across regional markets... Let's just make sure everything runs HTML 5 and we'll be fine, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The statement above becomes even more true across regional markets... Let 's just make sure everything runs HTML 5 and we 'll be fine , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The statement above becomes even more true across regional markets... Let's just make sure everything runs HTML 5 and we'll be fine, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522218</id>
	<title>GTV? Get permission from Philips first...</title>
	<author>fly1ngtux</author>
	<datestamp>1268924280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all, Google doing anything is not a news<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Second, GTV is a platform by Philips. So, even if Google launches this 'TV', it may not be called GTV</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , Google doing anything is not a news : ) Second , GTV is a platform by Philips .
So , even if Google launches this 'TV ' , it may not be called GTV</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, Google doing anything is not a news :)
Second, GTV is a platform by Philips.
So, even if Google launches this 'TV', it may not be called GTV</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521990</id>
	<title>Suitable Content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268923260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I'm all for it - as long as I can watch copious amount of porn and videos of kittens...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm all for it - as long as I can watch copious amount of porn and videos of kittens.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm all for it - as long as I can watch copious amount of porn and videos of kittens...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522844</id>
	<title>wait.. INTEL ATOM?</title>
	<author>trum4n</author>
	<datestamp>1268927220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so no HD then? at least not worth watching HD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so no HD then ?
at least not worth watching HD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so no HD then?
at least not worth watching HD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522418</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1268925360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well sony is going to disable HD on component out for ALL bluray players in a year or so anyways.</p><p>No encrypted content will go out of a Bluray player if it is not protected from the scumbag consumer by the precious HDCP.</p><p>It's why I wont be buying a newer Bluray player and my current is for sale on ebay.   I'll just rip the disks and bypass all their BS.  Bluray -&gt; mpeg4 and played on a XBMC dedicated box looks wonderful and you dont have any of the crap.  ripbot264 + anyDVDHD so far has ripped any Bluray I have bought without problems.</p><p>Done believe me?   <a href="http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2849" title="blu-ray.com">http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2849</a> [blu-ray.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well sony is going to disable HD on component out for ALL bluray players in a year or so anyways.No encrypted content will go out of a Bluray player if it is not protected from the scumbag consumer by the precious HDCP.It 's why I wont be buying a newer Bluray player and my current is for sale on ebay .
I 'll just rip the disks and bypass all their BS .
Bluray - &gt; mpeg4 and played on a XBMC dedicated box looks wonderful and you dont have any of the crap .
ripbot264 + anyDVDHD so far has ripped any Bluray I have bought without problems.Done believe me ?
http : //www.blu-ray.com/news/ ? id = 2849 [ blu-ray.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well sony is going to disable HD on component out for ALL bluray players in a year or so anyways.No encrypted content will go out of a Bluray player if it is not protected from the scumbag consumer by the precious HDCP.It's why I wont be buying a newer Bluray player and my current is for sale on ebay.
I'll just rip the disks and bypass all their BS.
Bluray -&gt; mpeg4 and played on a XBMC dedicated box looks wonderful and you dont have any of the crap.
ripbot264 + anyDVDHD so far has ripped any Bluray I have bought without problems.Done believe me?
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2849 [blu-ray.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522008</id>
	<title>GTV name taken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268923320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quids in for the GTV guys (quake3 game casting software) if they want that name<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;oD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quids in for the GTV guys ( quake3 game casting software ) if they want that name ; oD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quids in for the GTV guys (quake3 game casting software) if they want that name ;oD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31534682</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>cbope</author>
	<datestamp>1269003120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wasn't commenting on the PSPgo, you are correct there. However, I don't really consider game consoles relevant because they ALL use some form of proprietary locked-down media format for commercially released games. That's not likely to change either.</p><p>A few key points about non-console Sony products:</p><p>- Blu-Ray disc; say what you want about open-ness, but it IS a standard.<br>- New cameras will use SDHC cards, not memory stick.<br>- They dropped the proprietary ATRAC and mini-disc formats a couple years ago.<br>- UMD discs were dropped from the PSPgo.</p><p>The move to SDHC in mass-market cameras is quite significant, as it implies they are finally preparing to move beyond their own memory stick format. That's where the volume is and where they could make a significant amount of money selling proprietary memory stick media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't commenting on the PSPgo , you are correct there .
However , I do n't really consider game consoles relevant because they ALL use some form of proprietary locked-down media format for commercially released games .
That 's not likely to change either.A few key points about non-console Sony products : - Blu-Ray disc ; say what you want about open-ness , but it IS a standard.- New cameras will use SDHC cards , not memory stick.- They dropped the proprietary ATRAC and mini-disc formats a couple years ago.- UMD discs were dropped from the PSPgo.The move to SDHC in mass-market cameras is quite significant , as it implies they are finally preparing to move beyond their own memory stick format .
That 's where the volume is and where they could make a significant amount of money selling proprietary memory stick media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't commenting on the PSPgo, you are correct there.
However, I don't really consider game consoles relevant because they ALL use some form of proprietary locked-down media format for commercially released games.
That's not likely to change either.A few key points about non-console Sony products:- Blu-Ray disc; say what you want about open-ness, but it IS a standard.- New cameras will use SDHC cards, not memory stick.- They dropped the proprietary ATRAC and mini-disc formats a couple years ago.- UMD discs were dropped from the PSPgo.The move to SDHC in mass-market cameras is quite significant, as it implies they are finally preparing to move beyond their own memory stick format.
That's where the volume is and where they could make a significant amount of money selling proprietary memory stick media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31528944</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1268907060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt it's going to require the purchase of storage media. If it's like the other set-top boxes, they'll just make it so you can only record on the internal hard drive and there's absolutely no way to keep the video after it gets full.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt it 's going to require the purchase of storage media .
If it 's like the other set-top boxes , they 'll just make it so you can only record on the internal hard drive and there 's absolutely no way to keep the video after it gets full .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt it's going to require the purchase of storage media.
If it's like the other set-top boxes, they'll just make it so you can only record on the internal hard drive and there's absolutely no way to keep the video after it gets full.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522240</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1268924400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But if that company is willing to walk away from China, instead of compromising</p></div></blockquote><p>Let's wait until they actually <i>do</i> walk away from China before making grandiose claims about them walking away from China, k?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if that company is willing to walk away from China , instead of compromisingLet 's wait until they actually do walk away from China before making grandiose claims about them walking away from China , k ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if that company is willing to walk away from China, instead of compromisingLet's wait until they actually do walk away from China before making grandiose claims about them walking away from China, k?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524740</id>
	<title>Re:GTV on PS3?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268936340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So does this mean we'll be seeing GTV coming to PS3? No, of course not, SONY will want to sell us another set top box for extra $$$ and we'll want to work extra hard to pay for it too!</p></div><p>Here is a link to Sony's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AyVh1\_vWYQ" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">press release coverage on the news</a> [youtube.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean we 'll be seeing GTV coming to PS3 ?
No , of course not , SONY will want to sell us another set top box for extra $ $ $ and we 'll want to work extra hard to pay for it too ! Here is a link to Sony 's press release coverage on the news [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean we'll be seeing GTV coming to PS3?
No, of course not, SONY will want to sell us another set top box for extra $$$ and we'll want to work extra hard to pay for it too!Here is a link to Sony's press release coverage on the news [youtube.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523070</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268928240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It depends on exactly which business unit within Sony they are teaming up with.<br></i><br>That's like saying it matters which hand the guy raping you is holding the knife with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on exactly which business unit within Sony they are teaming up with.That 's like saying it matters which hand the guy raping you is holding the knife with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on exactly which business unit within Sony they are teaming up with.That's like saying it matters which hand the guy raping you is holding the knife with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522208</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1268924220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on exactly which business unit within Sony they are teaming up with.</p><p>I recently broke down and bought a PS3 for two reasons:  Blu-Ray, and Final Fantasy XIII.  I made some interesting discoveries:<br>1)  Compatible with any USB storage device.  Compare to "no third party" locking of Xbox360 proprietary memory.  (Wii uses SDHC I think?)<br>2)  You don't have to buy an Eye Toy for the camera.  Supposedly any UVC compliant USB camera will work.<br>3)  Same for USB headsets<br>4)  Same for Bluetooth headsets<br>5)  Same for keyboards/mice for browsing and chat<br>6)  Want a bigger hard drive?  Put in any 2.5" SATA drive<br>7)  Media playback is UPnP based and supports quite a few formats (MKV being the most notable exception).  I can use the PS3 as a MythTV frontend!</p><p>That said, TFA talks about Hulu.  Knowing Hulu, they will actively take measures to block out this new effort.  See their intentional blocking of the PS3 as an example.  (Now to view Hulu video on PS3, you need PlayOn or rtmpdump 2.x + ffmpeg + MediaTomb).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on exactly which business unit within Sony they are teaming up with.I recently broke down and bought a PS3 for two reasons : Blu-Ray , and Final Fantasy XIII .
I made some interesting discoveries : 1 ) Compatible with any USB storage device .
Compare to " no third party " locking of Xbox360 proprietary memory .
( Wii uses SDHC I think ?
) 2 ) You do n't have to buy an Eye Toy for the camera .
Supposedly any UVC compliant USB camera will work.3 ) Same for USB headsets4 ) Same for Bluetooth headsets5 ) Same for keyboards/mice for browsing and chat6 ) Want a bigger hard drive ?
Put in any 2.5 " SATA drive7 ) Media playback is UPnP based and supports quite a few formats ( MKV being the most notable exception ) .
I can use the PS3 as a MythTV frontend ! That said , TFA talks about Hulu .
Knowing Hulu , they will actively take measures to block out this new effort .
See their intentional blocking of the PS3 as an example .
( Now to view Hulu video on PS3 , you need PlayOn or rtmpdump 2.x + ffmpeg + MediaTomb ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on exactly which business unit within Sony they are teaming up with.I recently broke down and bought a PS3 for two reasons:  Blu-Ray, and Final Fantasy XIII.
I made some interesting discoveries:1)  Compatible with any USB storage device.
Compare to "no third party" locking of Xbox360 proprietary memory.
(Wii uses SDHC I think?
)2)  You don't have to buy an Eye Toy for the camera.
Supposedly any UVC compliant USB camera will work.3)  Same for USB headsets4)  Same for Bluetooth headsets5)  Same for keyboards/mice for browsing and chat6)  Want a bigger hard drive?
Put in any 2.5" SATA drive7)  Media playback is UPnP based and supports quite a few formats (MKV being the most notable exception).
I can use the PS3 as a MythTV frontend!That said, TFA talks about Hulu.
Knowing Hulu, they will actively take measures to block out this new effort.
See their intentional blocking of the PS3 as an example.
(Now to view Hulu video on PS3, you need PlayOn or rtmpdump 2.x + ffmpeg + MediaTomb).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522166</id>
	<title>Re:GTV on PS3?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268923980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Intel just wants to sell chips, google wants to sell ads, and sony wants to rent movies from their existing store, but who actually has an interest in the device itself?  It sounds to me like the companies involved only care how they can leverage the device, not making it something that consumers actually want</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Intel just wants to sell chips , google wants to sell ads , and sony wants to rent movies from their existing store , but who actually has an interest in the device itself ?
It sounds to me like the companies involved only care how they can leverage the device , not making it something that consumers actually want</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Intel just wants to sell chips, google wants to sell ads, and sony wants to rent movies from their existing store, but who actually has an interest in the device itself?
It sounds to me like the companies involved only care how they can leverage the device, not making it something that consumers actually want</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522306</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268924640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Saw the WebTV tag, do we really want to go back to mid-90s?</p><p>WebTV was a great way for the technologically impaired to join the internet, for only $10/month to Microsoft through blazing fast dial-up.</p><p>At least as Internet was defined back then, chat rooms for only the people on your service provider and wonderful text only pages. Search only yielded companies paying  to list</p><p>Made Geocities look professional in comparison.</p><p>OT, but it seems like the paid search is what M$ is trying with Bing. Yeah, they are re-creating the bygone days of Prodigy, Compuserve, and AOL (Service provider, pre-TW merger).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Saw the WebTV tag , do we really want to go back to mid-90s ? WebTV was a great way for the technologically impaired to join the internet , for only $ 10/month to Microsoft through blazing fast dial-up.At least as Internet was defined back then , chat rooms for only the people on your service provider and wonderful text only pages .
Search only yielded companies paying to listMade Geocities look professional in comparison.OT , but it seems like the paid search is what M $ is trying with Bing .
Yeah , they are re-creating the bygone days of Prodigy , Compuserve , and AOL ( Service provider , pre-TW merger ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saw the WebTV tag, do we really want to go back to mid-90s?WebTV was a great way for the technologically impaired to join the internet, for only $10/month to Microsoft through blazing fast dial-up.At least as Internet was defined back then, chat rooms for only the people on your service provider and wonderful text only pages.
Search only yielded companies paying  to listMade Geocities look professional in comparison.OT, but it seems like the paid search is what M$ is trying with Bing.
Yeah, they are re-creating the bygone days of Prodigy, Compuserve, and AOL (Service provider, pre-TW merger).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31531576</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1268921220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well, perhaps that Google is big enough to change Sony's ways (at least in this particular product)..? With Google's resources, Sony needs Google a lot more than Google needs Sony (Imagine how many hardware manufacturers would jump at an exclusive right to make hardware for a GTV style product)... I like the fact that Google's "spreading the wealth" by not sticking exclusively to one hardware company (HTC) for all their physical products. Sure, Sony has made some dumb decisions in the past (and for some dumb is putting it nice), but what remains to be seen is if Google and Sony can play nice together. I wonder if there is a side to this deal that we're not seeing? Like Google exchanging this contract for rights to Sony's media collection at a bottom basement price for a music store? Or perhaps for patent rights? Or perhaps for something I can't even think of...</p></div></blockquote><p>

More over, Sony cannot afford to piss of Google. The Japanese economy was hit worse by the GFC then the US or Eurozone, Sony is haemorrhaging money, seeing as Japan, Europe and the US were the majority of its market for consumer goods and competition has become even more cut throat. It's not just that money sink, the PS3 that's losing money for Sony at the moment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , perhaps that Google is big enough to change Sony 's ways ( at least in this particular product ) .. ?
With Google 's resources , Sony needs Google a lot more than Google needs Sony ( Imagine how many hardware manufacturers would jump at an exclusive right to make hardware for a GTV style product ) ... I like the fact that Google 's " spreading the wealth " by not sticking exclusively to one hardware company ( HTC ) for all their physical products .
Sure , Sony has made some dumb decisions in the past ( and for some dumb is putting it nice ) , but what remains to be seen is if Google and Sony can play nice together .
I wonder if there is a side to this deal that we 're not seeing ?
Like Google exchanging this contract for rights to Sony 's media collection at a bottom basement price for a music store ?
Or perhaps for patent rights ?
Or perhaps for something I ca n't even think of.. . More over , Sony can not afford to piss of Google .
The Japanese economy was hit worse by the GFC then the US or Eurozone , Sony is haemorrhaging money , seeing as Japan , Europe and the US were the majority of its market for consumer goods and competition has become even more cut throat .
It 's not just that money sink , the PS3 that 's losing money for Sony at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, perhaps that Google is big enough to change Sony's ways (at least in this particular product)..?
With Google's resources, Sony needs Google a lot more than Google needs Sony (Imagine how many hardware manufacturers would jump at an exclusive right to make hardware for a GTV style product)... I like the fact that Google's "spreading the wealth" by not sticking exclusively to one hardware company (HTC) for all their physical products.
Sure, Sony has made some dumb decisions in the past (and for some dumb is putting it nice), but what remains to be seen is if Google and Sony can play nice together.
I wonder if there is a side to this deal that we're not seeing?
Like Google exchanging this contract for rights to Sony's media collection at a bottom basement price for a music store?
Or perhaps for patent rights?
Or perhaps for something I can't even think of...

More over, Sony cannot afford to piss of Google.
The Japanese economy was hit worse by the GFC then the US or Eurozone, Sony is haemorrhaging money, seeing as Japan, Europe and the US were the majority of its market for consumer goods and competition has become even more cut throat.
It's not just that money sink, the PS3 that's losing money for Sony at the moment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523390</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1268929980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're seriously doing this again?  Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc...</p></div><p>So - aside from video services that do rather well - haven't we learned its lame to do something that works?</p><p>It always works out that either</p><p>A) Your CableCo will offer you TV, landline, and internet through your Coax<br>B) Your Telco will offer you TV, landline, and internet, all through DSL!</p><p>So if the services are already digitally compatible, I don't see why we DON'T go this route. I'd much prefer my TV to be a networked device in my home - that way I can just pull up stuff off of a server, or plug in a flash drive, or an MP3 Player, yada yada yada.</p><p>Whats the downside? If you bring up Bandwidth, I'll remind you about how Google is in on this, and they are starting to offer Gigabit connections.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're seriously doing this again ?
Aside from video services like YouTube , Hulu , Netflix , etc...So - aside from video services that do rather well - have n't we learned its lame to do something that works ? It always works out that eitherA ) Your CableCo will offer you TV , landline , and internet through your CoaxB ) Your Telco will offer you TV , landline , and internet , all through DSL ! So if the services are already digitally compatible , I do n't see why we DO N'T go this route .
I 'd much prefer my TV to be a networked device in my home - that way I can just pull up stuff off of a server , or plug in a flash drive , or an MP3 Player , yada yada yada.Whats the downside ?
If you bring up Bandwidth , I 'll remind you about how Google is in on this , and they are starting to offer Gigabit connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're seriously doing this again?
Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc...So - aside from video services that do rather well - haven't we learned its lame to do something that works?It always works out that eitherA) Your CableCo will offer you TV, landline, and internet through your CoaxB) Your Telco will offer you TV, landline, and internet, all through DSL!So if the services are already digitally compatible, I don't see why we DON'T go this route.
I'd much prefer my TV to be a networked device in my home - that way I can just pull up stuff off of a server, or plug in a flash drive, or an MP3 Player, yada yada yada.Whats the downside?
If you bring up Bandwidth, I'll remind you about how Google is in on this, and they are starting to offer Gigabit connections.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31531114</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1268918160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So when they introduced the new PSP which requires you to utilize a singular SONY site as a gateway to acquire your games, that wasn't a move to push for more proprietary control?</p></div><p>No.  You were already required to go through Sony.  Every system since the Atari 2600 has employed techniques to allow control by the manufacturer.  They did drop their UMD format.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So when they introduced the new PSP which requires you to utilize a singular SONY site as a gateway to acquire your games , that was n't a move to push for more proprietary control ? No .
You were already required to go through Sony .
Every system since the Atari 2600 has employed techniques to allow control by the manufacturer .
They did drop their UMD format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when they introduced the new PSP which requires you to utilize a singular SONY site as a gateway to acquire your games, that wasn't a move to push for more proprietary control?No.
You were already required to go through Sony.
Every system since the Atari 2600 has employed techniques to allow control by the manufacturer.
They did drop their UMD format.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524684</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>GrumpyOldMan</author>
	<datestamp>1268936040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought that Hulu upped their encryption, and broke rtmpdump in January.  Is there some way to use Hulu via rtmpdump and MediaTomb these days?   I'm using PlayOn, and ever since the encryption change in January, the streams are horrible quality because Playon is now rendering them via flash, and re-encoding the rendered video, rather than just transcoding the video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that Hulu upped their encryption , and broke rtmpdump in January .
Is there some way to use Hulu via rtmpdump and MediaTomb these days ?
I 'm using PlayOn , and ever since the encryption change in January , the streams are horrible quality because Playon is now rendering them via flash , and re-encoding the rendered video , rather than just transcoding the video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that Hulu upped their encryption, and broke rtmpdump in January.
Is there some way to use Hulu via rtmpdump and MediaTomb these days?
I'm using PlayOn, and ever since the encryption change in January, the streams are horrible quality because Playon is now rendering them via flash, and re-encoding the rendered video, rather than just transcoding the video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522862</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>netsavior</author>
	<datestamp>1268927280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3D movies again?  Really?  didn't that trend die out in 1955?<br> <br>
Touch screen displays?  Really?  Those sucked in the early 1990s when they were all the rage.<br> <br>
"cloud computing?"  Oh brother... didn't we ditch the mainframe/terminal model in the 80s/90s?<br> <br>
World of Warcraft? yeah, I remember when it was called everquest and it sucked, nobody wants an MMO<br> <br>
Remember 1996 when FPS games got boring and old... why do we need Modern Warfare 2, nobody is gonna play it.<br> <br>
(hint, there is nothing new, just better executions of old ideas.)  Sometimes it takes balls to go after something that was stigmatized beyond feasibility due to early missteps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3D movies again ?
Really ? did n't that trend die out in 1955 ?
Touch screen displays ?
Really ? Those sucked in the early 1990s when they were all the rage .
" cloud computing ?
" Oh brother... did n't we ditch the mainframe/terminal model in the 80s/90s ?
World of Warcraft ?
yeah , I remember when it was called everquest and it sucked , nobody wants an MMO Remember 1996 when FPS games got boring and old... why do we need Modern Warfare 2 , nobody is gon na play it .
( hint , there is nothing new , just better executions of old ideas .
) Sometimes it takes balls to go after something that was stigmatized beyond feasibility due to early missteps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3D movies again?
Really?  didn't that trend die out in 1955?
Touch screen displays?
Really?  Those sucked in the early 1990s when they were all the rage.
"cloud computing?
"  Oh brother... didn't we ditch the mainframe/terminal model in the 80s/90s?
World of Warcraft?
yeah, I remember when it was called everquest and it sucked, nobody wants an MMO 
Remember 1996 when FPS games got boring and old... why do we need Modern Warfare 2, nobody is gonna play it.
(hint, there is nothing new, just better executions of old ideas.
)  Sometimes it takes balls to go after something that was stigmatized beyond feasibility due to early missteps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523110</id>
	<title>ASIDE from Youtube and Hulu?!</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1268928480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?</p></div></blockquote><p>Don't you mean "<em>because of</em> services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc. haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of lame?"  (Ok, I haven't actually seen what Netflix looks like, but Hulu and Youtube utterly and completely <em>suck</em> beyond belief.)  The only place I want to "stream" video from, is the file server / mythbackend on my own LAN.  <em>Nobody</em> (currently) can stream video even roughly approximating the video that I either</p><ul> <li>Record off the air</li><li>Take several hours to download for 1 hour of video</li></ul><p>Streaming internet video sucks, and is a great example of a retarded tech where people took a step the days before the invention of the VCR, and then pretend it's cool and modern.</p><p>Realtime: lame quality and inefficient too.  Letting things take as long as they need regardless of however much bandwidth you have (downloading) and multicast (OTA TV), both time-shifted: awesome.  If anyone ever wonders, "Why is Hulu such a let down?" there's your answer: think about the technology.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from video services like YouTube , Hulu , Netflix , etc , have n't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame ? Do n't you mean " because of services like YouTube , Hulu , Netflix , etc .
have n't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of lame ?
" ( Ok , I have n't actually seen what Netflix looks like , but Hulu and Youtube utterly and completely suck beyond belief .
) The only place I want to " stream " video from , is the file server / mythbackend on my own LAN .
Nobody ( currently ) can stream video even roughly approximating the video that I either Record off the airTake several hours to download for 1 hour of videoStreaming internet video sucks , and is a great example of a retarded tech where people took a step the days before the invention of the VCR , and then pretend it 's cool and modern.Realtime : lame quality and inefficient too .
Letting things take as long as they need regardless of however much bandwidth you have ( downloading ) and multicast ( OTA TV ) , both time-shifted : awesome .
If anyone ever wonders , " Why is Hulu such a let down ?
" there 's your answer : think about the technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?Don't you mean "because of services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc.
haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of lame?
"  (Ok, I haven't actually seen what Netflix looks like, but Hulu and Youtube utterly and completely suck beyond belief.
)  The only place I want to "stream" video from, is the file server / mythbackend on my own LAN.
Nobody (currently) can stream video even roughly approximating the video that I either Record off the airTake several hours to download for 1 hour of videoStreaming internet video sucks, and is a great example of a retarded tech where people took a step the days before the invention of the VCR, and then pretend it's cool and modern.Realtime: lame quality and inefficient too.
Letting things take as long as they need regardless of however much bandwidth you have (downloading) and multicast (OTA TV), both time-shifted: awesome.
If anyone ever wonders, "Why is Hulu such a let down?
" there's your answer: think about the technology.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524170</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1268933640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It also uses Sony memory sticks instead of SD cards.  Proprietary UMD format for movies and games.  Etc.<br> <br>

Cool device if you install custom firmware though.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>It also uses Sony memory sticks instead of SD cards .
Proprietary UMD format for movies and games .
Etc . Cool device if you install custom firmware though .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also uses Sony memory sticks instead of SD cards.
Proprietary UMD format for movies and games.
Etc. 

Cool device if you install custom firmware though.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522472</id>
	<title>Did you know</title>
	<author>MGRockwell</author>
	<datestamp>1268925600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That you can plug a PC into a TV also?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That you can plug a PC into a TV also ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That you can plug a PC into a TV also?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31526718</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>nghate</author>
	<datestamp>1268943540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't equate "internet on TV" to "browse the Web on TV"... "Internet on TV" is more like various services provided via internet and delivered via the TV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't equate " internet on TV " to " browse the Web on TV " ... " Internet on TV " is more like various services provided via internet and delivered via the TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't equate "internet on TV" to "browse the Web on TV"... "Internet on TV" is more like various services provided via internet and delivered via the TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522226</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>Mashdar</author>
	<datestamp>1268924340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have an HTPC and watch internet television services (hulu and netflix, primarily) all the time. The HTPC will never penetrate the my-mother market (too much setup, cost), so a set top box which functions in such a way has great potential. Oh, and don't say the Wii already provides this functionality: my mother does not have one of those, either<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an HTPC and watch internet television services ( hulu and netflix , primarily ) all the time .
The HTPC will never penetrate the my-mother market ( too much setup , cost ) , so a set top box which functions in such a way has great potential .
Oh , and do n't say the Wii already provides this functionality : my mother does not have one of those , either : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an HTPC and watch internet television services (hulu and netflix, primarily) all the time.
The HTPC will never penetrate the my-mother market (too much setup, cost), so a set top box which functions in such a way has great potential.
Oh, and don't say the Wii already provides this functionality: my mother does not have one of those, either :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524356</id>
	<title>Re:ASIDE from Youtube and Hulu?!</title>
	<author>FatAlb3rt</author>
	<datestamp>1268934360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meh, I watch episodes of The Office, 24, and Family Guy on a 100" projector via Hulu (TVersity on a PC wireless to a PS3).  No, it's not as good as OTA, but it's just a TV show.  I don't have to buy Tivo/cable or build a DVR.  Definitely watchable and it will only get better over time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , I watch episodes of The Office , 24 , and Family Guy on a 100 " projector via Hulu ( TVersity on a PC wireless to a PS3 ) .
No , it 's not as good as OTA , but it 's just a TV show .
I do n't have to buy Tivo/cable or build a DVR .
Definitely watchable and it will only get better over time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh, I watch episodes of The Office, 24, and Family Guy on a 100" projector via Hulu (TVersity on a PC wireless to a PS3).
No, it's not as good as OTA, but it's just a TV show.
I don't have to buy Tivo/cable or build a DVR.
Definitely watchable and it will only get better over time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890</id>
	<title>GTV on PS3?</title>
	<author>blankoboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268922720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So does this mean we'll be seeing GTV coming to PS3? No, of course not, SONY will want to sell us another set top box for extra $$$ and we'll want to work extra hard to pay for it too!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean we 'll be seeing GTV coming to PS3 ?
No , of course not , SONY will want to sell us another set top box for extra $ $ $ and we 'll want to work extra hard to pay for it too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean we'll be seeing GTV coming to PS3?
No, of course not, SONY will want to sell us another set top box for extra $$$ and we'll want to work extra hard to pay for it too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523240</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1268929140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know many will hate me for this, but if it supports Flash, and they could get joystick support put into Flash, I would be all over it.  The amount of free and legal games that my son plays that are Flash is huge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know many will hate me for this , but if it supports Flash , and they could get joystick support put into Flash , I would be all over it .
The amount of free and legal games that my son plays that are Flash is huge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know many will hate me for this, but if it supports Flash, and they could get joystick support put into Flash, I would be all over it.
The amount of free and legal games that my son plays that are Flash is huge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522740</id>
	<title>Sony Releases Stupid Piece Of S**t ... again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268926740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think i have seen this gizmo already :</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AyVh1\_vWYQ</p><p>To sum it up: It never ends this s**t...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think i have seen this gizmo already : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 8AyVh1 \ _vWYQTo sum it up : It never ends this s * * t.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think i have seen this gizmo already :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AyVh1\_vWYQTo sum it up: It never ends this s**t...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522360</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>n30na</author>
	<datestamp>1268924940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually greatly prefer watching video in a TV-like environment - somewhat back from the screen, able to sit on something comfy and relaxing, maybe with other people.  I spend most of my time on the computer, but I really prefer that it be a somewhat differentiated and more social activity to watch video.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually greatly prefer watching video in a TV-like environment - somewhat back from the screen , able to sit on something comfy and relaxing , maybe with other people .
I spend most of my time on the computer , but I really prefer that it be a somewhat differentiated and more social activity to watch video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually greatly prefer watching video in a TV-like environment - somewhat back from the screen, able to sit on something comfy and relaxing, maybe with other people.
I spend most of my time on the computer, but I really prefer that it be a somewhat differentiated and more social activity to watch video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522664</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Yamata no Orochi</author>
	<datestamp>1268926320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You do realize that Sony has been moving \_away\_ from proprietary formats for the last couple years? Honestly, Sony bashing on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.</p></div><p>Making so much memory stick crap is a pretty big sin to put behind them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that Sony has been moving \ _away \ _ from proprietary formats for the last couple years ?
Honestly , Sony bashing on / .
has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.Making so much memory stick crap is a pretty big sin to put behind them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that Sony has been moving \_away\_ from proprietary formats for the last couple years?
Honestly, Sony bashing on /.
has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.Making so much memory stick crap is a pretty big sin to put behind them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522088</id>
	<title>Reinventing the wheel!</title>
	<author>voodoo cheesecake</author>
	<datestamp>1268923680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like they forgot I can do the same thing with the HDMI output on my laptop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like they forgot I can do the same thing with the HDMI output on my laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like they forgot I can do the same thing with the HDMI output on my laptop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523308</id>
	<title>Re:Unless its in the TV who cares</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1268929560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's nice to do in between innings in a ball game, but I don't want to have to go changing input sources to be able to do it.</i></p><p>Your TV must suck. Mine is five years old, and changing input sources on it is as easy as changing a channel. Just press a single button on the remote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice to do in between innings in a ball game , but I do n't want to have to go changing input sources to be able to do it.Your TV must suck .
Mine is five years old , and changing input sources on it is as easy as changing a channel .
Just press a single button on the remote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice to do in between innings in a ball game, but I don't want to have to go changing input sources to be able to do it.Your TV must suck.
Mine is five years old, and changing input sources on it is as easy as changing a channel.
Just press a single button on the remote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522374</id>
	<title>Yes, really</title>
	<author>RingDev</author>
	<datestamp>1268925000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a 48" big screen TV.</p><p>I do not have Cable<br>I do not have Satellite/Dish/DirectTV<br>I do not have a DVD player<br>I do not have decent OTA reception</p><p>I do have DSL<br>I do have Netflix<br>I do have Boxee</p><p>Pretty much the only thing that happens on my TV is the Internet. Now if the folks behind Boxee could improve the playback performance I would use nothing else. But as is I still jump out to a web browser for most Hulu content.</p><p>-Rick</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a 48 " big screen TV.I do not have CableI do not have Satellite/Dish/DirectTVI do not have a DVD playerI do not have decent OTA receptionI do have DSLI do have NetflixI do have BoxeePretty much the only thing that happens on my TV is the Internet .
Now if the folks behind Boxee could improve the playback performance I would use nothing else .
But as is I still jump out to a web browser for most Hulu content.-Rick</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a 48" big screen TV.I do not have CableI do not have Satellite/Dish/DirectTVI do not have a DVD playerI do not have decent OTA receptionI do have DSLI do have NetflixI do have BoxeePretty much the only thing that happens on my TV is the Internet.
Now if the folks behind Boxee could improve the playback performance I would use nothing else.
But as is I still jump out to a web browser for most Hulu content.-Rick</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522574</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1268925960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have an HTPC and watch internet television services (hulu and netflix, primarily) all the time.</p></div><p>As do I.  My point is that things like Hulu and Netflix are ALL that I use it for.  Do you browse the Internet on y our TV/  Because that is what this article is talking about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an HTPC and watch internet television services ( hulu and netflix , primarily ) all the time.As do I. My point is that things like Hulu and Netflix are ALL that I use it for .
Do you browse the Internet on y our TV/ Because that is what this article is talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an HTPC and watch internet television services (hulu and netflix, primarily) all the time.As do I.  My point is that things like Hulu and Netflix are ALL that I use it for.
Do you browse the Internet on y our TV/  Because that is what this article is talking about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522206</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1268924220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?</p> </div><p>So you're saying that, aside from good Internet services which are good, the Internet on the TV is lame...?
</p><p>Prediction: the eventual plan is to get Hulu-like programming on YouTube, then release a YouTube set-top box that can replace cable TV.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from video services like YouTube , Hulu , Netflix , etc , have n't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame ?
So you 're saying that , aside from good Internet services which are good , the Internet on the TV is lame... ?
Prediction : the eventual plan is to get Hulu-like programming on YouTube , then release a YouTube set-top box that can replace cable TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?
So you're saying that, aside from good Internet services which are good, the Internet on the TV is lame...?
Prediction: the eventual plan is to get Hulu-like programming on YouTube, then release a YouTube set-top box that can replace cable TV.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522758</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268926800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just so you know,</p><p>Sony still makes a shit load of money off of Betamax tapes. Most to all the news broadcasters in the world use Betamax on their cameras because it's not cost effective to buy fancy digital ones. If it's not broke don't fix it. I worked at a news broadcasting company and the in field guys use beta cassettes with their cameras.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just so you know,Sony still makes a shit load of money off of Betamax tapes .
Most to all the news broadcasters in the world use Betamax on their cameras because it 's not cost effective to buy fancy digital ones .
If it 's not broke do n't fix it .
I worked at a news broadcasting company and the in field guys use beta cassettes with their cameras .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just so you know,Sony still makes a shit load of money off of Betamax tapes.
Most to all the news broadcasters in the world use Betamax on their cameras because it's not cost effective to buy fancy digital ones.
If it's not broke don't fix it.
I worked at a news broadcasting company and the in field guys use beta cassettes with their cameras.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523156</id>
	<title>Re:I get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268928660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because:<br>- nobody likes to wait for startup and miss the first minutes of their favorite show (convenience)<br>- complicated to use (for non slashdotters)<br>- cooling a pc is noisy, ruining the movie expirience (quality)<br>- most computers don't fit into the normal TV settup (design)<br>- a full pc is overkill in almost any case (cost)<br>- system updates / blue screen of death / kernel panic<br>- MAFIAA</p><p>If you just want to watch TV on your pc instead of using it as a full replacement, well you can allways buy a card / usb device for that.<br>There is no reason to Include the cost of a TV card in a computer when most people own a sepparate TV, especially when you already require two different devices.<br>After all computers and TVs are most often used in different locations.</p><p>Note: I am aware that you can remove the first three points by raising the cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because : - nobody likes to wait for startup and miss the first minutes of their favorite show ( convenience ) - complicated to use ( for non slashdotters ) - cooling a pc is noisy , ruining the movie expirience ( quality ) - most computers do n't fit into the normal TV settup ( design ) - a full pc is overkill in almost any case ( cost ) - system updates / blue screen of death / kernel panic- MAFIAAIf you just want to watch TV on your pc instead of using it as a full replacement , well you can allways buy a card / usb device for that.There is no reason to Include the cost of a TV card in a computer when most people own a sepparate TV , especially when you already require two different devices.After all computers and TVs are most often used in different locations.Note : I am aware that you can remove the first three points by raising the cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because:- nobody likes to wait for startup and miss the first minutes of their favorite show (convenience)- complicated to use (for non slashdotters)- cooling a pc is noisy, ruining the movie expirience (quality)- most computers don't fit into the normal TV settup (design)- a full pc is overkill in almost any case (cost)- system updates / blue screen of death / kernel panic- MAFIAAIf you just want to watch TV on your pc instead of using it as a full replacement, well you can allways buy a card / usb device for that.There is no reason to Include the cost of a TV card in a computer when most people own a sepparate TV, especially when you already require two different devices.After all computers and TVs are most often used in different locations.Note: I am aware that you can remove the first three points by raising the cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523660</id>
	<title>i also want my GTV..</title>
	<author>Vectormatic</author>
	<datestamp>1268931240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>different one though:</p><p>this one: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa\_Romeo\_GTV\_\%26\_Spider" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa\_Romeo\_GTV\_\%26\_Spider</a> [wikipedia.org] Preferably a 3.0 v6</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>different one though : this one : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa \ _Romeo \ _GTV \ _ \ % 26 \ _Spider [ wikipedia.org ] Preferably a 3.0 v6</tokentext>
<sentencetext>different one though:this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa\_Romeo\_GTV\_\%26\_Spider [wikipedia.org] Preferably a 3.0 v6</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523638</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268931120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; TV will need to evolve to include the internet</p><p>A "modern television" is a flatscreen monitor hooked up to an ATSC tuner (OTA) and a QAM tuner (cable).</p><p>A "modern personal computer" is a flatscreen monitor hooked up to a box with CPU, audio, video, keyboard, etc.</p><p>Run some cable from your your computer audio+video outputs to the TV's inputs (the same ones you use for DVD, BluRay, etc).  You've now "evolved" your TV to include the internet.  What's so difficult about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; TV will need to evolve to include the internetA " modern television " is a flatscreen monitor hooked up to an ATSC tuner ( OTA ) and a QAM tuner ( cable ) .A " modern personal computer " is a flatscreen monitor hooked up to a box with CPU , audio , video , keyboard , etc.Run some cable from your your computer audio + video outputs to the TV 's inputs ( the same ones you use for DVD , BluRay , etc ) .
You 've now " evolved " your TV to include the internet .
What 's so difficult about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; TV will need to evolve to include the internetA "modern television" is a flatscreen monitor hooked up to an ATSC tuner (OTA) and a QAM tuner (cable).A "modern personal computer" is a flatscreen monitor hooked up to a box with CPU, audio, video, keyboard, etc.Run some cable from your your computer audio+video outputs to the TV's inputs (the same ones you use for DVD, BluRay, etc).
You've now "evolved" your TV to include the internet.
What's so difficult about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522446</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522696</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1268926560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you sure you are not confusing "internet" with "web browser"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure you are not confusing " internet " with " web browser " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure you are not confusing "internet" with "web browser"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522448</id>
	<title>I don;t want the web on my TV</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1268925480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, I have a computer to do that.  It's a laptop.  I just put it away when I'm done with it.  I don't interrupt the viewing of everyone else in my household.  I don't want a lot of applications either.  Computers run them well enough.  <br> <br>
Streaming TV, and possibly youtube might work, but we don't need anything as sophisticated or complicated as a general purpose computer for those.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I have a computer to do that .
It 's a laptop .
I just put it away when I 'm done with it .
I do n't interrupt the viewing of everyone else in my household .
I do n't want a lot of applications either .
Computers run them well enough .
Streaming TV , and possibly youtube might work , but we do n't need anything as sophisticated or complicated as a general purpose computer for those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I have a computer to do that.
It's a laptop.
I just put it away when I'm done with it.
I don't interrupt the viewing of everyone else in my household.
I don't want a lot of applications either.
Computers run them well enough.
Streaming TV, and possibly youtube might work, but we don't need anything as sophisticated or complicated as a general purpose computer for those.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522400</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Zoidbot</author>
	<datestamp>1268925180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These idiots are just upset at Sony because either:</p><p>a) they crushed their inferior HD DVD bandwagon they prematurely jumped on.<br>b) they bought an Xbox as it was first out the gate (but broken), and Sony came up with something much better soon afterwards</p><p>The rest of us just buy Sony products, because they are usually very good quality for a small additional premium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These idiots are just upset at Sony because either : a ) they crushed their inferior HD DVD bandwagon they prematurely jumped on.b ) they bought an Xbox as it was first out the gate ( but broken ) , and Sony came up with something much better soon afterwardsThe rest of us just buy Sony products , because they are usually very good quality for a small additional premium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These idiots are just upset at Sony because either:a) they crushed their inferior HD DVD bandwagon they prematurely jumped on.b) they bought an Xbox as it was first out the gate (but broken), and Sony came up with something much better soon afterwardsThe rest of us just buy Sony products, because they are usually very good quality for a small additional premium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521954</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1268923140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Share the HD fun too, the 'cam' might have the letters H and D and 720p ready in big print on the box.<br>The fine print will note at 15fps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Share the HD fun too , the 'cam ' might have the letters H and D and 720p ready in big print on the box.The fine print will note at 15fps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Share the HD fun too, the 'cam' might have the letters H and D and 720p ready in big print on the box.The fine print will note at 15fps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521944</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268923080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems odd that Google, who seems to opt for openness of platform when possible, has signed on with Sony.  I guess how cumbersome and closed the project is will be determined by who's calling the shots.  I mean, Sony already has a history of developing hardware for a company, breaking ties when the collaboration didn't suit them, and releasing the platform on their own.  That's where the playstation came from in the first place.  It was intended, at conception, to be a CD add-on for the SNES.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems odd that Google , who seems to opt for openness of platform when possible , has signed on with Sony .
I guess how cumbersome and closed the project is will be determined by who 's calling the shots .
I mean , Sony already has a history of developing hardware for a company , breaking ties when the collaboration did n't suit them , and releasing the platform on their own .
That 's where the playstation came from in the first place .
It was intended , at conception , to be a CD add-on for the SNES .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems odd that Google, who seems to opt for openness of platform when possible, has signed on with Sony.
I guess how cumbersome and closed the project is will be determined by who's calling the shots.
I mean, Sony already has a history of developing hardware for a company, breaking ties when the collaboration didn't suit them, and releasing the platform on their own.
That's where the playstation came from in the first place.
It was intended, at conception, to be a CD add-on for the SNES.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522116</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1268923800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, perhaps that Google is big enough to change Sony's ways (at least in this particular product)..?  With Google's resources, Sony needs Google a lot more than Google needs Sony (Imagine how many hardware manufacturers would jump at an exclusive right to make hardware for a GTV style product)...  I like the fact that Google's "spreading the wealth" by not sticking exclusively to one hardware company (HTC) for all their physical products.  Sure, Sony has made some dumb decisions in the past (and for some dumb is putting it nice), but what remains to be seen is if Google and Sony can play nice together.  I wonder if there is a side to this deal that we're not seeing?  Like Google exchanging this contract for rights to Sony's media collection at a bottom basement price for a music store?  Or perhaps for patent rights?  Or perhaps for something I can't even think of...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , perhaps that Google is big enough to change Sony 's ways ( at least in this particular product ) .. ?
With Google 's resources , Sony needs Google a lot more than Google needs Sony ( Imagine how many hardware manufacturers would jump at an exclusive right to make hardware for a GTV style product ) ... I like the fact that Google 's " spreading the wealth " by not sticking exclusively to one hardware company ( HTC ) for all their physical products .
Sure , Sony has made some dumb decisions in the past ( and for some dumb is putting it nice ) , but what remains to be seen is if Google and Sony can play nice together .
I wonder if there is a side to this deal that we 're not seeing ?
Like Google exchanging this contract for rights to Sony 's media collection at a bottom basement price for a music store ?
Or perhaps for patent rights ?
Or perhaps for something I ca n't even think of.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, perhaps that Google is big enough to change Sony's ways (at least in this particular product)..?
With Google's resources, Sony needs Google a lot more than Google needs Sony (Imagine how many hardware manufacturers would jump at an exclusive right to make hardware for a GTV style product)...  I like the fact that Google's "spreading the wealth" by not sticking exclusively to one hardware company (HTC) for all their physical products.
Sure, Sony has made some dumb decisions in the past (and for some dumb is putting it nice), but what remains to be seen is if Google and Sony can play nice together.
I wonder if there is a side to this deal that we're not seeing?
Like Google exchanging this contract for rights to Sony's media collection at a bottom basement price for a music store?
Or perhaps for patent rights?
Or perhaps for something I can't even think of...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522316</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>doti</author>
	<datestamp>1268924700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not a computer with tv reception already?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not a computer with tv reception already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not a computer with tv reception already?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523144</id>
	<title>Maybe AppleTV will become more than a hobby now...</title>
	<author>divisionbyzero</author>
	<datestamp>1268928600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple already has a platform.  Now they need to execute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple already has a platform .
Now they need to execute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple already has a platform.
Now they need to execute.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522174</id>
	<title>Skynet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268924040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So when will Google become self aware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when will Google become self aware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when will Google become self aware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522292</id>
	<title>Unless its in the TV who cares</title>
	<author>sunking2</author>
	<datestamp>1268924580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until it's integrated so that you can overlay or window the web over whatever you are watching currently I have no real desire for the web on my TV. It's nice to do in between innings in a ball game, but I don't want to have to go changing input sources to be able to do it. I nice windows system ala PiP without choosing the source, or even a way to control the transparency of the browser and plop it over whatever you have actually on TV would be great. To do this is has to be integrated in the TV, not as an add on box.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until it 's integrated so that you can overlay or window the web over whatever you are watching currently I have no real desire for the web on my TV .
It 's nice to do in between innings in a ball game , but I do n't want to have to go changing input sources to be able to do it .
I nice windows system ala PiP without choosing the source , or even a way to control the transparency of the browser and plop it over whatever you have actually on TV would be great .
To do this is has to be integrated in the TV , not as an add on box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until it's integrated so that you can overlay or window the web over whatever you are watching currently I have no real desire for the web on my TV.
It's nice to do in between innings in a ball game, but I don't want to have to go changing input sources to be able to do it.
I nice windows system ala PiP without choosing the source, or even a way to control the transparency of the browser and plop it over whatever you have actually on TV would be great.
To do this is has to be integrated in the TV, not as an add on box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31528828</id>
	<title>Re:GTV on PS3?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268906640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt we'll be seeing GTV on the PSP, although it is a possibility.  After all, the PSP runs on a variant of the Linux Operating System and Android uses a modified version of the Linux kernal.  I'm nowhere geeky enough to know how big a difference there is in the system stacks and UIs and how difficult it would make porting GTV onto the PSP - probably not too much at a wild guess, but I'll leave others to thrash out the technical details.

As an aside, QNX is used a lot as a real-time embedded OS in car systems, but also gets used in DVDs and set-top boxes as well, so the knowledge base on how to code Media playing devices on UNIX-like Operating Systems certainly already exists within Sony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt we 'll be seeing GTV on the PSP , although it is a possibility .
After all , the PSP runs on a variant of the Linux Operating System and Android uses a modified version of the Linux kernal .
I 'm nowhere geeky enough to know how big a difference there is in the system stacks and UIs and how difficult it would make porting GTV onto the PSP - probably not too much at a wild guess , but I 'll leave others to thrash out the technical details .
As an aside , QNX is used a lot as a real-time embedded OS in car systems , but also gets used in DVDs and set-top boxes as well , so the knowledge base on how to code Media playing devices on UNIX-like Operating Systems certainly already exists within Sony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt we'll be seeing GTV on the PSP, although it is a possibility.
After all, the PSP runs on a variant of the Linux Operating System and Android uses a modified version of the Linux kernal.
I'm nowhere geeky enough to know how big a difference there is in the system stacks and UIs and how difficult it would make porting GTV onto the PSP - probably not too much at a wild guess, but I'll leave others to thrash out the technical details.
As an aside, QNX is used a lot as a real-time embedded OS in car systems, but also gets used in DVDs and set-top boxes as well, so the knowledge base on how to code Media playing devices on UNIX-like Operating Systems certainly already exists within Sony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522090</id>
	<title>What, wait?</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1268923680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahh, set top boxes, payware... ok, now it makes sense. I thought for a minute that Sony - the king of DRM-infested crapware and hair-brained rootkit schemes was actually going to do something positive. Hey - if google goes along with this, does that make them an evil company yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh , set top boxes , payware... ok , now it makes sense .
I thought for a minute that Sony - the king of DRM-infested crapware and hair-brained rootkit schemes was actually going to do something positive .
Hey - if google goes along with this , does that make them an evil company yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh, set top boxes, payware... ok, now it makes sense.
I thought for a minute that Sony - the king of DRM-infested crapware and hair-brained rootkit schemes was actually going to do something positive.
Hey - if google goes along with this, does that make them an evil company yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522694</id>
	<title>Lizzie on Dollhouse!</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1268926500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sign me the hell up for Dollhouse.  I'll pay a regular fee for that show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sign me the hell up for Dollhouse .
I 'll pay a regular fee for that show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sign me the hell up for Dollhouse.
I'll pay a regular fee for that show.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523338</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>Nethemas the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1268929740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft apparently claimed the <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the\_rebirth\_of\_web\_tv.php" title="readwriteweb.com">WebTV</a> [readwriteweb.com] branding why not have an offering by Google?  It appears that from now on what Google does Microsoft will do and vice-versa.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft apparently claimed the WebTV [ readwriteweb.com ] branding why not have an offering by Google ?
It appears that from now on what Google does Microsoft will do and vice-versa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft apparently claimed the WebTV [readwriteweb.com] branding why not have an offering by Google?
It appears that from now on what Google does Microsoft will do and vice-versa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522446</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>clang\_jangle</author>
	<datestamp>1268925480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TV will need to evolve to include the internet in order to accommodate market changes. If TV can become a networked experience it will (along with smart phones) easily render a computer unnecessary in most households. Most people don't really want the wild and woolly, wide-open internet, nor do they want to use a keyboard and mouse -- they want a pre-masticated experience delivered through an appliance controlled with an idiot-proof remote.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TV will need to evolve to include the internet in order to accommodate market changes .
If TV can become a networked experience it will ( along with smart phones ) easily render a computer unnecessary in most households .
Most people do n't really want the wild and woolly , wide-open internet , nor do they want to use a keyboard and mouse -- they want a pre-masticated experience delivered through an appliance controlled with an idiot-proof remote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TV will need to evolve to include the internet in order to accommodate market changes.
If TV can become a networked experience it will (along with smart phones) easily render a computer unnecessary in most households.
Most people don't really want the wild and woolly, wide-open internet, nor do they want to use a keyboard and mouse -- they want a pre-masticated experience delivered through an appliance controlled with an idiot-proof remote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522094</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268923680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>think of it as Web TV, trying to sucker grandmothers into giving up hundreds of dollars on a lame piece of shit that wont browse its own home page</p><p>served up on a TV signal so its hard to read</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>think of it as Web TV , trying to sucker grandmothers into giving up hundreds of dollars on a lame piece of shit that wont browse its own home pageserved up on a TV signal so its hard to read</tokentext>
<sentencetext>think of it as Web TV, trying to sucker grandmothers into giving up hundreds of dollars on a lame piece of shit that wont browse its own home pageserved up on a TV signal so its hard to read</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522810</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>SenseiLeNoir</author>
	<datestamp>1268927040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right mostly about all that. I can clarify a few.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>1)  Compatible with any USB storage device.  Compare to "no third party" locking of Xbox360 proprietary memory.  (Wii uses SDHC I think?)</p></div><p>Correct, though there are some limits (multi partition devices are not supported well, possible size limits). Though these limits seem more technology oriented, and may be fixed by firmware.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2)  You don't have to buy an Eye Toy for the camera.  Supposedly any UVC compliant USB camera will work.</p></div><p>Correct to a point. Any UVC compliant camera should work (I have used various logitech, and MS webcams with it). However, you will not be able to access any special features of the camera beyond the UVC spec, unless a special driver is made for it. However, most webcam's Microphones are supported as long as they confirm the standard USB HID-Microphones.<br>However, somes games may still require the Playstation eyes, as they are programmed specifically to the specifications of that camera, and require the mutli array positional Microphone of the Playstation Eye for positional stuff.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3)  Same for USB headsets<br>4)  Same for Bluetooth headsets<br>5)  Same for keyboards/mice for browsing and chat</p></div><p>Correct, any Blutooth or USB KeyBoard/Mouse/Headset or combo keyboard mouses work fine</p><p><div class="quote"><p>6)  Want a bigger hard drive?  Put in any 2.5" SATA drive</p></div><p>Largely correct, though you may want to make sure your drive doesnt generate too much heat, or is thicker than normal. Not sure how it handles hybrid SSD/Magnetic drives either.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>7)  Media playback is UPnP based and supports quite a few formats (MKV being the most notable exception).  I can use the PS3 as a MythTV frontend!</p></div><p>Correct, and its even DivX certified.</p><p>There is one other thing that also suprised me, considering its a Sony product. Sony sells a DVB tuner here in UK and Aus called the PlayTV. This twin DVB (Digital) tuner turns the PS3 into a full featured PVR for Freeview (UKs Free digital Terrestrial system). Whats really cool is that the recorded programms are easily copied onto a USB drive (using the menu), and are just the raw MPEG streams, complete with sub streams (subtitles) ready to be burnt to DVD or encoded to any other format.</p><p>Not sure about Hulu, I am in the UK, but we get the free BBC iPlayer instead, and also Vidzone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right mostly about all that .
I can clarify a few.1 ) Compatible with any USB storage device .
Compare to " no third party " locking of Xbox360 proprietary memory .
( Wii uses SDHC I think ?
) Correct , though there are some limits ( multi partition devices are not supported well , possible size limits ) .
Though these limits seem more technology oriented , and may be fixed by firmware.2 ) You do n't have to buy an Eye Toy for the camera .
Supposedly any UVC compliant USB camera will work.Correct to a point .
Any UVC compliant camera should work ( I have used various logitech , and MS webcams with it ) .
However , you will not be able to access any special features of the camera beyond the UVC spec , unless a special driver is made for it .
However , most webcam 's Microphones are supported as long as they confirm the standard USB HID-Microphones.However , somes games may still require the Playstation eyes , as they are programmed specifically to the specifications of that camera , and require the mutli array positional Microphone of the Playstation Eye for positional stuff.3 ) Same for USB headsets4 ) Same for Bluetooth headsets5 ) Same for keyboards/mice for browsing and chatCorrect , any Blutooth or USB KeyBoard/Mouse/Headset or combo keyboard mouses work fine6 ) Want a bigger hard drive ?
Put in any 2.5 " SATA driveLargely correct , though you may want to make sure your drive doesnt generate too much heat , or is thicker than normal .
Not sure how it handles hybrid SSD/Magnetic drives either.7 ) Media playback is UPnP based and supports quite a few formats ( MKV being the most notable exception ) .
I can use the PS3 as a MythTV frontend ! Correct , and its even DivX certified.There is one other thing that also suprised me , considering its a Sony product .
Sony sells a DVB tuner here in UK and Aus called the PlayTV .
This twin DVB ( Digital ) tuner turns the PS3 into a full featured PVR for Freeview ( UKs Free digital Terrestrial system ) .
Whats really cool is that the recorded programms are easily copied onto a USB drive ( using the menu ) , and are just the raw MPEG streams , complete with sub streams ( subtitles ) ready to be burnt to DVD or encoded to any other format.Not sure about Hulu , I am in the UK , but we get the free BBC iPlayer instead , and also Vidzone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right mostly about all that.
I can clarify a few.1)  Compatible with any USB storage device.
Compare to "no third party" locking of Xbox360 proprietary memory.
(Wii uses SDHC I think?
)Correct, though there are some limits (multi partition devices are not supported well, possible size limits).
Though these limits seem more technology oriented, and may be fixed by firmware.2)  You don't have to buy an Eye Toy for the camera.
Supposedly any UVC compliant USB camera will work.Correct to a point.
Any UVC compliant camera should work (I have used various logitech, and MS webcams with it).
However, you will not be able to access any special features of the camera beyond the UVC spec, unless a special driver is made for it.
However, most webcam's Microphones are supported as long as they confirm the standard USB HID-Microphones.However, somes games may still require the Playstation eyes, as they are programmed specifically to the specifications of that camera, and require the mutli array positional Microphone of the Playstation Eye for positional stuff.3)  Same for USB headsets4)  Same for Bluetooth headsets5)  Same for keyboards/mice for browsing and chatCorrect, any Blutooth or USB KeyBoard/Mouse/Headset or combo keyboard mouses work fine6)  Want a bigger hard drive?
Put in any 2.5" SATA driveLargely correct, though you may want to make sure your drive doesnt generate too much heat, or is thicker than normal.
Not sure how it handles hybrid SSD/Magnetic drives either.7)  Media playback is UPnP based and supports quite a few formats (MKV being the most notable exception).
I can use the PS3 as a MythTV frontend!Correct, and its even DivX certified.There is one other thing that also suprised me, considering its a Sony product.
Sony sells a DVB tuner here in UK and Aus called the PlayTV.
This twin DVB (Digital) tuner turns the PS3 into a full featured PVR for Freeview (UKs Free digital Terrestrial system).
Whats really cool is that the recorded programms are easily copied onto a USB drive (using the menu), and are just the raw MPEG streams, complete with sub streams (subtitles) ready to be burnt to DVD or encoded to any other format.Not sure about Hulu, I am in the UK, but we get the free BBC iPlayer instead, and also Vidzone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521930</id>
	<title>Mixed</title>
	<author>hemlock00</author>
	<datestamp>1268923020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have some mixed feelings on this. On one hand, like others have said, google seems to have it's fingers in everything. One the other hand, unlike recent new tech items like the ipad, this one did hold some interest.

I often use my ps3 to surf the web on my tv, so as far as I'm concerned, let's cut out the middle man.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have some mixed feelings on this .
On one hand , like others have said , google seems to have it 's fingers in everything .
One the other hand , unlike recent new tech items like the ipad , this one did hold some interest .
I often use my ps3 to surf the web on my tv , so as far as I 'm concerned , let 's cut out the middle man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have some mixed feelings on this.
On one hand, like others have said, google seems to have it's fingers in everything.
One the other hand, unlike recent new tech items like the ipad, this one did hold some interest.
I often use my ps3 to surf the web on my tv, so as far as I'm concerned, let's cut out the middle man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522048</id>
	<title>missing something here</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1268923500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already have web TV. Video on Demand has been talked about for years and years and tech skeptics have always scoffed about it being a decade out for decades. Well, we have it now. The internet has the carrying capacity. Netflix is doing it for a profit. And the part that really has me excited, small-time people are making money at it without giant corporate backing. Someone wants to be on national television, they're going to have to kiss the ass of a major corporation. There's barriers to entry like the massive cost of building a television network. The internet turns all that on its head.</p><p>1. Create the tech that makes internet broadcasting technically feasible. Done.<br>2. Create the business model that makes internet broadcasting financially feasible. Work still needs done but it's happening. Partially done.<br>3. Profit</p><p>What we've seen so far is the creation of net-based versions of the cheapie mainstream shows. Porn is cheap to produce and there were a lot of amateur and low-rent outfits out there even before the net happened. They were the first ones to make it big on the net. We're seeing computer tech shows, talk shows and the like with various podcasts. They give away the content for free and make their money on sponsorship deals. While a lot of work goes into them, they're still not as expensive to produce as a network television comedy or drama. We've seen a few attempts at net-based sitcoms but they died.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have web TV .
Video on Demand has been talked about for years and years and tech skeptics have always scoffed about it being a decade out for decades .
Well , we have it now .
The internet has the carrying capacity .
Netflix is doing it for a profit .
And the part that really has me excited , small-time people are making money at it without giant corporate backing .
Someone wants to be on national television , they 're going to have to kiss the ass of a major corporation .
There 's barriers to entry like the massive cost of building a television network .
The internet turns all that on its head.1 .
Create the tech that makes internet broadcasting technically feasible .
Done.2. Create the business model that makes internet broadcasting financially feasible .
Work still needs done but it 's happening .
Partially done.3 .
ProfitWhat we 've seen so far is the creation of net-based versions of the cheapie mainstream shows .
Porn is cheap to produce and there were a lot of amateur and low-rent outfits out there even before the net happened .
They were the first ones to make it big on the net .
We 're seeing computer tech shows , talk shows and the like with various podcasts .
They give away the content for free and make their money on sponsorship deals .
While a lot of work goes into them , they 're still not as expensive to produce as a network television comedy or drama .
We 've seen a few attempts at net-based sitcoms but they died .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have web TV.
Video on Demand has been talked about for years and years and tech skeptics have always scoffed about it being a decade out for decades.
Well, we have it now.
The internet has the carrying capacity.
Netflix is doing it for a profit.
And the part that really has me excited, small-time people are making money at it without giant corporate backing.
Someone wants to be on national television, they're going to have to kiss the ass of a major corporation.
There's barriers to entry like the massive cost of building a television network.
The internet turns all that on its head.1.
Create the tech that makes internet broadcasting technically feasible.
Done.2. Create the business model that makes internet broadcasting financially feasible.
Work still needs done but it's happening.
Partially done.3.
ProfitWhat we've seen so far is the creation of net-based versions of the cheapie mainstream shows.
Porn is cheap to produce and there were a lot of amateur and low-rent outfits out there even before the net happened.
They were the first ones to make it big on the net.
We're seeing computer tech shows, talk shows and the like with various podcasts.
They give away the content for free and make their money on sponsorship deals.
While a lot of work goes into them, they're still not as expensive to produce as a network television comedy or drama.
We've seen a few attempts at net-based sitcoms but they died.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31526868</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268943960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh wow, it hurts. I'm laughing so hard right now.</p><p>Google already compromised by entering China in the first place. They even removed all statements from their official literature stating that they don't censor search results anymore when they sealed the deal! Sure, they thought maybe the Chinese were better off with a crippled Google than no Google at all, which is perfectly sensible - but then they agreed to let the Chinese government ferret through private E-mails. ('Internal intercept systems', etc.) I'm actually glad they got attacked - it revealed the extent of their morality charade. 'Don't be evil' rings pretty fucking hollow now.</p><p>Sony employs idiotic business strategies, but Google is and actually practices evil. They've been doing it in China for four years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh wow , it hurts .
I 'm laughing so hard right now.Google already compromised by entering China in the first place .
They even removed all statements from their official literature stating that they do n't censor search results anymore when they sealed the deal !
Sure , they thought maybe the Chinese were better off with a crippled Google than no Google at all , which is perfectly sensible - but then they agreed to let the Chinese government ferret through private E-mails .
( 'Internal intercept systems ' , etc .
) I 'm actually glad they got attacked - it revealed the extent of their morality charade .
'Do n't be evil ' rings pretty fucking hollow now.Sony employs idiotic business strategies , but Google is and actually practices evil .
They 've been doing it in China for four years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh wow, it hurts.
I'm laughing so hard right now.Google already compromised by entering China in the first place.
They even removed all statements from their official literature stating that they don't censor search results anymore when they sealed the deal!
Sure, they thought maybe the Chinese were better off with a crippled Google than no Google at all, which is perfectly sensible - but then they agreed to let the Chinese government ferret through private E-mails.
('Internal intercept systems', etc.
) I'm actually glad they got attacked - it revealed the extent of their morality charade.
'Don't be evil' rings pretty fucking hollow now.Sony employs idiotic business strategies, but Google is and actually practices evil.
They've been doing it in China for four years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522202</id>
	<title>Re:GTV on PS3?</title>
	<author>BodhiCat</author>
	<datestamp>1268924220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gay</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gay</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gay</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1268923140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>But it has Google as partner. I can make fun of Google Not Evil(tm) all I want. But if that company is willing to walk away from China, instead of compromising, I figure it is going to be Sony's arm that is going to be twisted, and not the other way around. Further, I think at some point, even the dumbest of the dumbos finally get the message and it is well past time Sony got the message. Betamax, memory stick, rootkits etc are futile battles to fight, leading to at best, Pyrrhic victories.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But it has Google as partner .
I can make fun of Google Not Evil ( tm ) all I want .
But if that company is willing to walk away from China , instead of compromising , I figure it is going to be Sony 's arm that is going to be twisted , and not the other way around .
Further , I think at some point , even the dumbest of the dumbos finally get the message and it is well past time Sony got the message .
Betamax , memory stick , rootkits etc are futile battles to fight , leading to at best , Pyrrhic victories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it has Google as partner.
I can make fun of Google Not Evil(tm) all I want.
But if that company is willing to walk away from China, instead of compromising, I figure it is going to be Sony's arm that is going to be twisted, and not the other way around.
Further, I think at some point, even the dumbest of the dumbos finally get the message and it is well past time Sony got the message.
Betamax, memory stick, rootkits etc are futile battles to fight, leading to at best, Pyrrhic victories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522890</id>
	<title>Won't replace my windows 7 media center</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268927400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Windows 7 Media Center box does awesome things:</p><p>It's a NAS storage device,<br>A virtual server host (VirtualBox) that currently runs my personal TurnKey MediaWiki,<br>A backup device,<br>A frontend for windows 7 media center in my livingroom that hooks up to Boxee, Hulu, game emulators, and all of my stored media in an amazing interface,<br>Runs drivers for a wireless xbox 360 controller that works with my video game emulators, and PC games,<br>etc, etc, etc.</p><p>All for cheaper than a PS3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Windows 7 Media Center box does awesome things : It 's a NAS storage device,A virtual server host ( VirtualBox ) that currently runs my personal TurnKey MediaWiki,A backup device,A frontend for windows 7 media center in my livingroom that hooks up to Boxee , Hulu , game emulators , and all of my stored media in an amazing interface,Runs drivers for a wireless xbox 360 controller that works with my video game emulators , and PC games,etc , etc , etc.All for cheaper than a PS3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Windows 7 Media Center box does awesome things:It's a NAS storage device,A virtual server host (VirtualBox) that currently runs my personal TurnKey MediaWiki,A backup device,A frontend for windows 7 media center in my livingroom that hooks up to Boxee, Hulu, game emulators, and all of my stored media in an amazing interface,Runs drivers for a wireless xbox 360 controller that works with my video game emulators, and PC games,etc, etc, etc.All for cheaper than a PS3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523812</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>delinear</author>
	<datestamp>1268932080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can already do this by plugging in my phone, my netbook/laptop, not to mention my popcorn hour, why do I need yet another set top box to stream internet video?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can already do this by plugging in my phone , my netbook/laptop , not to mention my popcorn hour , why do I need yet another set top box to stream internet video ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can already do this by plugging in my phone, my netbook/laptop, not to mention my popcorn hour, why do I need yet another set top box to stream internet video?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522268</id>
	<title>Re:everywhere</title>
	<author>nycguy</author>
	<datestamp>1268924460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And who still thinks Google's fingers aren't everywhere? This will be just another datamining source.</p></div><p>
I've been a beta-tester for the "Google toilet", and let me tell you, friend: You don't know the half of it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And who still thinks Google 's fingers are n't everywhere ?
This will be just another datamining source .
I 've been a beta-tester for the " Google toilet " , and let me tell you , friend : You do n't know the half of it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And who still thinks Google's fingers aren't everywhere?
This will be just another datamining source.
I've been a beta-tester for the "Google toilet", and let me tell you, friend: You don't know the half of it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522430</id>
	<title>Continued Marginalization of Nielsen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268925360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that Google will tracking normal TV watching too so they will be able provide ratings for web and broadcast viewing. Wonder if Nielsen is shaking in their boots yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that Google will tracking normal TV watching too so they will be able provide ratings for web and broadcast viewing .
Wonder if Nielsen is shaking in their boots yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that Google will tracking normal TV watching too so they will be able provide ratings for web and broadcast viewing.
Wonder if Nielsen is shaking in their boots yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524338</id>
	<title>Sony is fading in the TV dept.</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1268934300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sony is also fading in the TV department.  Disc players and LCD TVs of good are available from a lot of cheaper vendors and choosing Sony no longer makes as much sense as it might have even 5 years ago.</p><p>Sony has to start doing something to remain relevant.</p><p>Although with or without Sony's involvement you can bet that this isn't some open system box you can just remote into and download unencrypted video from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony is also fading in the TV department .
Disc players and LCD TVs of good are available from a lot of cheaper vendors and choosing Sony no longer makes as much sense as it might have even 5 years ago.Sony has to start doing something to remain relevant.Although with or without Sony 's involvement you can bet that this is n't some open system box you can just remote into and download unencrypted video from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony is also fading in the TV department.
Disc players and LCD TVs of good are available from a lot of cheaper vendors and choosing Sony no longer makes as much sense as it might have even 5 years ago.Sony has to start doing something to remain relevant.Although with or without Sony's involvement you can bet that this isn't some open system box you can just remote into and download unencrypted video from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521872</id>
	<title>everywhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268922660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And who still thinks Google's fingers aren't everywhere? This will be just another datamining source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And who still thinks Google 's fingers are n't everywhere ?
This will be just another datamining source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And who still thinks Google's fingers aren't everywhere?
This will be just another datamining source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522010</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268923320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And google will mine whatever you watch and target you with ads.</p><p>no thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And google will mine whatever you watch and target you with ads.no thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And google will mine whatever you watch and target you with ads.no thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522614</id>
	<title>Re:Suitable Content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268926140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you... you... FURRY!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you... you... FURRY !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you... you... FURRY!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522542</id>
	<title>Re:GTV? Get permission from Philips first...</title>
	<author>Lunix Nutcase</author>
	<datestamp>1268925840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of these <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTV\_(disambiguation)" title="wikipedia.org">GTVs</a> [wikipedia.org] would beg to differ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of these GTVs [ wikipedia.org ] would beg to differ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of these GTVs [wikipedia.org] would beg to differ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31526530</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1268942940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Sony (electronics) has Sony (content) as a partner, which is why all their computer-related electronics have largely sucked in weird ways for the past decade or two--because the content arm doesn't want to make it easy for people with electronic devices to copy Sony-produced content.</p><p>Anyone know off the top of their head which half of the company makes more money?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Sony ( electronics ) has Sony ( content ) as a partner , which is why all their computer-related electronics have largely sucked in weird ways for the past decade or two--because the content arm does n't want to make it easy for people with electronic devices to copy Sony-produced content.Anyone know off the top of their head which half of the company makes more money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Sony (electronics) has Sony (content) as a partner, which is why all their computer-related electronics have largely sucked in weird ways for the past decade or two--because the content arm doesn't want to make it easy for people with electronic devices to copy Sony-produced content.Anyone know off the top of their head which half of the company makes more money?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522346</id>
	<title>Re:GTV on PS3?</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1268924820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would Sony be getting on board the project if they objected to the centrepiece device's very existence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Sony be getting on board the project if they objected to the centrepiece device 's very existence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Sony be getting on board the project if they objected to the centrepiece device's very existence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522908</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1268927460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here?</p><p>My parents would be... or anyone else who doesn't know how to use a computer, but would like to watch videos on youtube or hulu.com.  Or go to government websites to look-up information.  PLUS this won't be as a bad as the old WebTV which was limited to  NTSC connections (approximately 440x480 resolution) with analog blur.</p><p>People today have ATSC sets that can show 1280x1080 or higher, and with the crystal clarity of a VGA/digital screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here ? My parents would be... or anyone else who does n't know how to use a computer , but would like to watch videos on youtube or hulu.com .
Or go to government websites to look-up information .
PLUS this wo n't be as a bad as the old WebTV which was limited to NTSC connections ( approximately 440x480 resolution ) with analog blur.People today have ATSC sets that can show 1280x1080 or higher , and with the crystal clarity of a VGA/digital screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here?My parents would be... or anyone else who doesn't know how to use a computer, but would like to watch videos on youtube or hulu.com.
Or go to government websites to look-up information.
PLUS this won't be as a bad as the old WebTV which was limited to  NTSC connections (approximately 440x480 resolution) with analog blur.People today have ATSC sets that can show 1280x1080 or higher, and with the crystal clarity of a VGA/digital screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522556</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268925900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Walk away from China maybe, walk away from the Australian Human Rights Commission (re: indexing a racist article held on a US site); who knows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Walk away from China maybe , walk away from the Australian Human Rights Commission ( re : indexing a racist article held on a US site ) ; who knows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Walk away from China maybe, walk away from the Australian Human Rights Commission (re: indexing a racist article held on a US site); who knows?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524272</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1268934000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> With Google's resources, Sony needs Google a lot more than Google needs Sony (Imagine how many hardware manufacturers would jump at an exclusive right to make hardware for a GTV style product)...</p></div><p>Well, a lot of them, but what you're missing is that very few of those hardware companies are also major content producers, holding title to thousands of movies and dozens of ongoing TV shows. Building a set top box that streams content over the internet is not trivial, except in comparison to the task of getting content providers to license their shows in an affordable and not completely useless and annoying way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With Google 's resources , Sony needs Google a lot more than Google needs Sony ( Imagine how many hardware manufacturers would jump at an exclusive right to make hardware for a GTV style product ) ...Well , a lot of them , but what you 're missing is that very few of those hardware companies are also major content producers , holding title to thousands of movies and dozens of ongoing TV shows .
Building a set top box that streams content over the internet is not trivial , except in comparison to the task of getting content providers to license their shows in an affordable and not completely useless and annoying way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> With Google's resources, Sony needs Google a lot more than Google needs Sony (Imagine how many hardware manufacturers would jump at an exclusive right to make hardware for a GTV style product)...Well, a lot of them, but what you're missing is that very few of those hardware companies are also major content producers, holding title to thousands of movies and dozens of ongoing TV shows.
Building a set top box that streams content over the internet is not trivial, except in comparison to the task of getting content providers to license their shows in an affordable and not completely useless and annoying way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522000</id>
	<title>I want to hack google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268923320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean come the fuck on, it has ALL the internet, now it wants all your phone and television? Shit man, I go live in cave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean come the fuck on , it has ALL the internet , now it wants all your phone and television ?
Shit man , I go live in cave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean come the fuck on, it has ALL the internet, now it wants all your phone and television?
Shit man, I go live in cave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522146</id>
	<title>What's old is new again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268923920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WebTV What?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WebTV What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WebTV What?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523370</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>delinear</author>
	<datestamp>1268929920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they're hanging around with Sony to make them look even more Not Evil in comparison.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they 're hanging around with Sony to make them look even more Not Evil in comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they're hanging around with Sony to make them look even more Not Evil in comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522702</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1268926560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ahh common Sony will never make you install the rootkit for their own device, they will install it for you at the factory!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahh common Sony will never make you install the rootkit for their own device , they will install it for you at the factory !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahh common Sony will never make you install the rootkit for their own device, they will install it for you at the factory!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31526306</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268942340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if and when Google does walk away from China, I suspect it's only to save face and safeguard their data from snoopers, not because of any ethical concerns or this hollow tit-for-tat morality play that's been rowing between the East and West for... how long has it been?</p><p>Alas, people are stupid, and starry-eyed technophiles are no different. Google is not a philanthropic organization. They've never given a hand to anyone they weren't perfectly willing to throw under a bus later. Every action Google takes is for Google's benefit, because Google is a business. Does that make sense? Just because they have mountains of cash to piss away on silly feel-good research projects of questionable merit doesn't mean they're not purely self-interested. Quite the contrary, Google's research strategies have revolved mostly around throwing projects at a wall to see what sticks, and then throwing money at whatever hangs on. Their services, provided free of charge, should not be mistaken for generosity - this is a business model at work, and a very clever one.</p><p>What we're seeing right now is the Great Google Transition, which I'd like to call AOL 2.0. (Never mind that there's already been an AOL 2.0; referring to the second iteration of a social or economic phenomena right now as 'X' 2.0 is fashionable right now and yes, I am definitely jumping on that bandwagon.) Many tech-savvy colleagues of mine and I have been predicting this for a long, long time. After Google's meteoric rise, brought about by a remarkably patient business strategy (patience being a dirty word in today's business world and especially in the computer technology industry) and, perhaps surprisingly, a sensible and consistent user interface on their website, they've finally reached a point at which the search arm of their business is nearing or actually at the zenith of its profitability. However, there are several incumbent industries which Google is primed to invade - industries that will feed Google gargantuan quantities of data around which its automatons can construct targeted advertisements, and then send those advertisements pouring into every nook and cranny of our digital world. Their business strategy will remain largely the same in each: cheap or free service offered in exchange for data-mining rights on the user's activity. The difference is that Google will be in your phone, your television, your radio, and quite likely Google subsidized desktops and router-server combos (for that much awaited 'cloud computing' thing we've heard so much about) in the very near future. In the process of knocking over the incumbents in these various industries, they'll gain rights over countless parcels of land, easements, and various infrastructures through which they'll deliver their magical, fiber-optic, panoptical future. Hallelujah, the singularity cometh, and with it a gargantuan and immeasurably powerful mega-corporation spanning several vital industries that wants to marry itself to every piece of public and private infrastructure in the world.</p><p>Now, a lot of people are perfectly happy to allow this to happen, because Caesar - I mean Google - can do no wrong. That's not true, though, and even if it were true it can't always be true because of two inconvenient facts. One, they're public. They absolutely do have to worry about pissing off shareholders, and if the Wall Street antics of the past thirty years have taught us anything it's that there's no company that investors can't throw down a flight of stairs. The second problem is perhaps a bit more subtle. You see, Sergey Brin is mortal. As a mortal, he ages, and one day he'll either wish to retire or pass on, and when that happens, the only person in Google's upper corporate hierarchy that seems to have any sort of conscience at all (informed by unpleasant accounts of his homeland, the Soviet Union, no less) will be gone forever. Think about what Google is going to look like in a few years, or ten years, or twenty years, after the company changes hands a few times. (As mondo-sized corporations like</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if and when Google does walk away from China , I suspect it 's only to save face and safeguard their data from snoopers , not because of any ethical concerns or this hollow tit-for-tat morality play that 's been rowing between the East and West for... how long has it been ? Alas , people are stupid , and starry-eyed technophiles are no different .
Google is not a philanthropic organization .
They 've never given a hand to anyone they were n't perfectly willing to throw under a bus later .
Every action Google takes is for Google 's benefit , because Google is a business .
Does that make sense ?
Just because they have mountains of cash to piss away on silly feel-good research projects of questionable merit does n't mean they 're not purely self-interested .
Quite the contrary , Google 's research strategies have revolved mostly around throwing projects at a wall to see what sticks , and then throwing money at whatever hangs on .
Their services , provided free of charge , should not be mistaken for generosity - this is a business model at work , and a very clever one.What we 're seeing right now is the Great Google Transition , which I 'd like to call AOL 2.0 .
( Never mind that there 's already been an AOL 2.0 ; referring to the second iteration of a social or economic phenomena right now as 'X ' 2.0 is fashionable right now and yes , I am definitely jumping on that bandwagon .
) Many tech-savvy colleagues of mine and I have been predicting this for a long , long time .
After Google 's meteoric rise , brought about by a remarkably patient business strategy ( patience being a dirty word in today 's business world and especially in the computer technology industry ) and , perhaps surprisingly , a sensible and consistent user interface on their website , they 've finally reached a point at which the search arm of their business is nearing or actually at the zenith of its profitability .
However , there are several incumbent industries which Google is primed to invade - industries that will feed Google gargantuan quantities of data around which its automatons can construct targeted advertisements , and then send those advertisements pouring into every nook and cranny of our digital world .
Their business strategy will remain largely the same in each : cheap or free service offered in exchange for data-mining rights on the user 's activity .
The difference is that Google will be in your phone , your television , your radio , and quite likely Google subsidized desktops and router-server combos ( for that much awaited 'cloud computing ' thing we 've heard so much about ) in the very near future .
In the process of knocking over the incumbents in these various industries , they 'll gain rights over countless parcels of land , easements , and various infrastructures through which they 'll deliver their magical , fiber-optic , panoptical future .
Hallelujah , the singularity cometh , and with it a gargantuan and immeasurably powerful mega-corporation spanning several vital industries that wants to marry itself to every piece of public and private infrastructure in the world.Now , a lot of people are perfectly happy to allow this to happen , because Caesar - I mean Google - can do no wrong .
That 's not true , though , and even if it were true it ca n't always be true because of two inconvenient facts .
One , they 're public .
They absolutely do have to worry about pissing off shareholders , and if the Wall Street antics of the past thirty years have taught us anything it 's that there 's no company that investors ca n't throw down a flight of stairs .
The second problem is perhaps a bit more subtle .
You see , Sergey Brin is mortal .
As a mortal , he ages , and one day he 'll either wish to retire or pass on , and when that happens , the only person in Google 's upper corporate hierarchy that seems to have any sort of conscience at all ( informed by unpleasant accounts of his homeland , the Soviet Union , no less ) will be gone forever .
Think about what Google is going to look like in a few years , or ten years , or twenty years , after the company changes hands a few times .
( As mondo-sized corporations like</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if and when Google does walk away from China, I suspect it's only to save face and safeguard their data from snoopers, not because of any ethical concerns or this hollow tit-for-tat morality play that's been rowing between the East and West for... how long has it been?Alas, people are stupid, and starry-eyed technophiles are no different.
Google is not a philanthropic organization.
They've never given a hand to anyone they weren't perfectly willing to throw under a bus later.
Every action Google takes is for Google's benefit, because Google is a business.
Does that make sense?
Just because they have mountains of cash to piss away on silly feel-good research projects of questionable merit doesn't mean they're not purely self-interested.
Quite the contrary, Google's research strategies have revolved mostly around throwing projects at a wall to see what sticks, and then throwing money at whatever hangs on.
Their services, provided free of charge, should not be mistaken for generosity - this is a business model at work, and a very clever one.What we're seeing right now is the Great Google Transition, which I'd like to call AOL 2.0.
(Never mind that there's already been an AOL 2.0; referring to the second iteration of a social or economic phenomena right now as 'X' 2.0 is fashionable right now and yes, I am definitely jumping on that bandwagon.
) Many tech-savvy colleagues of mine and I have been predicting this for a long, long time.
After Google's meteoric rise, brought about by a remarkably patient business strategy (patience being a dirty word in today's business world and especially in the computer technology industry) and, perhaps surprisingly, a sensible and consistent user interface on their website, they've finally reached a point at which the search arm of their business is nearing or actually at the zenith of its profitability.
However, there are several incumbent industries which Google is primed to invade - industries that will feed Google gargantuan quantities of data around which its automatons can construct targeted advertisements, and then send those advertisements pouring into every nook and cranny of our digital world.
Their business strategy will remain largely the same in each: cheap or free service offered in exchange for data-mining rights on the user's activity.
The difference is that Google will be in your phone, your television, your radio, and quite likely Google subsidized desktops and router-server combos (for that much awaited 'cloud computing' thing we've heard so much about) in the very near future.
In the process of knocking over the incumbents in these various industries, they'll gain rights over countless parcels of land, easements, and various infrastructures through which they'll deliver their magical, fiber-optic, panoptical future.
Hallelujah, the singularity cometh, and with it a gargantuan and immeasurably powerful mega-corporation spanning several vital industries that wants to marry itself to every piece of public and private infrastructure in the world.Now, a lot of people are perfectly happy to allow this to happen, because Caesar - I mean Google - can do no wrong.
That's not true, though, and even if it were true it can't always be true because of two inconvenient facts.
One, they're public.
They absolutely do have to worry about pissing off shareholders, and if the Wall Street antics of the past thirty years have taught us anything it's that there's no company that investors can't throw down a flight of stairs.
The second problem is perhaps a bit more subtle.
You see, Sergey Brin is mortal.
As a mortal, he ages, and one day he'll either wish to retire or pass on, and when that happens, the only person in Google's upper corporate hierarchy that seems to have any sort of conscience at all (informed by unpleasant accounts of his homeland, the Soviet Union, no less) will be gone forever.
Think about what Google is going to look like in a few years, or ten years, or twenty years, after the company changes hands a few times.
(As mondo-sized corporations like</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522312</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>Zoidbot</author>
	<datestamp>1268924700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL at all the idiots that believe everything they read on the internet, and can't see viral marketing and spin if it slapped them in their faces...</p><p>You of course realise that Sony are responsible for some of the biggest and most popular formats of all time?</p><p>I bet there will be idiots banging on about Rootkits (these stories always bring them out the woodwork), they seem to have it on their minds that is was Sony that created the "rootkit", and have eased "First 4 Internet" from their minds, as that does not fit with their agenda...</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended\_Copy\_Protection" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended\_Copy\_Protection</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL at all the idiots that believe everything they read on the internet , and ca n't see viral marketing and spin if it slapped them in their faces...You of course realise that Sony are responsible for some of the biggest and most popular formats of all time ? I bet there will be idiots banging on about Rootkits ( these stories always bring them out the woodwork ) , they seem to have it on their minds that is was Sony that created the " rootkit " , and have eased " First 4 Internet " from their minds , as that does not fit with their agenda...http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended \ _Copy \ _Protection [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL at all the idiots that believe everything they read on the internet, and can't see viral marketing and spin if it slapped them in their faces...You of course realise that Sony are responsible for some of the biggest and most popular formats of all time?I bet there will be idiots banging on about Rootkits (these stories always bring them out the woodwork), they seem to have it on their minds that is was Sony that created the "rootkit", and have eased "First 4 Internet" from their minds, as that does not fit with their agenda...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended\_Copy\_Protection [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523052</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268928180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're seriously doing this again?  Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?  Most of us have at least one computer nowadays, and many people have at least a netbook or laptop if they don't have a desktop computer.  Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here?</p></div><p>People use their computers / TVs differently than you do. Most of my friends aren't tech people, and they want basic internet on their TVs. These people would never buy a computer just for their TV. Some TVs have caller-ID on them. I think "What a ridiculous feature", but the people who have it, love it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're seriously doing this again ?
Aside from video services like YouTube , Hulu , Netflix , etc , have n't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame ?
Most of us have at least one computer nowadays , and many people have at least a netbook or laptop if they do n't have a desktop computer .
Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here ? People use their computers / TVs differently than you do .
Most of my friends are n't tech people , and they want basic internet on their TVs .
These people would never buy a computer just for their TV .
Some TVs have caller-ID on them .
I think " What a ridiculous feature " , but the people who have it , love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're seriously doing this again?
Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?
Most of us have at least one computer nowadays, and many people have at least a netbook or laptop if they don't have a desktop computer.
Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here?People use their computers / TVs differently than you do.
Most of my friends aren't tech people, and they want basic internet on their TVs.
These people would never buy a computer just for their TV.
Some TVs have caller-ID on them.
I think "What a ridiculous feature", but the people who have it, love it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894</id>
	<title>Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1268922780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Sony's consistent behavior in the past is any indication, it will be encrypted, region-locked, proprietary, and it will only work with some weird storage or media type that only Sony makes. It will also require you to install a rootkit on your TV and let them search all your media files for pirated songs and movies before you can use it. And you'll have to submit a DNA sample and retina scan to buy one, of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Sony 's consistent behavior in the past is any indication , it will be encrypted , region-locked , proprietary , and it will only work with some weird storage or media type that only Sony makes .
It will also require you to install a rootkit on your TV and let them search all your media files for pirated songs and movies before you can use it .
And you 'll have to submit a DNA sample and retina scan to buy one , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Sony's consistent behavior in the past is any indication, it will be encrypted, region-locked, proprietary, and it will only work with some weird storage or media type that only Sony makes.
It will also require you to install a rootkit on your TV and let them search all your media files for pirated songs and movies before you can use it.
And you'll have to submit a DNA sample and retina scan to buy one, of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31531602</id>
	<title>Re:Suitable Content</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1268921520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well, I'm all for it - as long as I can watch copious amount of porn and videos of kittens...</p></div></blockquote><p>

Together,<br> <br>

Maybe you should seek professional help... and stay the hell away from my kittens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm all for it - as long as I can watch copious amount of porn and videos of kittens.. . Together , Maybe you should seek professional help... and stay the hell away from my kittens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm all for it - as long as I can watch copious amount of porn and videos of kittens...

Together, 

Maybe you should seek professional help... and stay the hell away from my kittens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522818</id>
	<title>Re:Internet on TV? Really?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1268927100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We're seriously doing this again? Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?</p></div><p>That was my first thought, too -- I remembered the bad old days of having to design web pages to accommodate WebTV. But the vital difference between now and then is HDTV. The newer televisions actually have the resolution to do a decent job of displaying web pages. Add a Wii-style controller for positioning the pointer, and it might actually be usable.</p><p>Mind you, *I* won't be one of their customers -- I don't even have a TV. But I suspect that there might actually be a market for this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're seriously doing this again ?
Aside from video services like YouTube , Hulu , Netflix , etc , have n't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame ? That was my first thought , too -- I remembered the bad old days of having to design web pages to accommodate WebTV .
But the vital difference between now and then is HDTV .
The newer televisions actually have the resolution to do a decent job of displaying web pages .
Add a Wii-style controller for positioning the pointer , and it might actually be usable.Mind you , * I * wo n't be one of their customers -- I do n't even have a TV .
But I suspect that there might actually be a market for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're seriously doing this again?
Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?That was my first thought, too -- I remembered the bad old days of having to design web pages to accommodate WebTV.
But the vital difference between now and then is HDTV.
The newer televisions actually have the resolution to do a decent job of displaying web pages.
Add a Wii-style controller for positioning the pointer, and it might actually be usable.Mind you, *I* won't be one of their customers -- I don't even have a TV.
But I suspect that there might actually be a market for this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521992</id>
	<title>Re:Oh great, Sony</title>
	<author>cbope</author>
	<datestamp>1268923260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2005 called and wants it's memory back.</p><p>You do realize that Sony has been moving \_away\_ from proprietary formats for the last couple years? Honestly, Sony bashing on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2005 called and wants it 's memory back.You do realize that Sony has been moving \ _away \ _ from proprietary formats for the last couple years ?
Honestly , Sony bashing on / .
has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2005 called and wants it's memory back.You do realize that Sony has been moving \_away\_ from proprietary formats for the last couple years?
Honestly, Sony bashing on /.
has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31531114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31531602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31528944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31525156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31526530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31531576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31534682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31526718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31526306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31528828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31526868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_18_1150247_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31525156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31526718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522446
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31528828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522792
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31531602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522116
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31531576
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524272
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31528944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523070
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522680
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524170
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31531114
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31534682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31521966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31524338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522240
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31526306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31526530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31526868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31523144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_18_1150247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_18_1150247.31522694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
