<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_22_0346226</id>
	<title>Carbon-14 Dating Reveals 5\% of Vintage Wines May Be Frauds</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269273600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Carbon dating isn't used only for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the <a href="//science.slashdot.org/story/05/01/30/1457215/Carbon-Dating-amp-The-Shroud-of-Turin">age of the Shroud of Turin</a>, or figure out <a href="//news.slashdot.org/story/08/09/28/2253212/Worlds-Oldest-Rocks-Found">how old some rocks are</a>. An anonymous reader writes <i>"Up to 5\% of fine wines are <a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3360/carbon-dating-reveals-vintage-fraud-wines">not from the year the label indicates</a>, according to Australian researchers who have carbon-dated some top dollar wines."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carbon dating is n't used only for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the age of the Shroud of Turin , or figure out how old some rocks are .
An anonymous reader writes " Up to 5 \ % of fine wines are not from the year the label indicates , according to Australian researchers who have carbon-dated some top dollar wines .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carbon dating isn't used only for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the age of the Shroud of Turin, or figure out how old some rocks are.
An anonymous reader writes "Up to 5\% of fine wines are not from the year the label indicates, according to Australian researchers who have carbon-dated some top dollar wines.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564872</id>
	<title>Forgot a step</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269255180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...</p><p>Dispose of the rest thoughtfully, while enjoying a beer. Aged for 1 hour to cool down.</p><p>The difference between wine and beer is that nobody is going to suggest that the real way to enjoy a fine beer is to spit it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Dispose of the rest thoughtfully , while enjoying a beer .
Aged for 1 hour to cool down.The difference between wine and beer is that nobody is going to suggest that the real way to enjoy a fine beer is to spit it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Dispose of the rest thoughtfully, while enjoying a beer.
Aged for 1 hour to cool down.The difference between wine and beer is that nobody is going to suggest that the real way to enjoy a fine beer is to spit it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563542</id>
	<title>English</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1269192000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Carbon dating isn't all used for such academic pursuits<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Would someone please translate this into English?  Oh, and if this was the editor's attempt, I would hate to see the submission!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carbon dating is n't all used for such academic pursuits .. . Would someone please translate this into English ?
Oh , and if this was the editor 's attempt , I would hate to see the submission !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carbon dating isn't all used for such academic pursuits ...

Would someone please translate this into English?
Oh, and if this was the editor's attempt, I would hate to see the submission!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31567042</id>
	<title>Oblig Taste Test</title>
	<author>Theoboley</author>
	<datestamp>1269269400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Playboy conducted a taste test of the top 10 tasting wines in the world: Here are the top Two:<br><br>2 - Chateu Latour<br><br>and drum roll please!!!!<br><br>\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_<br><br>1 -  A bucket of Horse piss</htmltext>
<tokenext>Playboy conducted a taste test of the top 10 tasting wines in the world : Here are the top Two : 2 - Chateu Latourand drum roll please ! ! !
! \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _1 - A bucket of Horse piss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playboy conducted a taste test of the top 10 tasting wines in the world: Here are the top Two:2 - Chateu Latourand drum roll please!!!
!\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_1 -  A bucket of Horse piss</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564314</id>
	<title>Wine dating reveals fraud in carbon dating</title>
	<author>chentiangemalc</author>
	<datestamp>1269288600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>have they used reference wines which they know to be authentic, by which to judge the accuracy of the carbon dating results?

maybe this is a last dash attempt at making their article have some appeal to the general public. i expect carbon 14 dating experts must have it tough finding jobs in Australia, maybe they are hoping wine collectors will hire them to authneticate their collections...maybe they can do stamp collections as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>have they used reference wines which they know to be authentic , by which to judge the accuracy of the carbon dating results ?
maybe this is a last dash attempt at making their article have some appeal to the general public .
i expect carbon 14 dating experts must have it tough finding jobs in Australia , maybe they are hoping wine collectors will hire them to authneticate their collections...maybe they can do stamp collections as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have they used reference wines which they know to be authentic, by which to judge the accuracy of the carbon dating results?
maybe this is a last dash attempt at making their article have some appeal to the general public.
i expect carbon 14 dating experts must have it tough finding jobs in Australia, maybe they are hoping wine collectors will hire them to authneticate their collections...maybe they can do stamp collections as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563964</id>
	<title>Not much data</title>
	<author>blamanj</author>
	<datestamp>1269196560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That story doesn't leave much to go on, it's pretty low information content.  However, it should be noted that a <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/vintage" title="answers.com">vintage wine</a> [answers.com] can contain up to 15\% of its grapes from another year.  That would obviously skew any carbon dating results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That story does n't leave much to go on , it 's pretty low information content .
However , it should be noted that a vintage wine [ answers.com ] can contain up to 15 \ % of its grapes from another year .
That would obviously skew any carbon dating results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That story doesn't leave much to go on, it's pretty low information content.
However, it should be noted that a vintage wine [answers.com] can contain up to 15\% of its grapes from another year.
That would obviously skew any carbon dating results.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564702</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent work.</title>
	<author>kirill.s</author>
	<datestamp>1269252120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><ol>
<li>Buy a bunch of expensive wine</li></ol></div><p>No wonder that didn't result in a <i>PROFIT!!!!</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy a bunch of expensive wineNo wonder that did n't result in a PROFIT ! ! !
! .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Buy a bunch of expensive wineNo wonder that didn't result in a PROFIT!!!
!.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564062</id>
	<title>Re:Carbon dating is not accurate by century let al</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1269198060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are alternate radiocarbon techniques that are much more accurate.  Nuclear weapons testing resulted in a big spike in atmospheric carbon-14 levels globally, which is dropping rapidly since the test ban treaty.  Biologists have been using these techniques for determining cell ages for a couple years.</p><p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/103/33/12564.long" title="pnas.org">More info can be found here</a> [pnas.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are alternate radiocarbon techniques that are much more accurate .
Nuclear weapons testing resulted in a big spike in atmospheric carbon-14 levels globally , which is dropping rapidly since the test ban treaty .
Biologists have been using these techniques for determining cell ages for a couple years.More info can be found here [ pnas.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are alternate radiocarbon techniques that are much more accurate.
Nuclear weapons testing resulted in a big spike in atmospheric carbon-14 levels globally, which is dropping rapidly since the test ban treaty.
Biologists have been using these techniques for determining cell ages for a couple years.More info can be found here [pnas.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564452</id>
	<title>They've been doing this for years, actually.</title>
	<author>Creosote</author>
	<datestamp>1269290700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Australian researcher quoted in the story was co-author of a paper involving forensic use of C-14 dating of wines published in 2004:</p><p>U. Zoppi, Z. Skopec, J. Skopec, G. Jones, D. Fink, Q. Hua, G. Jacobsen, C. Tuniz, A. Williams, Forensic applications of 14C bomb-pulse dating, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, Volumes 223-224, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, August 2004, Pages 770-775, ISSN 0168-583X, DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2004.04.143.<br>(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TJN-4CDWMNK-F/2/b2a003d44396872bd06d5c80443167cd)</p><p>and I'm nearly certain I saw published research in the 1990s using C-14 dating to establish wine adulteration, but as it's 3:40 in the morning insomniac me is not going to run down the reference</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Australian researcher quoted in the story was co-author of a paper involving forensic use of C-14 dating of wines published in 2004 : U. Zoppi , Z. Skopec , J. Skopec , G. Jones , D. Fink , Q. Hua , G. Jacobsen , C. Tuniz , A. Williams , Forensic applications of 14C bomb-pulse dating , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B : Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms , Volumes 223-224 , Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry , August 2004 , Pages 770-775 , ISSN 0168-583X , DOI : 10.1016/j.nimb.2004.04.143 .
( http : //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TJN-4CDWMNK-F/2/b2a003d44396872bd06d5c80443167cd ) and I 'm nearly certain I saw published research in the 1990s using C-14 dating to establish wine adulteration , but as it 's 3 : 40 in the morning insomniac me is not going to run down the reference</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Australian researcher quoted in the story was co-author of a paper involving forensic use of C-14 dating of wines published in 2004:U. Zoppi, Z. Skopec, J. Skopec, G. Jones, D. Fink, Q. Hua, G. Jacobsen, C. Tuniz, A. Williams, Forensic applications of 14C bomb-pulse dating, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, Volumes 223-224, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, August 2004, Pages 770-775, ISSN 0168-583X, DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2004.04.143.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TJN-4CDWMNK-F/2/b2a003d44396872bd06d5c80443167cd)and I'm nearly certain I saw published research in the 1990s using C-14 dating to establish wine adulteration, but as it's 3:40 in the morning insomniac me is not going to run down the reference</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563576</id>
	<title>carbon dating problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269192240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was told by an archaelogist associate of mine that carbon dating gives very wild results unless its properly calibrated with something found nearby that can be historically verified.  He mentioned that the last time the French tested a nuke in the pacific (?) that messed up calibrations worldwide and they had to redo all their calibation data sets.  Carbon-14 dating isn't all its cracked up to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was told by an archaelogist associate of mine that carbon dating gives very wild results unless its properly calibrated with something found nearby that can be historically verified .
He mentioned that the last time the French tested a nuke in the pacific ( ?
) that messed up calibrations worldwide and they had to redo all their calibation data sets .
Carbon-14 dating is n't all its cracked up to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was told by an archaelogist associate of mine that carbon dating gives very wild results unless its properly calibrated with something found nearby that can be historically verified.
He mentioned that the last time the French tested a nuke in the pacific (?
) that messed up calibrations worldwide and they had to redo all their calibation data sets.
Carbon-14 dating isn't all its cracked up to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563544</id>
	<title>Dammit</title>
	<author>Colonel Sponsz</author>
	<datestamp>1269192000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Carbon dating isn't all used for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the age of the Shroud of Turin, or figure out how old some rocks are.</p></div></blockquote><p>The summary writer fails basic science. Carbon dating isn't used, and <i>can't be used</i> for dating rocks. Various forms of radiometric dating can be used, but carbon dating? Hell no. In the words of Youtube's creationism debunker <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54debunks?blend=1&amp;ob=4#p/u/10/QbvMB57evy4" title="youtube.com">Potholer54</a> [youtube.com], "because there's no f-ing carbon in it!".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carbon dating is n't all used for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the age of the Shroud of Turin , or figure out how old some rocks are.The summary writer fails basic science .
Carbon dating is n't used , and ca n't be used for dating rocks .
Various forms of radiometric dating can be used , but carbon dating ?
Hell no .
In the words of Youtube 's creationism debunker Potholer54 [ youtube.com ] , " because there 's no f-ing carbon in it !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carbon dating isn't all used for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the age of the Shroud of Turin, or figure out how old some rocks are.The summary writer fails basic science.
Carbon dating isn't used, and can't be used for dating rocks.
Various forms of radiometric dating can be used, but carbon dating?
Hell no.
In the words of Youtube's creationism debunker Potholer54 [youtube.com], "because there's no f-ing carbon in it!
".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563410</id>
	<title>First</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269190980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31568912</id>
	<title>Re:misleading summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269274080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, it's not based off the age of the carbon in the wine; it's based off the percentage of radioactive carbon from nuclear tests.  Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test, the whole thing is a load of crap.</p></div><p>As has been pointed out <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1590376&amp;cid=31563594" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">elsewhere</a> [slashdot.org], no it isn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , it 's not based off the age of the carbon in the wine ; it 's based off the percentage of radioactive carbon from nuclear tests .
Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test , the whole thing is a load of crap.As has been pointed out elsewhere [ slashdot.org ] , no it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, it's not based off the age of the carbon in the wine; it's based off the percentage of radioactive carbon from nuclear tests.
Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test, the whole thing is a load of crap.As has been pointed out elsewhere [slashdot.org], no it isn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565300</id>
	<title>Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1269261840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, carbon dating is now mostly done by AMS:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator\_mass\_spectrometry" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator\_mass\_spectrometry</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>In the old days, radiocarbon dating was done by scintillation counting of a sample and correction for background. AMS is a mass spec technique and counts by actually counting 12C/13C/14C atoms in the sample.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , carbon dating is now mostly done by AMS : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator \ _mass \ _spectrometry [ wikipedia.org ] In the old days , radiocarbon dating was done by scintillation counting of a sample and correction for background .
AMS is a mass spec technique and counts by actually counting 12C/13C/14C atoms in the sample .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, carbon dating is now mostly done by AMS:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator\_mass\_spectrometry [wikipedia.org]In the old days, radiocarbon dating was done by scintillation counting of a sample and correction for background.
AMS is a mass spec technique and counts by actually counting 12C/13C/14C atoms in the sample.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31571064</id>
	<title>A Simple Fix?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269280800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just blend your modern wine with industrial alcohol made from fossil fuels?  Presumably you could obtain the correct amount of carbon-14 this way?  The only way this *might* be detectable is from C12/C13 ratios...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just blend your modern wine with industrial alcohol made from fossil fuels ?
Presumably you could obtain the correct amount of carbon-14 this way ?
The only way this * might * be detectable is from C12/C13 ratios.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just blend your modern wine with industrial alcohol made from fossil fuels?
Presumably you could obtain the correct amount of carbon-14 this way?
The only way this *might* be detectable is from C12/C13 ratios...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31566676</id>
	<title>C14 Dating and Rocks ???</title>
	<author>kjhambrick</author>
	<datestamp>1269268440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone ?</p><p>What rocks can one date via C14  ?</p><p>-- kjh ( ?? perhaps recent corals ?? )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone ? What rocks can one date via C14 ? -- kjh ( ? ?
perhaps recent corals ? ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone ?What rocks can one date via C14  ?-- kjh ( ??
perhaps recent corals ??
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563736</id>
	<title>Re:BS Article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269193500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah buddy, actually that's what the article is all about, that they can narrow it down to a single vintage with C-14...  Doesn't actually say they found 5\% of the wine was fake.  Shocking that the title would be inaccurate and a poster wouldn't have RTFA on Slashdot, huh?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah buddy , actually that 's what the article is all about , that they can narrow it down to a single vintage with C-14... Does n't actually say they found 5 \ % of the wine was fake .
Shocking that the title would be inaccurate and a poster would n't have RTFA on Slashdot , huh ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah buddy, actually that's what the article is all about, that they can narrow it down to a single vintage with C-14...  Doesn't actually say they found 5\% of the wine was fake.
Shocking that the title would be inaccurate and a poster wouldn't have RTFA on Slashdot, huh?
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31569658</id>
	<title>Re:Dammit</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269276300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Diamond doesn't have carbon in it?</p><p>Maybe you are wrong about the reason you can't use it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Diamond does n't have carbon in it ? Maybe you are wrong about the reason you ca n't use it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diamond doesn't have carbon in it?Maybe you are wrong about the reason you can't use it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31579818</id>
	<title>not carbon dating</title>
	<author>belmolis</author>
	<datestamp>1269282420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The dating of old rocks cited as an example in the post is <b>not</b> an example of carbon-dating. Carbon dating only goes back about 50K years, nowhere near 4 billion. Those old rocks were dated on the basis of their content of isotopes of certain rare earths which decay much more slowly than Carbon-14.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The dating of old rocks cited as an example in the post is not an example of carbon-dating .
Carbon dating only goes back about 50K years , nowhere near 4 billion .
Those old rocks were dated on the basis of their content of isotopes of certain rare earths which decay much more slowly than Carbon-14 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The dating of old rocks cited as an example in the post is not an example of carbon-dating.
Carbon dating only goes back about 50K years, nowhere near 4 billion.
Those old rocks were dated on the basis of their content of isotopes of certain rare earths which decay much more slowly than Carbon-14.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565848</id>
	<title>Lack of details, other sources of carbon...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269265920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read the article I came up with over a dozen questions, none of which were adequately explained.  Thus:</p><p>Other sources of carbon in the batch- You've got oak, the toasting process, blending of different types of oak/wines, reuse of barrels, different toasted barrels, different types of oak in the barrel, the possibility of a really old oak barrel (neutral) used for fermentation and combination of items such as StaVin's Oak Cubes or Oak Staves, (two different sources of carbon)...</p><p>Oak is aged anywhere from 2-3 years before toasting.  Toasted oak could be years different than what the year of the vintage is.  Oak Trees are significant sources of variability. (Toasting oak releases sugars and flavours into the wine).</p><p>Chaptalization is another source- sometimes wines are started with diluted or various mixes of sugar and water to strengthen the yeast growth.  You have a grape must that is a little low in sugar- so add more sugar.  Where did it come from?  Who knows.  Probably not beet sugar, if you know what I mean.</p><p>Say you have a stuck fermentation- you take some wine out, dilute it, add more sugar, wine, repeat- eventually bringing up the level until the yeast are strong enough to take back over.</p><p>Finally, you have blends.  To the best of my knowledge a blended wine doesn't have to state the year or can state the year of the major component - depending on the laws of the region.</p><p>All in all... not the best article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read the article I came up with over a dozen questions , none of which were adequately explained .
Thus : Other sources of carbon in the batch- You 've got oak , the toasting process , blending of different types of oak/wines , reuse of barrels , different toasted barrels , different types of oak in the barrel , the possibility of a really old oak barrel ( neutral ) used for fermentation and combination of items such as StaVin 's Oak Cubes or Oak Staves , ( two different sources of carbon ) ...Oak is aged anywhere from 2-3 years before toasting .
Toasted oak could be years different than what the year of the vintage is .
Oak Trees are significant sources of variability .
( Toasting oak releases sugars and flavours into the wine ) .Chaptalization is another source- sometimes wines are started with diluted or various mixes of sugar and water to strengthen the yeast growth .
You have a grape must that is a little low in sugar- so add more sugar .
Where did it come from ?
Who knows .
Probably not beet sugar , if you know what I mean.Say you have a stuck fermentation- you take some wine out , dilute it , add more sugar , wine , repeat- eventually bringing up the level until the yeast are strong enough to take back over.Finally , you have blends .
To the best of my knowledge a blended wine does n't have to state the year or can state the year of the major component - depending on the laws of the region.All in all... not the best article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read the article I came up with over a dozen questions, none of which were adequately explained.
Thus:Other sources of carbon in the batch- You've got oak, the toasting process, blending of different types of oak/wines, reuse of barrels, different toasted barrels, different types of oak in the barrel, the possibility of a really old oak barrel (neutral) used for fermentation and combination of items such as StaVin's Oak Cubes or Oak Staves, (two different sources of carbon)...Oak is aged anywhere from 2-3 years before toasting.
Toasted oak could be years different than what the year of the vintage is.
Oak Trees are significant sources of variability.
(Toasting oak releases sugars and flavours into the wine).Chaptalization is another source- sometimes wines are started with diluted or various mixes of sugar and water to strengthen the yeast growth.
You have a grape must that is a little low in sugar- so add more sugar.
Where did it come from?
Who knows.
Probably not beet sugar, if you know what I mean.Say you have a stuck fermentation- you take some wine out, dilute it, add more sugar, wine, repeat- eventually bringing up the level until the yeast are strong enough to take back over.Finally, you have blends.
To the best of my knowledge a blended wine doesn't have to state the year or can state the year of the major component - depending on the laws of the region.All in all... not the best article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563598</id>
	<title>Bad headline, hollow story</title>
	<author>1 a bee</author>
	<datestamp>1269192420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
From TFA:
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>
The researchers think carbon-dating fine wines could help nip in the bud the growing practice of vintage fraud.
</p><p>
According to the study, wine experts have estimated that up to 5\% of fine wines sold today are not all they are cracked up to be on the label or in the price tag.
</p></div><p>
Nothing about the researchers estimating that 5\%: that's made up by the "wine experts".  (They should know.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : The researchers think carbon-dating fine wines could help nip in the bud the growing practice of vintage fraud .
According to the study , wine experts have estimated that up to 5 \ % of fine wines sold today are not all they are cracked up to be on the label or in the price tag .
Nothing about the researchers estimating that 5 \ % : that 's made up by the " wine experts " .
( They should know .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
From TFA:

The researchers think carbon-dating fine wines could help nip in the bud the growing practice of vintage fraud.
According to the study, wine experts have estimated that up to 5\% of fine wines sold today are not all they are cracked up to be on the label or in the price tag.
Nothing about the researchers estimating that 5\%: that's made up by the "wine experts".
(They should know.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31571132</id>
	<title>Re:'Sideways': Everything you need to know bout wi</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1269280980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>4.  Always order Merlot.  Everyone else leaves, more wine for you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 .
Always order Merlot .
Everyone else leaves , more wine for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4.
Always order Merlot.
Everyone else leaves, more wine for you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564188</id>
	<title>I never would have guessed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269200160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean 5\% of Two Buck Chuck is actually vintage wine? How can we tell the vintage from the cheap crap we actually paid for? I've been lucky so far and haven't got stuck with one of those vintage bottles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean 5 \ % of Two Buck Chuck is actually vintage wine ?
How can we tell the vintage from the cheap crap we actually paid for ?
I 've been lucky so far and have n't got stuck with one of those vintage bottles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean 5\% of Two Buck Chuck is actually vintage wine?
How can we tell the vintage from the cheap crap we actually paid for?
I've been lucky so far and haven't got stuck with one of those vintage bottles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563450</id>
	<title>Excellent work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269191280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>Buy a bunch of expensive wine</li><li>Carbon date a small sample.</li><li>Dispose of the rest thoughtfully.</li></ol><p>
Some days I'm proud to be an Australian.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy a bunch of expensive wineCarbon date a small sample.Dispose of the rest thoughtfully .
Some days I 'm proud to be an Australian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Buy a bunch of expensive wineCarbon date a small sample.Dispose of the rest thoughtfully.
Some days I'm proud to be an Australian.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31575432</id>
	<title>Re:Alternate Headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269252600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, those wine growers are about as honest as the tobacco miners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , those wine growers are about as honest as the tobacco miners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, those wine growers are about as honest as the tobacco miners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570194</id>
	<title>Re:Dammit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269277800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More specifically, you use longer-lived isotopic systems, such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-lead\_dating" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">U-Pb</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K\%E2\%80\%93Ar\_dating" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">K-Ar</a> [wikipedia.org].  C-14 decays too fast (a half-life of "only" ~5000 years).  After ~10 half-lives it's very difficult to apply a radiometric technique because the parent radioactive isotope is so rare.  Rocks do contain plenty of carbon (e.g., coal and limestone), but it is depleted in C-14 to very small amounts.  C-14 dating is used for archeological stuff and other materials that are &lt;100000 years old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More specifically , you use longer-lived isotopic systems , such as U-Pb [ wikipedia.org ] and K-Ar [ wikipedia.org ] .
C-14 decays too fast ( a half-life of " only " ~ 5000 years ) .
After ~ 10 half-lives it 's very difficult to apply a radiometric technique because the parent radioactive isotope is so rare .
Rocks do contain plenty of carbon ( e.g. , coal and limestone ) , but it is depleted in C-14 to very small amounts .
C-14 dating is used for archeological stuff and other materials that are</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More specifically, you use longer-lived isotopic systems, such as U-Pb [wikipedia.org] and K-Ar [wikipedia.org].
C-14 decays too fast (a half-life of "only" ~5000 years).
After ~10 half-lives it's very difficult to apply a radiometric technique because the parent radioactive isotope is so rare.
Rocks do contain plenty of carbon (e.g., coal and limestone), but it is depleted in C-14 to very small amounts.
C-14 dating is used for archeological stuff and other materials that are </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564230</id>
	<title>5\% of cars sold in the US are fraudulent?</title>
	<author>YesIAmAScript</author>
	<datestamp>1269200640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No seriously, who is selling counterfeit cars in the US?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No seriously , who is selling counterfeit cars in the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No seriously, who is selling counterfeit cars in the US?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563782</id>
	<title>Re:Dammit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269194160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would you call coal? Or diamond? Or graphite? A fluid?</p><p>Carbon dating isn't used for coal because it's typically far older than the roughly 50,000 years carbon dating is usable for, and because for most of it the source of carbon may be far, far older, rather than containing C14 released into the biosphere, especially via the atmosphere, from radioactive decay. It's not not because there's "no carbon".</p><p>The mishandling of C14 claims used by creationists is its own amusing topic: please don't confuse the two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would you call coal ?
Or diamond ?
Or graphite ?
A fluid ? Carbon dating is n't used for coal because it 's typically far older than the roughly 50,000 years carbon dating is usable for , and because for most of it the source of carbon may be far , far older , rather than containing C14 released into the biosphere , especially via the atmosphere , from radioactive decay .
It 's not not because there 's " no carbon " .The mishandling of C14 claims used by creationists is its own amusing topic : please do n't confuse the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would you call coal?
Or diamond?
Or graphite?
A fluid?Carbon dating isn't used for coal because it's typically far older than the roughly 50,000 years carbon dating is usable for, and because for most of it the source of carbon may be far, far older, rather than containing C14 released into the biosphere, especially via the atmosphere, from radioactive decay.
It's not not because there's "no carbon".The mishandling of C14 claims used by creationists is its own amusing topic: please don't confuse the two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565434</id>
	<title>Re:5\% of cars sold in the US are fraudulent?</title>
	<author>milosoftware</author>
	<datestamp>1269263760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because counterfeiting an American car is like counterfeiting Swedish wine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because counterfeiting an American car is like counterfeiting Swedish wine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because counterfeiting an American car is like counterfeiting Swedish wine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563448</id>
	<title>Old Enough?</title>
	<author>BobPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1269191280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I understand it, carbon dating doesn't work well for young items. Are vintage wines old enough for accurate carbon dating?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , carbon dating does n't work well for young items .
Are vintage wines old enough for accurate carbon dating ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, carbon dating doesn't work well for young items.
Are vintage wines old enough for accurate carbon dating?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563416</id>
	<title>C14 isn't used for rocks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269190980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering the limit of C-14 dating is approximately 40,000 years BP, it isn't really all that useful for dating rocks unless you are a young-earth creationist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the limit of C-14 dating is approximately 40,000 years BP , it is n't really all that useful for dating rocks unless you are a young-earth creationist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the limit of C-14 dating is approximately 40,000 years BP, it isn't really all that useful for dating rocks unless you are a young-earth creationist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563612</id>
	<title>Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1269192600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm, sorry -- just checked the article again, and it was about rocks mulitple *billions* of years old.  They were dated by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium-neodymium\_dating" title="wikipedia.org">neodymium-samarium dating</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm , sorry -- just checked the article again , and it was about rocks mulitple * billions * of years old .
They were dated by neodymium-samarium dating [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm, sorry -- just checked the article again, and it was about rocks mulitple *billions* of years old.
They were dated by neodymium-samarium dating [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563948</id>
	<title>Welcome to the new world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269196260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today almost everything is adulterated - from Spanish and Greek olive oil (which is often either not virgin (cold-pressed) or not even olive), to milk and everything in between. Think that "100\% pure Mysore Sandalwood" is actually from Mysore, or 100\% pure - or even Sandalwood? Considering that Mysore Sandalwood has been illegal to harvest fr a number of years... and that Sandalwood is one of the most often adulterated essential oils... and that the great majority of people could not distinguish a 100\% from a 5\% essential oil, the answer is a resounding no.</p><p>Worst adulteration, as far as I know, is adding lead chromate to curry and turmeric, to improve the color: lead is deadly for your braincells, and hexavalent chromium is carcinogenic. Bon apetit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today almost everything is adulterated - from Spanish and Greek olive oil ( which is often either not virgin ( cold-pressed ) or not even olive ) , to milk and everything in between .
Think that " 100 \ % pure Mysore Sandalwood " is actually from Mysore , or 100 \ % pure - or even Sandalwood ?
Considering that Mysore Sandalwood has been illegal to harvest fr a number of years... and that Sandalwood is one of the most often adulterated essential oils... and that the great majority of people could not distinguish a 100 \ % from a 5 \ % essential oil , the answer is a resounding no.Worst adulteration , as far as I know , is adding lead chromate to curry and turmeric , to improve the color : lead is deadly for your braincells , and hexavalent chromium is carcinogenic .
Bon apetit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today almost everything is adulterated - from Spanish and Greek olive oil (which is often either not virgin (cold-pressed) or not even olive), to milk and everything in between.
Think that "100\% pure Mysore Sandalwood" is actually from Mysore, or 100\% pure - or even Sandalwood?
Considering that Mysore Sandalwood has been illegal to harvest fr a number of years... and that Sandalwood is one of the most often adulterated essential oils... and that the great majority of people could not distinguish a 100\% from a 5\% essential oil, the answer is a resounding no.Worst adulteration, as far as I know, is adding lead chromate to curry and turmeric, to improve the color: lead is deadly for your braincells, and hexavalent chromium is carcinogenic.
Bon apetit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563438</id>
	<title>Alternate Headline</title>
	<author>wjc\_25</author>
	<datestamp>1269191160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>95\% of carbon datings may be inaccurate, says new wine grower-sponsored study.</htmltext>
<tokenext>95 \ % of carbon datings may be inaccurate , says new wine grower-sponsored study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>95\% of carbon datings may be inaccurate, says new wine grower-sponsored study.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565686</id>
	<title>Re:5\% of cars sold in the US are fraudulent?</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1269265140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.asashop.org/autoinc/april2007/mech.htm" title="asashop.org">Counterfeiting cost the global auto industry $12 billion - $3 billion alone in the United States.</a> [asashop.org] <p>
Granted this is counterfeiting of car <i>parts</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Counterfeiting cost the global auto industry $ 12 billion - $ 3 billion alone in the United States .
[ asashop.org ] Granted this is counterfeiting of car parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Counterfeiting cost the global auto industry $12 billion - $3 billion alone in the United States.
[asashop.org] 
Granted this is counterfeiting of car parts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563650</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent work.</title>
	<author>R3coiler</author>
	<datestamp>1269192840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to have to try this with beer.  For science, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to have to try this with beer .
For science , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to have to try this with beer.
For science, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564816</id>
	<title>Re:Dammit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269254280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't you carbon date rocks? Because carbon dating is made of rocks!<br>This makes sense in some way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't you carbon date rocks ?
Because carbon dating is made of rocks ! This makes sense in some way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't you carbon date rocks?
Because carbon dating is made of rocks!This makes sense in some way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31578734</id>
	<title>Re:BS Article</title>
	<author>smeg</author>
	<datestamp>1269271500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The carbon "dating" is nothing of the sort. It is a match of C14/C12 ratios in the wine to ratios found in atmospheric samples, based on uptake and atmospheric composition, not on C14 decay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The carbon " dating " is nothing of the sort .
It is a match of C14/C12 ratios in the wine to ratios found in atmospheric samples , based on uptake and atmospheric composition , not on C14 decay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The carbon "dating" is nothing of the sort.
It is a match of C14/C12 ratios in the wine to ratios found in atmospheric samples, based on uptake and atmospheric composition, not on C14 decay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31569716</id>
	<title>Re:misleading summary</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269276480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's only applies to wine made from grapes after the detonation of the first atomic bomb.</p><p>".., the whole thing is a load of crap."</p><p>ah yes, my old nemesis, argument from ignorance. We meet again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's only applies to wine made from grapes after the detonation of the first atomic bomb .
" .. , the whole thing is a load of crap .
" ah yes , my old nemesis , argument from ignorance .
We meet again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's only applies to wine made from grapes after the detonation of the first atomic bomb.
".., the whole thing is a load of crap.
"ah yes, my old nemesis, argument from ignorance.
We meet again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563644</id>
	<title>BS Article</title>
	<author>rozthepimp</author>
	<datestamp>1269192840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Certain vintages (same grapestock, same vineyard, same winemaster) vary in perceived taste and value from year to year, depending on weather, harvest time, sugar content, etc. 1999 may be great, 2000 shoddy.

Is C-14 dating accurate to within one year?  Hmm...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Certain vintages ( same grapestock , same vineyard , same winemaster ) vary in perceived taste and value from year to year , depending on weather , harvest time , sugar content , etc .
1999 may be great , 2000 shoddy .
Is C-14 dating accurate to within one year ?
Hmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certain vintages (same grapestock, same vineyard, same winemaster) vary in perceived taste and value from year to year, depending on weather, harvest time, sugar content, etc.
1999 may be great, 2000 shoddy.
Is C-14 dating accurate to within one year?
Hmm...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564274</id>
	<title>Re:carbon dating problems</title>
	<author>Zedrick</author>
	<datestamp>1269201540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; I was told by an archaelogist associate of mine that carbon dating gives<br>
&gt; very wild results unless its properly calibrated with something found nearby <br>
&gt; that can be historically verified. <br> <br>

You must have misunderstood something. Of course it has to be calibrated, but it doesn't need any historical context.<br> <br>

&gt; He mentioned that the last time the French tested a nuke in the pacific (?) that<br>
&gt; messed up calibrations worldwide and they had to redo all their calibation data sets.<br> <br>

Yes, you did most certainly misunderstand what he was saying. C14 dating is not used to date anything less than 65 years of age, since the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has been screwed up since 1945. It has nothing to do with French nukes though, no calibration or recalibration will help for stuff that has taken in C14 after 1945.<br> <br>

&gt; Carbon-14 dating isn't all its cracked up to be.<br> <br>
It's <i>exactly</i> what it's cracked up to be, a good way to determine the age of organic material. However, it might not be what people might imagine it to be - some kid of magic that can be use to date anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I was told by an archaelogist associate of mine that carbon dating gives &gt; very wild results unless its properly calibrated with something found nearby &gt; that can be historically verified .
You must have misunderstood something .
Of course it has to be calibrated , but it does n't need any historical context .
&gt; He mentioned that the last time the French tested a nuke in the pacific ( ?
) that &gt; messed up calibrations worldwide and they had to redo all their calibation data sets .
Yes , you did most certainly misunderstand what he was saying .
C14 dating is not used to date anything less than 65 years of age , since the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has been screwed up since 1945 .
It has nothing to do with French nukes though , no calibration or recalibration will help for stuff that has taken in C14 after 1945 .
&gt; Carbon-14 dating is n't all its cracked up to be .
It 's exactly what it 's cracked up to be , a good way to determine the age of organic material .
However , it might not be what people might imagine it to be - some kid of magic that can be use to date anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I was told by an archaelogist associate of mine that carbon dating gives
&gt; very wild results unless its properly calibrated with something found nearby 
&gt; that can be historically verified.
You must have misunderstood something.
Of course it has to be calibrated, but it doesn't need any historical context.
&gt; He mentioned that the last time the French tested a nuke in the pacific (?
) that
&gt; messed up calibrations worldwide and they had to redo all their calibation data sets.
Yes, you did most certainly misunderstand what he was saying.
C14 dating is not used to date anything less than 65 years of age, since the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has been screwed up since 1945.
It has nothing to do with French nukes though, no calibration or recalibration will help for stuff that has taken in C14 after 1945.
&gt; Carbon-14 dating isn't all its cracked up to be.
It's exactly what it's cracked up to be, a good way to determine the age of organic material.
However, it might not be what people might imagine it to be - some kid of magic that can be use to date anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564678</id>
	<title>They didn't detect frauds with carbon dating...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269251940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, The article states nothing about detecting frauds with carbon dating. It only states that they tested carbon dating with several whines and came up with good corresponding dates.<br>The article then describes that according to experts 5\% of wines are frauds, but this has nothing to do with the tests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , The article states nothing about detecting frauds with carbon dating .
It only states that they tested carbon dating with several whines and came up with good corresponding dates.The article then describes that according to experts 5 \ % of wines are frauds , but this has nothing to do with the tests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, The article states nothing about detecting frauds with carbon dating.
It only states that they tested carbon dating with several whines and came up with good corresponding dates.The article then describes that according to experts 5\% of wines are frauds, but this has nothing to do with the tests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570754</id>
	<title>Re:Non-news ...</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1269279600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I collect bootleg Famicom carts.</p><p>So either i've got a \%100 bootleg rating, because I specifically look for bootleg carts.</p><p>OR</p><p>I've got a \%0 bootleg rating because all the carts I have are legitimately bootlegged material.</p><p>I'm confused, I need some wine and cheese.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I collect bootleg Famicom carts.So either i 've got a \ % 100 bootleg rating , because I specifically look for bootleg carts.ORI 've got a \ % 0 bootleg rating because all the carts I have are legitimately bootlegged material.I 'm confused , I need some wine and cheese .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I collect bootleg Famicom carts.So either i've got a \%100 bootleg rating, because I specifically look for bootleg carts.ORI've got a \%0 bootleg rating because all the carts I have are legitimately bootlegged material.I'm confused, I need some wine and cheese.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31567862</id>
	<title>Re:Old Enough?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269271440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The word "Vintage" means an exceptional year. Once written on a bottle it only mean that it <b>contains some</b> wine of that year, and may be mixed with other years. This is how I could afford a 1963 Port. Of course the wine maker will state this is to add or create a unique new taste.<br>Admittedly when bottled close to the pickup year, the vast majority will only contain that year. But if you buy a wine that was bottled 10+ years after it was made their is no way to be sure if it contains more than a few drops. And this is considered legal practice (if ethically questionable).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The word " Vintage " means an exceptional year .
Once written on a bottle it only mean that it contains some wine of that year , and may be mixed with other years .
This is how I could afford a 1963 Port .
Of course the wine maker will state this is to add or create a unique new taste.Admittedly when bottled close to the pickup year , the vast majority will only contain that year .
But if you buy a wine that was bottled 10 + years after it was made their is no way to be sure if it contains more than a few drops .
And this is considered legal practice ( if ethically questionable ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word "Vintage" means an exceptional year.
Once written on a bottle it only mean that it contains some wine of that year, and may be mixed with other years.
This is how I could afford a 1963 Port.
Of course the wine maker will state this is to add or create a unique new taste.Admittedly when bottled close to the pickup year, the vast majority will only contain that year.
But if you buy a wine that was bottled 10+ years after it was made their is no way to be sure if it contains more than a few drops.
And this is considered legal practice (if ethically questionable).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563446</id>
	<title>The finer things in life.</title>
	<author>voodoo cheesecake</author>
	<datestamp>1269191220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why I only drink Jolt and 151.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I only drink Jolt and 151 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I only drink Jolt and 151.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31567406</id>
	<title>Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269270300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wine tastes pretty bad anyway. Who cares how aged it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wine tastes pretty bad anyway .
Who cares how aged it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wine tastes pretty bad anyway.
Who cares how aged it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563536</id>
	<title>Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1269191940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beat me to it.  Not useful for rocks unless they're very young.  And that claim was made all the worse by linking to an article about rocks hundreds of millions of years old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beat me to it .
Not useful for rocks unless they 're very young .
And that claim was made all the worse by linking to an article about rocks hundreds of millions of years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beat me to it.
Not useful for rocks unless they're very young.
And that claim was made all the worse by linking to an article about rocks hundreds of millions of years old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31577482</id>
	<title>Re:misleading summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269262320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test...</p></div><p>It ended up pretty evenly distributed in the atmosphere, in CO2.  (Some of it might have ended up in various residues at the test site - but, unless the test site was in a wine-growing region, you don't have to worry about that fraction being in the wine.)</p><p>It's not something like, say, particulate matter that just contaminates the area around the site.  Any gas introduced in the atmosphere gets pretty thoroughly mixed over the entire Earth within a year or so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test...It ended up pretty evenly distributed in the atmosphere , in CO2 .
( Some of it might have ended up in various residues at the test site - but , unless the test site was in a wine-growing region , you do n't have to worry about that fraction being in the wine .
) It 's not something like , say , particulate matter that just contaminates the area around the site .
Any gas introduced in the atmosphere gets pretty thoroughly mixed over the entire Earth within a year or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test...It ended up pretty evenly distributed in the atmosphere, in CO2.
(Some of it might have ended up in various residues at the test site - but, unless the test site was in a wine-growing region, you don't have to worry about that fraction being in the wine.
)It's not something like, say, particulate matter that just contaminates the area around the site.
Any gas introduced in the atmosphere gets pretty thoroughly mixed over the entire Earth within a year or so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563512</id>
	<title>Hyo8o</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269191820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">The haerd drive to</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The haerd drive to [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The haerd drive to [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570556</id>
	<title>Australian Wine</title>
	<author>lavardo</author>
	<datestamp>1269278880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great.  My 2009 Yellow Tail Shiraz is actually 2010.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
My 2009 Yellow Tail Shiraz is actually 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.
My 2009 Yellow Tail Shiraz is actually 2010.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563470</id>
	<title>hmm can we use it on ideas?</title>
	<author>h00manist</author>
	<datestamp>1269191520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i'd like to know just how old are some things people in washington have in their heads</htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'd like to know just how old are some things people in washington have in their heads</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'd like to know just how old are some things people in washington have in their heads</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31569806</id>
	<title>Re:Old Enough?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1269276720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, the term 'Carbon Dating' gets tossed around when referring to ANY radiometric dating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , the term 'Carbon Dating ' gets tossed around when referring to ANY radiometric dating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, the term 'Carbon Dating' gets tossed around when referring to ANY radiometric dating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564096</id>
	<title>Re:Carbon dating is not accurate by century let al</title>
	<author>DavidRawling</author>
	<datestamp>1269198540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or, since you HAVE read<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. for a while, you could read the article. Which describes the measurement of increased C14 levels due to atmospheric fallout after detonation of nuclear weapons, and their subsequent reduction (dilution) due to fossil fuel burning, which in their testing was enough to narrow down to a specific year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , since you HAVE read / .
for a while , you could read the article .
Which describes the measurement of increased C14 levels due to atmospheric fallout after detonation of nuclear weapons , and their subsequent reduction ( dilution ) due to fossil fuel burning , which in their testing was enough to narrow down to a specific year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, since you HAVE read /.
for a while, you could read the article.
Which describes the measurement of increased C14 levels due to atmospheric fallout after detonation of nuclear weapons, and their subsequent reduction (dilution) due to fossil fuel burning, which in their testing was enough to narrow down to a specific year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564762</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269253380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alas... your Australian science is most great in it's intentions and results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alas... your Australian science is most great in it 's intentions and results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alas... your Australian science is most great in it's intentions and results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564258</id>
	<title>How do they test, and how certain?</title>
	<author>Dthief</author>
	<datestamp>1269201240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do they open the old bottles and waste the wine, or do they wait under the table until someone drinks a vintage bottle?

Also 5\% with how much certainty, they really need to give some values or link to a data source. What range of C-12/C14 ratios are there over the past century?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they open the old bottles and waste the wine , or do they wait under the table until someone drinks a vintage bottle ?
Also 5 \ % with how much certainty , they really need to give some values or link to a data source .
What range of C-12/C14 ratios are there over the past century ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they open the old bottles and waste the wine, or do they wait under the table until someone drinks a vintage bottle?
Also 5\% with how much certainty, they really need to give some values or link to a data source.
What range of C-12/C14 ratios are there over the past century?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563412</id>
	<title>No One Would Notice</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1269190980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had a $400 wine before (obtained at a decent price and then aged). The difference between a decent $20-$40 wine and a $400 one is minimal relative to the price.</p><p>I doubt anyone without a really refined palate would be able to notice. And even if you did, you would probably chalk it up to poor storage or oxidation or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had a $ 400 wine before ( obtained at a decent price and then aged ) .
The difference between a decent $ 20- $ 40 wine and a $ 400 one is minimal relative to the price.I doubt anyone without a really refined palate would be able to notice .
And even if you did , you would probably chalk it up to poor storage or oxidation or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had a $400 wine before (obtained at a decent price and then aged).
The difference between a decent $20-$40 wine and a $400 one is minimal relative to the price.I doubt anyone without a really refined palate would be able to notice.
And even if you did, you would probably chalk it up to poor storage or oxidation or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570638</id>
	<title>Re:Excellent work.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269279240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great.
Thoughtfully, with thoughts of old or near, I'm sure some of it would make me very thoughtful.  I'm getting very thoughtful right now.  Thoughtfully, I should swallow the rest of this wine thoughtfully and save some for tomorrow's pig meat dinner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
Thoughtfully , with thoughts of old or near , I 'm sure some of it would make me very thoughtful .
I 'm getting very thoughtful right now .
Thoughtfully , I should swallow the rest of this wine thoughtfully and save some for tomorrow 's pig meat dinner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.
Thoughtfully, with thoughts of old or near, I'm sure some of it would make me very thoughtful.
I'm getting very thoughtful right now.
Thoughtfully, I should swallow the rest of this wine thoughtfully and save some for tomorrow's pig meat dinner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31575526</id>
	<title>Mmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269253020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I've got to say on the subject is that any wine that I feel is worth drinking, an expert usually tells me is crap...</p><p>Unless they don't know the price beforehand.</p><p>Wine tasters are like art critics. They rarely can tell if it's a chimp or a human doing the painting if not told beforehand. Many people who claim to tell the difference in the quality of wines rarely do it on a blind taste test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I 've got to say on the subject is that any wine that I feel is worth drinking , an expert usually tells me is crap...Unless they do n't know the price beforehand.Wine tasters are like art critics .
They rarely can tell if it 's a chimp or a human doing the painting if not told beforehand .
Many people who claim to tell the difference in the quality of wines rarely do it on a blind taste test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I've got to say on the subject is that any wine that I feel is worth drinking, an expert usually tells me is crap...Unless they don't know the price beforehand.Wine tasters are like art critics.
They rarely can tell if it's a chimp or a human doing the painting if not told beforehand.
Many people who claim to tell the difference in the quality of wines rarely do it on a blind taste test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563524</id>
	<title>More accuracy</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1269191880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya know, they'd get way more accuracy measuring these fine wines age if they used oxygen depleted gold plated monster cables on their equipment...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya know , they 'd get way more accuracy measuring these fine wines age if they used oxygen depleted gold plated monster cables on their equipment.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya know, they'd get way more accuracy measuring these fine wines age if they used oxygen depleted gold plated monster cables on their equipment...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564544</id>
	<title>A good-tasting inexpensive wine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269249300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not at all a wine person, but it's great to know a safe bet.  Lately, I'd recommend Yellow Tail Merlot from Australia.  Around $12 in North America.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not at all a wine person , but it 's great to know a safe bet .
Lately , I 'd recommend Yellow Tail Merlot from Australia .
Around $ 12 in North America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not at all a wine person, but it's great to know a safe bet.
Lately, I'd recommend Yellow Tail Merlot from Australia.
Around $12 in North America.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564196</id>
	<title>Re:Alternate Headline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269200280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>95\% of carbon datings may be inaccurate, says new wine grower-sponsored study.</p></div><p>So they are all fake?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>95 \ % of carbon datings may be inaccurate , says new wine grower-sponsored study.So they are all fake ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>95\% of carbon datings may be inaccurate, says new wine grower-sponsored study.So they are all fake?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564784</id>
	<title>Re:C14 isn't used for rocks...</title>
	<author>ombwiri</author>
	<datestamp>1269253680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Researchers say? Really? No clue as to where they are from or what they have been trained to do? Because it is sure as hell not anything that uses carbon dating.

<p>Yes the article gives some caveats but it really isn't enough. C14 dating really, really isn't as simple as it looks. As an archaeological scientist (well I trained as one) the one thing that was drummed into our heads was that C14 cannot be accuratly used past 1950 and that C14 dating is a science based upon statistics and will never, ever give you one year as an answer.

</p><p>The reason C14 can't be used past 1950 is that the whole thing is based upon the idea that in the past the amount of atmospheric C14 has always been the same as in 1950. We know this isn't true however. Since 1950 nuclear testing has really screwed with the amount of C14 in the atmosphere and we know that in the past C14 varied as we have ways of checking (this is mostly done by counting tree rings, I know high tech).

</p><p>So we have adjust the results we get based upon what we know about the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. I'm going off track here so I'll just point you in the direction of a website that shows how C14 dates are calibrated. <a href="http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html#calibration" title="ox.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html#calibration</a> [ox.ac.uk]

</p><p>The main reason that this research is suspect is that C14 really isn't suited to this sort of fine detail work. I'm sure that you can date wine but the result you would get would be pointless. You could probably get a 95\% certainty of the wine coming from a certain date range but that range would be so wide as to be of no use. If you want to get a precise date then you can but only by dropping your certainty to an amount to low to have any confidence in. Your magin for error would be astronomical.

</p><p>I never thought I'd say it but who approves these non-articles to appear on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Researchers say ?
Really ? No clue as to where they are from or what they have been trained to do ?
Because it is sure as hell not anything that uses carbon dating .
Yes the article gives some caveats but it really is n't enough .
C14 dating really , really is n't as simple as it looks .
As an archaeological scientist ( well I trained as one ) the one thing that was drummed into our heads was that C14 can not be accuratly used past 1950 and that C14 dating is a science based upon statistics and will never , ever give you one year as an answer .
The reason C14 ca n't be used past 1950 is that the whole thing is based upon the idea that in the past the amount of atmospheric C14 has always been the same as in 1950 .
We know this is n't true however .
Since 1950 nuclear testing has really screwed with the amount of C14 in the atmosphere and we know that in the past C14 varied as we have ways of checking ( this is mostly done by counting tree rings , I know high tech ) .
So we have adjust the results we get based upon what we know about the amount of C14 in the atmosphere .
I 'm going off track here so I 'll just point you in the direction of a website that shows how C14 dates are calibrated .
http : //c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php ? File = calibration.html # calibration [ ox.ac.uk ] The main reason that this research is suspect is that C14 really is n't suited to this sort of fine detail work .
I 'm sure that you can date wine but the result you would get would be pointless .
You could probably get a 95 \ % certainty of the wine coming from a certain date range but that range would be so wide as to be of no use .
If you want to get a precise date then you can but only by dropping your certainty to an amount to low to have any confidence in .
Your magin for error would be astronomical .
I never thought I 'd say it but who approves these non-articles to appear on / .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Researchers say?
Really? No clue as to where they are from or what they have been trained to do?
Because it is sure as hell not anything that uses carbon dating.
Yes the article gives some caveats but it really isn't enough.
C14 dating really, really isn't as simple as it looks.
As an archaeological scientist (well I trained as one) the one thing that was drummed into our heads was that C14 cannot be accuratly used past 1950 and that C14 dating is a science based upon statistics and will never, ever give you one year as an answer.
The reason C14 can't be used past 1950 is that the whole thing is based upon the idea that in the past the amount of atmospheric C14 has always been the same as in 1950.
We know this isn't true however.
Since 1950 nuclear testing has really screwed with the amount of C14 in the atmosphere and we know that in the past C14 varied as we have ways of checking (this is mostly done by counting tree rings, I know high tech).
So we have adjust the results we get based upon what we know about the amount of C14 in the atmosphere.
I'm going off track here so I'll just point you in the direction of a website that shows how C14 dates are calibrated.
http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html#calibration [ox.ac.uk]

The main reason that this research is suspect is that C14 really isn't suited to this sort of fine detail work.
I'm sure that you can date wine but the result you would get would be pointless.
You could probably get a 95\% certainty of the wine coming from a certain date range but that range would be so wide as to be of no use.
If you want to get a precise date then you can but only by dropping your certainty to an amount to low to have any confidence in.
Your magin for error would be astronomical.
I never thought I'd say it but who approves these non-articles to appear on /.
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563618</id>
	<title>misleading summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269192660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>According to the study, <b>wine experts</b> have estimated that up to 5\% of fine wines sold today are not all they are cracked up to be on the label or in the price tag</i>

</p><p>The carbon dating didn't find 5\% of wines are frauds.  A bunch of "wine experts" they talked to said it.

</p><p>Also, it's not based off the age of the carbon in the wine; it's based off the percentage of radioactive carbon from nuclear tests.  Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test, the whole thing is a load of crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the study , wine experts have estimated that up to 5 \ % of fine wines sold today are not all they are cracked up to be on the label or in the price tag The carbon dating did n't find 5 \ % of wines are frauds .
A bunch of " wine experts " they talked to said it .
Also , it 's not based off the age of the carbon in the wine ; it 's based off the percentage of radioactive carbon from nuclear tests .
Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test , the whole thing is a load of crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> According to the study, wine experts have estimated that up to 5\% of fine wines sold today are not all they are cracked up to be on the label or in the price tag

The carbon dating didn't find 5\% of wines are frauds.
A bunch of "wine experts" they talked to said it.
Also, it's not based off the age of the carbon in the wine; it's based off the percentage of radioactive carbon from nuclear tests.
Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test, the whole thing is a load of crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564050</id>
	<title>'Sideways': Everything you need to know bout wine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269197940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Don't chew gum while tasting wine.
<br>2. Delicate grapes on a vine can be a metaphor for your life / personality, or something.
<br>3. If anyone orders Merlot, leave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Do n't chew gum while tasting wine .
2. Delicate grapes on a vine can be a metaphor for your life / personality , or something .
3. If anyone orders Merlot , leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Don't chew gum while tasting wine.
2. Delicate grapes on a vine can be a metaphor for your life / personality, or something.
3. If anyone orders Merlot, leave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563766</id>
	<title>Carbon dating is not accurate by century let alone</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1269193920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You cannot be sure what century an object is from with Carbon-14 dating let alone the year so it is useless for wines. This is without factoring in the possibility of cosmic rays speeding up the decay to make it appear older than it actually is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not be sure what century an object is from with Carbon-14 dating let alone the year so it is useless for wines .
This is without factoring in the possibility of cosmic rays speeding up the decay to make it appear older than it actually is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot be sure what century an object is from with Carbon-14 dating let alone the year so it is useless for wines.
This is without factoring in the possibility of cosmic rays speeding up the decay to make it appear older than it actually is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563578</id>
	<title>Non-news ...</title>
	<author>GNUALMAFUERTE</author>
	<datestamp>1269192300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5\% of wines? More like at least 5\% of anything you can get.</p><p>Take any market, and you'll have, at the very least, 5\% of fraudulent products. Off course, it's bigger in some other markets, but I'm pretty sure it's at least 5\%.</p><p>This would be news if we got a way higher number. 5\% sounds average to me.<br>Or, at least it's average compared to other markets like religion, where 100\% of the offered 'goods' are fake<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 \ % of wines ?
More like at least 5 \ % of anything you can get.Take any market , and you 'll have , at the very least , 5 \ % of fraudulent products .
Off course , it 's bigger in some other markets , but I 'm pretty sure it 's at least 5 \ % .This would be news if we got a way higher number .
5 \ % sounds average to me.Or , at least it 's average compared to other markets like religion , where 100 \ % of the offered 'goods ' are fake ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5\% of wines?
More like at least 5\% of anything you can get.Take any market, and you'll have, at the very least, 5\% of fraudulent products.
Off course, it's bigger in some other markets, but I'm pretty sure it's at least 5\%.This would be news if we got a way higher number.
5\% sounds average to me.Or, at least it's average compared to other markets like religion, where 100\% of the offered 'goods' are fake ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564530</id>
	<title>Re:Dammit</title>
	<author>InEnacWeTrust</author>
	<datestamp>1269249060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summarry fails at more than basic science, it also fails at basic wine science. The year written on the label in very often **not** the year the grape actually grew but the year the wine was bottled. Wich can be anywhere between a few weeks to many years later. I'm a little worried nobody mentioned that before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summarry fails at more than basic science , it also fails at basic wine science .
The year written on the label in very often * * not * * the year the grape actually grew but the year the wine was bottled .
Wich can be anywhere between a few weeks to many years later .
I 'm a little worried nobody mentioned that before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summarry fails at more than basic science, it also fails at basic wine science.
The year written on the label in very often **not** the year the grape actually grew but the year the wine was bottled.
Wich can be anywhere between a few weeks to many years later.
I'm a little worried nobody mentioned that before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565170</id>
	<title>Re:misleading summary</title>
	<author>Half-pint HAL</author>
	<datestamp>1269260040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test, the whole thing is a load of crap.</i> </p><p>Yes.  It ended up in <b>the atmosphere</b>, and plants get their carbon from <b>the atmosphere</b>. <b>The atmosphere</b> is a big thing that encircles <b>the planet</b>.</p><p>HAL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test , the whole thing is a load of crap .
Yes. It ended up in the atmosphere , and plants get their carbon from the atmosphere .
The atmosphere is a big thing that encircles the planet.HAL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Unless they have a precise idea of exactly how much radioactive carbon ended up where after each test, the whole thing is a load of crap.
Yes.  It ended up in the atmosphere, and plants get their carbon from the atmosphere.
The atmosphere is a big thing that encircles the planet.HAL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31569048</id>
	<title>Carbon dating...</title>
	<author>pizza\_milkshake</author>
	<datestamp>1269274440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_datingrel=url2html-21275" title="slashdot.org">ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_datingrel=url2html-21275</a> [slashdot.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_dating&gt; only works for things up to ~50,000 years old, so it wasn't used for those old rocks. For things older than ~100,000 years folks use <a href="ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon\_datingrel=url2html-21275" title="slashdot.org">ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon\_datingrel=url2html-21275</a> [slashdot.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon\_dating&gt;. The applicable time period is based on the half-life of the isotope. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years while Potassium-40's is 1.248e9 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ahref = http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon \ _datingrel = url2html-21275 [ slashdot.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon \ _dating &gt; only works for things up to ~ 50,000 years old , so it was n't used for those old rocks .
For things older than ~ 100,000 years folks use ahref = http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon \ _datingrel = url2html-21275 [ slashdot.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon \ _dating &gt; .
The applicable time period is based on the half-life of the isotope .
Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years while Potassium-40 's is 1.248e9 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_datingrel=url2html-21275 [slashdot.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_dating&gt; only works for things up to ~50,000 years old, so it wasn't used for those old rocks.
For things older than ~100,000 years folks use ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon\_datingrel=url2html-21275 [slashdot.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon\_dating&gt;.
The applicable time period is based on the half-life of the isotope.
Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years while Potassium-40's is 1.248e9 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570542</id>
	<title>Can taste the difference to a point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269278820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the comparisons to the audiophile market are not too far off the mark.   You don't have to be a wine connoisseur to recognize that making a fine wine is a combination of art and science.  Anyone can tell that each wine has distinctive qualities.  How much a person appreciates the rarity of a particular wine will dictate what they are willing to pay for it.  But for every person with a refined enough palate to appreciate an expensive wine, the are dozens who will pay the same money and say they can taste all of the subtleties and even convince themselves that they can, even if they really can't.  Much like in the audiophile market the number of people of people who can actually hear the difference in high end equipment is much smaller than they number who have convinced themselves that they can.  Ironically, it is often the younger set who are desperate to establish themselves who fall into the latter category and spend far too much on high end audio equipment and/or wine than they should.  It is only when they are older that they recognize the folly of their youth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the comparisons to the audiophile market are not too far off the mark .
You do n't have to be a wine connoisseur to recognize that making a fine wine is a combination of art and science .
Anyone can tell that each wine has distinctive qualities .
How much a person appreciates the rarity of a particular wine will dictate what they are willing to pay for it .
But for every person with a refined enough palate to appreciate an expensive wine , the are dozens who will pay the same money and say they can taste all of the subtleties and even convince themselves that they can , even if they really ca n't .
Much like in the audiophile market the number of people of people who can actually hear the difference in high end equipment is much smaller than they number who have convinced themselves that they can .
Ironically , it is often the younger set who are desperate to establish themselves who fall into the latter category and spend far too much on high end audio equipment and/or wine than they should .
It is only when they are older that they recognize the folly of their youth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the comparisons to the audiophile market are not too far off the mark.
You don't have to be a wine connoisseur to recognize that making a fine wine is a combination of art and science.
Anyone can tell that each wine has distinctive qualities.
How much a person appreciates the rarity of a particular wine will dictate what they are willing to pay for it.
But for every person with a refined enough palate to appreciate an expensive wine, the are dozens who will pay the same money and say they can taste all of the subtleties and even convince themselves that they can, even if they really can't.
Much like in the audiophile market the number of people of people who can actually hear the difference in high end equipment is much smaller than they number who have convinced themselves that they can.
Ironically, it is often the younger set who are desperate to establish themselves who fall into the latter category and spend far too much on high end audio equipment and/or wine than they should.
It is only when they are older that they recognize the folly of their youth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563406</id>
	<title>-1 wine snobs</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1269190980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>hurray!</htmltext>
<tokenext>hurray !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hurray!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564792</id>
	<title>A small correction</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1269253800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Carbon dating isn't all used for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the age of the Shroud of Turin, or figure out how old some rocks are</p></div><p>From the article about rocks, however:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.</p></div><p>Why do I care about such an almost trivial inaccuracy? Well, because this kind of misunderstanding finds its way into things like the attacks on evolution by the religious fringe, or the attacks on climate science by the energy industry, where it abused to "prove" just about anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carbon dating is n't all used for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the age of the Shroud of Turin , or figure out how old some rocks areFrom the article about rocks , however : They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington , who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium , which decay over time at a known rate.Why do I care about such an almost trivial inaccuracy ?
Well , because this kind of misunderstanding finds its way into things like the attacks on evolution by the religious fringe , or the attacks on climate science by the energy industry , where it abused to " prove " just about anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carbon dating isn't all used for such academic pursuits as trying to determine the age of the Shroud of Turin, or figure out how old some rocks areFrom the article about rocks, however:They sent samples for chemical analysis to scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who dated the rocks by measuring isotopes of the rare earth elements neodymium and samarium, which decay over time at a known rate.Why do I care about such an almost trivial inaccuracy?
Well, because this kind of misunderstanding finds its way into things like the attacks on evolution by the religious fringe, or the attacks on climate science by the energy industry, where it abused to "prove" just about anything.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563570</id>
	<title>Escalation of certainty</title>
	<author>xarium</author>
	<datestamp>1269192180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The team of researchers think "vintage fraud" is widespread..."</p><p>Eh, "<b>think</b>"?<br>
But the headline sounds so certain.</p><p>"According to the study, wine experts have estimated that up to 5\% of fine wines sold today are not all they are cracked up to be..."</p><p>Ah.  "<b>estimated</b>".  Nowhere do they even mention running the tests in anger.  Only proving the tests work when calibrated to known values.</p><p>The reporter left it till the end to admit, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reports it as an absolute truth.  Disingenuous at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The team of researchers think " vintage fraud " is widespread... " Eh , " think " ?
But the headline sounds so certain .
" According to the study , wine experts have estimated that up to 5 \ % of fine wines sold today are not all they are cracked up to be... " Ah .
" estimated " . Nowhere do they even mention running the tests in anger .
Only proving the tests work when calibrated to known values.The reporter left it till the end to admit , and / .
reports it as an absolute truth .
Disingenuous at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The team of researchers think "vintage fraud" is widespread..."Eh, "think"?
But the headline sounds so certain.
"According to the study, wine experts have estimated that up to 5\% of fine wines sold today are not all they are cracked up to be..."Ah.
"estimated".  Nowhere do they even mention running the tests in anger.
Only proving the tests work when calibrated to known values.The reporter left it till the end to admit, and /.
reports it as an absolute truth.
Disingenuous at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31567862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31567042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31569716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31578734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31571132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31577482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31569658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31575432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31569806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31568912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0346226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563536
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31568912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31577482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31569716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31567862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31569806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31565848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31578734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31567042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31571132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31575432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31569658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31570542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31564062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0346226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0346226.31563446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
