<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_22_0450218</id>
	<title>New Chip Offers Virtual Windows Desktops, On TVs</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269283680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"Ncomputing on Friday announced a chip that could <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/340272/ncomputing\_chip\_brings\_windows\_applications\_tvs/">turn devices like TVs or set-top boxes into virtual desktops</a> through which users can run Windows applications or access the Internet. The Numo chip contains a dual-core processor based on an ARM design that will allow devices to run Windows multimedia applications when connected to a host machine like a desktop or server. The setup uses the company's Vspace software on host machines to set up remote devices as virtual desktops."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " Ncomputing on Friday announced a chip that could turn devices like TVs or set-top boxes into virtual desktops through which users can run Windows applications or access the Internet .
The Numo chip contains a dual-core processor based on an ARM design that will allow devices to run Windows multimedia applications when connected to a host machine like a desktop or server .
The setup uses the company 's Vspace software on host machines to set up remote devices as virtual desktops .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "Ncomputing on Friday announced a chip that could turn devices like TVs or set-top boxes into virtual desktops through which users can run Windows applications or access the Internet.
The Numo chip contains a dual-core processor based on an ARM design that will allow devices to run Windows multimedia applications when connected to a host machine like a desktop or server.
The setup uses the company's Vspace software on host machines to set up remote devices as virtual desktops.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564384</id>
	<title>Misleading title.</title>
	<author>MikeFM</author>
	<datestamp>1269289620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is more of a thinclient for running as a VM client. Much more interesting than simply running Windows I think. The real question is if the CPU costs $20 and $10 more in parts are needed then how much extra would it cost to make this into a stand-alone thinclient that can run as a VM client? $100 per seat would be a pretty good price for businesses.<br><br>Better yet, I'd love to see it built into monitors so you could plug network, keyboard, and mouse into the monitor with the actual computer being optional.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is more of a thinclient for running as a VM client .
Much more interesting than simply running Windows I think .
The real question is if the CPU costs $ 20 and $ 10 more in parts are needed then how much extra would it cost to make this into a stand-alone thinclient that can run as a VM client ?
$ 100 per seat would be a pretty good price for businesses.Better yet , I 'd love to see it built into monitors so you could plug network , keyboard , and mouse into the monitor with the actual computer being optional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is more of a thinclient for running as a VM client.
Much more interesting than simply running Windows I think.
The real question is if the CPU costs $20 and $10 more in parts are needed then how much extra would it cost to make this into a stand-alone thinclient that can run as a VM client?
$100 per seat would be a pretty good price for businesses.Better yet, I'd love to see it built into monitors so you could plug network, keyboard, and mouse into the monitor with the actual computer being optional.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564460</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting Idea</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1269290760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay.  We've gone full circle.  Back in the day, if your POS monitor gave out, you could diddle around with some cords and some adapters, and put your display on your old CRT television.  Which, in many cases was an improvement, because you could do higher resolutions.</p><p>Today, we have computers which can remote to your television, so that you can have a 5 foot display at super resolution.</p><p>Technology is so exciting!  Once again, we can enjoy Microsoft's BSOD at maximum resolution, in all of it's glory!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay .
We 've gone full circle .
Back in the day , if your POS monitor gave out , you could diddle around with some cords and some adapters , and put your display on your old CRT television .
Which , in many cases was an improvement , because you could do higher resolutions.Today , we have computers which can remote to your television , so that you can have a 5 foot display at super resolution.Technology is so exciting !
Once again , we can enjoy Microsoft 's BSOD at maximum resolution , in all of it 's glory !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay.
We've gone full circle.
Back in the day, if your POS monitor gave out, you could diddle around with some cords and some adapters, and put your display on your old CRT television.
Which, in many cases was an improvement, because you could do higher resolutions.Today, we have computers which can remote to your television, so that you can have a 5 foot display at super resolution.Technology is so exciting!
Once again, we can enjoy Microsoft's BSOD at maximum resolution, in all of it's glory!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31567688</id>
	<title>Re:Windows on TV?</title>
	<author>I'm not really here</author>
	<datestamp>1269270960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using one of <a href="http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=playstation+keyboard+and+mouse&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;cid=3048728747329894380&amp;ei=XnunS9-gBo21tgfnhen2Ag&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=product\_catalog\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=4&amp;ved=0CCgQ8wIwAw#ps-sellers" title="google.com">these</a> [google.com] for quite a while now and I've been happy with it.  I got it off of ebay a couple years back for about $35.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using one of these [ google.com ] for quite a while now and I 've been happy with it .
I got it off of ebay a couple years back for about $ 35 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using one of these [google.com] for quite a while now and I've been happy with it.
I got it off of ebay a couple years back for about $35.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564262</id>
	<title>Welcome back, WebTV!</title>
	<author>JustNilt</author>
	<datestamp>1269201300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it looks to be potentially more useful than WebTV ever was but only time will tell.  There are quite a few of my home user clients that would probably prefer something like this to a full blown system.</p><p>Wonder how long it'l take to actually see in a live product and how much it'll really cost.  The numbers in the article appear to be a manufacturer's cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it looks to be potentially more useful than WebTV ever was but only time will tell .
There are quite a few of my home user clients that would probably prefer something like this to a full blown system.Wonder how long it'l take to actually see in a live product and how much it 'll really cost .
The numbers in the article appear to be a manufacturer 's cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it looks to be potentially more useful than WebTV ever was but only time will tell.
There are quite a few of my home user clients that would probably prefer something like this to a full blown system.Wonder how long it'l take to actually see in a live product and how much it'll really cost.
The numbers in the article appear to be a manufacturer's cost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565372</id>
	<title>Re:Windows apps?</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1269262560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the thing, I wish for these devices to become simpler, not more capable.  If I wanted capabilities, I would rather have a central hub that has the smarts, and keep the TV as a dumb terminal.</p><p>WTF is with every device getting smarter and at the same time adding complexity in operating it?  Just a few years back, I wondered why the damn TV couldn't be made so it automatically picks up the live input and runs with it, instead I still have to select the input source everytime I play a game or DVD, inevitably flipping through 8 things, 5 of them with no actual inputs in them just because the TV can't even detect connections automagically.  And god forbid my parents change the channel on their actual TV instead of on the Set-Top Box one day, they'll be out of TV for however long until I come to visit.  It's 2010, where the hell are the standards for this most basic of crap already, making these things simpler and foolproof for the majority of the population?</p><p>I was looking at those thin LED TVs at costco, and one was really cool, with no physical buttons but if your hand went near the bottom left, it would pop up onto the screen automatically.  But then I clicked something accidentally, and this whole menu came up and all the things it could do (like displaying pictures from a memory card)...</p><p>Which is really cool until you realize that a techie can and already does have a computer than can do that and most likely will never use the TV that way, the average person won't figure it out or care, and in the end, for 99 out of 100 people, you're adding complexity to way the machine handles to get features that get used once in a blue moon.</p><p>I miss the days where an appliance was an appliance, and making it easier to use was an aspiration rather than add to the feature list that really doesn't get used.  I don't need yet another desktop.  Please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the thing , I wish for these devices to become simpler , not more capable .
If I wanted capabilities , I would rather have a central hub that has the smarts , and keep the TV as a dumb terminal.WTF is with every device getting smarter and at the same time adding complexity in operating it ?
Just a few years back , I wondered why the damn TV could n't be made so it automatically picks up the live input and runs with it , instead I still have to select the input source everytime I play a game or DVD , inevitably flipping through 8 things , 5 of them with no actual inputs in them just because the TV ca n't even detect connections automagically .
And god forbid my parents change the channel on their actual TV instead of on the Set-Top Box one day , they 'll be out of TV for however long until I come to visit .
It 's 2010 , where the hell are the standards for this most basic of crap already , making these things simpler and foolproof for the majority of the population ? I was looking at those thin LED TVs at costco , and one was really cool , with no physical buttons but if your hand went near the bottom left , it would pop up onto the screen automatically .
But then I clicked something accidentally , and this whole menu came up and all the things it could do ( like displaying pictures from a memory card ) ...Which is really cool until you realize that a techie can and already does have a computer than can do that and most likely will never use the TV that way , the average person wo n't figure it out or care , and in the end , for 99 out of 100 people , you 're adding complexity to way the machine handles to get features that get used once in a blue moon.I miss the days where an appliance was an appliance , and making it easier to use was an aspiration rather than add to the feature list that really does n't get used .
I do n't need yet another desktop .
Please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the thing, I wish for these devices to become simpler, not more capable.
If I wanted capabilities, I would rather have a central hub that has the smarts, and keep the TV as a dumb terminal.WTF is with every device getting smarter and at the same time adding complexity in operating it?
Just a few years back, I wondered why the damn TV couldn't be made so it automatically picks up the live input and runs with it, instead I still have to select the input source everytime I play a game or DVD, inevitably flipping through 8 things, 5 of them with no actual inputs in them just because the TV can't even detect connections automagically.
And god forbid my parents change the channel on their actual TV instead of on the Set-Top Box one day, they'll be out of TV for however long until I come to visit.
It's 2010, where the hell are the standards for this most basic of crap already, making these things simpler and foolproof for the majority of the population?I was looking at those thin LED TVs at costco, and one was really cool, with no physical buttons but if your hand went near the bottom left, it would pop up onto the screen automatically.
But then I clicked something accidentally, and this whole menu came up and all the things it could do (like displaying pictures from a memory card)...Which is really cool until you realize that a techie can and already does have a computer than can do that and most likely will never use the TV that way, the average person won't figure it out or care, and in the end, for 99 out of 100 people, you're adding complexity to way the machine handles to get features that get used once in a blue moon.I miss the days where an appliance was an appliance, and making it easier to use was an aspiration rather than add to the feature list that really doesn't get used.
I don't need yet another desktop.
Please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565564</id>
	<title>In 1996-8 it was called ShareWave</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1269264540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>....in El Dorado Hills, CA.  That technology got sold to Philips, and became "Ambi" before the rest got sold to Cirrus Logic.  It was the beginning of the dot com bust, from my reality.  The product got buried but the idea was to use the home PC as a wireless server to a standard TV which had its own windows desktop in low res, and which could be used for standard windows games and apps.  It worked pretty good for 1998 too!</htmltext>
<tokenext>....in El Dorado Hills , CA .
That technology got sold to Philips , and became " Ambi " before the rest got sold to Cirrus Logic .
It was the beginning of the dot com bust , from my reality .
The product got buried but the idea was to use the home PC as a wireless server to a standard TV which had its own windows desktop in low res , and which could be used for standard windows games and apps .
It worked pretty good for 1998 too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....in El Dorado Hills, CA.
That technology got sold to Philips, and became "Ambi" before the rest got sold to Cirrus Logic.
It was the beginning of the dot com bust, from my reality.
The product got buried but the idea was to use the home PC as a wireless server to a standard TV which had its own windows desktop in low res, and which could be used for standard windows games and apps.
It worked pretty good for 1998 too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564646</id>
	<title>Yes, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269251040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...does it run Linux?</p><p>(seriously)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...does it run Linux ?
( seriously )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...does it run Linux?
(seriously)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31570048</id>
	<title>Numo</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1269277380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't "numo" also the name air rifles were called on the original Battlestar Galactica? One could kill a lupus within ten metrons if you hit it just right.</p><p><b>Cylon Centurion:</b> I cannot be destroyed by a numo. Many have tried.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't " numo " also the name air rifles were called on the original Battlestar Galactica ?
One could kill a lupus within ten metrons if you hit it just right.Cylon Centurion : I can not be destroyed by a numo .
Many have tried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't "numo" also the name air rifles were called on the original Battlestar Galactica?
One could kill a lupus within ten metrons if you hit it just right.Cylon Centurion: I cannot be destroyed by a numo.
Many have tried.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566902</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome back, WebTV!</title>
	<author>specific</author>
	<datestamp>1269268980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have clients who would prefer a crippled solution with no upgrade path to a full blown, cheap, low-powered, atom system?

This thing requires a server to be useful.  A custom system built on a low powered processor can be the media center and server at the same time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have clients who would prefer a crippled solution with no upgrade path to a full blown , cheap , low-powered , atom system ?
This thing requires a server to be useful .
A custom system built on a low powered processor can be the media center and server at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have clients who would prefer a crippled solution with no upgrade path to a full blown, cheap, low-powered, atom system?
This thing requires a server to be useful.
A custom system built on a low powered processor can be the media center and server at the same time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564412</id>
	<title>Herr Kontroller in Redmond...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269289920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why on Earth would I want Redmond to run my TV? So it can BSOD or be botnetted more effectively? Leave 'dumb' appliances dumb. Most TVs have inputs for use as  screens. Oh hang on, they want VIRTUAL botnets and BSOD's, just like all that expensive virtual memory people used to pay for...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on Earth would I want Redmond to run my TV ?
So it can BSOD or be botnetted more effectively ?
Leave 'dumb ' appliances dumb .
Most TVs have inputs for use as screens .
Oh hang on , they want VIRTUAL botnets and BSOD 's , just like all that expensive virtual memory people used to pay for.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on Earth would I want Redmond to run my TV?
So it can BSOD or be botnetted more effectively?
Leave 'dumb' appliances dumb.
Most TVs have inputs for use as  screens.
Oh hang on, they want VIRTUAL botnets and BSOD's, just like all that expensive virtual memory people used to pay for...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566014</id>
	<title>Oh no...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Site being slashdotted already...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Site being slashdotted already.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Site being slashdotted already...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564356</id>
	<title>Windows on TV?</title>
	<author>Statecraftsman</author>
	<datestamp>1269289200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't need Windows on TV. I've already got gnu/linux there doing everything I want. What I need is a wireless keyboard with a built in touchpad and good range &lt;$100.<br> <br>Looking at ncomputing's site, I have hard time believing they can run 30 computers with XP, playing video, etc. from one HP slimline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't need Windows on TV .
I 've already got gnu/linux there doing everything I want .
What I need is a wireless keyboard with a built in touchpad and good range Looking at ncomputing 's site , I have hard time believing they can run 30 computers with XP , playing video , etc .
from one HP slimline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't need Windows on TV.
I've already got gnu/linux there doing everything I want.
What I need is a wireless keyboard with a built in touchpad and good range  Looking at ncomputing's site, I have hard time believing they can run 30 computers with XP, playing video, etc.
from one HP slimline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31571794</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting Idea</title>
	<author>arbitraryaardvark</author>
	<datestamp>1269282660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the singularity approaches, home appliances like toasters and tvs get smarter and more networked. The last time I had a computer that ran on my tv was 1990, a very used c-64.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the singularity approaches , home appliances like toasters and tvs get smarter and more networked .
The last time I had a computer that ran on my tv was 1990 , a very used c-64 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the singularity approaches, home appliances like toasters and tvs get smarter and more networked.
The last time I had a computer that ran on my tv was 1990, a very used c-64.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565896</id>
	<title>Re:Windows apps?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269266100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you say, "Symantec AnitVirus for TV?"</p><p>Just the boost the security companies needed!  Invest now!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you say , " Symantec AnitVirus for TV ?
" Just the boost the security companies needed !
Invest now !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you say, "Symantec AnitVirus for TV?
"Just the boost the security companies needed!
Invest now!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564458</id>
	<title>Micro == mini!?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1269290760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So now my personal microcomputer is becoming a time-shared minicomputer again...?  Should I dig out my corduroy bell-bottom pants, too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So now my personal microcomputer is becoming a time-shared minicomputer again... ?
Should I dig out my corduroy bell-bottom pants , too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now my personal microcomputer is becoming a time-shared minicomputer again...?
Should I dig out my corduroy bell-bottom pants, too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564400</id>
	<title>Re:Forget TVs</title>
	<author>cheater512</author>
	<datestamp>1269289800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah you mean the cool ones in Avatar? The ones that look and act exactly like the ones in Minority Report?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah you mean the cool ones in Avatar ?
The ones that look and act exactly like the ones in Minority Report ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah you mean the cool ones in Avatar?
The ones that look and act exactly like the ones in Minority Report?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566680</id>
	<title>Syntax error -- does not compute</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269268440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"how can we totally through a wrench in this?"</i></p><p>I think AC is a Microsoft programmer, which explains all the bugs in Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" how can we totally through a wrench in this ?
" I think AC is a Microsoft programmer , which explains all the bugs in Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"how can we totally through a wrench in this?
"I think AC is a Microsoft programmer, which explains all the bugs in Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564686</id>
	<title>typical</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1269252000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source software (VNC) pioneers this and then it gets progressively turned into ever more proprietary protocols.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source software ( VNC ) pioneers this and then it gets progressively turned into ever more proprietary protocols .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source software (VNC) pioneers this and then it gets progressively turned into ever more proprietary protocols.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564272</id>
	<title>Windows apps?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269201480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ncomputing on Friday announced a chip that could turn devices like TVs or set-top boxes into virtual desktops through which users can run Windows applications</p></div></blockquote><p>I guess TVs have been reliable for so long someone got bored and asked "how can we totally through a wrench in this?", and the answer was "I know -- let's bring the misery of windows to the TV!". Losers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ncomputing on Friday announced a chip that could turn devices like TVs or set-top boxes into virtual desktops through which users can run Windows applicationsI guess TVs have been reliable for so long someone got bored and asked " how can we totally through a wrench in this ?
" , and the answer was " I know -- let 's bring the misery of windows to the TV ! " .
Losers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ncomputing on Friday announced a chip that could turn devices like TVs or set-top boxes into virtual desktops through which users can run Windows applicationsI guess TVs have been reliable for so long someone got bored and asked "how can we totally through a wrench in this?
", and the answer was "I know -- let's bring the misery of windows to the TV!".
Losers.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31568846</id>
	<title>Re:Windows apps?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269273960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can buy that kind of stuff but unfortunately it costs more and not less. You can get the monitor version of the television, and you can buy the expensive autoswitcher, and you plug it in and it all just works. But only professional gear comes this way. If you can get a PC monitor large enough to be your television display then... usually it's heinously expensive. The HDMI/component/etc autoswitcher/converters are amazingly, astoundingly expensive. HDMI at least promises an eventual end to this nightmare. It's small enough and cheap enough to be implemented in many places. It's the support for multiple input types that really leads to expensive hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can buy that kind of stuff but unfortunately it costs more and not less .
You can get the monitor version of the television , and you can buy the expensive autoswitcher , and you plug it in and it all just works .
But only professional gear comes this way .
If you can get a PC monitor large enough to be your television display then... usually it 's heinously expensive .
The HDMI/component/etc autoswitcher/converters are amazingly , astoundingly expensive .
HDMI at least promises an eventual end to this nightmare .
It 's small enough and cheap enough to be implemented in many places .
It 's the support for multiple input types that really leads to expensive hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can buy that kind of stuff but unfortunately it costs more and not less.
You can get the monitor version of the television, and you can buy the expensive autoswitcher, and you plug it in and it all just works.
But only professional gear comes this way.
If you can get a PC monitor large enough to be your television display then... usually it's heinously expensive.
The HDMI/component/etc autoswitcher/converters are amazingly, astoundingly expensive.
HDMI at least promises an eventual end to this nightmare.
It's small enough and cheap enough to be implemented in many places.
It's the support for multiple input types that really leads to expensive hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564764</id>
	<title>Re:Forget TVs</title>
	<author>allaunjsilverfox2</author>
	<datestamp>1269253380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like the ipad?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p Seriously, thats the only useful thing I can think of for the giant phone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the ipad ?
: p Seriously , thats the only useful thing I can think of for the giant phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the ipad?
:p Seriously, thats the only useful thing I can think of for the giant phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564308</id>
	<title>Forget TVs</title>
	<author>Zouden</author>
	<datestamp>1269288420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real killer application for a chip like this would be in a tablet. If you can drive the cost of a tablet down by making it little more than display+battery+wifi, a whole new market could be opened up.</p><p>Think about that scene in Avatar when the technician was monitoring Sully's brain scan. He dragged the live scan image from his desktop machine onto a tablet, so he could watch it while he walked around the lab. I think there's a market for a tablet that acts as a portable display (+touchscreen) for a bigger machine nearby, as long as the price was low enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real killer application for a chip like this would be in a tablet .
If you can drive the cost of a tablet down by making it little more than display + battery + wifi , a whole new market could be opened up.Think about that scene in Avatar when the technician was monitoring Sully 's brain scan .
He dragged the live scan image from his desktop machine onto a tablet , so he could watch it while he walked around the lab .
I think there 's a market for a tablet that acts as a portable display ( + touchscreen ) for a bigger machine nearby , as long as the price was low enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real killer application for a chip like this would be in a tablet.
If you can drive the cost of a tablet down by making it little more than display+battery+wifi, a whole new market could be opened up.Think about that scene in Avatar when the technician was monitoring Sully's brain scan.
He dragged the live scan image from his desktop machine onto a tablet, so he could watch it while he walked around the lab.
I think there's a market for a tablet that acts as a portable display (+touchscreen) for a bigger machine nearby, as long as the price was low enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564876</id>
	<title>Re:Forget TVs</title>
	<author>wgoodman</author>
	<datestamp>1269255240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember a product of this sort (I think by Viewsonic) several years back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember a product of this sort ( I think by Viewsonic ) several years back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember a product of this sort (I think by Viewsonic) several years back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564320</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1269288780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most computers have tv-out, newer tvs have vga or dvi or hdmi inputs, why do i need another gadget to go between the two? And what about the starving hollywood executives? This looks like a way of intercepting the precious bluray pixels and selling them to support terrorism!! OMG!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most computers have tv-out , newer tvs have vga or dvi or hdmi inputs , why do i need another gadget to go between the two ?
And what about the starving hollywood executives ?
This looks like a way of intercepting the precious bluray pixels and selling them to support terrorism ! !
OMG ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most computers have tv-out, newer tvs have vga or dvi or hdmi inputs, why do i need another gadget to go between the two?
And what about the starving hollywood executives?
This looks like a way of intercepting the precious bluray pixels and selling them to support terrorism!!
OMG!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565224</id>
	<title>And everything old will become new again</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1269260700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember in the late 90's as the internet exploded into the mainstream, there was constant hype about "internet enabled" televisions - televisions that would allow you to "surf the net" via your remote control.</p><p>While this discussion centers more on the use of a specific OS on a TV, I think that market forces have already shown that people are willing to have their televisions and computers SEPARATE. Especially in the era of $500 laptops and, well, $1000+ televisions (if you want them). I don't think that "running Windows" is suddenly going to turn everything upside down. The consumer has already decided - asking again will just get you the same answer. It's sort of like the family car car that runs on railroad tracks - there was something the manufacturer just didn't get...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember in the late 90 's as the internet exploded into the mainstream , there was constant hype about " internet enabled " televisions - televisions that would allow you to " surf the net " via your remote control.While this discussion centers more on the use of a specific OS on a TV , I think that market forces have already shown that people are willing to have their televisions and computers SEPARATE .
Especially in the era of $ 500 laptops and , well , $ 1000 + televisions ( if you want them ) .
I do n't think that " running Windows " is suddenly going to turn everything upside down .
The consumer has already decided - asking again will just get you the same answer .
It 's sort of like the family car car that runs on railroad tracks - there was something the manufacturer just did n't get.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember in the late 90's as the internet exploded into the mainstream, there was constant hype about "internet enabled" televisions - televisions that would allow you to "surf the net" via your remote control.While this discussion centers more on the use of a specific OS on a TV, I think that market forces have already shown that people are willing to have their televisions and computers SEPARATE.
Especially in the era of $500 laptops and, well, $1000+ televisions (if you want them).
I don't think that "running Windows" is suddenly going to turn everything upside down.
The consumer has already decided - asking again will just get you the same answer.
It's sort of like the family car car that runs on railroad tracks - there was something the manufacturer just didn't get...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565006</id>
	<title>Re:Forget TVs</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1269257700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real killer app for this is Google's settop box. Android linux providing: TV recording, TV guides, internet-streamed video, internet-streamed games/apps, video jukebox (hopefully from local or LAN storage), plus connectivity to remote services too.</p><p>Add a keyboard and a trackpad and most people would not need a PC at all - and that means they wouldn't need Windows at all. Hmmmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real killer app for this is Google 's settop box .
Android linux providing : TV recording , TV guides , internet-streamed video , internet-streamed games/apps , video jukebox ( hopefully from local or LAN storage ) , plus connectivity to remote services too.Add a keyboard and a trackpad and most people would not need a PC at all - and that means they would n't need Windows at all .
Hmmmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real killer app for this is Google's settop box.
Android linux providing: TV recording, TV guides, internet-streamed video, internet-streamed games/apps, video jukebox (hopefully from local or LAN storage), plus connectivity to remote services too.Add a keyboard and a trackpad and most people would not need a PC at all - and that means they wouldn't need Windows at all.
Hmmmm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31572504</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting Idea</title>
	<author>dwinks616</author>
	<datestamp>1269284820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>one of the ten fastest computers in the worls uses Linux as its OS.</i> </p></div><p>One of ten?  How about ALL ten.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>one of the ten fastest computers in the worls uses Linux as its OS .
One of ten ?
How about ALL ten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> one of the ten fastest computers in the worls uses Linux as its OS.
One of ten?
How about ALL ten.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31578748</id>
	<title>Re:Forget TVs</title>
	<author>H0D\_G</author>
	<datestamp>1269271620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, the Privacy concerns there are HUGE. Google, who already read some of my emails, and look at where I browse, now could look at what I watch. That's the best Viewer Survey ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , the Privacy concerns there are HUGE .
Google , who already read some of my emails , and look at where I browse , now could look at what I watch .
That 's the best Viewer Survey ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, the Privacy concerns there are HUGE.
Google, who already read some of my emails, and look at where I browse, now could look at what I watch.
That's the best Viewer Survey ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31586148</id>
	<title>Re:Windows apps?</title>
	<author>KraZy-KaT</author>
	<datestamp>1269368640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Ncomputing on Friday announced a chip that could turn devices like TVs or set-top boxes into virtual desktops through which users can run Windows applications</p></div></blockquote><p>someone got bored and asked "how can we totally <b>through</b> a wrench in this?", and the answer was "I know -- let's bring the misery of windows to the TV!"</p></div><p>And forgot to install the spellchecker.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ncomputing on Friday announced a chip that could turn devices like TVs or set-top boxes into virtual desktops through which users can run Windows applicationssomeone got bored and asked " how can we totally through a wrench in this ?
" , and the answer was " I know -- let 's bring the misery of windows to the TV !
" And forgot to install the spellchecker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ncomputing on Friday announced a chip that could turn devices like TVs or set-top boxes into virtual desktops through which users can run Windows applicationssomeone got bored and asked "how can we totally through a wrench in this?
", and the answer was "I know -- let's bring the misery of windows to the TV!
"And forgot to install the spellchecker.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565070</id>
	<title>run Windows applications</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269258660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The Numo chip contains a dual-core processor based on an ARM design that will allow devices to run Windows multimedia applications when connected to a host machine like a desktop or server<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p><p>Is it also technically possible to run Linux or Apple applications in a similar setup?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The Numo chip contains a dual-core processor based on an ARM design that will allow devices to run Windows multimedia applications when connected to a host machine like a desktop or server ..Is it also technically possible to run Linux or Apple applications in a similar setup ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The Numo chip contains a dual-core processor based on an ARM design that will allow devices to run Windows multimedia applications when connected to a host machine like a desktop or server ..Is it also technically possible to run Linux or Apple applications in a similar setup?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566714</id>
	<title>I'd rather watch C-PAN</title>
	<author>olddotter</author>
	<datestamp>1269268560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>read the subject line</htmltext>
<tokenext>read the subject line</tokentext>
<sentencetext>read the subject line</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31568872</id>
	<title>This is not regular RDP</title>
	<author>IBABad1</author>
	<datestamp>1269274020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually read the article. The key difference between this chip and traditional thin clients or terminals is that the chip will allow multimedia playback locally on the TV. RemotFX allows for a better multimedia experience through a Terminal server desktop or application by re-directing the video/audio to the TV or device that initiates the remote session without requiring the application locally. With a regular RDP connection the Video/Audio plays in the remote session on the remote host and the output is piped through the RDP client. Which is why it is choppy and low quality even on a LAN connection.
</p><p>The whole reason Microsoft has RemotFX is because multimedia content is one of the things Terminal server doesn't do well. Citrix has it own method for redirecting audio and video to the local PC. But that still requires the application to be on the local device which isn't always the case with thin-clients. RemoteFX won't require the application that plays the content to be on the local PC or TV.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually read the article .
The key difference between this chip and traditional thin clients or terminals is that the chip will allow multimedia playback locally on the TV .
RemotFX allows for a better multimedia experience through a Terminal server desktop or application by re-directing the video/audio to the TV or device that initiates the remote session without requiring the application locally .
With a regular RDP connection the Video/Audio plays in the remote session on the remote host and the output is piped through the RDP client .
Which is why it is choppy and low quality even on a LAN connection .
The whole reason Microsoft has RemotFX is because multimedia content is one of the things Terminal server does n't do well .
Citrix has it own method for redirecting audio and video to the local PC .
But that still requires the application to be on the local device which is n't always the case with thin-clients .
RemoteFX wo n't require the application that plays the content to be on the local PC or TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually read the article.
The key difference between this chip and traditional thin clients or terminals is that the chip will allow multimedia playback locally on the TV.
RemotFX allows for a better multimedia experience through a Terminal server desktop or application by re-directing the video/audio to the TV or device that initiates the remote session without requiring the application locally.
With a regular RDP connection the Video/Audio plays in the remote session on the remote host and the output is piped through the RDP client.
Which is why it is choppy and low quality even on a LAN connection.
The whole reason Microsoft has RemotFX is because multimedia content is one of the things Terminal server doesn't do well.
Citrix has it own method for redirecting audio and video to the local PC.
But that still requires the application to be on the local device which isn't always the case with thin-clients.
RemoteFX won't require the application that plays the content to be on the local PC or TV.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564698</id>
	<title>Re:Forget TVs</title>
	<author>crazybit</author>
	<datestamp>1269252120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think there's a market for a tablet that acts as a portable display (+touchscreen) for a bigger machine nearby.</p></div><p>Bookmark you post in case we need prior-art later.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there 's a market for a tablet that acts as a portable display ( + touchscreen ) for a bigger machine nearby.Bookmark you post in case we need prior-art later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there's a market for a tablet that acts as a portable display (+touchscreen) for a bigger machine nearby.Bookmark you post in case we need prior-art later.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564364</id>
	<title>whoa......</title>
	<author>kujokane</author>
	<datestamp>1269289320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>somethings wrong with this picture here...

You mean there is something that you can use with Microsoft that just works??? I wonder how many incompatible errors, or you have to install updates for this operation work error messages people will get.</htmltext>
<tokenext>somethings wrong with this picture here.. . You mean there is something that you can use with Microsoft that just works ? ? ?
I wonder how many incompatible errors , or you have to install updates for this operation work error messages people will get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>somethings wrong with this picture here...

You mean there is something that you can use with Microsoft that just works???
I wonder how many incompatible errors, or you have to install updates for this operation work error messages people will get.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566138</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting Idea</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269266940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This seems a bit ad-centric, maybe for light kiosks or informational displays</i></p><p>And what they seem to be advertising is Windows. From TFS:</p><blockquote><div><p>allow devices to run <b>Windows multimedia applications</b> when connected to a host machine like a desktop or server. The setup uses the company's Vspace software on host machines to set up remote devices as virtual desktops</p></div></blockquote><p>Anything that will run Windows will run Linux. Hell, Linux will run on anything from a wristwatch to a supercompuer; one of the ten fastest computers in the worls uses Linux as its OS.</p><p>When did slashdot get overrun by Redmond? Has slashdot been assimilated too?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems a bit ad-centric , maybe for light kiosks or informational displaysAnd what they seem to be advertising is Windows .
From TFS : allow devices to run Windows multimedia applications when connected to a host machine like a desktop or server .
The setup uses the company 's Vspace software on host machines to set up remote devices as virtual desktopsAnything that will run Windows will run Linux .
Hell , Linux will run on anything from a wristwatch to a supercompuer ; one of the ten fastest computers in the worls uses Linux as its OS.When did slashdot get overrun by Redmond ?
Has slashdot been assimilated too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems a bit ad-centric, maybe for light kiosks or informational displaysAnd what they seem to be advertising is Windows.
From TFS:allow devices to run Windows multimedia applications when connected to a host machine like a desktop or server.
The setup uses the company's Vspace software on host machines to set up remote devices as virtual desktopsAnything that will run Windows will run Linux.
Hell, Linux will run on anything from a wristwatch to a supercompuer; one of the ten fastest computers in the worls uses Linux as its OS.When did slashdot get overrun by Redmond?
Has slashdot been assimilated too?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564256</id>
	<title>Interesting Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269201240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Virtual first post.


Most newer TVs can already play networked media files, show sport scores, weather and some can even do light browsing - all from either a ethernet or wireless network connection.

This seems a bit ad-centric, maybe for light kiosks or informational displays.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtual first post .
Most newer TVs can already play networked media files , show sport scores , weather and some can even do light browsing - all from either a ethernet or wireless network connection .
This seems a bit ad-centric , maybe for light kiosks or informational displays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtual first post.
Most newer TVs can already play networked media files, show sport scores, weather and some can even do light browsing - all from either a ethernet or wireless network connection.
This seems a bit ad-centric, maybe for light kiosks or informational displays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565208</id>
	<title>Re:Windows apps?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269260520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"how can we totally through a wrench in this?"</p><p>My god man, please use proper windscreen when constructing a decent severance!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" how can we totally through a wrench in this ?
" My god man , please use proper windscreen when constructing a decent severance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"how can we totally through a wrench in this?
"My god man, please use proper windscreen when constructing a decent severance!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565244</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1269261000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd be impressed if it did window overlay instead.<br> <br>TV in background, browsing window (able to be resized / moved around screen) overlayed. Windows 7 does it with XP Mode (VM runs as a background to the app window, essentially having the whole VM invisible behind the one app window). That would be impressive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be impressed if it did window overlay instead .
TV in background , browsing window ( able to be resized / moved around screen ) overlayed .
Windows 7 does it with XP Mode ( VM runs as a background to the app window , essentially having the whole VM invisible behind the one app window ) .
That would be impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be impressed if it did window overlay instead.
TV in background, browsing window (able to be resized / moved around screen) overlayed.
Windows 7 does it with XP Mode (VM runs as a background to the app window, essentially having the whole VM invisible behind the one app window).
That would be impressive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564476</id>
	<title>And ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269291300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see no mention of why anyone would want to run Windows remotely on their HDTV<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then again I'm not sure why they'd want to run it on a PC either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see no mention of why anyone would want to run Windows remotely on their HDTV ... then again I 'm not sure why they 'd want to run it on a PC either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see no mention of why anyone would want to run Windows remotely on their HDTV ... then again I'm not sure why they'd want to run it on a PC either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564902</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting Idea</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1269255660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes! TV's and Windows have finally evolved to the er, terminal. With the capabilities of X forwarding. Except for the TV as the terminal, this is, like sooo early 1990s...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes !
TV 's and Windows have finally evolved to the er , terminal .
With the capabilities of X forwarding .
Except for the TV as the terminal , this is , like sooo early 1990s.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes!
TV's and Windows have finally evolved to the er, terminal.
With the capabilities of X forwarding.
Except for the TV as the terminal, this is, like sooo early 1990s...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566944</id>
	<title>Re:And ...</title>
	<author>Seb C.</author>
	<datestamp>1269269100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, i possess a dlna-enabled tv, and half my video library won't play for codec reasons. Now, if i could get a full screen vlc in this...<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , i possess a dlna-enabled tv , and half my video library wo n't play for codec reasons .
Now , if i could get a full screen vlc in this.. .  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, i possess a dlna-enabled tv, and half my video library won't play for codec reasons.
Now, if i could get a full screen vlc in this...
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565964</id>
	<title>Re:And ...</title>
	<author>RicktheBrick</author>
	<datestamp>1269266280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When almost every device one owns communicates with your computer than this would be a great time and money safer.  I can see one's clothes dryer flashing a message when the clothes are dry.  The microwave, oven, and range could send messages when it thinks some food is cooked.  Microphones could be placed in every room and they could send audio to the television when there is unexpected noise in that room.  Smoke detectors with built in camera could send an alarm with a picture when it detects smoke.  This could have saved about $100,000 for my boss who had a detached garage burn down just recently.  There are plenty of messages from the internet such as instant messaging, rss feeds, blogs that could be flashed on the screen so that one could freeze the show to reply or view.  The one thing I want is commercials designed for the individual.  No longer would one have to sit through a commercial for asthma or quit smoking if one did not have asthma or smoked.  There would also be the ability to instantly order a product but not before one would search for independent reviews about the product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When almost every device one owns communicates with your computer than this would be a great time and money safer .
I can see one 's clothes dryer flashing a message when the clothes are dry .
The microwave , oven , and range could send messages when it thinks some food is cooked .
Microphones could be placed in every room and they could send audio to the television when there is unexpected noise in that room .
Smoke detectors with built in camera could send an alarm with a picture when it detects smoke .
This could have saved about $ 100,000 for my boss who had a detached garage burn down just recently .
There are plenty of messages from the internet such as instant messaging , rss feeds , blogs that could be flashed on the screen so that one could freeze the show to reply or view .
The one thing I want is commercials designed for the individual .
No longer would one have to sit through a commercial for asthma or quit smoking if one did not have asthma or smoked .
There would also be the ability to instantly order a product but not before one would search for independent reviews about the product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When almost every device one owns communicates with your computer than this would be a great time and money safer.
I can see one's clothes dryer flashing a message when the clothes are dry.
The microwave, oven, and range could send messages when it thinks some food is cooked.
Microphones could be placed in every room and they could send audio to the television when there is unexpected noise in that room.
Smoke detectors with built in camera could send an alarm with a picture when it detects smoke.
This could have saved about $100,000 for my boss who had a detached garage burn down just recently.
There are plenty of messages from the internet such as instant messaging, rss feeds, blogs that could be flashed on the screen so that one could freeze the show to reply or view.
The one thing I want is commercials designed for the individual.
No longer would one have to sit through a commercial for asthma or quit smoking if one did not have asthma or smoked.
There would also be the ability to instantly order a product but not before one would search for independent reviews about the product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31567112</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome back, WebTV!</title>
	<author>RulerOf</author>
	<datestamp>1269269580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Wonder how long it'l take to actually see in a live product and how much it'll really cost.</p> </div><p>A company called <a href="http://www.teradici.com/" title="teradici.com">Teradici</a> [teradici.com] has been doing this for a while with the PCoIP tech.  They partnered with VMWare a while back as part of VMWare's VDI initiative.<br> <br>Difference is, I suppose, that the Teradici solution is completely hardware based, but on the flip side I think you can do a single remote system for a few hundred bucks.<br> <br>There's a neat video on youtube of someone playing Crysis over 802.11n on an HDTV with their hardware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wonder how long it'l take to actually see in a live product and how much it 'll really cost .
A company called Teradici [ teradici.com ] has been doing this for a while with the PCoIP tech .
They partnered with VMWare a while back as part of VMWare 's VDI initiative .
Difference is , I suppose , that the Teradici solution is completely hardware based , but on the flip side I think you can do a single remote system for a few hundred bucks .
There 's a neat video on youtube of someone playing Crysis over 802.11n on an HDTV with their hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wonder how long it'l take to actually see in a live product and how much it'll really cost.
A company called Teradici [teradici.com] has been doing this for a while with the PCoIP tech.
They partnered with VMWare a while back as part of VMWare's VDI initiative.
Difference is, I suppose, that the Teradici solution is completely hardware based, but on the flip side I think you can do a single remote system for a few hundred bucks.
There's a neat video on youtube of someone playing Crysis over 802.11n on an HDTV with their hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31567604</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>I'm not really here</author>
	<datestamp>1269270780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like having one computer do everything, it saves me money.  Problem is, I have need of the output from that computer in 4 rooms (bedroom, living room, basement, and the actual office where the computer resides), and rarely need access to that computer from more than one or two of those locations at any given time.  This looks like it might solve that problem nicely for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like having one computer do everything , it saves me money .
Problem is , I have need of the output from that computer in 4 rooms ( bedroom , living room , basement , and the actual office where the computer resides ) , and rarely need access to that computer from more than one or two of those locations at any given time .
This looks like it might solve that problem nicely for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like having one computer do everything, it saves me money.
Problem is, I have need of the output from that computer in 4 rooms (bedroom, living room, basement, and the actual office where the computer resides), and rarely need access to that computer from more than one or two of those locations at any given time.
This looks like it might solve that problem nicely for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564320</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31567604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31578748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31586148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31567112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31572504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31571794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31567688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0450218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31568846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31572504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31571794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31567688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31567112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31567604
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31578748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31586148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31568846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31566680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31565208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0450218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0450218.31564412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
