<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_31_130202</id>
	<title>Why Our "Amazing" Science Fiction Future Fizzled</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1243776480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader sends in a story at CNN about how our predictions for the future tend to be somewhat accurate (whether or not we <em>can</em> do a thing) yet often too optimistic (whether or not it's practical). Obvious example: jetpacks. Quoting:
<i>"Joseph Corn, co-author of 'Yesterday's Tomorrows: Past Visions of the American Future,' found an inflated optimism about technology's impact on the future as far back as the 19th century, when writers like Jules Verne were creating wondrous versions of the future. Even then, people had a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/29/jetpack/index.html">misplaced faith in the power of inventions to make life easier</a>, Corn says. For example, the typical 19th-century American city was crowded and smelly. The problem was horses. They created traffic jams, filled the streets with their droppings and, when they died, their carcasses. But around the turn of the 20th century, Americans were predicting that another miraculous invention would deliver them from the burden of the horse and hurried urban life &mdash; the automobile, Corn says. 'There were a lot of predictions associated with early automobiles,' Corn says. 'They would help eliminate congestion in the city and the messy, unsanitary streets of the city.' Corn says Americans' faith in the power of technology to reshape the future is due in part to their history. Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future. They prefer technology, not radical politics, to propel social change."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader sends in a story at CNN about how our predictions for the future tend to be somewhat accurate ( whether or not we can do a thing ) yet often too optimistic ( whether or not it 's practical ) .
Obvious example : jetpacks .
Quoting : " Joseph Corn , co-author of 'Yesterday 's Tomorrows : Past Visions of the American Future, ' found an inflated optimism about technology 's impact on the future as far back as the 19th century , when writers like Jules Verne were creating wondrous versions of the future .
Even then , people had a misplaced faith in the power of inventions to make life easier , Corn says .
For example , the typical 19th-century American city was crowded and smelly .
The problem was horses .
They created traffic jams , filled the streets with their droppings and , when they died , their carcasses .
But around the turn of the 20th century , Americans were predicting that another miraculous invention would deliver them from the burden of the horse and hurried urban life    the automobile , Corn says .
'There were a lot of predictions associated with early automobiles, ' Corn says .
'They would help eliminate congestion in the city and the messy , unsanitary streets of the city .
' Corn says Americans ' faith in the power of technology to reshape the future is due in part to their history .
Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future .
They prefer technology , not radical politics , to propel social change .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader sends in a story at CNN about how our predictions for the future tend to be somewhat accurate (whether or not we can do a thing) yet often too optimistic (whether or not it's practical).
Obvious example: jetpacks.
Quoting:
"Joseph Corn, co-author of 'Yesterday's Tomorrows: Past Visions of the American Future,' found an inflated optimism about technology's impact on the future as far back as the 19th century, when writers like Jules Verne were creating wondrous versions of the future.
Even then, people had a misplaced faith in the power of inventions to make life easier, Corn says.
For example, the typical 19th-century American city was crowded and smelly.
The problem was horses.
They created traffic jams, filled the streets with their droppings and, when they died, their carcasses.
But around the turn of the 20th century, Americans were predicting that another miraculous invention would deliver them from the burden of the horse and hurried urban life — the automobile, Corn says.
'There were a lot of predictions associated with early automobiles,' Corn says.
'They would help eliminate congestion in the city and the messy, unsanitary streets of the city.
' Corn says Americans' faith in the power of technology to reshape the future is due in part to their history.
Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future.
They prefer technology, not radical politics, to propel social change.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158577</id>
	<title>Re:the 4 barriers to progress</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1243787940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.1 - stupid people are allowed to graduate college. I have met more Batchelors Degree holders that are dumb as a box of rocks this past 10 years than ever before.</p><p>2.1 - Religious Zelatory has began a massive uprising lately.  It's moronic that in todays world that anyone would be against Birth control, Stem Cell research or any kind of technology that saves lives or protects people from unwanted disease of having an unwanted child.</p><p>3.1 - Government right now is all about scratching the back of your backers and nothing about promoting the greater good. This has been the way of government in all places forever.   Rome was this way.</p><p>4.1 - Tucker was buried by ford and GM.  If it's not an industry it's a rich man not wanting to be made to look a fool.  This also will never change.</p><p>Life on this planet is all about power and control.    How much power and control you have over others is the goal of life.  This has never changed and it will never change.  we are not a benevolent species.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1.1 - stupid people are allowed to graduate college .
I have met more Batchelors Degree holders that are dumb as a box of rocks this past 10 years than ever before.2.1 - Religious Zelatory has began a massive uprising lately .
It 's moronic that in todays world that anyone would be against Birth control , Stem Cell research or any kind of technology that saves lives or protects people from unwanted disease of having an unwanted child.3.1 - Government right now is all about scratching the back of your backers and nothing about promoting the greater good .
This has been the way of government in all places forever .
Rome was this way.4.1 - Tucker was buried by ford and GM .
If it 's not an industry it 's a rich man not wanting to be made to look a fool .
This also will never change.Life on this planet is all about power and control .
How much power and control you have over others is the goal of life .
This has never changed and it will never change .
we are not a benevolent species .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.1 - stupid people are allowed to graduate college.
I have met more Batchelors Degree holders that are dumb as a box of rocks this past 10 years than ever before.2.1 - Religious Zelatory has began a massive uprising lately.
It's moronic that in todays world that anyone would be against Birth control, Stem Cell research or any kind of technology that saves lives or protects people from unwanted disease of having an unwanted child.3.1 - Government right now is all about scratching the back of your backers and nothing about promoting the greater good.
This has been the way of government in all places forever.
Rome was this way.4.1 - Tucker was buried by ford and GM.
If it's not an industry it's a rich man not wanting to be made to look a fool.
This also will never change.Life on this planet is all about power and control.
How much power and control you have over others is the goal of life.
This has never changed and it will never change.
we are not a benevolent species.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159741</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1243796820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can carry, in my pocket, a magic map that knows both where I am and how to get to where I want to go provided I poke it in just the right way to tell it.</p><p>I can stick my conveyance on a small, paved patch near my house and leave it there, ignoring it unless I actually need or want to go somewhere, even if I don't need to go anywhere for weeks at a time.  And at no point do I ever have to shovel poop for the benefit.  There's no magic smoke to it, if it dies, I can almost always restore it to life by replacing the right parts, even if it's left out for a while, unless it is completely disfigured.</p><p>It travels on a ribbon of stone.  A smooth and nearly unbroken network stretching from coast to coast that would have made even the romans jealous (except the longevity, of course.)</p><p>I carry around a machine in my backpack which could, if I wanted to, and enough people put forth the effort, contain a copy of the text of every work of literature, ever.  And images contained in many of them, as well.  And it can even read it for me.</p><p>In my home, there is a box, with numbers on it.  By mashing those buttons in the correct order I can talk to anyone, anywhere in the world, that has a similar box.  I've got one in my pocket, too.  If I call a business, I can request and pay for goods that could arrive in less than 48 hours, no matter how far away.</p><p>If I'm sick, I have many, many options, and the lowest-level option is to take an extract of something that will mask the symptoms.  And it actually works.</p><p>The list really goes on, and on, and on.  <b>We already live in the future, and it is awesome.</b>  It might not be <em>precisely</em> the future predicted by the buffoons of yesteryear, but neither will the future of now be the same as our buffoons predict.  Except that it'll probably be even awesomer than now.  And awesomer will be a word, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can carry , in my pocket , a magic map that knows both where I am and how to get to where I want to go provided I poke it in just the right way to tell it.I can stick my conveyance on a small , paved patch near my house and leave it there , ignoring it unless I actually need or want to go somewhere , even if I do n't need to go anywhere for weeks at a time .
And at no point do I ever have to shovel poop for the benefit .
There 's no magic smoke to it , if it dies , I can almost always restore it to life by replacing the right parts , even if it 's left out for a while , unless it is completely disfigured.It travels on a ribbon of stone .
A smooth and nearly unbroken network stretching from coast to coast that would have made even the romans jealous ( except the longevity , of course .
) I carry around a machine in my backpack which could , if I wanted to , and enough people put forth the effort , contain a copy of the text of every work of literature , ever .
And images contained in many of them , as well .
And it can even read it for me.In my home , there is a box , with numbers on it .
By mashing those buttons in the correct order I can talk to anyone , anywhere in the world , that has a similar box .
I 've got one in my pocket , too .
If I call a business , I can request and pay for goods that could arrive in less than 48 hours , no matter how far away.If I 'm sick , I have many , many options , and the lowest-level option is to take an extract of something that will mask the symptoms .
And it actually works.The list really goes on , and on , and on .
We already live in the future , and it is awesome .
It might not be precisely the future predicted by the buffoons of yesteryear , but neither will the future of now be the same as our buffoons predict .
Except that it 'll probably be even awesomer than now .
And awesomer will be a word , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can carry, in my pocket, a magic map that knows both where I am and how to get to where I want to go provided I poke it in just the right way to tell it.I can stick my conveyance on a small, paved patch near my house and leave it there, ignoring it unless I actually need or want to go somewhere, even if I don't need to go anywhere for weeks at a time.
And at no point do I ever have to shovel poop for the benefit.
There's no magic smoke to it, if it dies, I can almost always restore it to life by replacing the right parts, even if it's left out for a while, unless it is completely disfigured.It travels on a ribbon of stone.
A smooth and nearly unbroken network stretching from coast to coast that would have made even the romans jealous (except the longevity, of course.
)I carry around a machine in my backpack which could, if I wanted to, and enough people put forth the effort, contain a copy of the text of every work of literature, ever.
And images contained in many of them, as well.
And it can even read it for me.In my home, there is a box, with numbers on it.
By mashing those buttons in the correct order I can talk to anyone, anywhere in the world, that has a similar box.
I've got one in my pocket, too.
If I call a business, I can request and pay for goods that could arrive in less than 48 hours, no matter how far away.If I'm sick, I have many, many options, and the lowest-level option is to take an extract of something that will mask the symptoms.
And it actually works.The list really goes on, and on, and on.
We already live in the future, and it is awesome.
It might not be precisely the future predicted by the buffoons of yesteryear, but neither will the future of now be the same as our buffoons predict.
Except that it'll probably be even awesomer than now.
And awesomer will be a word, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161479</id>
	<title>Ur</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1243767120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagination <em>can be</em> a liability in inventing.  Really.</p><p>Mark Twain lost all his money on an automatic typesetting machine invention.   It's not surprising that he would be interested in the technology, given that one of his early jobs was manual typesetting.   The machine, while elegant and impressive while it worked, was continually breaking down because of its complexity. That's a very common theme in technology creation: every stage of progress has it's "bugs"; it's always easy to imagine getting the current set of bugs out;  on paper they don't look as formidable as the problems you've solved to get this far.  But your solutions tend have their own bugs too, and so ad infinitum.  One of three things happens.  You run out of money before you have a practical product; a competitor gets a good enough product on the market before you're ready (as happened to Twain), or you succeed with a somewhat buggy product.   You never succeed with a <em>perfect</em> technology.  The key is for the problems to accumulate after your customers have decided they're happy.  Or even better: dump the customer's problems on somebody else.</p><p>Automobiles are a great example of this. They're a tremendously successful technology, but we find we have things like radio call in shows dedicated to the problems people have with them, and all kinds of amazingly unpredictable problems like illegal tire dumps breeding mosquitoes.</p><p>Ur, by the way, was a major city for about 2000 years, from about 2600 BCE to 600.  That's a pretty good run. Too bad they never worked out a solution to that semi-millennial drought problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagination can be a liability in inventing .
Really.Mark Twain lost all his money on an automatic typesetting machine invention .
It 's not surprising that he would be interested in the technology , given that one of his early jobs was manual typesetting .
The machine , while elegant and impressive while it worked , was continually breaking down because of its complexity .
That 's a very common theme in technology creation : every stage of progress has it 's " bugs " ; it 's always easy to imagine getting the current set of bugs out ; on paper they do n't look as formidable as the problems you 've solved to get this far .
But your solutions tend have their own bugs too , and so ad infinitum .
One of three things happens .
You run out of money before you have a practical product ; a competitor gets a good enough product on the market before you 're ready ( as happened to Twain ) , or you succeed with a somewhat buggy product .
You never succeed with a perfect technology .
The key is for the problems to accumulate after your customers have decided they 're happy .
Or even better : dump the customer 's problems on somebody else.Automobiles are a great example of this .
They 're a tremendously successful technology , but we find we have things like radio call in shows dedicated to the problems people have with them , and all kinds of amazingly unpredictable problems like illegal tire dumps breeding mosquitoes.Ur , by the way , was a major city for about 2000 years , from about 2600 BCE to 600 .
That 's a pretty good run .
Too bad they never worked out a solution to that semi-millennial drought problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagination can be a liability in inventing.
Really.Mark Twain lost all his money on an automatic typesetting machine invention.
It's not surprising that he would be interested in the technology, given that one of his early jobs was manual typesetting.
The machine, while elegant and impressive while it worked, was continually breaking down because of its complexity.
That's a very common theme in technology creation: every stage of progress has it's "bugs"; it's always easy to imagine getting the current set of bugs out;  on paper they don't look as formidable as the problems you've solved to get this far.
But your solutions tend have their own bugs too, and so ad infinitum.
One of three things happens.
You run out of money before you have a practical product; a competitor gets a good enough product on the market before you're ready (as happened to Twain), or you succeed with a somewhat buggy product.
You never succeed with a perfect technology.
The key is for the problems to accumulate after your customers have decided they're happy.
Or even better: dump the customer's problems on somebody else.Automobiles are a great example of this.
They're a tremendously successful technology, but we find we have things like radio call in shows dedicated to the problems people have with them, and all kinds of amazingly unpredictable problems like illegal tire dumps breeding mosquitoes.Ur, by the way, was a major city for about 2000 years, from about 2600 BCE to 600.
That's a pretty good run.
Too bad they never worked out a solution to that semi-millennial drought problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158091</id>
	<title>Re:I still prefer technology</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1243783560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future. They prefer technology, not radical politics, to propel social change.</i> </p></div><p>Does the American Revolution not count as a radical political transformation? Federal republics were not common in 1776.</p></div><p>Yes, but at the time the American Revolution started, we were Brits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future .
They prefer technology , not radical politics , to propel social change .
Does the American Revolution not count as a radical political transformation ?
Federal republics were not common in 1776.Yes , but at the time the American Revolution started , we were Brits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future.
They prefer technology, not radical politics, to propel social change.
Does the American Revolution not count as a radical political transformation?
Federal republics were not common in 1776.Yes, but at the time the American Revolution started, we were Brits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158059</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate theory</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1243783380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt that.  Two hundred years ago, rich people lived in mansions with indoor stoves, plumbing, and central heating.  They had private coaches.  Poor people had outhouses and fireplaces, and traveled by foot.  Now, rich people have the same air-conditioning, refrigerators and automobiles that you have.  Theirs are just slightly fancier and more reliable.  Most of them travel on the same airplanes as the middle-classes.  Granted, the truly-rich have yachts too; but I think the truly-rich have had yachts for quite a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that .
Two hundred years ago , rich people lived in mansions with indoor stoves , plumbing , and central heating .
They had private coaches .
Poor people had outhouses and fireplaces , and traveled by foot .
Now , rich people have the same air-conditioning , refrigerators and automobiles that you have .
Theirs are just slightly fancier and more reliable .
Most of them travel on the same airplanes as the middle-classes .
Granted , the truly-rich have yachts too ; but I think the truly-rich have had yachts for quite a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that.
Two hundred years ago, rich people lived in mansions with indoor stoves, plumbing, and central heating.
They had private coaches.
Poor people had outhouses and fireplaces, and traveled by foot.
Now, rich people have the same air-conditioning, refrigerators and automobiles that you have.
Theirs are just slightly fancier and more reliable.
Most of them travel on the same airplanes as the middle-classes.
Granted, the truly-rich have yachts too; but I think the truly-rich have had yachts for quite a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159537</id>
	<title>Re:Ego</title>
	<author>Dest</author>
	<datestamp>1243795500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are so cool.</p><p>Is it just me or are a lot of coders/tech related people just snippy bastards who think they're hot shit, but when it comes down to it just big losers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are so cool.Is it just me or are a lot of coders/tech related people just snippy bastards who think they 're hot shit , but when it comes down to it just big losers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are so cool.Is it just me or are a lot of coders/tech related people just snippy bastards who think they're hot shit, but when it comes down to it just big losers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158741</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>jadavis</author>
	<datestamp>1243789380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities. Well the thing is they could have done a lot.</i></p><p>They have done a lot. You can argue about whether cars have done as much good as can possibly be done (nothing achieves that ideal), but cars have accomplished a huge amount for this country. Take any city (even small ones), look at the traffic, and imagine if it was entirely horse traffic. There would be more pollution (although it would take a different form), more traffic (because horses are slower), more maintenance, and it would take people longer to get where they are going.</p><p>So, cars have had an amazing positive impact. If you think they can do more, that's a separate argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities .
Well the thing is they could have done a lot.They have done a lot .
You can argue about whether cars have done as much good as can possibly be done ( nothing achieves that ideal ) , but cars have accomplished a huge amount for this country .
Take any city ( even small ones ) , look at the traffic , and imagine if it was entirely horse traffic .
There would be more pollution ( although it would take a different form ) , more traffic ( because horses are slower ) , more maintenance , and it would take people longer to get where they are going.So , cars have had an amazing positive impact .
If you think they can do more , that 's a separate argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities.
Well the thing is they could have done a lot.They have done a lot.
You can argue about whether cars have done as much good as can possibly be done (nothing achieves that ideal), but cars have accomplished a huge amount for this country.
Take any city (even small ones), look at the traffic, and imagine if it was entirely horse traffic.
There would be more pollution (although it would take a different form), more traffic (because horses are slower), more maintenance, and it would take people longer to get where they are going.So, cars have had an amazing positive impact.
If you think they can do more, that's a separate argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158451</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243786860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the wars between the Cybernetics and the Bio-Engineered would be fierce.</p></div><p>And highly entertaining to the spectators!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the wars between the Cybernetics and the Bio-Engineered would be fierce.And highly entertaining to the spectators !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the wars between the Cybernetics and the Bio-Engineered would be fierce.And highly entertaining to the spectators!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158409</id>
	<title>Re:the 4 barriers to progress</title>
	<author>maxxard</author>
	<datestamp>1243786560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't number 4 be:</p><p>4. Industry as a whole who buy or bury politicians until they can no longer sell old technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't number 4 be : 4 .
Industry as a whole who buy or bury politicians until they can no longer sell old technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't number 4 be:4.
Industry as a whole who buy or bury politicians until they can no longer sell old technologies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158857</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243790160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because humans are obsessed with bureaucracy and pointless endeavours like greed. You can bet if our species was as fanatical about science as it is about religious bureaucracy we would be in a better world.</p></div><p>Or all blown to hell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because humans are obsessed with bureaucracy and pointless endeavours like greed .
You can bet if our species was as fanatical about science as it is about religious bureaucracy we would be in a better world.Or all blown to hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because humans are obsessed with bureaucracy and pointless endeavours like greed.
You can bet if our species was as fanatical about science as it is about religious bureaucracy we would be in a better world.Or all blown to hell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164281</id>
	<title>Re:Top 10 reasons today is better.</title>
	<author>kklein</author>
	<datestamp>1243791360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) This is a great time for whiskey. American and Scottish producers are producing wonderful, wonderful spirits these days.</p></div><p>Don't leave Japan out of that list, my friend. The Japanese distilleries are now starting to mature, and Japanese whiskeys are raking in the awards these days.</p><p>If you want to try something really wonderful, see if you can find some Taketsuru 21 year. It may be the most amazing single malt I've ever had (I'm really partial to Compass Box's blends, as well).</p><p>Should you find yourself in Tokyo sometime, be sure to check <a href="http://nonjatta.blogspot.com/2008/06/bar-info-zoetrope-shinjuku-tokyo.html" title="blogspot.com">this place</a> [blogspot.com] out. The guy there is incredibly knowledgeable about whiskeys, especially Japanese, and has an astonishing collection. He's also a really laid-back, nice guy, which is uncommon for specialty shops of any kind in Japan (so many of those places are run by self-important asswipes). He even speaks some English, and sampling the tastiness there feels a lot more like you're kind of hanging out with some cool guy who has the same hobby as you. Great spirits at a really relaxing place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) This is a great time for whiskey .
American and Scottish producers are producing wonderful , wonderful spirits these days.Do n't leave Japan out of that list , my friend .
The Japanese distilleries are now starting to mature , and Japanese whiskeys are raking in the awards these days.If you want to try something really wonderful , see if you can find some Taketsuru 21 year .
It may be the most amazing single malt I 've ever had ( I 'm really partial to Compass Box 's blends , as well ) .Should you find yourself in Tokyo sometime , be sure to check this place [ blogspot.com ] out .
The guy there is incredibly knowledgeable about whiskeys , especially Japanese , and has an astonishing collection .
He 's also a really laid-back , nice guy , which is uncommon for specialty shops of any kind in Japan ( so many of those places are run by self-important asswipes ) .
He even speaks some English , and sampling the tastiness there feels a lot more like you 're kind of hanging out with some cool guy who has the same hobby as you .
Great spirits at a really relaxing place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) This is a great time for whiskey.
American and Scottish producers are producing wonderful, wonderful spirits these days.Don't leave Japan out of that list, my friend.
The Japanese distilleries are now starting to mature, and Japanese whiskeys are raking in the awards these days.If you want to try something really wonderful, see if you can find some Taketsuru 21 year.
It may be the most amazing single malt I've ever had (I'm really partial to Compass Box's blends, as well).Should you find yourself in Tokyo sometime, be sure to check this place [blogspot.com] out.
The guy there is incredibly knowledgeable about whiskeys, especially Japanese, and has an astonishing collection.
He's also a really laid-back, nice guy, which is uncommon for specialty shops of any kind in Japan (so many of those places are run by self-important asswipes).
He even speaks some English, and sampling the tastiness there feels a lot more like you're kind of hanging out with some cool guy who has the same hobby as you.
Great spirits at a really relaxing place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158525</id>
	<title>Star Trek inspired someone</title>
	<author>cynvision</author>
	<datestamp>1243787520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just as Jules Vern inspired a few things to come about. Would we have SCUBA and subs without him? It's just a bit sad that every science fiction movie and TV show does not get respect. If there was more shows for the young people to see now we'd continue to inspire some kids.
<p>
Star Trek didn't do too bad predicting stuff from the 60's. I think one thing Roddenberry's crew took for granted was that the computer would just 'be there' for our bridge crew. And that was 1963 when personal computing was still not really thought of. People still used slide rules and mechanical adding machines and cash registers. I think it's simply a trickle of stuff that makes it, like the article hints. Things with the lowest effort to adapting present tech to new methods will make it arrive faster than the more difficult ideas. Like food created on the fly and matter transporters. And methods for which people pay a premium to embrace will surface the quickest. Think computers, cell phones and Walkman's. A minority of people paid the sky-high prices for the originals and encouraged the knock-offs to drive the price down fast. If the power of the peoples' pocketbooks wasn't so free on "have to have" stuff we wouldn't have tiny cell phones and iPods.
</p><p>
Star Trek had quite a few pointed predictions:</p><p>
1. flash memory cards. Back when your recording media had to move at the correct speed to recreate sound this appeared too impossible. This stuff is now down to the size of a thumbnail.</p><p>
2. medical scanners. For sure this is what is MRI today. Or the further development of ultrasound. And it's getting to the size of the tri-corder sooner or later. The room you have to put the unit it gets smaller every year.</p><p>
3. Tablet PC/Palm computers/PDA/Kindle. (When they had to show a pretty girl, she came around for a signature with a tablet.) Only they actually got more compact than depicted in the show.</p><p>
4. communicator. The cell phone. (Okay so you don't have to be on an away-team to have one... But the perk of getting a Blackberry from your job used to be a big thing.)
</p><p>
Stuff that hasn't made it:</p><p>
1. the hand held phasers. These hint at power storage to size greater than even the smallest battery can bring today. Plus we still don't have the kind that would stay cool in the hand as it unleashed its charge. Stunner tech is almost there but hasn't 'gone wireless' to the distance they could zap someone on the show. There's a level of energy storage we still haven't reached.</p><p>
2. matter transport and creation. A single photon across a room is hardly a start on this making you a turkey sandwich on the fly.</p><p>
3. space craft/shuttles to space. The X-prize was an ambitious try to getting money behind the effort. We're almost there. But I still suspect someone will 'take the skies' from those ambitious folks in the name of regulating space for the good of the earth governments and not smacking willy-nilly into existing equipment up there in orbit. (And with NASA turning back to rocket technology of the 1970's to continue heavy lifting to the ISS a sleek little space ship bus not going to come from them. The tried and true is cheap enough for government work.)</p><p>
4. warp drive/small fission/small fusion. Of course, we're going to have to wait for small-scale fusion or the space race developed fuel-cell tech because there's a level of danger. </p><p>
The technology might be ready to adapt to the 'next greatest thing' but the ease of use still hasn't eliminated the 'idiot factor' in the design and operation. Like the article's jet pack example. You're putting a fuel on a person and directing the jet past their body. Someone is going to make a mistake sometime. Presently, there isn't a company out there which wants to face the class action court case for burns and accidents. There's a level of risk that businesses no longer take. I think there's not a lot of <em>individuals</em> that want to take on that level of risk. Great strides forward might be sitting on shelves all over America because of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as Jules Vern inspired a few things to come about .
Would we have SCUBA and subs without him ?
It 's just a bit sad that every science fiction movie and TV show does not get respect .
If there was more shows for the young people to see now we 'd continue to inspire some kids .
Star Trek did n't do too bad predicting stuff from the 60 's .
I think one thing Roddenberry 's crew took for granted was that the computer would just 'be there ' for our bridge crew .
And that was 1963 when personal computing was still not really thought of .
People still used slide rules and mechanical adding machines and cash registers .
I think it 's simply a trickle of stuff that makes it , like the article hints .
Things with the lowest effort to adapting present tech to new methods will make it arrive faster than the more difficult ideas .
Like food created on the fly and matter transporters .
And methods for which people pay a premium to embrace will surface the quickest .
Think computers , cell phones and Walkman 's .
A minority of people paid the sky-high prices for the originals and encouraged the knock-offs to drive the price down fast .
If the power of the peoples ' pocketbooks was n't so free on " have to have " stuff we would n't have tiny cell phones and iPods .
Star Trek had quite a few pointed predictions : 1. flash memory cards .
Back when your recording media had to move at the correct speed to recreate sound this appeared too impossible .
This stuff is now down to the size of a thumbnail .
2. medical scanners .
For sure this is what is MRI today .
Or the further development of ultrasound .
And it 's getting to the size of the tri-corder sooner or later .
The room you have to put the unit it gets smaller every year .
3. Tablet PC/Palm computers/PDA/Kindle .
( When they had to show a pretty girl , she came around for a signature with a tablet .
) Only they actually got more compact than depicted in the show .
4. communicator .
The cell phone .
( Okay so you do n't have to be on an away-team to have one... But the perk of getting a Blackberry from your job used to be a big thing .
) Stuff that has n't made it : 1. the hand held phasers .
These hint at power storage to size greater than even the smallest battery can bring today .
Plus we still do n't have the kind that would stay cool in the hand as it unleashed its charge .
Stunner tech is almost there but has n't 'gone wireless ' to the distance they could zap someone on the show .
There 's a level of energy storage we still have n't reached .
2. matter transport and creation .
A single photon across a room is hardly a start on this making you a turkey sandwich on the fly .
3. space craft/shuttles to space .
The X-prize was an ambitious try to getting money behind the effort .
We 're almost there .
But I still suspect someone will 'take the skies ' from those ambitious folks in the name of regulating space for the good of the earth governments and not smacking willy-nilly into existing equipment up there in orbit .
( And with NASA turning back to rocket technology of the 1970 's to continue heavy lifting to the ISS a sleek little space ship bus not going to come from them .
The tried and true is cheap enough for government work .
) 4. warp drive/small fission/small fusion .
Of course , we 're going to have to wait for small-scale fusion or the space race developed fuel-cell tech because there 's a level of danger .
The technology might be ready to adapt to the 'next greatest thing ' but the ease of use still has n't eliminated the 'idiot factor ' in the design and operation .
Like the article 's jet pack example .
You 're putting a fuel on a person and directing the jet past their body .
Someone is going to make a mistake sometime .
Presently , there is n't a company out there which wants to face the class action court case for burns and accidents .
There 's a level of risk that businesses no longer take .
I think there 's not a lot of individuals that want to take on that level of risk .
Great strides forward might be sitting on shelves all over America because of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as Jules Vern inspired a few things to come about.
Would we have SCUBA and subs without him?
It's just a bit sad that every science fiction movie and TV show does not get respect.
If there was more shows for the young people to see now we'd continue to inspire some kids.
Star Trek didn't do too bad predicting stuff from the 60's.
I think one thing Roddenberry's crew took for granted was that the computer would just 'be there' for our bridge crew.
And that was 1963 when personal computing was still not really thought of.
People still used slide rules and mechanical adding machines and cash registers.
I think it's simply a trickle of stuff that makes it, like the article hints.
Things with the lowest effort to adapting present tech to new methods will make it arrive faster than the more difficult ideas.
Like food created on the fly and matter transporters.
And methods for which people pay a premium to embrace will surface the quickest.
Think computers, cell phones and Walkman's.
A minority of people paid the sky-high prices for the originals and encouraged the knock-offs to drive the price down fast.
If the power of the peoples' pocketbooks wasn't so free on "have to have" stuff we wouldn't have tiny cell phones and iPods.
Star Trek had quite a few pointed predictions:
1. flash memory cards.
Back when your recording media had to move at the correct speed to recreate sound this appeared too impossible.
This stuff is now down to the size of a thumbnail.
2. medical scanners.
For sure this is what is MRI today.
Or the further development of ultrasound.
And it's getting to the size of the tri-corder sooner or later.
The room you have to put the unit it gets smaller every year.
3. Tablet PC/Palm computers/PDA/Kindle.
(When they had to show a pretty girl, she came around for a signature with a tablet.
) Only they actually got more compact than depicted in the show.
4. communicator.
The cell phone.
(Okay so you don't have to be on an away-team to have one... But the perk of getting a Blackberry from your job used to be a big thing.
)

Stuff that hasn't made it:
1. the hand held phasers.
These hint at power storage to size greater than even the smallest battery can bring today.
Plus we still don't have the kind that would stay cool in the hand as it unleashed its charge.
Stunner tech is almost there but hasn't 'gone wireless' to the distance they could zap someone on the show.
There's a level of energy storage we still haven't reached.
2. matter transport and creation.
A single photon across a room is hardly a start on this making you a turkey sandwich on the fly.
3. space craft/shuttles to space.
The X-prize was an ambitious try to getting money behind the effort.
We're almost there.
But I still suspect someone will 'take the skies' from those ambitious folks in the name of regulating space for the good of the earth governments and not smacking willy-nilly into existing equipment up there in orbit.
(And with NASA turning back to rocket technology of the 1970's to continue heavy lifting to the ISS a sleek little space ship bus not going to come from them.
The tried and true is cheap enough for government work.
)
4. warp drive/small fission/small fusion.
Of course, we're going to have to wait for small-scale fusion or the space race developed fuel-cell tech because there's a level of danger.
The technology might be ready to adapt to the 'next greatest thing' but the ease of use still hasn't eliminated the 'idiot factor' in the design and operation.
Like the article's jet pack example.
You're putting a fuel on a person and directing the jet past their body.
Someone is going to make a mistake sometime.
Presently, there isn't a company out there which wants to face the class action court case for burns and accidents.
There's a level of risk that businesses no longer take.
I think there's not a lot of individuals that want to take on that level of risk.
Great strides forward might be sitting on shelves all over America because of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28162033</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>ghjm</author>
	<datestamp>1243772100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future.</i> </p><p>But what about:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The American Revolution<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The Civil War with respect to slavery (Dred Scott, Emancipation)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The Civil War with respect to state's rights (or lack of them)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The establishment of Selective Service<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The establishment of income tax and the IRS<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The trade union movement<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - Prohibition<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The repeal of Prohibition<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The New Deal<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The Cuban embargo of 1962<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The civil rights movement of the 1960s<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The Vietnam anti-war movement<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The Reagan "Morning in America" movement of the 1980s<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The gay rights movement of the 1990s-2000s</p><p>Every one of these changed the future for vast numbers of Americans and arose through political means. So how can you say only technology has changed the future in America? Or are you saying something different from that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future .
But what about :     - The American Revolution     - The Civil War with respect to slavery ( Dred Scott , Emancipation )     - The Civil War with respect to state 's rights ( or lack of them )     - The establishment of Selective Service     - The establishment of income tax and the IRS     - The trade union movement     - Prohibition     - The repeal of Prohibition     - The New Deal     - The Cuban embargo of 1962     - The civil rights movement of the 1960s     - The Vietnam anti-war movement     - The Reagan " Morning in America " movement of the 1980s     - The gay rights movement of the 1990s-2000sEvery one of these changed the future for vast numbers of Americans and arose through political means .
So how can you say only technology has changed the future in America ?
Or are you saying something different from that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future.
But what about:
    - The American Revolution
    - The Civil War with respect to slavery (Dred Scott, Emancipation)
    - The Civil War with respect to state's rights (or lack of them)
    - The establishment of Selective Service
    - The establishment of income tax and the IRS
    - The trade union movement
    - Prohibition
    - The repeal of Prohibition
    - The New Deal
    - The Cuban embargo of 1962
    - The civil rights movement of the 1960s
    - The Vietnam anti-war movement
    - The Reagan "Morning in America" movement of the 1980s
    - The gay rights movement of the 1990s-2000sEvery one of these changed the future for vast numbers of Americans and arose through political means.
So how can you say only technology has changed the future in America?
Or are you saying something different from that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157805</id>
	<title>Cars *are* a great improvement.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1243781160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They made it possible for us to travel in all but the worst weather, they don't leave piles of shit behind them to feed flies, and they're far less labor-intensive to operate.   Horses have a certain nostalgic appeal, but we're a lot better off with them relegated to a hobby.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They made it possible for us to travel in all but the worst weather , they do n't leave piles of shit behind them to feed flies , and they 're far less labor-intensive to operate .
Horses have a certain nostalgic appeal , but we 're a lot better off with them relegated to a hobby.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They made it possible for us to travel in all but the worst weather, they don't leave piles of shit behind them to feed flies, and they're far less labor-intensive to operate.
Horses have a certain nostalgic appeal, but we're a lot better off with them relegated to a hobby.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158673</id>
	<title>indeed</title>
	<author>foxx1337</author>
	<datestamp>1243788720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>gee, that confirms the fact that americans are naive</p><p>us europeans all too well know that in fact politics put food on our tables, put concrete between us and the storms outside, keep the houses warm at night and during winters, devise drugs, treatments and whatsoever; politics and high moral standards</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gee , that confirms the fact that americans are naiveus europeans all too well know that in fact politics put food on our tables , put concrete between us and the storms outside , keep the houses warm at night and during winters , devise drugs , treatments and whatsoever ; politics and high moral standards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gee, that confirms the fact that americans are naiveus europeans all too well know that in fact politics put food on our tables, put concrete between us and the storms outside, keep the houses warm at night and during winters, devise drugs, treatments and whatsoever; politics and high moral standards</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233</id>
	<title>Greed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243784940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
Ego might be basis greed, so maybe we agree, but I'd say it was Greed that messed up our "future." Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities. Well the thing is they <i>could</i> have done a lot. Why hasn't this happened? Because instead of moving from some people having horse-drawn carriages or draft horses and wagons, we've moved to every person having a car. Am I arguing that only a few people should have cars? No, of course not. I'm arguing that there should be more public transport. Buses are much faster than horse and carriages, they carry many more people. We could have moved from horse and carriage to a decent bus service and taxis as needed. And if we had done en masse, they'd both be much cheaper than what we pay for a journey today. But no - there was big money to be made in everyone having their own car and the public lapped it up. The invention of the tractor could have meant much more leisure time for a society that had a large agricultural base, but instead, due to unequal wealth distribution, it just meant one person working even longer hours and a lot of people desperately trying to find something else to do. That pattern has been seen again and again, resulting in increasingly pointless jobs as surplus labour attempts to justify an income. Am I arguing against progress? Of course not - I'm arguing that everybody should get some of the benefit of it so that they can direct their energies to something more profitable to all of us rather than becoming telemarketers.
<br> <br>
Modern society should be directing its energies toward achieving better things and then we would see some of the promise of new technologies better realised. Instead, society directs much of its energy toward stopping progress by trying to keep as many people as possible as busy as possible whether that has a purpose or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ego might be basis greed , so maybe we agree , but I 'd say it was Greed that messed up our " future .
" Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities .
Well the thing is they could have done a lot .
Why has n't this happened ?
Because instead of moving from some people having horse-drawn carriages or draft horses and wagons , we 've moved to every person having a car .
Am I arguing that only a few people should have cars ?
No , of course not .
I 'm arguing that there should be more public transport .
Buses are much faster than horse and carriages , they carry many more people .
We could have moved from horse and carriage to a decent bus service and taxis as needed .
And if we had done en masse , they 'd both be much cheaper than what we pay for a journey today .
But no - there was big money to be made in everyone having their own car and the public lapped it up .
The invention of the tractor could have meant much more leisure time for a society that had a large agricultural base , but instead , due to unequal wealth distribution , it just meant one person working even longer hours and a lot of people desperately trying to find something else to do .
That pattern has been seen again and again , resulting in increasingly pointless jobs as surplus labour attempts to justify an income .
Am I arguing against progress ?
Of course not - I 'm arguing that everybody should get some of the benefit of it so that they can direct their energies to something more profitable to all of us rather than becoming telemarketers .
Modern society should be directing its energies toward achieving better things and then we would see some of the promise of new technologies better realised .
Instead , society directs much of its energy toward stopping progress by trying to keep as many people as possible as busy as possible whether that has a purpose or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Ego might be basis greed, so maybe we agree, but I'd say it was Greed that messed up our "future.
" Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities.
Well the thing is they could have done a lot.
Why hasn't this happened?
Because instead of moving from some people having horse-drawn carriages or draft horses and wagons, we've moved to every person having a car.
Am I arguing that only a few people should have cars?
No, of course not.
I'm arguing that there should be more public transport.
Buses are much faster than horse and carriages, they carry many more people.
We could have moved from horse and carriage to a decent bus service and taxis as needed.
And if we had done en masse, they'd both be much cheaper than what we pay for a journey today.
But no - there was big money to be made in everyone having their own car and the public lapped it up.
The invention of the tractor could have meant much more leisure time for a society that had a large agricultural base, but instead, due to unequal wealth distribution, it just meant one person working even longer hours and a lot of people desperately trying to find something else to do.
That pattern has been seen again and again, resulting in increasingly pointless jobs as surplus labour attempts to justify an income.
Am I arguing against progress?
Of course not - I'm arguing that everybody should get some of the benefit of it so that they can direct their energies to something more profitable to all of us rather than becoming telemarketers.
Modern society should be directing its energies toward achieving better things and then we would see some of the promise of new technologies better realised.
Instead, society directs much of its energy toward stopping progress by trying to keep as many people as possible as busy as possible whether that has a purpose or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158179</id>
	<title>Re:I still prefer technology</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1243784280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone tell the politicians that George Orwell's 1984 was NOT meant as a guidebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone tell the politicians that George Orwell 's 1984 was NOT meant as a guidebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone tell the politicians that George Orwell's 1984 was NOT meant as a guidebook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160453</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1243802280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We could have moved from horse and carriage to a decent bus service and taxis as needed. And if we had done en masse, they'd both be much cheaper than what we pay for a journey today. But no - there was big money to be made in everyone having their own car and the public lapped it up.</i> </p><p>The cost of owning and operating a Model T Ford was about 1 cent a mile.</p><p>The token cost 5 cents.</p><p>The transit services were in huge, huge financial trouble before World War One.</p><p>The product they were offering was not want people wanted.</p><p>If your were black, you could be denied a hotel room, an apartment, forced to the back of the bus. But you could own a decent car.</p><p>Convenience. Security. Privacy. Pride.</p><p> Don't think those lessons were lost on others.</p><p><i>The invention of the tractor could have meant much more leisure time for a society that had a large agricultural base, but instead, due to unequal wealth distribution, it just meant one person working even longer hours and a lot of people desperately trying to find something else to do</i> </p><p>The John Deere tractor with the power take-off, the hydraulic lift and the three-point hitch is the iconic image of the American family farm.</p><p>Hours are long in farming because of the intractable and contrarian nature of plant and animal. Sun and soil. Wind and weather.</p><p>Nothing will bend to your convenience.</p><p>The old-time farmer bought his first tractor because his eldest son laid down the law:<br>we get rid of the horses or I take that job in town - or at least that was the story he tried to peddle to his wife when she asked about the bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could have moved from horse and carriage to a decent bus service and taxis as needed .
And if we had done en masse , they 'd both be much cheaper than what we pay for a journey today .
But no - there was big money to be made in everyone having their own car and the public lapped it up .
The cost of owning and operating a Model T Ford was about 1 cent a mile.The token cost 5 cents.The transit services were in huge , huge financial trouble before World War One.The product they were offering was not want people wanted.If your were black , you could be denied a hotel room , an apartment , forced to the back of the bus .
But you could own a decent car.Convenience .
Security. Privacy .
Pride. Do n't think those lessons were lost on others.The invention of the tractor could have meant much more leisure time for a society that had a large agricultural base , but instead , due to unequal wealth distribution , it just meant one person working even longer hours and a lot of people desperately trying to find something else to do The John Deere tractor with the power take-off , the hydraulic lift and the three-point hitch is the iconic image of the American family farm.Hours are long in farming because of the intractable and contrarian nature of plant and animal .
Sun and soil .
Wind and weather.Nothing will bend to your convenience.The old-time farmer bought his first tractor because his eldest son laid down the law : we get rid of the horses or I take that job in town - or at least that was the story he tried to peddle to his wife when she asked about the bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could have moved from horse and carriage to a decent bus service and taxis as needed.
And if we had done en masse, they'd both be much cheaper than what we pay for a journey today.
But no - there was big money to be made in everyone having their own car and the public lapped it up.
The cost of owning and operating a Model T Ford was about 1 cent a mile.The token cost 5 cents.The transit services were in huge, huge financial trouble before World War One.The product they were offering was not want people wanted.If your were black, you could be denied a hotel room, an apartment, forced to the back of the bus.
But you could own a decent car.Convenience.
Security. Privacy.
Pride. Don't think those lessons were lost on others.The invention of the tractor could have meant much more leisure time for a society that had a large agricultural base, but instead, due to unequal wealth distribution, it just meant one person working even longer hours and a lot of people desperately trying to find something else to do The John Deere tractor with the power take-off, the hydraulic lift and the three-point hitch is the iconic image of the American family farm.Hours are long in farming because of the intractable and contrarian nature of plant and animal.
Sun and soil.
Wind and weather.Nothing will bend to your convenience.The old-time farmer bought his first tractor because his eldest son laid down the law:we get rid of the horses or I take that job in town - or at least that was the story he tried to peddle to his wife when she asked about the bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157915</id>
	<title>Re:I still prefer technology</title>
	<author>Deag</author>
	<datestamp>1243782180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the American Revolution not count as a radical political transformation? Federal republics were not common in 1776.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the American Revolution not count as a radical political transformation ?
Federal republics were not common in 1776 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the American Revolution not count as a radical political transformation?
Federal republics were not common in 1776.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160873</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243761780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pity about the people that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/still/ think it's flat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pity about the people that /still/ think it 's flat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pity about the people that /still/ think it's flat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161081</id>
	<title>Re:the 4 barriers to progress</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1243763520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That entirely misses the point! The point is that since the mid 20th century, technology has rendered each and every worker at least 5 times more productive than they were before (based on inflation adjusted GDP per capita) and yet, somehow we're not 5 times better off. In theory, the sort of family that just managed to afford a house and a car on one income in 1955 SHOULD be able to just manage 5 homes and 5 cars on ONE income now.</p><p>I can understand that since we didn't expand our landmass, the 5 homes part is a bit over-simplified, but the point stands. Instead, that same class of person now just manages 2 cars and one home on TWO incomes.</p><p>Technology did it's part, but minus the political and social change, it comes to naught.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That entirely misses the point !
The point is that since the mid 20th century , technology has rendered each and every worker at least 5 times more productive than they were before ( based on inflation adjusted GDP per capita ) and yet , somehow we 're not 5 times better off .
In theory , the sort of family that just managed to afford a house and a car on one income in 1955 SHOULD be able to just manage 5 homes and 5 cars on ONE income now.I can understand that since we did n't expand our landmass , the 5 homes part is a bit over-simplified , but the point stands .
Instead , that same class of person now just manages 2 cars and one home on TWO incomes.Technology did it 's part , but minus the political and social change , it comes to naught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That entirely misses the point!
The point is that since the mid 20th century, technology has rendered each and every worker at least 5 times more productive than they were before (based on inflation adjusted GDP per capita) and yet, somehow we're not 5 times better off.
In theory, the sort of family that just managed to afford a house and a car on one income in 1955 SHOULD be able to just manage 5 homes and 5 cars on ONE income now.I can understand that since we didn't expand our landmass, the 5 homes part is a bit over-simplified, but the point stands.
Instead, that same class of person now just manages 2 cars and one home on TWO incomes.Technology did it's part, but minus the political and social change, it comes to naught.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157901</id>
	<title>Re:I still prefer technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243782060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future. They prefer technology, not radical politics, to propel social change.</i> </p><p>.</p><p>Maybe that's because they realize that the promises of politics/politicians are even less trustworthy than the promises of technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future .
They prefer technology , not radical politics , to propel social change .
.Maybe that 's because they realize that the promises of politics/politicians are even less trustworthy than the promises of technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future.
They prefer technology, not radical politics, to propel social change.
.Maybe that's because they realize that the promises of politics/politicians are even less trustworthy than the promises of technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157815</id>
	<title>DNF</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243781220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My belief in a bright future was destroyed with Duke Nukem Forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My belief in a bright future was destroyed with Duke Nukem Forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My belief in a bright future was destroyed with Duke Nukem Forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158151</id>
	<title>Since it would only be appropriate</title>
	<author>Sycrim</author>
	<datestamp>1243783980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrFgRAcr0jg" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Avery Brooks on Flying Cars</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Avery Brooks on Flying Cars [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Avery Brooks on Flying Cars [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28162971</id>
	<title>Armchair Progress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243780320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with people &amp; new technologies is that they want to use them just like the old technology. They don't want to change themselves when what they do and how they do it is often the fundamental problem.  Horses are in fact a good example. Although they replaced horses they were used in the same way (in part because an infrastructure of roads etc already existed) and therefore the same problems persist.  When a new technology comes along that could solve some of the problems they won't touch it becuase of the changes it would require. Take for example electric cars. A perfect technology, no, but people won't use it because they can't envision adapting. In reality the long "fill" time means not so much waiting around at a filling station for hours but never having tocall into a filling station again becuase you would take 1 minute if that to plug the car in when you got home. The range  is fine for pretty much 98\% of all trips you would ever make but if you can't tow your boat across the continent what good could it possibly be!</p><p>Renewable energy sources are treated the same way. Instead of looking at an alternative strategy to only a single or maybe two energy sources  without any buffering wind, solar and other sources are dismissed because they cannot singly supply the current peak loads. What seems to be wanted is a single source  of energy that allows us to waste as much as possible and doesn't have any impact at all - well at least in our own back yards.</p><p>The result? We are stuck without real progress. There are lots of ways in which various technologies can solve problems but we have to change ourselves. Sometimes the change is nothing more than allowing something to happen, Living in Western Australia I speak from some experience. Our problem? Huge population growth with limited (very) water. Solution. Use less. A lot less. And that's what we have done. We still have nice gardens and plenty to drink and in the time we have created our two new desalination plants have made life a lot easier. But believe it or not there are still people who say we need more water so we can go back to wasting it!</p><p>Most times we need to change either the way we are or the way we think about things to benefit from what we are being offered as improvements. But we still need to be careful of the  miracle-mongers or the scare tacticians who just want to keep their entrenched position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with people &amp; new technologies is that they want to use them just like the old technology .
They do n't want to change themselves when what they do and how they do it is often the fundamental problem .
Horses are in fact a good example .
Although they replaced horses they were used in the same way ( in part because an infrastructure of roads etc already existed ) and therefore the same problems persist .
When a new technology comes along that could solve some of the problems they wo n't touch it becuase of the changes it would require .
Take for example electric cars .
A perfect technology , no , but people wo n't use it because they ca n't envision adapting .
In reality the long " fill " time means not so much waiting around at a filling station for hours but never having tocall into a filling station again becuase you would take 1 minute if that to plug the car in when you got home .
The range is fine for pretty much 98 \ % of all trips you would ever make but if you ca n't tow your boat across the continent what good could it possibly be ! Renewable energy sources are treated the same way .
Instead of looking at an alternative strategy to only a single or maybe two energy sources without any buffering wind , solar and other sources are dismissed because they can not singly supply the current peak loads .
What seems to be wanted is a single source of energy that allows us to waste as much as possible and does n't have any impact at all - well at least in our own back yards.The result ?
We are stuck without real progress .
There are lots of ways in which various technologies can solve problems but we have to change ourselves .
Sometimes the change is nothing more than allowing something to happen , Living in Western Australia I speak from some experience .
Our problem ?
Huge population growth with limited ( very ) water .
Solution. Use less .
A lot less .
And that 's what we have done .
We still have nice gardens and plenty to drink and in the time we have created our two new desalination plants have made life a lot easier .
But believe it or not there are still people who say we need more water so we can go back to wasting it ! Most times we need to change either the way we are or the way we think about things to benefit from what we are being offered as improvements .
But we still need to be careful of the miracle-mongers or the scare tacticians who just want to keep their entrenched position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with people &amp; new technologies is that they want to use them just like the old technology.
They don't want to change themselves when what they do and how they do it is often the fundamental problem.
Horses are in fact a good example.
Although they replaced horses they were used in the same way (in part because an infrastructure of roads etc already existed) and therefore the same problems persist.
When a new technology comes along that could solve some of the problems they won't touch it becuase of the changes it would require.
Take for example electric cars.
A perfect technology, no, but people won't use it because they can't envision adapting.
In reality the long "fill" time means not so much waiting around at a filling station for hours but never having tocall into a filling station again becuase you would take 1 minute if that to plug the car in when you got home.
The range  is fine for pretty much 98\% of all trips you would ever make but if you can't tow your boat across the continent what good could it possibly be!Renewable energy sources are treated the same way.
Instead of looking at an alternative strategy to only a single or maybe two energy sources  without any buffering wind, solar and other sources are dismissed because they cannot singly supply the current peak loads.
What seems to be wanted is a single source  of energy that allows us to waste as much as possible and doesn't have any impact at all - well at least in our own back yards.The result?
We are stuck without real progress.
There are lots of ways in which various technologies can solve problems but we have to change ourselves.
Sometimes the change is nothing more than allowing something to happen, Living in Western Australia I speak from some experience.
Our problem?
Huge population growth with limited (very) water.
Solution. Use less.
A lot less.
And that's what we have done.
We still have nice gardens and plenty to drink and in the time we have created our two new desalination plants have made life a lot easier.
But believe it or not there are still people who say we need more water so we can go back to wasting it!Most times we need to change either the way we are or the way we think about things to benefit from what we are being offered as improvements.
But we still need to be careful of the  miracle-mongers or the scare tacticians who just want to keep their entrenched position.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160897</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243761960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>For instance, people used to think the world was flat like a pizza...</p></div></blockquote><p>I get so very tired of this canard.  For centuries, if not millennia, before Columbus sailed to the Americas, educated people knew that the world was not round.  The idea that folk in Medieval Europe believed that the world was flat is a misconception that was invented some time during the 19th century (<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html" title="asa3.org" rel="nofollow">Russell</a> [asa3.org] blames Washington Irving).</p></div><p>Then why was Galileo executed by the Church?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance , people used to think the world was flat like a pizza...I get so very tired of this canard .
For centuries , if not millennia , before Columbus sailed to the Americas , educated people knew that the world was not round .
The idea that folk in Medieval Europe believed that the world was flat is a misconception that was invented some time during the 19th century ( Russell [ asa3.org ] blames Washington Irving ) .Then why was Galileo executed by the Church ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance, people used to think the world was flat like a pizza...I get so very tired of this canard.
For centuries, if not millennia, before Columbus sailed to the Americas, educated people knew that the world was not round.
The idea that folk in Medieval Europe believed that the world was flat is a misconception that was invented some time during the 19th century (Russell [asa3.org] blames Washington Irving).Then why was Galileo executed by the Church?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160387</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason.</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1243801920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When science becomes a religion, complete with dogma &amp; heresy further progress is impeded.</p><p>I'm referring to the theoretical physics community in particular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When science becomes a religion , complete with dogma &amp; heresy further progress is impeded.I 'm referring to the theoretical physics community in particular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When science becomes a religion, complete with dogma &amp; heresy further progress is impeded.I'm referring to the theoretical physics community in particular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881</id>
	<title>Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1243781820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I didn't read this book, but if the capsule is even remotely accurate, I'm glad I didn't. The capsule claims that Corn tries to equate the cities of 100 years ago with today's and suggest that cars didn't \_really\_ change anything for the better, just changed which pile of crap we had.</p><p>I have lots of photographs of Toronto from the turn of the last century. For instance, the photos of people getting rid of their garbage by dropping it off at the dump - the end of a pier on Lake Ontario. Cities, in spite of being much smaller than they are and thus having to deal with a much smaller problem, were smelly, dirty, disease ridden dumps.</p><p>If anyone thinks the city of today, even with all of their very real problems, is anything even \_remotely\_ like the city of 100 years ago, they're idiots.</p><p>You get this all the time in anti-progress screeds, the "well we traded one problem for another", and then they just leave that hanging, like one problem is exactly the same as another. As Azimov noted, however, this ignores any change in quality. For instance, people used to think the world was flat like a pizza, then they thought it was a perfect sphere. They were wrong too, but, and this is the critical point, a sphere is "more right" than a pizza. THAT is how science works, approaching the asymptote.</p><p>And that's what technology is doing to. Yeah, cars running on gas suck, but only because we have three times the population and everyone's got one. If the world population was still only 1 billion and 99.9\% of them could not afford one, then cars would be see as the miraculous inventions they said they were going to be. It took 50 years before anyone realized they might even have downsides, and another 50 before we've started getting seriously about fixing them. That's because of how amazingly great they are, not the other way around! And just for the record, I don't own a car, I bike to work or ride the subway.</p><p>Maury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I did n't read this book , but if the capsule is even remotely accurate , I 'm glad I did n't .
The capsule claims that Corn tries to equate the cities of 100 years ago with today 's and suggest that cars did n't \ _really \ _ change anything for the better , just changed which pile of crap we had.I have lots of photographs of Toronto from the turn of the last century .
For instance , the photos of people getting rid of their garbage by dropping it off at the dump - the end of a pier on Lake Ontario .
Cities , in spite of being much smaller than they are and thus having to deal with a much smaller problem , were smelly , dirty , disease ridden dumps.If anyone thinks the city of today , even with all of their very real problems , is anything even \ _remotely \ _ like the city of 100 years ago , they 're idiots.You get this all the time in anti-progress screeds , the " well we traded one problem for another " , and then they just leave that hanging , like one problem is exactly the same as another .
As Azimov noted , however , this ignores any change in quality .
For instance , people used to think the world was flat like a pizza , then they thought it was a perfect sphere .
They were wrong too , but , and this is the critical point , a sphere is " more right " than a pizza .
THAT is how science works , approaching the asymptote.And that 's what technology is doing to .
Yeah , cars running on gas suck , but only because we have three times the population and everyone 's got one .
If the world population was still only 1 billion and 99.9 \ % of them could not afford one , then cars would be see as the miraculous inventions they said they were going to be .
It took 50 years before anyone realized they might even have downsides , and another 50 before we 've started getting seriously about fixing them .
That 's because of how amazingly great they are , not the other way around !
And just for the record , I do n't own a car , I bike to work or ride the subway.Maury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I didn't read this book, but if the capsule is even remotely accurate, I'm glad I didn't.
The capsule claims that Corn tries to equate the cities of 100 years ago with today's and suggest that cars didn't \_really\_ change anything for the better, just changed which pile of crap we had.I have lots of photographs of Toronto from the turn of the last century.
For instance, the photos of people getting rid of their garbage by dropping it off at the dump - the end of a pier on Lake Ontario.
Cities, in spite of being much smaller than they are and thus having to deal with a much smaller problem, were smelly, dirty, disease ridden dumps.If anyone thinks the city of today, even with all of their very real problems, is anything even \_remotely\_ like the city of 100 years ago, they're idiots.You get this all the time in anti-progress screeds, the "well we traded one problem for another", and then they just leave that hanging, like one problem is exactly the same as another.
As Azimov noted, however, this ignores any change in quality.
For instance, people used to think the world was flat like a pizza, then they thought it was a perfect sphere.
They were wrong too, but, and this is the critical point, a sphere is "more right" than a pizza.
THAT is how science works, approaching the asymptote.And that's what technology is doing to.
Yeah, cars running on gas suck, but only because we have three times the population and everyone's got one.
If the world population was still only 1 billion and 99.9\% of them could not afford one, then cars would be see as the miraculous inventions they said they were going to be.
It took 50 years before anyone realized they might even have downsides, and another 50 before we've started getting seriously about fixing them.
That's because of how amazingly great they are, not the other way around!
And just for the record, I don't own a car, I bike to work or ride the subway.Maury</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158097</id>
	<title>Re:Ego</title>
	<author>Stargoat</author>
	<datestamp>1243783620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe today's "exciting new technologies" will create programs capable of telling when a lazy ass reporter is lifting entire paragraphs straight from Robert Heinlein's <i>Expanded Universe</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe today 's " exciting new technologies " will create programs capable of telling when a lazy ass reporter is lifting entire paragraphs straight from Robert Heinlein 's Expanded Universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe today's "exciting new technologies" will create programs capable of telling when a lazy ass reporter is lifting entire paragraphs straight from Robert Heinlein's Expanded Universe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158367</id>
	<title>Suggestions for radical political change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243786140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who are ill should be able to order anyone who is not ill to do anything they please. After all, you cannot put a price on illness, and those who are not ill can never understand what it's like to be so. Having a sex life is also a human right.</p><p>Names should not be allowed, because they are a burgeois romanticised concept. Is it anything but egoistical to demand to be called 'PAUL' or 'GREGORY VAN DYKE'? It also sets you apart. The rational and logical way is to have a number corresponding to your area of habitation and a unique identification code. At the same time private housing is abolished in favour of living in large eco-friendly pyramids, and living outside of these is wasteful and hence forbidden.</p><p>Because there are too many people in the world, we have a lottery and euthanise fifty percent using nitrogen. A lottery is the most fair way to do this because anything else (riches are sucked from others, talent is genetic which is random) would be inhumane.</p><p>When we have brain scanners, we can scan people for thoughts that are wrong. Because it would be inhumane to punish them for having wrong thoughts, you simply send them for reeducation.</p><p>Out of concern for the collective you need a permission to breed. If a woman becomes pregnant without permission it's forcibly terminated, because after all, you aren't destroying any life by doing so, only as much life as when you mouthwash, so it's no big deal.</p><p>I mean, there's plenty of 'radical political change' that would be doable. Which ones did the writer think of?</p><p>Scratch that, we can have radical political change, just in the way that <b>*I*</b> want. What, you thought YOU would be the one to decide?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who are ill should be able to order anyone who is not ill to do anything they please .
After all , you can not put a price on illness , and those who are not ill can never understand what it 's like to be so .
Having a sex life is also a human right.Names should not be allowed , because they are a burgeois romanticised concept .
Is it anything but egoistical to demand to be called 'PAUL ' or 'GREGORY VAN DYKE ' ?
It also sets you apart .
The rational and logical way is to have a number corresponding to your area of habitation and a unique identification code .
At the same time private housing is abolished in favour of living in large eco-friendly pyramids , and living outside of these is wasteful and hence forbidden.Because there are too many people in the world , we have a lottery and euthanise fifty percent using nitrogen .
A lottery is the most fair way to do this because anything else ( riches are sucked from others , talent is genetic which is random ) would be inhumane.When we have brain scanners , we can scan people for thoughts that are wrong .
Because it would be inhumane to punish them for having wrong thoughts , you simply send them for reeducation.Out of concern for the collective you need a permission to breed .
If a woman becomes pregnant without permission it 's forcibly terminated , because after all , you are n't destroying any life by doing so , only as much life as when you mouthwash , so it 's no big deal.I mean , there 's plenty of 'radical political change ' that would be doable .
Which ones did the writer think of ? Scratch that , we can have radical political change , just in the way that * I * want .
What , you thought YOU would be the one to decide ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who are ill should be able to order anyone who is not ill to do anything they please.
After all, you cannot put a price on illness, and those who are not ill can never understand what it's like to be so.
Having a sex life is also a human right.Names should not be allowed, because they are a burgeois romanticised concept.
Is it anything but egoistical to demand to be called 'PAUL' or 'GREGORY VAN DYKE'?
It also sets you apart.
The rational and logical way is to have a number corresponding to your area of habitation and a unique identification code.
At the same time private housing is abolished in favour of living in large eco-friendly pyramids, and living outside of these is wasteful and hence forbidden.Because there are too many people in the world, we have a lottery and euthanise fifty percent using nitrogen.
A lottery is the most fair way to do this because anything else (riches are sucked from others, talent is genetic which is random) would be inhumane.When we have brain scanners, we can scan people for thoughts that are wrong.
Because it would be inhumane to punish them for having wrong thoughts, you simply send them for reeducation.Out of concern for the collective you need a permission to breed.
If a woman becomes pregnant without permission it's forcibly terminated, because after all, you aren't destroying any life by doing so, only as much life as when you mouthwash, so it's no big deal.I mean, there's plenty of 'radical political change' that would be doable.
Which ones did the writer think of?Scratch that, we can have radical political change, just in the way that *I* want.
What, you thought YOU would be the one to decide?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158083</id>
	<title>I think we're doing better</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1243783500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only things we haven't got are the stupid things like flying cars. No one in their right mind wants some soccer mom flying her little precious in some tank-like flying SUV.
<br> <br>
But for things that matter, like growing body parts, we're coming along just fine. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzcEWmstN7U" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzcEWmstN7U</a> [youtube.com]
<br> <br>
The internet alone has changed so too. But people need to get it out of their heads that we'll all of the sudden, one day, wear nothing but white and fly around in cars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only things we have n't got are the stupid things like flying cars .
No one in their right mind wants some soccer mom flying her little precious in some tank-like flying SUV .
But for things that matter , like growing body parts , we 're coming along just fine .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = jzcEWmstN7U [ youtube.com ] The internet alone has changed so too .
But people need to get it out of their heads that we 'll all of the sudden , one day , wear nothing but white and fly around in cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only things we haven't got are the stupid things like flying cars.
No one in their right mind wants some soccer mom flying her little precious in some tank-like flying SUV.
But for things that matter, like growing body parts, we're coming along just fine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzcEWmstN7U [youtube.com]
 
The internet alone has changed so too.
But people need to get it out of their heads that we'll all of the sudden, one day, wear nothing but white and fly around in cars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28163727</id>
	<title>Re:Amnesia</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1243786200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't forget that I carry a communicator in my pocket smaller than Captain Kirk's ever was and I can communicate with it to my friends over the world.</p></div><p>Provided you are in a cell area of a few thousand meters and not surrounded by stone, and even then reception is spotty.  Captain Kirk's communicator sends messages thousands of miles through anything but an ion storm.  Of course, it helps that Kirk has his own, personal tech support staff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that I carry a communicator in my pocket smaller than Captain Kirk 's ever was and I can communicate with it to my friends over the world.Provided you are in a cell area of a few thousand meters and not surrounded by stone , and even then reception is spotty .
Captain Kirk 's communicator sends messages thousands of miles through anything but an ion storm .
Of course , it helps that Kirk has his own , personal tech support staff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that I carry a communicator in my pocket smaller than Captain Kirk's ever was and I can communicate with it to my friends over the world.Provided you are in a cell area of a few thousand meters and not surrounded by stone, and even then reception is spotty.
Captain Kirk's communicator sends messages thousands of miles through anything but an ion storm.
Of course, it helps that Kirk has his own, personal tech support staff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160143</id>
	<title>Re:Cars *are* a great improvement.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243800000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh... cars =&gt; oil =&gt; war. I don't have a car, I walk if the goal isn't too far away and use public transportation otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh... cars = &gt; oil = &gt; war .
I do n't have a car , I walk if the goal is n't too far away and use public transportation otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh... cars =&gt; oil =&gt; war.
I don't have a car, I walk if the goal isn't too far away and use public transportation otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158183</id>
	<title>Article is garbage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243784340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Americans were predicting that another miraculous invention would deliver them from the burden of the horse and hurried urban life &#226;" the automobile"....and they were CORRECT. Your typical 19th-century American city was crowded and smelly, by 19th century standards. The entire population of the largest 19th century cities (at the very end of the century) in the world was between approximately 1 and 3 million. Modern cities with automobiles and similar populations would be considered pristine paradises by our 19th century friends.</p><p>Technology has allowed populations of 10's of millions of people to coexist in areas where that simply would not be possible. Can you imagine Los Angeles today with horses? REALLY?! It's ok to knock futurists and state they had "inflated optimism", but support that idea with some actual facts. All the examples I saw cited, actually did underestimate just how much of an impact technology would have on life, even when they were incorrect. Where have all the real journalists gone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Americans were predicting that another miraculous invention would deliver them from the burden of the horse and hurried urban life   " the automobile " ....and they were CORRECT .
Your typical 19th-century American city was crowded and smelly , by 19th century standards .
The entire population of the largest 19th century cities ( at the very end of the century ) in the world was between approximately 1 and 3 million .
Modern cities with automobiles and similar populations would be considered pristine paradises by our 19th century friends.Technology has allowed populations of 10 's of millions of people to coexist in areas where that simply would not be possible .
Can you imagine Los Angeles today with horses ?
REALLY ? ! It 's ok to knock futurists and state they had " inflated optimism " , but support that idea with some actual facts .
All the examples I saw cited , actually did underestimate just how much of an impact technology would have on life , even when they were incorrect .
Where have all the real journalists gone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Americans were predicting that another miraculous invention would deliver them from the burden of the horse and hurried urban life â" the automobile"....and they were CORRECT.
Your typical 19th-century American city was crowded and smelly, by 19th century standards.
The entire population of the largest 19th century cities (at the very end of the century) in the world was between approximately 1 and 3 million.
Modern cities with automobiles and similar populations would be considered pristine paradises by our 19th century friends.Technology has allowed populations of 10's of millions of people to coexist in areas where that simply would not be possible.
Can you imagine Los Angeles today with horses?
REALLY?! It's ok to knock futurists and state they had "inflated optimism", but support that idea with some actual facts.
All the examples I saw cited, actually did underestimate just how much of an impact technology would have on life, even when they were incorrect.
Where have all the real journalists gone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157767</id>
	<title>Does that mean...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243780800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So when do we get our flying cars, FTL intergalactic ships (with sexy alien women) and all the other cool stuff they promised.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So when do we get our flying cars , FTL intergalactic ships ( with sexy alien women ) and all the other cool stuff they promised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when do we get our flying cars, FTL intergalactic ships (with sexy alien women) and all the other cool stuff they promised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158023</id>
	<title>Re:Amnesia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243783080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget that I carry a communicator in my pocket smaller than Captain Kirk's ever was and I can communicate with it to my friends over the world. I'm going to take a quick trip to Sweden to visit friends next month that'll cost me about $110 in 1960 dollars and take less than a day of travel time in each direction. I'm typing this on a computer more powerful than could have been imagined in 1960, while listening to music streaming over an equally unimaginable network from somewhere - and I don't even need to know where the music is.

I take my hyper-reliable 2000 model year Acura in for oil changes and regular servicing at most twice a year, and I get about 35 miles per gallon of gas that costs about 6 cents per gallon more than it did in 1960 (in 1960 cents). I have all the music I own on a tiny iPod in the car that is hooked to my stereo, so on a road trip I have 30 years worth of accumulated music to choose from.

Unlike my parents in 1960 today's dentists have kept my teeth in perfect condition. The ceramic crowns and fillings are stronger than the teeth they are attached to, and replacing the 1970s metal fillings with custom-made crowns designed on a cad/cam system sitting beside me in the dentist office took about 60 minutes. The new crown was epoxied in place before the anesthetic for the drilling had worn off.

Life *is* much better today, even if we don't have flying cars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that I carry a communicator in my pocket smaller than Captain Kirk 's ever was and I can communicate with it to my friends over the world .
I 'm going to take a quick trip to Sweden to visit friends next month that 'll cost me about $ 110 in 1960 dollars and take less than a day of travel time in each direction .
I 'm typing this on a computer more powerful than could have been imagined in 1960 , while listening to music streaming over an equally unimaginable network from somewhere - and I do n't even need to know where the music is .
I take my hyper-reliable 2000 model year Acura in for oil changes and regular servicing at most twice a year , and I get about 35 miles per gallon of gas that costs about 6 cents per gallon more than it did in 1960 ( in 1960 cents ) .
I have all the music I own on a tiny iPod in the car that is hooked to my stereo , so on a road trip I have 30 years worth of accumulated music to choose from .
Unlike my parents in 1960 today 's dentists have kept my teeth in perfect condition .
The ceramic crowns and fillings are stronger than the teeth they are attached to , and replacing the 1970s metal fillings with custom-made crowns designed on a cad/cam system sitting beside me in the dentist office took about 60 minutes .
The new crown was epoxied in place before the anesthetic for the drilling had worn off .
Life * is * much better today , even if we do n't have flying cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that I carry a communicator in my pocket smaller than Captain Kirk's ever was and I can communicate with it to my friends over the world.
I'm going to take a quick trip to Sweden to visit friends next month that'll cost me about $110 in 1960 dollars and take less than a day of travel time in each direction.
I'm typing this on a computer more powerful than could have been imagined in 1960, while listening to music streaming over an equally unimaginable network from somewhere - and I don't even need to know where the music is.
I take my hyper-reliable 2000 model year Acura in for oil changes and regular servicing at most twice a year, and I get about 35 miles per gallon of gas that costs about 6 cents per gallon more than it did in 1960 (in 1960 cents).
I have all the music I own on a tiny iPod in the car that is hooked to my stereo, so on a road trip I have 30 years worth of accumulated music to choose from.
Unlike my parents in 1960 today's dentists have kept my teeth in perfect condition.
The ceramic crowns and fillings are stronger than the teeth they are attached to, and replacing the 1970s metal fillings with custom-made crowns designed on a cad/cam system sitting beside me in the dentist office took about 60 minutes.
The new crown was epoxied in place before the anesthetic for the drilling had worn off.
Life *is* much better today, even if we don't have flying cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158299</id>
	<title>the problem with this story is two fold</title>
	<author>jdbausch</author>
	<datestamp>1243785600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And every time one of these "where are my flying cars?" stories comes out it has the same two issues:

first, the author glosses over all the amazing advances that we do have.  Dick Tracey watch?  my cell phone is even better.  The list goes on and on.  I'm not sure if it is because the writer is just being dense, or just willfully ignoring these things in an effort to make a point.

second, the writer of the story is being intellectually dishonest.  to call sci-fi writings "predictions" is ridiculous.

But I guess this sort of "soft news" needs to be written, to fill quotas, or something.  And if you have some stupid-ass premise to write about, then you gotta try to make a compelling case for it...

But to say that automobiles have not been an improvement over horses? (as the article implies)  That is so patently moronic...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And every time one of these " where are my flying cars ?
" stories comes out it has the same two issues : first , the author glosses over all the amazing advances that we do have .
Dick Tracey watch ?
my cell phone is even better .
The list goes on and on .
I 'm not sure if it is because the writer is just being dense , or just willfully ignoring these things in an effort to make a point .
second , the writer of the story is being intellectually dishonest .
to call sci-fi writings " predictions " is ridiculous .
But I guess this sort of " soft news " needs to be written , to fill quotas , or something .
And if you have some stupid-ass premise to write about , then you got ta try to make a compelling case for it.. . But to say that automobiles have not been an improvement over horses ?
( as the article implies ) That is so patently moronic.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And every time one of these "where are my flying cars?
" stories comes out it has the same two issues:

first, the author glosses over all the amazing advances that we do have.
Dick Tracey watch?
my cell phone is even better.
The list goes on and on.
I'm not sure if it is because the writer is just being dense, or just willfully ignoring these things in an effort to make a point.
second, the writer of the story is being intellectually dishonest.
to call sci-fi writings "predictions" is ridiculous.
But I guess this sort of "soft news" needs to be written, to fill quotas, or something.
And if you have some stupid-ass premise to write about, then you gotta try to make a compelling case for it...

But to say that automobiles have not been an improvement over horses?
(as the article implies)  That is so patently moronic...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158205</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason.</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1243784580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  Look at how heated people get on here.  Imagine Microsoft vs Linux with real weaponry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Look at how heated people get on here .
Imagine Microsoft vs Linux with real weaponry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Look at how heated people get on here.
Imagine Microsoft vs Linux with real weaponry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160869</id>
	<title>Nah, the real reason we only advanced so far:</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1243761780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158123</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason.</title>
	<author>Narpak</author>
	<datestamp>1243783800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can bet if our species was as fanatical about science as it is about religious bureaucracy we would be in a better world.</p></div><p>Or we would have wars over the "right" research subjects to focus on. Especially the wars between the Cybernetics and the Bio-Engineered would be fierce.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can bet if our species was as fanatical about science as it is about religious bureaucracy we would be in a better world.Or we would have wars over the " right " research subjects to focus on .
Especially the wars between the Cybernetics and the Bio-Engineered would be fierce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can bet if our species was as fanatical about science as it is about religious bureaucracy we would be in a better world.Or we would have wars over the "right" research subjects to focus on.
Especially the wars between the Cybernetics and the Bio-Engineered would be fierce.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159081</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243792080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>And just for the record, I don't own a car, I bike to work or ride the subway.</b></p><p>Oh that's wonderful! Please, by all means, give yourself a nice big pat on the back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And just for the record , I do n't own a car , I bike to work or ride the subway.Oh that 's wonderful !
Please , by all means , give yourself a nice big pat on the back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And just for the record, I don't own a car, I bike to work or ride the subway.Oh that's wonderful!
Please, by all means, give yourself a nice big pat on the back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157843</id>
	<title>Hmmm....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243781460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They prefer technology, not radical politics, to propel social change.</p></div><p>Tell that to the current president...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They prefer technology , not radical politics , to propel social change.Tell that to the current president.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They prefer technology, not radical politics, to propel social change.Tell that to the current president...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158271</id>
	<title>What hasn't changed is....</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1243785360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sales hype and market competition...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sales hype and market competition.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sales hype and market competition...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28165205</id>
	<title>Re:Ego</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1243846980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This guy is talking out of his ass. "It hasn't turned out like they said, no wait it has".
Not too long ago, it was "why don't I have a flat screen wall mounted TV"? And now you have it. Robot cars = DARPA challenge; ST communicator - cell phone in a watch. Jet pack? Every mad scientist is working on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy is talking out of his ass .
" It has n't turned out like they said , no wait it has " .
Not too long ago , it was " why do n't I have a flat screen wall mounted TV " ?
And now you have it .
Robot cars = DARPA challenge ; ST communicator - cell phone in a watch .
Jet pack ?
Every mad scientist is working on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy is talking out of his ass.
"It hasn't turned out like they said, no wait it has".
Not too long ago, it was "why don't I have a flat screen wall mounted TV"?
And now you have it.
Robot cars = DARPA challenge; ST communicator - cell phone in a watch.
Jet pack?
Every mad scientist is working on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158665</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243788660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd agree with most of your post, there were a significant number of people that thought the world was round and not flat, before Columbus. Thomas Aquinas quotes that both the astronomer and natural philosopher both conclude that the world is round through different means. He died in 1274.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd agree with most of your post , there were a significant number of people that thought the world was round and not flat , before Columbus .
Thomas Aquinas quotes that both the astronomer and natural philosopher both conclude that the world is round through different means .
He died in 1274 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd agree with most of your post, there were a significant number of people that thought the world was round and not flat, before Columbus.
Thomas Aquinas quotes that both the astronomer and natural philosopher both conclude that the world is round through different means.
He died in 1274.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158583</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason.</title>
	<author>Reilaos</author>
	<datestamp>1243788000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oooor we'd just be filled with the sort of scientists who don't even get to shout "They said I was mad!  I will prove them wrong today!" because what they were doing wouldn't be taboo.  Fanatical ANYTHING is bad, fanatical search of progress is, if anything, more dangerous than fanatical religion.

When the world inevitably falls to zombie apocalypse, the blank in "What has \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ DONE?!" will mostly likely be filled with "science".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oooor we 'd just be filled with the sort of scientists who do n't even get to shout " They said I was mad !
I will prove them wrong today !
" because what they were doing would n't be taboo .
Fanatical ANYTHING is bad , fanatical search of progress is , if anything , more dangerous than fanatical religion .
When the world inevitably falls to zombie apocalypse , the blank in " What has \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ DONE ? !
" will mostly likely be filled with " science " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oooor we'd just be filled with the sort of scientists who don't even get to shout "They said I was mad!
I will prove them wrong today!
" because what they were doing wouldn't be taboo.
Fanatical ANYTHING is bad, fanatical search of progress is, if anything, more dangerous than fanatical religion.
When the world inevitably falls to zombie apocalypse, the blank in "What has \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ DONE?!
" will mostly likely be filled with "science".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28163679</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1243785780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, you have exactly expressed the foundation for C. H. Douglas' invention of social credit!  You too are a genius!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , you have exactly expressed the foundation for C. H. Douglas ' invention of social credit !
You too are a genius !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, you have exactly expressed the foundation for C. H. Douglas' invention of social credit!
You too are a genius!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159059</id>
	<title>Re:Amnesia</title>
	<author>zoney\_ie</author>
	<datestamp>1243791900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually some famines are still today the result of economic policies and even the deliberate implementation of such policies being put ahead of people's lives.</p><p>However, this isn't a new phenomenon, an older example is the Irish Potato Famine (there was plenty of "food" in Ireland at the time).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually some famines are still today the result of economic policies and even the deliberate implementation of such policies being put ahead of people 's lives.However , this is n't a new phenomenon , an older example is the Irish Potato Famine ( there was plenty of " food " in Ireland at the time ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually some famines are still today the result of economic policies and even the deliberate implementation of such policies being put ahead of people's lives.However, this isn't a new phenomenon, an older example is the Irish Potato Famine (there was plenty of "food" in Ireland at the time).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159761</id>
	<title>Who needs flying cars?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1243796940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you can get around the world in 400 ms with the Internet?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you can get around the world in 400 ms with the Internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you can get around the world in 400 ms with the Internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161519</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1243767480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Visions from science fiction are always shown on a personal level. They almost never scale. Its like flying cars. Its would be great if you and I had them but I wouldn't want every dirtbag in my city to be flying them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Visions from science fiction are always shown on a personal level .
They almost never scale .
Its like flying cars .
Its would be great if you and I had them but I would n't want every dirtbag in my city to be flying them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Visions from science fiction are always shown on a personal level.
They almost never scale.
Its like flying cars.
Its would be great if you and I had them but I wouldn't want every dirtbag in my city to be flying them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158041</id>
	<title>Re:Um?</title>
	<author>wisty</author>
	<datestamp>1243783260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1984 was basically a rip-off of the earlier and better written "Darkness at Noon" by Koestler (except Orwell added in telescreens, moved it from 1930s Russia to 1980s England, made the timeline linear (rather than flashback based) and changed the toothache to a varicose vein). Orwell was a bit more popular though, because Koestler had, shall we say, "character issues".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1984 was basically a rip-off of the earlier and better written " Darkness at Noon " by Koestler ( except Orwell added in telescreens , moved it from 1930s Russia to 1980s England , made the timeline linear ( rather than flashback based ) and changed the toothache to a varicose vein ) .
Orwell was a bit more popular though , because Koestler had , shall we say , " character issues " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1984 was basically a rip-off of the earlier and better written "Darkness at Noon" by Koestler (except Orwell added in telescreens, moved it from 1930s Russia to 1980s England, made the timeline linear (rather than flashback based) and changed the toothache to a varicose vein).
Orwell was a bit more popular though, because Koestler had, shall we say, "character issues".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158593</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate theory</title>
	<author>femtobyte</author>
	<datestamp>1243788060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "Troll" mod on the parent is undeserved. What drinkypoo said is perfectly correct --- the driving force behind the development and deployment of technology is making a few rich people richer; whatever benefits have accrued to the rest of the population are merely side effects. More than making rich people richer, technology has been heavily skewed towards accumulating power and control in the hands of a few. Besides the obvious power-accumulating role of military technology, there is the more subtle (but more insidious) "progress" in industrial "labor saving" saving technology --- which is not designed to make workers' lives any easier, but rather to save employers from having to hire as many workers (and leaving the remaining ones as unskilled, interchangeable button-pushers wholly reliant on the decisions and direction of their employers rather than being independent masters of their own craft). I recommend the book "Progress Without People: in Defense of Luddism" by labor historian David Noble, an excellent set of essays on the way "progress" is used to de-skill and disempower workers even when it is more expensive and less productive than alternative methods that would lead to a more even distribution of authority in society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " Troll " mod on the parent is undeserved .
What drinkypoo said is perfectly correct --- the driving force behind the development and deployment of technology is making a few rich people richer ; whatever benefits have accrued to the rest of the population are merely side effects .
More than making rich people richer , technology has been heavily skewed towards accumulating power and control in the hands of a few .
Besides the obvious power-accumulating role of military technology , there is the more subtle ( but more insidious ) " progress " in industrial " labor saving " saving technology --- which is not designed to make workers ' lives any easier , but rather to save employers from having to hire as many workers ( and leaving the remaining ones as unskilled , interchangeable button-pushers wholly reliant on the decisions and direction of their employers rather than being independent masters of their own craft ) .
I recommend the book " Progress Without People : in Defense of Luddism " by labor historian David Noble , an excellent set of essays on the way " progress " is used to de-skill and disempower workers even when it is more expensive and less productive than alternative methods that would lead to a more even distribution of authority in society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "Troll" mod on the parent is undeserved.
What drinkypoo said is perfectly correct --- the driving force behind the development and deployment of technology is making a few rich people richer; whatever benefits have accrued to the rest of the population are merely side effects.
More than making rich people richer, technology has been heavily skewed towards accumulating power and control in the hands of a few.
Besides the obvious power-accumulating role of military technology, there is the more subtle (but more insidious) "progress" in industrial "labor saving" saving technology --- which is not designed to make workers' lives any easier, but rather to save employers from having to hire as many workers (and leaving the remaining ones as unskilled, interchangeable button-pushers wholly reliant on the decisions and direction of their employers rather than being independent masters of their own craft).
I recommend the book "Progress Without People: in Defense of Luddism" by labor historian David Noble, an excellent set of essays on the way "progress" is used to de-skill and disempower workers even when it is more expensive and less productive than alternative methods that would lead to a more even distribution of authority in society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158381</id>
	<title>Re:Cars *are* a great improvement.</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1243786320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They made it possible for us to travel in all but the worst weather, they don't leave piles of shit behind them to feed flies, and they're far less labor-intensive to operate. Horses have a certain nostalgic appeal, but we're a lot better off with them relegated to a hobby.</p></div><p>Actually, horses have done well out of it, too. There are fewer draught horses in the USA &amp; Europe nowadays, but almost as many riding horses as there were at the start of the 20th century. They are mostly pampered sports pets rather than military mounts. It takes a lot of effort to properly care for a horse, and many were overworked and/or subjected to poor treatment when they were "work" rather than "play". I speak as owner of a cosseted 600kg hunter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They made it possible for us to travel in all but the worst weather , they do n't leave piles of shit behind them to feed flies , and they 're far less labor-intensive to operate .
Horses have a certain nostalgic appeal , but we 're a lot better off with them relegated to a hobby.Actually , horses have done well out of it , too .
There are fewer draught horses in the USA &amp; Europe nowadays , but almost as many riding horses as there were at the start of the 20th century .
They are mostly pampered sports pets rather than military mounts .
It takes a lot of effort to properly care for a horse , and many were overworked and/or subjected to poor treatment when they were " work " rather than " play " .
I speak as owner of a cosseted 600kg hunter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They made it possible for us to travel in all but the worst weather, they don't leave piles of shit behind them to feed flies, and they're far less labor-intensive to operate.
Horses have a certain nostalgic appeal, but we're a lot better off with them relegated to a hobby.Actually, horses have done well out of it, too.
There are fewer draught horses in the USA &amp; Europe nowadays, but almost as many riding horses as there were at the start of the 20th century.
They are mostly pampered sports pets rather than military mounts.
It takes a lot of effort to properly care for a horse, and many were overworked and/or subjected to poor treatment when they were "work" rather than "play".
I speak as owner of a cosseted 600kg hunter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157771</id>
	<title>I still prefer technology</title>
	<author>Bill Dog</author>
	<datestamp>1243780800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future.</i></p><p>Until now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future.Until now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future.Until now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159303</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1243793760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a very important and widely ignored point. We have forgotten that the economy is supposed to serve the people, never the other way around.</p><p>It's truly amazing how much energy our current economic system obligates us to put in to entirely unproductive (or even anti-productive) activities such as convincing people they cannot live without products of dubious value that ultimately bring little satisfaction to their owners. We spend truly gigantic amounts of energy and cash moving people around every day simply because so many managers can't believe things are getting done if they don't see people hunched over a desk. I sometimes get the feeling that we've re-defined job satisfaction to mean anything better than praying for an early death for 8 hours a day.</p><p>Economists claim that capitalism is based on rational  thinking, yet situations where perfectly good products are destroyed to save on shipping costs have become common. Apparently, giving them away or selling at a deep discount is out of the question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a very important and widely ignored point .
We have forgotten that the economy is supposed to serve the people , never the other way around.It 's truly amazing how much energy our current economic system obligates us to put in to entirely unproductive ( or even anti-productive ) activities such as convincing people they can not live without products of dubious value that ultimately bring little satisfaction to their owners .
We spend truly gigantic amounts of energy and cash moving people around every day simply because so many managers ca n't believe things are getting done if they do n't see people hunched over a desk .
I sometimes get the feeling that we 've re-defined job satisfaction to mean anything better than praying for an early death for 8 hours a day.Economists claim that capitalism is based on rational thinking , yet situations where perfectly good products are destroyed to save on shipping costs have become common .
Apparently , giving them away or selling at a deep discount is out of the question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a very important and widely ignored point.
We have forgotten that the economy is supposed to serve the people, never the other way around.It's truly amazing how much energy our current economic system obligates us to put in to entirely unproductive (or even anti-productive) activities such as convincing people they cannot live without products of dubious value that ultimately bring little satisfaction to their owners.
We spend truly gigantic amounts of energy and cash moving people around every day simply because so many managers can't believe things are getting done if they don't see people hunched over a desk.
I sometimes get the feeling that we've re-defined job satisfaction to mean anything better than praying for an early death for 8 hours a day.Economists claim that capitalism is based on rational  thinking, yet situations where perfectly good products are destroyed to save on shipping costs have become common.
Apparently, giving them away or selling at a deep discount is out of the question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28186069</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>BoothbyTCD</author>
	<datestamp>1243972800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did he somewhere say <i>when</i> he was referring to? Presumably at <i>some</i> time people thought the world was flat (it is after all a reasonable assumption for people living on land).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did he somewhere say when he was referring to ?
Presumably at some time people thought the world was flat ( it is after all a reasonable assumption for people living on land ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did he somewhere say when he was referring to?
Presumably at some time people thought the world was flat (it is after all a reasonable assumption for people living on land).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157887</id>
	<title>I *am* living in the furture....</title>
	<author>Gorkamecha</author>
	<datestamp>1243781880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a device in my pocket that will give me the answers to most questions, show me moving pictures with sound, let me talk to people on the other side of the planet and take pictures.

We have machines that can scan the inside of our bodies without cutting us open. Satellites that help the device above tell me where I am at all times. And of course cable with 9999 possible channels.

Look at an old episode of star trek, then look at the new movie...compare the bridges....How much stuff was "updated", because it would look old fashion and junky today?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a device in my pocket that will give me the answers to most questions , show me moving pictures with sound , let me talk to people on the other side of the planet and take pictures .
We have machines that can scan the inside of our bodies without cutting us open .
Satellites that help the device above tell me where I am at all times .
And of course cable with 9999 possible channels .
Look at an old episode of star trek , then look at the new movie...compare the bridges....How much stuff was " updated " , because it would look old fashion and junky today ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a device in my pocket that will give me the answers to most questions, show me moving pictures with sound, let me talk to people on the other side of the planet and take pictures.
We have machines that can scan the inside of our bodies without cutting us open.
Satellites that help the device above tell me where I am at all times.
And of course cable with 9999 possible channels.
Look at an old episode of star trek, then look at the new movie...compare the bridges....How much stuff was "updated", because it would look old fashion and junky today?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28166099</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason.</title>
	<author>JSlope</author>
	<datestamp>1243859760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually now different scientific directions depend on each other, for example bioengineers would like to have better tools to have imroved modelling power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually now different scientific directions depend on each other , for example bioengineers would like to have better tools to have imroved modelling power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually now different scientific directions depend on each other, for example bioengineers would like to have better tools to have imroved modelling power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158715</id>
	<title>Re:Amnesia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243789080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget Kirk's communicator didn't need a system of relays and towers like your cell.  It was effectively a satellite phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget Kirk 's communicator did n't need a system of relays and towers like your cell .
It was effectively a satellite phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget Kirk's communicator didn't need a system of relays and towers like your cell.
It was effectively a satellite phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160967</id>
	<title>Re:Ego</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243762440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where, where? There, there? What's there?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where , where ?
There , there ?
What 's there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where, where?
There, there?
What's there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160229</id>
	<title>What about the overhead projector?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243800600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The overhead projector was World War II technology that was supposed to change the world, just like the opaque projector and filmstrips (beep).</p><p>Technology has, time and time again, solved old problems while creating new problems. </p><p>That's all technology does. </p><p>In the bigger picture, nothing really changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The overhead projector was World War II technology that was supposed to change the world , just like the opaque projector and filmstrips ( beep ) .Technology has , time and time again , solved old problems while creating new problems .
That 's all technology does .
In the bigger picture , nothing really changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The overhead projector was World War II technology that was supposed to change the world, just like the opaque projector and filmstrips (beep).Technology has, time and time again, solved old problems while creating new problems.
That's all technology does.
In the bigger picture, nothing really changes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157801</id>
	<title>political change is stopped via constitution</title>
	<author>cryophan</author>
	<datestamp>1243781100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it is not that we WANTED change only by technology, it is that our Federal Constitution was designed by the rich aristocrats to STIFLE political change and to DISEMPOWER the voters. Americans have no option to change america politically because our Founding Fiends illegally installed a federal constitution that would thwart political change.
To quote James Madison, "the father of the constitution, the constitution would not allow the voters to "unite and discover their common interest."


Madison et al did this by creating a governmental structure that would increase the number of factions in the political districts by enlarging the political districts.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it is not that we WANTED change only by technology , it is that our Federal Constitution was designed by the rich aristocrats to STIFLE political change and to DISEMPOWER the voters .
Americans have no option to change america politically because our Founding Fiends illegally installed a federal constitution that would thwart political change .
To quote James Madison , " the father of the constitution , the constitution would not allow the voters to " unite and discover their common interest .
" Madison et al did this by creating a governmental structure that would increase the number of factions in the political districts by enlarging the political districts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it is not that we WANTED change only by technology, it is that our Federal Constitution was designed by the rich aristocrats to STIFLE political change and to DISEMPOWER the voters.
Americans have no option to change america politically because our Founding Fiends illegally installed a federal constitution that would thwart political change.
To quote James Madison, "the father of the constitution, the constitution would not allow the voters to "unite and discover their common interest.
"


Madison et al did this by creating a governmental structure that would increase the number of factions in the political districts by enlarging the political districts.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158109</id>
	<title>Failure to invent Bloodwine</title>
	<author>assemblerex</author>
	<datestamp>1243783680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>my greatest regret from of our lost future. That and painsticks, but I hear Dick Cheney is working on that as we speak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>my greatest regret from of our lost future .
That and painsticks , but I hear Dick Cheney is working on that as we speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my greatest regret from of our lost future.
That and painsticks, but I hear Dick Cheney is working on that as we speak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28170217</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1243880760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities. Well the thing is they <em>could</em> have done a lot. Why hasn't this happened? Because instead of moving from some people having horse-drawn carriages or draft horses and wagons, we've moved to every person having a car.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I don't know about you, but <em>my</em> hometown is an almost idyllic mix of apartment buildings and small forests, with trees lining every roadway; you can hardly take a walk here without a rabbit or two crossing your trail. There's more life here than in a forest, and that's all because of automobile, since everything doesn't have to be within walking distance, so you have room for these things. Oh, and the railway goes through here too, linking us to our capital.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities .
Well the thing is they could have done a lot .
Why has n't this happened ?
Because instead of moving from some people having horse-drawn carriages or draft horses and wagons , we 've moved to every person having a car .
I do n't know about you , but my hometown is an almost idyllic mix of apartment buildings and small forests , with trees lining every roadway ; you can hardly take a walk here without a rabbit or two crossing your trail .
There 's more life here than in a forest , and that 's all because of automobile , since everything does n't have to be within walking distance , so you have room for these things .
Oh , and the railway goes through here too , linking us to our capital .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities.
Well the thing is they could have done a lot.
Why hasn't this happened?
Because instead of moving from some people having horse-drawn carriages or draft horses and wagons, we've moved to every person having a car.
I don't know about you, but my hometown is an almost idyllic mix of apartment buildings and small forests, with trees lining every roadway; you can hardly take a walk here without a rabbit or two crossing your trail.
There's more life here than in a forest, and that's all because of automobile, since everything doesn't have to be within walking distance, so you have room for these things.
Oh, and the railway goes through here too, linking us to our capital.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160555</id>
	<title>Still don't get the point of the article</title>
	<author>saigon\_from\_europe</author>
	<datestamp>1243803120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've read TFA and I still don't get the point. Author says that Americans believe that technological advancement will solve problems instead of social advancement. I think that he does not understand that all major social movements were driven by technological progress, or at least they were made possible by it.</p><p>For instance, state as we know it is only possible in a society where high-speed communication is possible. It is not a coincidence that old feudal regimes where overthrown at the same time when technological revolution was in progress. And this is nothing new, and it was elaborated by Carl Marx in great details (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical\_materialism) more than a century ago. (Yeah, Marx is considered to be wrong, but not in that part.)</p><p>In a part where author describes how we have traded one problem for another, only I could say is "rubbish". If he does not think that car is better than horse carriage, I would say that other 6bln ppl believe in the opposite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read TFA and I still do n't get the point .
Author says that Americans believe that technological advancement will solve problems instead of social advancement .
I think that he does not understand that all major social movements were driven by technological progress , or at least they were made possible by it.For instance , state as we know it is only possible in a society where high-speed communication is possible .
It is not a coincidence that old feudal regimes where overthrown at the same time when technological revolution was in progress .
And this is nothing new , and it was elaborated by Carl Marx in great details ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical \ _materialism ) more than a century ago .
( Yeah , Marx is considered to be wrong , but not in that part .
) In a part where author describes how we have traded one problem for another , only I could say is " rubbish " .
If he does not think that car is better than horse carriage , I would say that other 6bln ppl believe in the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read TFA and I still don't get the point.
Author says that Americans believe that technological advancement will solve problems instead of social advancement.
I think that he does not understand that all major social movements were driven by technological progress, or at least they were made possible by it.For instance, state as we know it is only possible in a society where high-speed communication is possible.
It is not a coincidence that old feudal regimes where overthrown at the same time when technological revolution was in progress.
And this is nothing new, and it was elaborated by Carl Marx in great details (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical\_materialism) more than a century ago.
(Yeah, Marx is considered to be wrong, but not in that part.
)In a part where author describes how we have traded one problem for another, only I could say is "rubbish".
If he does not think that car is better than horse carriage, I would say that other 6bln ppl believe in the opposite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28169093</id>
	<title>Re:Never?</title>
	<author>big\_paul76</author>
	<datestamp>1243875480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't remember who the quote is from, but the line that sticks out in my head is that "socialism never really gained a foothold in America because working Americans don't see themselves as an oppressed proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires who are just waiting for their turn to win the lottery."</p><p>It seems that the USA started with a radical political transformation, then got really really good at crushing rebellion. One could argue that up until the really nasty regimes like under Stalin or Pol Pot or whomever, nobody was better at crushing revolts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't remember who the quote is from , but the line that sticks out in my head is that " socialism never really gained a foothold in America because working Americans do n't see themselves as an oppressed proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires who are just waiting for their turn to win the lottery .
" It seems that the USA started with a radical political transformation , then got really really good at crushing rebellion .
One could argue that up until the really nasty regimes like under Stalin or Pol Pot or whomever , nobody was better at crushing revolts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't remember who the quote is from, but the line that sticks out in my head is that "socialism never really gained a foothold in America because working Americans don't see themselves as an oppressed proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires who are just waiting for their turn to win the lottery.
"It seems that the USA started with a radical political transformation, then got really really good at crushing rebellion.
One could argue that up until the really nasty regimes like under Stalin or Pol Pot or whomever, nobody was better at crushing revolts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157825</id>
	<title>easy solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243781340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>maybe you should stop visiting their blogs then...?</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe you should stop visiting their blogs then... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe you should stop visiting their blogs then...?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159943</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243798500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, of course not. I'm arguing that there should be more public transport. Buses are much faster than horse and carriages, they carry many more people. We could have moved from horse and carriage to a decent bus service and taxis as needed.</p></div><p>Good post overall, but you need to be corrected on one point-- Buses are not faster.  I've been on public transit in many cities, and waiting for the bus is 10 minutes on average in the best of cities, and over an hour in many, plus the travel time twice what it would be through any other motorized travel.  Busses suck.  I'll take a train or a private car any day.  But, hey, this is about the future, right?  Let's go with monorail, or pneumatic tubes!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , of course not .
I 'm arguing that there should be more public transport .
Buses are much faster than horse and carriages , they carry many more people .
We could have moved from horse and carriage to a decent bus service and taxis as needed.Good post overall , but you need to be corrected on one point-- Buses are not faster .
I 've been on public transit in many cities , and waiting for the bus is 10 minutes on average in the best of cities , and over an hour in many , plus the travel time twice what it would be through any other motorized travel .
Busses suck .
I 'll take a train or a private car any day .
But , hey , this is about the future , right ?
Let 's go with monorail , or pneumatic tubes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, of course not.
I'm arguing that there should be more public transport.
Buses are much faster than horse and carriages, they carry many more people.
We could have moved from horse and carriage to a decent bus service and taxis as needed.Good post overall, but you need to be corrected on one point-- Buses are not faster.
I've been on public transit in many cities, and waiting for the bus is 10 minutes on average in the best of cities, and over an hour in many, plus the travel time twice what it would be through any other motorized travel.
Busses suck.
I'll take a train or a private car any day.
But, hey, this is about the future, right?
Let's go with monorail, or pneumatic tubes!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160317</id>
	<title>Are you joking ?</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1243801320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"misplaced faith in the power of inventions to make life easier". PLEASE, WE ARE ON SLASHDOT, NOBODY BUYS THAT BULLSHIT. Technology has absolutely allowed a much more comfortable lifestyle for everyone is the 1st world. Damn, it's so bad we actually have to schedule in walking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" misplaced faith in the power of inventions to make life easier " .
PLEASE , WE ARE ON SLASHDOT , NOBODY BUYS THAT BULLSHIT .
Technology has absolutely allowed a much more comfortable lifestyle for everyone is the 1st world .
Damn , it 's so bad we actually have to schedule in walking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"misplaced faith in the power of inventions to make life easier".
PLEASE, WE ARE ON SLASHDOT, NOBODY BUYS THAT BULLSHIT.
Technology has absolutely allowed a much more comfortable lifestyle for everyone is the 1st world.
Damn, it's so bad we actually have to schedule in walking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161069</id>
	<title>Kudos to Gibson</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1243763340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I can say is, the future ain't what it used to be...</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can say is , the future ai n't what it used to be.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can say is, the future ain't what it used to be...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158509</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>the phantom</author>
	<datestamp>1243787280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For instance, people used to think the world was flat like a pizza...</p></div></blockquote><p>
I get so very tired of this canard.  For centuries, if not millennia, before Columbus sailed to the Americas, educated people knew that the world was not round.  The idea that folk in Medieval Europe believed that the world was flat is a misconception that was invented some time during the 19th century (<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html" title="asa3.org">Russell</a> [asa3.org] blames Washington Irving).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance , people used to think the world was flat like a pizza.. . I get so very tired of this canard .
For centuries , if not millennia , before Columbus sailed to the Americas , educated people knew that the world was not round .
The idea that folk in Medieval Europe believed that the world was flat is a misconception that was invented some time during the 19th century ( Russell [ asa3.org ] blames Washington Irving ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance, people used to think the world was flat like a pizza...
I get so very tired of this canard.
For centuries, if not millennia, before Columbus sailed to the Americas, educated people knew that the world was not round.
The idea that folk in Medieval Europe believed that the world was flat is a misconception that was invented some time during the 19th century (Russell [asa3.org] blames Washington Irving).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158093</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate theory</title>
	<author>jruschme</author>
	<datestamp>1243783560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm reminded a bit of the classic WB cartoon where the elves describe mass production to the shoemaker. What people couldn't foresee what the idea of transportation becoming so cheap (or labor remaining so expensive) that you could actually make the product half-way around the world and still sell it cheaper than if you made it in the US.</p><p>Similarly, the 1960's cartoon "The Jetsons" envisioned a future with a 3-day work week, most of which involved having to periodically push "the button". By the 1980s, though, we began to see new office technologies such as the fax machine not as the means to decreasing work, but as the means of expanding the work day to having more time to do the same work. The same can be said or the Blackberry which provides such a level of connectivity that one never has to let an employee "stop" working for the day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm reminded a bit of the classic WB cartoon where the elves describe mass production to the shoemaker .
What people could n't foresee what the idea of transportation becoming so cheap ( or labor remaining so expensive ) that you could actually make the product half-way around the world and still sell it cheaper than if you made it in the US.Similarly , the 1960 's cartoon " The Jetsons " envisioned a future with a 3-day work week , most of which involved having to periodically push " the button " .
By the 1980s , though , we began to see new office technologies such as the fax machine not as the means to decreasing work , but as the means of expanding the work day to having more time to do the same work .
The same can be said or the Blackberry which provides such a level of connectivity that one never has to let an employee " stop " working for the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm reminded a bit of the classic WB cartoon where the elves describe mass production to the shoemaker.
What people couldn't foresee what the idea of transportation becoming so cheap (or labor remaining so expensive) that you could actually make the product half-way around the world and still sell it cheaper than if you made it in the US.Similarly, the 1960's cartoon "The Jetsons" envisioned a future with a 3-day work week, most of which involved having to periodically push "the button".
By the 1980s, though, we began to see new office technologies such as the fax machine not as the means to decreasing work, but as the means of expanding the work day to having more time to do the same work.
The same can be said or the Blackberry which provides such a level of connectivity that one never has to let an employee "stop" working for the day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158287</id>
	<title>Technology is both a blessing and a curse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243785420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As technology progresses some jobs are destroyed while others are created but need more education and training to qualify for.</p><p>Automobiles made the Buggy and Buggy Whip jobs go away. When robots replaced people on the assembly line, there was robot repair jobs.</p><p>Before the Word Processor and Laser Printer, companies used to hire a room full of a hundred typists to type up copies of memos and letters. But now one person can print out 100 copies with a Laser Printer. But there needs to be an IT staff on duty to fix the Laser Printer or Computer that the Word Processor is installed on.</p><p>All politics has done is limit what we can and cannot do with technology. Real change does not come from technology or politics, it comes from people deciding to change their ways for the better of the world. Technology was invented to make things easier to do, but it leads to sloth and greed and other negative things. You can get more things done with technology than you can without it, but people tend to get slothful or greedy. Technology companies have to keep coming up with new versions of technology in order to keep earning money, that is greed. Who says the 4.0 version isn't as good as the 7.0 version? Most likely the company that developed it. Meanwhile some people are satisfied with the 4.0 version and don't need to buy the 7.0 version, while others claim that even the 7.0 version isn't as good enough.</p><p>When I was young I loved calculators because they made doing Math easier. My father called it a crutch, claimed that if I did Math via the calculator I wouldn't be able to do Math in my head and I used the calculator as a crutch. Technology is a crutch, we use it and sometimes it causes us not to be able to do things on our own. We become dependent on technology to get things done. If there is a crisis and we can no longer have electricity due to a shortage of fossil fuels, how can we function without technology? Maybe the Amish have a point that technology is idleness?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As technology progresses some jobs are destroyed while others are created but need more education and training to qualify for.Automobiles made the Buggy and Buggy Whip jobs go away .
When robots replaced people on the assembly line , there was robot repair jobs.Before the Word Processor and Laser Printer , companies used to hire a room full of a hundred typists to type up copies of memos and letters .
But now one person can print out 100 copies with a Laser Printer .
But there needs to be an IT staff on duty to fix the Laser Printer or Computer that the Word Processor is installed on.All politics has done is limit what we can and can not do with technology .
Real change does not come from technology or politics , it comes from people deciding to change their ways for the better of the world .
Technology was invented to make things easier to do , but it leads to sloth and greed and other negative things .
You can get more things done with technology than you can without it , but people tend to get slothful or greedy .
Technology companies have to keep coming up with new versions of technology in order to keep earning money , that is greed .
Who says the 4.0 version is n't as good as the 7.0 version ?
Most likely the company that developed it .
Meanwhile some people are satisfied with the 4.0 version and do n't need to buy the 7.0 version , while others claim that even the 7.0 version is n't as good enough.When I was young I loved calculators because they made doing Math easier .
My father called it a crutch , claimed that if I did Math via the calculator I would n't be able to do Math in my head and I used the calculator as a crutch .
Technology is a crutch , we use it and sometimes it causes us not to be able to do things on our own .
We become dependent on technology to get things done .
If there is a crisis and we can no longer have electricity due to a shortage of fossil fuels , how can we function without technology ?
Maybe the Amish have a point that technology is idleness ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As technology progresses some jobs are destroyed while others are created but need more education and training to qualify for.Automobiles made the Buggy and Buggy Whip jobs go away.
When robots replaced people on the assembly line, there was robot repair jobs.Before the Word Processor and Laser Printer, companies used to hire a room full of a hundred typists to type up copies of memos and letters.
But now one person can print out 100 copies with a Laser Printer.
But there needs to be an IT staff on duty to fix the Laser Printer or Computer that the Word Processor is installed on.All politics has done is limit what we can and cannot do with technology.
Real change does not come from technology or politics, it comes from people deciding to change their ways for the better of the world.
Technology was invented to make things easier to do, but it leads to sloth and greed and other negative things.
You can get more things done with technology than you can without it, but people tend to get slothful or greedy.
Technology companies have to keep coming up with new versions of technology in order to keep earning money, that is greed.
Who says the 4.0 version isn't as good as the 7.0 version?
Most likely the company that developed it.
Meanwhile some people are satisfied with the 4.0 version and don't need to buy the 7.0 version, while others claim that even the 7.0 version isn't as good enough.When I was young I loved calculators because they made doing Math easier.
My father called it a crutch, claimed that if I did Math via the calculator I wouldn't be able to do Math in my head and I used the calculator as a crutch.
Technology is a crutch, we use it and sometimes it causes us not to be able to do things on our own.
We become dependent on technology to get things done.
If there is a crisis and we can no longer have electricity due to a shortage of fossil fuels, how can we function without technology?
Maybe the Amish have a point that technology is idleness?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28163791</id>
	<title>Re:Technology Advances are for the Rich to get Ric</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1243786800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems one modern invention slipped by you.</p><p>We call it a "Paragraph"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems one modern invention slipped by you.We call it a " Paragraph "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems one modern invention slipped by you.We call it a "Paragraph"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160971</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>tabrnaker</author>
	<datestamp>1243762560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If there weren't any cars, the cities and road networks would not have developed as they have, and so your example is meaningless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were n't any cars , the cities and road networks would not have developed as they have , and so your example is meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there weren't any cars, the cities and road networks would not have developed as they have, and so your example is meaningless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161531</id>
	<title>Re:Cars *are* a great improvement.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1243767540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was and is possible for us to travel in weather worse than cars can deal with.  They do leave metaphorical piles of shit behind them, it's just more spread out.</p><p>The key is that automobiles are a <em>scalable</em> technology.  We can see that a number of ways.   Their fuel can be stockpiled or transported in vast quantities; forage is no longer a limiting factor in the growth of cities, its a limiting factor in the growth of <em>national economies</em>.</p><p>If you had to start a transportation system from scratch, draught animal based technologies are attractive.  They most difficult part of production is done by the animals themselves, and they <em>enjoy it</em>.  It's still cheaper to buy a horse than a car.  If only they didn't burn fuel when you weren't using them...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was and is possible for us to travel in weather worse than cars can deal with .
They do leave metaphorical piles of shit behind them , it 's just more spread out.The key is that automobiles are a scalable technology .
We can see that a number of ways .
Their fuel can be stockpiled or transported in vast quantities ; forage is no longer a limiting factor in the growth of cities , its a limiting factor in the growth of national economies.If you had to start a transportation system from scratch , draught animal based technologies are attractive .
They most difficult part of production is done by the animals themselves , and they enjoy it .
It 's still cheaper to buy a horse than a car .
If only they did n't burn fuel when you were n't using them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was and is possible for us to travel in weather worse than cars can deal with.
They do leave metaphorical piles of shit behind them, it's just more spread out.The key is that automobiles are a scalable technology.
We can see that a number of ways.
Their fuel can be stockpiled or transported in vast quantities; forage is no longer a limiting factor in the growth of cities, its a limiting factor in the growth of national economies.If you had to start a transportation system from scratch, draught animal based technologies are attractive.
They most difficult part of production is done by the animals themselves, and they enjoy it.
It's still cheaper to buy a horse than a car.
If only they didn't burn fuel when you weren't using them...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161487</id>
	<title>frogs</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1243767180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem was horses. They created traffic jams, filled the streets with their droppings and, when they died, their carcasses.</p></div></blockquote><p>Like any normal person, I despise the French.  But at least they have a solution to what to do with a hoss once it pops its clogs.  Just add a side of fries and a little Dijon mustard.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem was horses .
They created traffic jams , filled the streets with their droppings and , when they died , their carcasses.Like any normal person , I despise the French .
But at least they have a solution to what to do with a hoss once it pops its clogs .
Just add a side of fries and a little Dijon mustard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem was horses.
They created traffic jams, filled the streets with their droppings and, when they died, their carcasses.Like any normal person, I despise the French.
But at least they have a solution to what to do with a hoss once it pops its clogs.
Just add a side of fries and a little Dijon mustard.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159707</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1243796520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To support there is only so much a change in politics or economic theory can do.  At the base, both of these are essentially zero sum games.  One may come up with an economic theory that is based on command or demand or currency based distribution of goods and services, but the actual amounts of goods and services are limited to existing stocks without technology innovations.  We can take from those with 'too much' and give to those with 'too little' but without technology, we can't really increase the overall per capita supply.  Therefore, saying that politics or economics can solve a problem is really he standard dogma of the business major.
<p>
The science we have is amazing.  It has allowed a person to create multiple more food.  It has allowed the food to be preserved, concentrated, and widely distributed.  It has allowed some us to live in cleaner environments with much less risk of disease.  It has allowed an efficient use of human effort by allowing the quick transport of personnel to areas in which they are needed.  Some of us may not like the fact that persons smarter than ourselves can be shipping into to complete projects that we cannot efficiently do ourselves, but it is an amazing thing to do.
</p><p>
The political and economic theory comes in when distributing the benefits of these efficiencies.  Who gets them.  How much are we taxed to keep up the infrastructure, develop the technology, and train people to use the technology.  How much will workers be paid by those that wish to apply the technology.  All of this occurs in a world where the entitled live in fear that someone might use the money to enjoy things that the entitled do not approve by those who are not entitled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To support there is only so much a change in politics or economic theory can do .
At the base , both of these are essentially zero sum games .
One may come up with an economic theory that is based on command or demand or currency based distribution of goods and services , but the actual amounts of goods and services are limited to existing stocks without technology innovations .
We can take from those with 'too much ' and give to those with 'too little ' but without technology , we ca n't really increase the overall per capita supply .
Therefore , saying that politics or economics can solve a problem is really he standard dogma of the business major .
The science we have is amazing .
It has allowed a person to create multiple more food .
It has allowed the food to be preserved , concentrated , and widely distributed .
It has allowed some us to live in cleaner environments with much less risk of disease .
It has allowed an efficient use of human effort by allowing the quick transport of personnel to areas in which they are needed .
Some of us may not like the fact that persons smarter than ourselves can be shipping into to complete projects that we can not efficiently do ourselves , but it is an amazing thing to do .
The political and economic theory comes in when distributing the benefits of these efficiencies .
Who gets them .
How much are we taxed to keep up the infrastructure , develop the technology , and train people to use the technology .
How much will workers be paid by those that wish to apply the technology .
All of this occurs in a world where the entitled live in fear that someone might use the money to enjoy things that the entitled do not approve by those who are not entitled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To support there is only so much a change in politics or economic theory can do.
At the base, both of these are essentially zero sum games.
One may come up with an economic theory that is based on command or demand or currency based distribution of goods and services, but the actual amounts of goods and services are limited to existing stocks without technology innovations.
We can take from those with 'too much' and give to those with 'too little' but without technology, we can't really increase the overall per capita supply.
Therefore, saying that politics or economics can solve a problem is really he standard dogma of the business major.
The science we have is amazing.
It has allowed a person to create multiple more food.
It has allowed the food to be preserved, concentrated, and widely distributed.
It has allowed some us to live in cleaner environments with much less risk of disease.
It has allowed an efficient use of human effort by allowing the quick transport of personnel to areas in which they are needed.
Some of us may not like the fact that persons smarter than ourselves can be shipping into to complete projects that we cannot efficiently do ourselves, but it is an amazing thing to do.
The political and economic theory comes in when distributing the benefits of these efficiencies.
Who gets them.
How much are we taxed to keep up the infrastructure, develop the technology, and train people to use the technology.
How much will workers be paid by those that wish to apply the technology.
All of this occurs in a world where the entitled live in fear that someone might use the money to enjoy things that the entitled do not approve by those who are not entitled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157953</id>
	<title>Vested interests</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1243782480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why deliver the future when the past keeps paying those who control the ultimate delivery of technology? If a corporation posses a technology that gives them an edge over everyone else, why would they deliver that to the general population and disrupt their market? Why do you think companies like West ing house and Tex as In stru ments are still around, because they *already* own the future, and *they* will choose when it is deployed.</p><p>
Business is war, power over ideas is money and a lawsuit is a pretty effective weapon against *any* innovation. You can't build the future while it is locked up in some patent vault somewhere.</p><p>
The future is now but the implementation is delayed by patent litigation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why deliver the future when the past keeps paying those who control the ultimate delivery of technology ?
If a corporation posses a technology that gives them an edge over everyone else , why would they deliver that to the general population and disrupt their market ?
Why do you think companies like West ing house and Tex as In stru ments are still around , because they * already * own the future , and * they * will choose when it is deployed .
Business is war , power over ideas is money and a lawsuit is a pretty effective weapon against * any * innovation .
You ca n't build the future while it is locked up in some patent vault somewhere .
The future is now but the implementation is delayed by patent litigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why deliver the future when the past keeps paying those who control the ultimate delivery of technology?
If a corporation posses a technology that gives them an edge over everyone else, why would they deliver that to the general population and disrupt their market?
Why do you think companies like West ing house and Tex as In stru ments are still around, because they *already* own the future, and *they* will choose when it is deployed.
Business is war, power over ideas is money and a lawsuit is a pretty effective weapon against *any* innovation.
You can't build the future while it is locked up in some patent vault somewhere.
The future is now but the implementation is delayed by patent litigation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158767</id>
	<title>Re:Amnesia</title>
	<author>Anonymatt</author>
	<datestamp>1243789500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shit, Bill Evans and his crew were just getting the party started in 1960.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit , Bill Evans and his crew were just getting the party started in 1960 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit, Bill Evans and his crew were just getting the party started in 1960.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158397</id>
	<title>appropriate vid</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1243786500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJjUVIIYptE" title="youtube.com">Gaze upon the city of tomorrow!</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gaze upon the city of tomorrow !
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gaze upon the city of tomorrow!
[youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158201</id>
	<title>SF is about what we want or fear, not predictions</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1243784520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SF writing has to be popular. Either to get readers or to get sales.
<p>That means it's got to strike a chord with the readership (or buyer) and either play on their desires or, provoke their fears. If a writer was to extrapolate the future, they'd end up with a rather boring SF piece - because tomorrow tends to be a lot like today and because most of the changes are social, not technological.
</p><p>
There are no radical shifts (call 'em paradigm shifts if you must) that society goes through. The only two current major tech. shifts are both to do with communication - either internet or the ubiquity of mobile phones. Thtey've both been around for about 20 year and will take at least that much more before the full effects are established. Plus, when the efects are known, I'd be willing to bet that they won't be the ones everybody is predicting.
</p><p>
Since the (social) changes aren't predictable, they don't make for great SF as the readers / buyers wouldn't expect or believe those outcomes. As has been said many times, SF has got to make sense, whereas real life doesn't have to. That's what makes writing SF hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SF writing has to be popular .
Either to get readers or to get sales .
That means it 's got to strike a chord with the readership ( or buyer ) and either play on their desires or , provoke their fears .
If a writer was to extrapolate the future , they 'd end up with a rather boring SF piece - because tomorrow tends to be a lot like today and because most of the changes are social , not technological .
There are no radical shifts ( call 'em paradigm shifts if you must ) that society goes through .
The only two current major tech .
shifts are both to do with communication - either internet or the ubiquity of mobile phones .
Thtey 've both been around for about 20 year and will take at least that much more before the full effects are established .
Plus , when the efects are known , I 'd be willing to bet that they wo n't be the ones everybody is predicting .
Since the ( social ) changes are n't predictable , they do n't make for great SF as the readers / buyers would n't expect or believe those outcomes .
As has been said many times , SF has got to make sense , whereas real life does n't have to .
That 's what makes writing SF hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SF writing has to be popular.
Either to get readers or to get sales.
That means it's got to strike a chord with the readership (or buyer) and either play on their desires or, provoke their fears.
If a writer was to extrapolate the future, they'd end up with a rather boring SF piece - because tomorrow tends to be a lot like today and because most of the changes are social, not technological.
There are no radical shifts (call 'em paradigm shifts if you must) that society goes through.
The only two current major tech.
shifts are both to do with communication - either internet or the ubiquity of mobile phones.
Thtey've both been around for about 20 year and will take at least that much more before the full effects are established.
Plus, when the efects are known, I'd be willing to bet that they won't be the ones everybody is predicting.
Since the (social) changes aren't predictable, they don't make for great SF as the readers / buyers wouldn't expect or believe those outcomes.
As has been said many times, SF has got to make sense, whereas real life doesn't have to.
That's what makes writing SF hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28162669</id>
	<title>Re:Amnesia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243777920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you. So well put.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
So well put .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
So well put.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164237</id>
	<title>The future has been stolen by BlackOps</title>
	<author>sterlingda</author>
	<datestamp>1243791000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those fancy technologies have been developed.  They just never made it to the civilian population because the BlackOps sequestered them for their own nefarious purposes.  How many of the UFO craft flying overhead are of human origin?  Probably a lot, if not most.  Including cloaking technology.  Many of the wild inventions of our day have been stolen and sequestered.  And anyone who says as much is called a crack pot and put on a list for a concentration camp when the regular civilization starts major meltdown.

The military-industrial complex, and then some. MIB on steroids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those fancy technologies have been developed .
They just never made it to the civilian population because the BlackOps sequestered them for their own nefarious purposes .
How many of the UFO craft flying overhead are of human origin ?
Probably a lot , if not most .
Including cloaking technology .
Many of the wild inventions of our day have been stolen and sequestered .
And anyone who says as much is called a crack pot and put on a list for a concentration camp when the regular civilization starts major meltdown .
The military-industrial complex , and then some .
MIB on steroids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those fancy technologies have been developed.
They just never made it to the civilian population because the BlackOps sequestered them for their own nefarious purposes.
How many of the UFO craft flying overhead are of human origin?
Probably a lot, if not most.
Including cloaking technology.
Many of the wild inventions of our day have been stolen and sequestered.
And anyone who says as much is called a crack pot and put on a list for a concentration camp when the regular civilization starts major meltdown.
The military-industrial complex, and then some.
MIB on steroids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158699</id>
	<title>Re:Amnesia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243788960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, can you send me the name of your Dentist???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , can you send me the name of your Dentist ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, can you send me the name of your Dentist??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160273</id>
	<title>Re:the 4 barriers to progress</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1243800960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you prove to me that 4) has ever happened? Every story I've heard about that has ended up being an urban legend. (Seriously, those stories all equate to: company finds a massive advantage over competitors, buries it instead of racking up the cash. Makes no sense.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you prove to me that 4 ) has ever happened ?
Every story I 've heard about that has ended up being an urban legend .
( Seriously , those stories all equate to : company finds a massive advantage over competitors , buries it instead of racking up the cash .
Makes no sense .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you prove to me that 4) has ever happened?
Every story I've heard about that has ended up being an urban legend.
(Seriously, those stories all equate to: company finds a massive advantage over competitors, buries it instead of racking up the cash.
Makes no sense.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158051</id>
	<title>Technology Hype Cycle</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1243783320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gartner has published a great curve that largely explains this phenomenon.  We start with a new technology (trigger), and it's promise is almost limitless.  It rises rapidly until it peaks at the height of inflated expectations.  Then people realize the hype and we slip into the trough of disillusionment and many times this kills the technology, but if it's viable, it then settles into a steadily rising slope of enlightenment that, over time, becomes the broad productive deployment of the technology.  Classic case: the internet, that went through this cycle through the 90s, hit the trough in 2000/2001, and is now broadly accepted as a part of life.  Every new technology experiences this cycle to some extent.  Wiki has a piece on this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gartner has published a great curve that largely explains this phenomenon .
We start with a new technology ( trigger ) , and it 's promise is almost limitless .
It rises rapidly until it peaks at the height of inflated expectations .
Then people realize the hype and we slip into the trough of disillusionment and many times this kills the technology , but if it 's viable , it then settles into a steadily rising slope of enlightenment that , over time , becomes the broad productive deployment of the technology .
Classic case : the internet , that went through this cycle through the 90s , hit the trough in 2000/2001 , and is now broadly accepted as a part of life .
Every new technology experiences this cycle to some extent .
Wiki has a piece on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gartner has published a great curve that largely explains this phenomenon.
We start with a new technology (trigger), and it's promise is almost limitless.
It rises rapidly until it peaks at the height of inflated expectations.
Then people realize the hype and we slip into the trough of disillusionment and many times this kills the technology, but if it's viable, it then settles into a steadily rising slope of enlightenment that, over time, becomes the broad productive deployment of the technology.
Classic case: the internet, that went through this cycle through the 90s, hit the trough in 2000/2001, and is now broadly accepted as a part of life.
Every new technology experiences this cycle to some extent.
Wiki has a piece on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158153</id>
	<title>Time travel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243783980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So we can go back in time and dup2 this story!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So we can go back in time and dup2 this story !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So we can go back in time and dup2 this story!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157873</id>
	<title>We're much less optimistic now!</title>
	<author>joelholdsworth</author>
	<datestamp>1243781760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to me these days (certainly here in the UK) we have almost no sense of optimism about progress. In the middle of the last century when so much SciFi was created, there was this grand humanistic notion, that one day technology would solve all the wrongs of the world, and we'd all live in peace and harmony e.g. Star Trek.</p><p>These days our optimism has shriveled and died, so that now we no longer dream of a utopia - we just dream of getting by without too much discomfort, and it seems to me like modern SciFi (where it exists) reflects this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me these days ( certainly here in the UK ) we have almost no sense of optimism about progress .
In the middle of the last century when so much SciFi was created , there was this grand humanistic notion , that one day technology would solve all the wrongs of the world , and we 'd all live in peace and harmony e.g .
Star Trek.These days our optimism has shriveled and died , so that now we no longer dream of a utopia - we just dream of getting by without too much discomfort , and it seems to me like modern SciFi ( where it exists ) reflects this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me these days (certainly here in the UK) we have almost no sense of optimism about progress.
In the middle of the last century when so much SciFi was created, there was this grand humanistic notion, that one day technology would solve all the wrongs of the world, and we'd all live in peace and harmony e.g.
Star Trek.These days our optimism has shriveled and died, so that now we no longer dream of a utopia - we just dream of getting by without too much discomfort, and it seems to me like modern SciFi (where it exists) reflects this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157927</id>
	<title>Re:I *am* living in the furture....</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1243782300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you've touched on the real problem... the rate of change is so fast now that no one even notices. In Future Shock Toffler talked about how there are people that just can't deal with the rate of change of the 1960s, and they suffer from a form of disconnection similar to Culture Shock - but with no way to escape from it except drop out of society.</p><p>But those people have dropped out of society; they're in their 80s and 90s. Devices that my father looks at in bewilderment and refuses to even think about are instantly picked up by my daughter who never gives it a second though.</p><p>Progress is so rapid and all-encompassing that we just don't even think about it any more. People talk about the missing future of flying cars, telling us about it in articles they wrote on a computer and uploaded to the internet. *sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 've touched on the real problem... the rate of change is so fast now that no one even notices .
In Future Shock Toffler talked about how there are people that just ca n't deal with the rate of change of the 1960s , and they suffer from a form of disconnection similar to Culture Shock - but with no way to escape from it except drop out of society.But those people have dropped out of society ; they 're in their 80s and 90s .
Devices that my father looks at in bewilderment and refuses to even think about are instantly picked up by my daughter who never gives it a second though.Progress is so rapid and all-encompassing that we just do n't even think about it any more .
People talk about the missing future of flying cars , telling us about it in articles they wrote on a computer and uploaded to the internet .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you've touched on the real problem... the rate of change is so fast now that no one even notices.
In Future Shock Toffler talked about how there are people that just can't deal with the rate of change of the 1960s, and they suffer from a form of disconnection similar to Culture Shock - but with no way to escape from it except drop out of society.But those people have dropped out of society; they're in their 80s and 90s.
Devices that my father looks at in bewilderment and refuses to even think about are instantly picked up by my daughter who never gives it a second though.Progress is so rapid and all-encompassing that we just don't even think about it any more.
People talk about the missing future of flying cars, telling us about it in articles they wrote on a computer and uploaded to the internet.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160059</id>
	<title>Re:Um?</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1243799160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IBesides, there are plenty of sci-fi stories that are about "radical political transformation" as well. "1984"? "Brave New World"?</p></div><p>Star Trek springs to mind. Bunch of workaholic communists... in <i>SPACE!</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IBesides , there are plenty of sci-fi stories that are about " radical political transformation " as well .
" 1984 " ? " Brave New World " ? Star Trek springs to mind .
Bunch of workaholic communists... in SPACE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBesides, there are plenty of sci-fi stories that are about "radical political transformation" as well.
"1984"? "Brave New World"?Star Trek springs to mind.
Bunch of workaholic communists... in SPACE!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161023</id>
	<title>Re:Never?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1243762920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people who DID that weren't Americans, they were English. They BECAME Americans after the big revolution. Never since has such a radical change in the structure of society been accepted.</p><p>Consider, the revolutionary communists and socialists were declared enemies of the state and hounded out of the country ior beaten down until we didn't hear from them anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who DID that were n't Americans , they were English .
They BECAME Americans after the big revolution .
Never since has such a radical change in the structure of society been accepted.Consider , the revolutionary communists and socialists were declared enemies of the state and hounded out of the country ior beaten down until we did n't hear from them anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who DID that weren't Americans, they were English.
They BECAME Americans after the big revolution.
Never since has such a radical change in the structure of society been accepted.Consider, the revolutionary communists and socialists were declared enemies of the state and hounded out of the country ior beaten down until we didn't hear from them anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158401</id>
	<title>Horses?</title>
	<author>johnrpenner</author>
	<datestamp>1243786500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have always considered that the substitution of<br>the Internal Combustion Engine for the horse marked<br>a very gloomy passage in the progress of mankind. (Winston Churchill)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have always considered that the substitution ofthe Internal Combustion Engine for the horse markeda very gloomy passage in the progress of mankind .
( Winston Churchill )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have always considered that the substitution ofthe Internal Combustion Engine for the horse markeda very gloomy passage in the progress of mankind.
(Winston Churchill)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161513</id>
	<title>Re:Amnesia</title>
	<author>NeuroManson</author>
	<datestamp>1243767420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cel phones have some measure of videophone technology built in now (unless all those CNN phone cam reports were faked). They've had video phones around for a while, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videophone" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videophone</a> [wikipedia.org], just recently the technology made it feasable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cel phones have some measure of videophone technology built in now ( unless all those CNN phone cam reports were faked ) .
They 've had video phones around for a while , http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videophone [ wikipedia.org ] , just recently the technology made it feasable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cel phones have some measure of videophone technology built in now (unless all those CNN phone cam reports were faked).
They've had video phones around for a while, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videophone [wikipedia.org], just recently the technology made it feasable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157791</id>
	<title>Um?</title>
	<author>viyh</author>
	<datestamp>1243781040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's "science fiction", not "predictions of the future".

These are creative and imaginative writers. They aren't trying to predict what is going to happen in the future. Besides, there are plenty of sci-fi stories that are about "radical political transformation" as well. "1984"? "Brave New World"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's " science fiction " , not " predictions of the future " .
These are creative and imaginative writers .
They are n't trying to predict what is going to happen in the future .
Besides , there are plenty of sci-fi stories that are about " radical political transformation " as well .
" 1984 " ? " Brave New World " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's "science fiction", not "predictions of the future".
These are creative and imaginative writers.
They aren't trying to predict what is going to happen in the future.
Besides, there are plenty of sci-fi stories that are about "radical political transformation" as well.
"1984"? "Brave New World"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158001</id>
	<title>Re:I still prefer technology</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1243782900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?  Do you have some grievance you're attempting to point out, or are you just trolling?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Do you have some grievance you 're attempting to point out , or are you just trolling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Do you have some grievance you're attempting to point out, or are you just trolling?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893</id>
	<title>Amnesia</title>
	<author>crmartin</author>
	<datestamp>1243781940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, the real issue here is that the guy doesn't actually remember, say, 1960.  We may not have flying cars, but we have cross country plane trips for $14 (in 1960 dollars).  We don't have videophones, but we've got Skype with video on computers -- and it's free.  We're very rarely arrested for being queer, we're rarely getting arrested for voting while incorrectly complected, no one anywhere in the world has smallpox, and hardly anyone has polio.  Famines are the result of political disruptions and the thuggery of Mugabe and his ilk, not lack of food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , the real issue here is that the guy does n't actually remember , say , 1960 .
We may not have flying cars , but we have cross country plane trips for $ 14 ( in 1960 dollars ) .
We do n't have videophones , but we 've got Skype with video on computers -- and it 's free .
We 're very rarely arrested for being queer , we 're rarely getting arrested for voting while incorrectly complected , no one anywhere in the world has smallpox , and hardly anyone has polio .
Famines are the result of political disruptions and the thuggery of Mugabe and his ilk , not lack of food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, the real issue here is that the guy doesn't actually remember, say, 1960.
We may not have flying cars, but we have cross country plane trips for $14 (in 1960 dollars).
We don't have videophones, but we've got Skype with video on computers -- and it's free.
We're very rarely arrested for being queer, we're rarely getting arrested for voting while incorrectly complected, no one anywhere in the world has smallpox, and hardly anyone has polio.
Famines are the result of political disruptions and the thuggery of Mugabe and his ilk, not lack of food.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158379</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason.</title>
	<author>Net\_fiend</author>
	<datestamp>1243786260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just talking to my fiance about this yesterday.  I'm of the belief we would be in a much more technological society if we didn't have so much greed or worry about money in general.  Its a radical idea, having no finances/money.  But its an interesting one.  Where does it say you have to have money in order to survive?  Where does it say you <i>have</i> make money, exchange it for goods, etc etc.  The point is it was an institution put in place a long long time ago and in my opinion only progresses because people put a value to a piece of paper or a precious metal...which when you think about it are metals that could be melted down and put to use in building other stuff.  I do realize that money gives a balance to being able to provide for most peoples.  It regulates the numbers of people being able to feed.  Which in turn is a form of population control, as those unable to feed themselves most likely die.  I'm not sure how one would feed an entire planet by mandating certain people do jobs for the greater good of the people.  Seeing as someone would have to farm, someone would have to provide the food to the people, etc.  A dramatic shift in the way stuff is delivered would have be devised.  And from there I suppose the idea falls apart.</p><p> Keep in mind the above is a "what if" scenario...I'm of course going to work on Monday to make a living and in order to get my paycheck, but I'm just saying.</p><p>We're mining this planet pretty hard afaik not all of these metals generate fast enough for us to replace them.  Granted I most likely won't be alive for this, but there will be generations of others that will be.</p><p>Sometimes I wonder if humanity will go through something similar from Star Trek (all the wars, etc then dumping money for a barter/free system).  I doubt this since greed seems to be an inherent trait that is passed on from generation to generation.  Which when I think about it greed is just selfishness molded into another form.</p><p>At any rate I think we'd have a lot more going for the space exploration and/or computer technology if this were swept away.  Although I do realize that one of two things would most likely happen.  Either a) people would get along and share as a community or b) everyone would be in the mindset of kill or be killed to survive mentality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just talking to my fiance about this yesterday .
I 'm of the belief we would be in a much more technological society if we did n't have so much greed or worry about money in general .
Its a radical idea , having no finances/money .
But its an interesting one .
Where does it say you have to have money in order to survive ?
Where does it say you have make money , exchange it for goods , etc etc .
The point is it was an institution put in place a long long time ago and in my opinion only progresses because people put a value to a piece of paper or a precious metal...which when you think about it are metals that could be melted down and put to use in building other stuff .
I do realize that money gives a balance to being able to provide for most peoples .
It regulates the numbers of people being able to feed .
Which in turn is a form of population control , as those unable to feed themselves most likely die .
I 'm not sure how one would feed an entire planet by mandating certain people do jobs for the greater good of the people .
Seeing as someone would have to farm , someone would have to provide the food to the people , etc .
A dramatic shift in the way stuff is delivered would have be devised .
And from there I suppose the idea falls apart .
Keep in mind the above is a " what if " scenario...I 'm of course going to work on Monday to make a living and in order to get my paycheck , but I 'm just saying.We 're mining this planet pretty hard afaik not all of these metals generate fast enough for us to replace them .
Granted I most likely wo n't be alive for this , but there will be generations of others that will be.Sometimes I wonder if humanity will go through something similar from Star Trek ( all the wars , etc then dumping money for a barter/free system ) .
I doubt this since greed seems to be an inherent trait that is passed on from generation to generation .
Which when I think about it greed is just selfishness molded into another form.At any rate I think we 'd have a lot more going for the space exploration and/or computer technology if this were swept away .
Although I do realize that one of two things would most likely happen .
Either a ) people would get along and share as a community or b ) everyone would be in the mindset of kill or be killed to survive mentality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just talking to my fiance about this yesterday.
I'm of the belief we would be in a much more technological society if we didn't have so much greed or worry about money in general.
Its a radical idea, having no finances/money.
But its an interesting one.
Where does it say you have to have money in order to survive?
Where does it say you have make money, exchange it for goods, etc etc.
The point is it was an institution put in place a long long time ago and in my opinion only progresses because people put a value to a piece of paper or a precious metal...which when you think about it are metals that could be melted down and put to use in building other stuff.
I do realize that money gives a balance to being able to provide for most peoples.
It regulates the numbers of people being able to feed.
Which in turn is a form of population control, as those unable to feed themselves most likely die.
I'm not sure how one would feed an entire planet by mandating certain people do jobs for the greater good of the people.
Seeing as someone would have to farm, someone would have to provide the food to the people, etc.
A dramatic shift in the way stuff is delivered would have be devised.
And from there I suppose the idea falls apart.
Keep in mind the above is a "what if" scenario...I'm of course going to work on Monday to make a living and in order to get my paycheck, but I'm just saying.We're mining this planet pretty hard afaik not all of these metals generate fast enough for us to replace them.
Granted I most likely won't be alive for this, but there will be generations of others that will be.Sometimes I wonder if humanity will go through something similar from Star Trek (all the wars, etc then dumping money for a barter/free system).
I doubt this since greed seems to be an inherent trait that is passed on from generation to generation.
Which when I think about it greed is just selfishness molded into another form.At any rate I think we'd have a lot more going for the space exploration and/or computer technology if this were swept away.
Although I do realize that one of two things would most likely happen.
Either a) people would get along and share as a community or b) everyone would be in the mindset of kill or be killed to survive mentality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159343</id>
	<title>Re:political change is stopped via constitution</title>
	<author>Lonewolf666</author>
	<datestamp>1243794120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Madison et al did this by creating a governmental structure that would increase the number of factions in the political districts by enlarging the political districts.</p></div><p>I call bullshit, because the majority vote system in the US has lead to only two parties having real power in Congress.<br>Third parties (like the Libertarians and the Greens) might get lucky and score a few seats, but they are far from playing a big role. In fact, according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th\_United\_States\_Congress#Party\_summary" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th\_United\_States\_Congress#Party\_summary</a> [wikipedia.org] there are currently only two independent senators and one non-voting independent member in Congress. The rest are either Democrats or Republicans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Madison et al did this by creating a governmental structure that would increase the number of factions in the political districts by enlarging the political districts.I call bullshit , because the majority vote system in the US has lead to only two parties having real power in Congress.Third parties ( like the Libertarians and the Greens ) might get lucky and score a few seats , but they are far from playing a big role .
In fact , according to http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th \ _United \ _States \ _Congress # Party \ _summary [ wikipedia.org ] there are currently only two independent senators and one non-voting independent member in Congress .
The rest are either Democrats or Republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Madison et al did this by creating a governmental structure that would increase the number of factions in the political districts by enlarging the political districts.I call bullshit, because the majority vote system in the US has lead to only two parties having real power in Congress.Third parties (like the Libertarians and the Greens) might get lucky and score a few seats, but they are far from playing a big role.
In fact, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th\_United\_States\_Congress#Party\_summary [wikipedia.org] there are currently only two independent senators and one non-voting independent member in Congress.
The rest are either Democrats or Republicans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158101</id>
	<title>Re:Ego</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243783620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>ironic idiot is ironic.


and an idiot</htmltext>
<tokenext>ironic idiot is ironic .
and an idiot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ironic idiot is ironic.
and an idiot</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28168903</id>
	<title>Re:the 4 barriers to progress</title>
	<author>Quirkz</author>
	<datestamp>1243874820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, don't forget 5. technical people who can invent stuff, but can't for the life of them present it in a fashion that's usable or intelligible to the average person. <p>

I'm a techie, but sometimes I have to work really hard just to get past incomprehensible instructions and functionality to do things I want. If people were better at translating the tech into something friendly, more people would adopt it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , do n't forget 5. technical people who can invent stuff , but ca n't for the life of them present it in a fashion that 's usable or intelligible to the average person .
I 'm a techie , but sometimes I have to work really hard just to get past incomprehensible instructions and functionality to do things I want .
If people were better at translating the tech into something friendly , more people would adopt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, don't forget 5. technical people who can invent stuff, but can't for the life of them present it in a fashion that's usable or intelligible to the average person.
I'm a techie, but sometimes I have to work really hard just to get past incomprehensible instructions and functionality to do things I want.
If people were better at translating the tech into something friendly, more people would adopt it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158643</id>
	<title>Re:The real reason.</title>
	<author>shams42</author>
	<datestamp>1243788480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>the wars between the Cybernetics and the Bio-Engineered would be fierce.</p></div><p>And highly entertaining to the spectators!</p></div><p>We already saw that in Star Wars... clones vs droids.  It was a snoozer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the wars between the Cybernetics and the Bio-Engineered would be fierce.And highly entertaining to the spectators ! We already saw that in Star Wars... clones vs droids .
It was a snoozer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the wars between the Cybernetics and the Bio-Engineered would be fierce.And highly entertaining to the spectators!We already saw that in Star Wars... clones vs droids.
It was a snoozer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159425</id>
	<title>Re:Orwell</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1243794660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Sure. We'll switch to Animal Farm! Thanks for the tip!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sure .
We 'll switch to Animal Farm !
Thanks for the tip !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sure.
We'll switch to Animal Farm!
Thanks for the tip!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139</id>
	<title>the 4 barriers to progress</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1243783920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. stupid people who can't figure out how to use technology.  This is the cause of the "easy to use" revolution.</p><p>2. religious zealots who find technology to be "indistinguishable from magic" and therefore "against god".</p><p>3. government who chooses not to invest in new technologies and continues to utilize old technologies due to budgeting priorities.</p><p>4. industry as a whole who buys and buries new technologies until they can no longer sell old technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. stupid people who ca n't figure out how to use technology .
This is the cause of the " easy to use " revolution.2 .
religious zealots who find technology to be " indistinguishable from magic " and therefore " against god " .3. government who chooses not to invest in new technologies and continues to utilize old technologies due to budgeting priorities.4 .
industry as a whole who buys and buries new technologies until they can no longer sell old technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. stupid people who can't figure out how to use technology.
This is the cause of the "easy to use" revolution.2.
religious zealots who find technology to be "indistinguishable from magic" and therefore "against god".3. government who chooses not to invest in new technologies and continues to utilize old technologies due to budgeting priorities.4.
industry as a whole who buys and buries new technologies until they can no longer sell old technologies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158589</id>
	<title>Re:Amnesia</title>
	<author>dnwq</author>
	<datestamp>1243788060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.threepanelsoul.com/view.php?date=2008-11-05" title="threepanelsoul.com">This comic</a> [threepanelsoul.com] captures this point very clearly.

Also:

"[The] future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed." - William Gibson</htmltext>
<tokenext>This comic [ threepanelsoul.com ] captures this point very clearly .
Also : " [ The ] future is already here .
It 's just not very evenly distributed .
" - William Gibson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comic [threepanelsoul.com] captures this point very clearly.
Also:

"[The] future is already here.
It's just not very evenly distributed.
" - William Gibson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164113</id>
	<title>A for Anything</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1243790040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was on hiatus from SciFi in the 70s, but the two books recommended to me that I did read were The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldrich (a whole different story) and <a href="http://www.geocities.com/fantasticreviews/a\_for\_anything.htm" title="geocities.com">A for Anything</a> [geocities.com] by Damon Knight.  Basically, the premise is that when goods can be copied and produced on a whim, the only remaining valuable commodity is slave labor.  Pretty prescient for a book written in 1959 by a guy who died around 80 seven years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was on hiatus from SciFi in the 70s , but the two books recommended to me that I did read were The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldrich ( a whole different story ) and A for Anything [ geocities.com ] by Damon Knight .
Basically , the premise is that when goods can be copied and produced on a whim , the only remaining valuable commodity is slave labor .
Pretty prescient for a book written in 1959 by a guy who died around 80 seven years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was on hiatus from SciFi in the 70s, but the two books recommended to me that I did read were The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldrich (a whole different story) and A for Anything [geocities.com] by Damon Knight.
Basically, the premise is that when goods can be copied and produced on a whim, the only remaining valuable commodity is slave labor.
Pretty prescient for a book written in 1959 by a guy who died around 80 seven years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159219</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>rxan</author>
	<datestamp>1243793160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead, society directs much of its energy toward stopping progress by trying to keep as many people as possible as busy as possible whether that has a purpose or not.</p></div><p>I'm pretty sure that people used to work in factories for 18 hours a day. The move to 8 hours of labour, 8 hours of relaxation, 8 hours of rest was a huge one and has generally continued into our society.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The invention of the tractor could have meant much more leisure time for a society that had a large agricultural base, but instead, due to unequal wealth distribution, it just meant one person working even longer hours and a lot of people desperately trying to find something else to do. That pattern has been seen again and again, resulting in increasingly pointless jobs as surplus labour attempts to justify an income.</p></div><p>What do you think was going to happen? The owner lets everyone work less hours and pay them the same amount? People seem to think that technologies working for us should correlate with more leisure time. This is naive. Technologies would not be implemented unless they were cheaper, which is what always happens. This causes jobs to be cut because the tech is more favorable than people.

</p><p>Industries change. In this case, there was a movement from rural to urban areas and a greater focus on technology. Because we don't have as many people in agricultural employment, we have greater technology which helps health, entertainment, and life in general.

</p><p>I can't see why you don't see these progressive changes as good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead , society directs much of its energy toward stopping progress by trying to keep as many people as possible as busy as possible whether that has a purpose or not.I 'm pretty sure that people used to work in factories for 18 hours a day .
The move to 8 hours of labour , 8 hours of relaxation , 8 hours of rest was a huge one and has generally continued into our society.The invention of the tractor could have meant much more leisure time for a society that had a large agricultural base , but instead , due to unequal wealth distribution , it just meant one person working even longer hours and a lot of people desperately trying to find something else to do .
That pattern has been seen again and again , resulting in increasingly pointless jobs as surplus labour attempts to justify an income.What do you think was going to happen ?
The owner lets everyone work less hours and pay them the same amount ?
People seem to think that technologies working for us should correlate with more leisure time .
This is naive .
Technologies would not be implemented unless they were cheaper , which is what always happens .
This causes jobs to be cut because the tech is more favorable than people .
Industries change .
In this case , there was a movement from rural to urban areas and a greater focus on technology .
Because we do n't have as many people in agricultural employment , we have greater technology which helps health , entertainment , and life in general .
I ca n't see why you do n't see these progressive changes as good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead, society directs much of its energy toward stopping progress by trying to keep as many people as possible as busy as possible whether that has a purpose or not.I'm pretty sure that people used to work in factories for 18 hours a day.
The move to 8 hours of labour, 8 hours of relaxation, 8 hours of rest was a huge one and has generally continued into our society.The invention of the tractor could have meant much more leisure time for a society that had a large agricultural base, but instead, due to unequal wealth distribution, it just meant one person working even longer hours and a lot of people desperately trying to find something else to do.
That pattern has been seen again and again, resulting in increasingly pointless jobs as surplus labour attempts to justify an income.What do you think was going to happen?
The owner lets everyone work less hours and pay them the same amount?
People seem to think that technologies working for us should correlate with more leisure time.
This is naive.
Technologies would not be implemented unless they were cheaper, which is what always happens.
This causes jobs to be cut because the tech is more favorable than people.
Industries change.
In this case, there was a movement from rural to urban areas and a greater focus on technology.
Because we don't have as many people in agricultural employment, we have greater technology which helps health, entertainment, and life in general.
I can't see why you don't see these progressive changes as good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158159</id>
	<title>Re:Ego</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243784040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here, here!
<br> <br>
These things are all just advertising and datamining traps.  <br> <br>In other news, I used FB briefly at the request of a friend.  I had people coming out of the woodwork I had not heard from since high school (~15 years ago for me) sending me friend requests, but no messages.  These were the same people who had paid me no attention in high school.  Fools simply wanted to increase their friend counts.  I de-activated my account after about five days, and guess what? That data does not belong to me and will never go away.<br> <br> Despite my career as a coder, I prefer to keep a very small online footprint.  Try to find me online somewhere (slashdot doesn't count) <br> <br>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , here !
These things are all just advertising and datamining traps .
In other news , I used FB briefly at the request of a friend .
I had people coming out of the woodwork I had not heard from since high school ( ~ 15 years ago for me ) sending me friend requests , but no messages .
These were the same people who had paid me no attention in high school .
Fools simply wanted to increase their friend counts .
I de-activated my account after about five days , and guess what ?
That data does not belong to me and will never go away .
Despite my career as a coder , I prefer to keep a very small online footprint .
Try to find me online somewhere ( slashdot does n't count ) ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, here!
These things are all just advertising and datamining traps.
In other news, I used FB briefly at the request of a friend.
I had people coming out of the woodwork I had not heard from since high school (~15 years ago for me) sending me friend requests, but no messages.
These were the same people who had paid me no attention in high school.
Fools simply wanted to increase their friend counts.
I de-activated my account after about five days, and guess what?
That data does not belong to me and will never go away.
Despite my career as a coder, I prefer to keep a very small online footprint.
Try to find me online somewhere (slashdot doesn't count)  ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159021</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>h4rm0ny</author>
	<datestamp>1243791480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, cars have had an amazing positive impact. If you think they can do more, that's a separate argument.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Accepted, more or less. I have a tendency to compare with what could be, rather than what has. Still, perhaps my main fault is not questioning TFS. I expect on reflection that people from a century ago probably would admire how clean our city streets were. TFS, however, implies that this is not so.
<br> <br>
So fair enough on your post. Though I <i>am</i> quite happy to make that separate argument if anybody wants.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , cars have had an amazing positive impact .
If you think they can do more , that 's a separate argument .
Accepted , more or less .
I have a tendency to compare with what could be , rather than what has .
Still , perhaps my main fault is not questioning TFS .
I expect on reflection that people from a century ago probably would admire how clean our city streets were .
TFS , however , implies that this is not so .
So fair enough on your post .
Though I am quite happy to make that separate argument if anybody wants .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, cars have had an amazing positive impact.
If you think they can do more, that's a separate argument.
Accepted, more or less.
I have a tendency to compare with what could be, rather than what has.
Still, perhaps my main fault is not questioning TFS.
I expect on reflection that people from a century ago probably would admire how clean our city streets were.
TFS, however, implies that this is not so.
So fair enough on your post.
Though I am quite happy to make that separate argument if anybody wants.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159459</id>
	<title>What went wrong? Innovation slowed down.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1243794840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's worth comparing 1909, 1959, and 2009.
</p><p>
Almost everything we have now existed in 1959, although more expensive and clunkier.  Jet aircraft, nuclear power, rockets, transistors, computers, television, car mobile phones, solar cells, freeways, plastics, antibiotics, mass produced cars, shopping malls, and home appliances were all in existence by 1959. DNA had been figured out. Even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan\_55-A" title="wikipedia.org">e-mail</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi\_Automatic\_Ground\_Environment" title="wikipedia.org">computer networks</a> [wikipedia.org] were starting to work.  <i>None</i> of those things existed in 1909.
</p><p>
What we have today are mostly improvements on those technologies.
</p><p>
What didn't we get that was expected?  Lots of things.  A new source of energy.  Strong AI. Antigravity. General purpose robots. Workable space travel.
</p><p>
If you look at 50 year intervals since 1759, there's been less fundamental change in the last 50 years than in any of the previous five periods.
</p><p>
This is a real problem, because we're stuck with a set of technologies that rely on depleting resources that won't last another 50 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth comparing 1909 , 1959 , and 2009 .
Almost everything we have now existed in 1959 , although more expensive and clunkier .
Jet aircraft , nuclear power , rockets , transistors , computers , television , car mobile phones , solar cells , freeways , plastics , antibiotics , mass produced cars , shopping malls , and home appliances were all in existence by 1959 .
DNA had been figured out .
Even e-mail [ wikipedia.org ] and computer networks [ wikipedia.org ] were starting to work .
None of those things existed in 1909 .
What we have today are mostly improvements on those technologies .
What did n't we get that was expected ?
Lots of things .
A new source of energy .
Strong AI .
Antigravity. General purpose robots .
Workable space travel .
If you look at 50 year intervals since 1759 , there 's been less fundamental change in the last 50 years than in any of the previous five periods .
This is a real problem , because we 're stuck with a set of technologies that rely on depleting resources that wo n't last another 50 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's worth comparing 1909, 1959, and 2009.
Almost everything we have now existed in 1959, although more expensive and clunkier.
Jet aircraft, nuclear power, rockets, transistors, computers, television, car mobile phones, solar cells, freeways, plastics, antibiotics, mass produced cars, shopping malls, and home appliances were all in existence by 1959.
DNA had been figured out.
Even e-mail [wikipedia.org] and computer networks [wikipedia.org] were starting to work.
None of those things existed in 1909.
What we have today are mostly improvements on those technologies.
What didn't we get that was expected?
Lots of things.
A new source of energy.
Strong AI.
Antigravity. General purpose robots.
Workable space travel.
If you look at 50 year intervals since 1759, there's been less fundamental change in the last 50 years than in any of the previous five periods.
This is a real problem, because we're stuck with a set of technologies that rely on depleting resources that won't last another 50 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160015</id>
	<title>Re:Never?</title>
	<author>The Lynxpro</author>
	<datestamp>1243798920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't say the founding of the United States was all that radical.  We almost ended up with King George III's son as the new nation's king.  The motion only lost by one vote.  Noah Webster - founder of Webster's Dictionary - was a strong proponent of an "independent" American monarchy directly related to the British monarchy just as the Bourbons ruled Spain and France.  This is not taught in the K-12 public education system even for those students who actually care to learn about the nation's history.</p><p>The "President" as an Executive Office position was meant to be held for life and picked by the Senate*.  That is pretty close to a kingship without the royal trappings.</p><p>The Senate was meant to ape the British House of Lords but without the hereditary peerage.  For examples of this, see the Canadian Senate or the modern British House of Lords post-Tony Blair's so-called "reforms" via New Labour.</p><p>The House of Representatives was meant to ape the House of Commons.  Granted, the House of Commons has more power than the House of Representatives does since the Commons has been more powerful than the Lords since WWI.</p><p>Any university level history course on early American history will point out these facts.  Had our nation truly been founded in radicalism, then we would not have retained the English language as our - unofficial - language nor would we have retained the English Common Law as our legal system.  We'd have some other radical government system resembling some of the ideas discussed during the earlier English Civil War that were squashed, like the proto-communism of the Diggers (not to be confused with the often left-leaning members of digg.com).</p><p>*The English/British Parliament had chosen its monarch more than once before the American Revolution so the selection of the American Executive Office by the Senate was not an example of revolutionary political reform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't say the founding of the United States was all that radical .
We almost ended up with King George III 's son as the new nation 's king .
The motion only lost by one vote .
Noah Webster - founder of Webster 's Dictionary - was a strong proponent of an " independent " American monarchy directly related to the British monarchy just as the Bourbons ruled Spain and France .
This is not taught in the K-12 public education system even for those students who actually care to learn about the nation 's history.The " President " as an Executive Office position was meant to be held for life and picked by the Senate * .
That is pretty close to a kingship without the royal trappings.The Senate was meant to ape the British House of Lords but without the hereditary peerage .
For examples of this , see the Canadian Senate or the modern British House of Lords post-Tony Blair 's so-called " reforms " via New Labour.The House of Representatives was meant to ape the House of Commons .
Granted , the House of Commons has more power than the House of Representatives does since the Commons has been more powerful than the Lords since WWI.Any university level history course on early American history will point out these facts .
Had our nation truly been founded in radicalism , then we would not have retained the English language as our - unofficial - language nor would we have retained the English Common Law as our legal system .
We 'd have some other radical government system resembling some of the ideas discussed during the earlier English Civil War that were squashed , like the proto-communism of the Diggers ( not to be confused with the often left-leaning members of digg.com ) .
* The English/British Parliament had chosen its monarch more than once before the American Revolution so the selection of the American Executive Office by the Senate was not an example of revolutionary political reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't say the founding of the United States was all that radical.
We almost ended up with King George III's son as the new nation's king.
The motion only lost by one vote.
Noah Webster - founder of Webster's Dictionary - was a strong proponent of an "independent" American monarchy directly related to the British monarchy just as the Bourbons ruled Spain and France.
This is not taught in the K-12 public education system even for those students who actually care to learn about the nation's history.The "President" as an Executive Office position was meant to be held for life and picked by the Senate*.
That is pretty close to a kingship without the royal trappings.The Senate was meant to ape the British House of Lords but without the hereditary peerage.
For examples of this, see the Canadian Senate or the modern British House of Lords post-Tony Blair's so-called "reforms" via New Labour.The House of Representatives was meant to ape the House of Commons.
Granted, the House of Commons has more power than the House of Representatives does since the Commons has been more powerful than the Lords since WWI.Any university level history course on early American history will point out these facts.
Had our nation truly been founded in radicalism, then we would not have retained the English language as our - unofficial - language nor would we have retained the English Common Law as our legal system.
We'd have some other radical government system resembling some of the ideas discussed during the earlier English Civil War that were squashed, like the proto-communism of the Diggers (not to be confused with the often left-leaning members of digg.com).
*The English/British Parliament had chosen its monarch more than once before the American Revolution so the selection of the American Executive Office by the Senate was not an example of revolutionary political reform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28168991</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>big\_paul76</author>
	<datestamp>1243875180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to nit-pick, but there's very little evidence that anybody ever thought the world was flat.</p><p>There's a reference in one of the works of Thomas Aquinas where he says something like "...we know this as surely as we know the world is round" or something.</p><p>That said, I think you're right. 100 years ago, sewage was considered "treated" if it was dumped in a river. 100 years ago, you could hire pinkertons to break up a strike. By many measures things are better off now than they were 100 or 200 or however many years ago you like.</p><p>However, some things are arguably worse now than they were 30 or 40 years ago. When my father was my age, he had less education than I have now and he was economically better off than I am today. Yes, I have a cell phone and 2 computers and all that stuff, but the cost of manufacturing per unit of manufactured products has consistently fallen, so that's to be expected.</p><p>You know another way we're not better off? Income distribution. Right now, we've got the widest division between rich and poor since the "gilded age" of the late 19th century.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to nit-pick , but there 's very little evidence that anybody ever thought the world was flat.There 's a reference in one of the works of Thomas Aquinas where he says something like " ...we know this as surely as we know the world is round " or something.That said , I think you 're right .
100 years ago , sewage was considered " treated " if it was dumped in a river .
100 years ago , you could hire pinkertons to break up a strike .
By many measures things are better off now than they were 100 or 200 or however many years ago you like.However , some things are arguably worse now than they were 30 or 40 years ago .
When my father was my age , he had less education than I have now and he was economically better off than I am today .
Yes , I have a cell phone and 2 computers and all that stuff , but the cost of manufacturing per unit of manufactured products has consistently fallen , so that 's to be expected.You know another way we 're not better off ?
Income distribution .
Right now , we 've got the widest division between rich and poor since the " gilded age " of the late 19th century .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to nit-pick, but there's very little evidence that anybody ever thought the world was flat.There's a reference in one of the works of Thomas Aquinas where he says something like "...we know this as surely as we know the world is round" or something.That said, I think you're right.
100 years ago, sewage was considered "treated" if it was dumped in a river.
100 years ago, you could hire pinkertons to break up a strike.
By many measures things are better off now than they were 100 or 200 or however many years ago you like.However, some things are arguably worse now than they were 30 or 40 years ago.
When my father was my age, he had less education than I have now and he was economically better off than I am today.
Yes, I have a cell phone and 2 computers and all that stuff, but the cost of manufacturing per unit of manufactured products has consistently fallen, so that's to be expected.You know another way we're not better off?
Income distribution.
Right now, we've got the widest division between rich and poor since the "gilded age" of the late 19th century.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158491</id>
	<title>Top 10 reasons today is better.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1243787220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10) We did not destroy ourselves in a holocaust by 1960, by 1980, or by 2000, as many sci-fi writers have depicted.</p><p>9) In 'Future World" marketing shows, the man watched black and white TV or listened to the radio after he got home from work while the woman cleaned and made tv dinners.  Now, men can play xbox 360 all day because the women cook and clean, AND have a job.</p><p>8) The biggest alien species we have possibly countered so far is a couple of dents on the size of a martian meteor.</p><p>7) Automation has made consumer products that we know better, and allowed for the use of new ones.    Seriously, have you seen the documentary about the construction of an aluminum block for an engine?  There's no way a human could cut with the tolerances and precision that these machines gave, and they didn't.  Reliability is much, much better.</p><p>6) Materials are better.  Man, they thought the future of everything was going to be stainless steel.  Now, we can consumer products made from titanium.  How cool is that?</p><p>5) Dual metal steak knives as seen on TV are frankly of a better quality than some of the finest japanese swords from the samurai era.  The steel on the back is better, the forging is more consistent, the sharp end has a better grade of metal...</p><p>3) We have more and better food than we could have ever had before.</p><p>2) Our computers are hands down better than the computers depicted in the Star Trek, TOS, and in fact, are better than any computer depicted in any sci-fi medium or promise before then.</p><p>1) This is a great time for whiskey.  American and Scottish producers are producing wonderful, wonderful spirits these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 ) We did not destroy ourselves in a holocaust by 1960 , by 1980 , or by 2000 , as many sci-fi writers have depicted.9 ) In 'Future World " marketing shows , the man watched black and white TV or listened to the radio after he got home from work while the woman cleaned and made tv dinners .
Now , men can play xbox 360 all day because the women cook and clean , AND have a job.8 ) The biggest alien species we have possibly countered so far is a couple of dents on the size of a martian meteor.7 ) Automation has made consumer products that we know better , and allowed for the use of new ones .
Seriously , have you seen the documentary about the construction of an aluminum block for an engine ?
There 's no way a human could cut with the tolerances and precision that these machines gave , and they did n't .
Reliability is much , much better.6 ) Materials are better .
Man , they thought the future of everything was going to be stainless steel .
Now , we can consumer products made from titanium .
How cool is that ? 5 ) Dual metal steak knives as seen on TV are frankly of a better quality than some of the finest japanese swords from the samurai era .
The steel on the back is better , the forging is more consistent , the sharp end has a better grade of metal...3 ) We have more and better food than we could have ever had before.2 ) Our computers are hands down better than the computers depicted in the Star Trek , TOS , and in fact , are better than any computer depicted in any sci-fi medium or promise before then.1 ) This is a great time for whiskey .
American and Scottish producers are producing wonderful , wonderful spirits these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10) We did not destroy ourselves in a holocaust by 1960, by 1980, or by 2000, as many sci-fi writers have depicted.9) In 'Future World" marketing shows, the man watched black and white TV or listened to the radio after he got home from work while the woman cleaned and made tv dinners.
Now, men can play xbox 360 all day because the women cook and clean, AND have a job.8) The biggest alien species we have possibly countered so far is a couple of dents on the size of a martian meteor.7) Automation has made consumer products that we know better, and allowed for the use of new ones.
Seriously, have you seen the documentary about the construction of an aluminum block for an engine?
There's no way a human could cut with the tolerances and precision that these machines gave, and they didn't.
Reliability is much, much better.6) Materials are better.
Man, they thought the future of everything was going to be stainless steel.
Now, we can consumer products made from titanium.
How cool is that?5) Dual metal steak knives as seen on TV are frankly of a better quality than some of the finest japanese swords from the samurai era.
The steel on the back is better, the forging is more consistent, the sharp end has a better grade of metal...3) We have more and better food than we could have ever had before.2) Our computers are hands down better than the computers depicted in the Star Trek, TOS, and in fact, are better than any computer depicted in any sci-fi medium or promise before then.1) This is a great time for whiskey.
American and Scottish producers are producing wonderful, wonderful spirits these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158315</id>
	<title>Ad-Execs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243785780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I blame the Advertising  executives that brought us Atomic Ming  the Merciless palace style gas stations in the fifties. The problem is people focusing on what has not come to pass and not focusing on why much of it is a silly idea in the first place..

What distresses me more is what passes for Science Fiction today should be more often called Science Fantasy, in that it predicts a completely impossible future with our current understanding of Science.

I believe a prime example would be people dreaming  up self sustaining colonies on Mars when recent studies of  embryonic development in the microgravity environment appear to show that gravity is a big  factor in fetal development.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I blame the Advertising executives that brought us Atomic Ming the Merciless palace style gas stations in the fifties .
The problem is people focusing on what has not come to pass and not focusing on why much of it is a silly idea in the first place. . What distresses me more is what passes for Science Fiction today should be more often called Science Fantasy , in that it predicts a completely impossible future with our current understanding of Science .
I believe a prime example would be people dreaming up self sustaining colonies on Mars when recent studies of embryonic development in the microgravity environment appear to show that gravity is a big factor in fetal development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blame the Advertising  executives that brought us Atomic Ming  the Merciless palace style gas stations in the fifties.
The problem is people focusing on what has not come to pass and not focusing on why much of it is a silly idea in the first place..

What distresses me more is what passes for Science Fiction today should be more often called Science Fantasy, in that it predicts a completely impossible future with our current understanding of Science.
I believe a prime example would be people dreaming  up self sustaining colonies on Mars when recent studies of  embryonic development in the microgravity environment appear to show that gravity is a big  factor in fetal development.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28168867</id>
	<title>no wonder we're not optimistic...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243874700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, is it any surprise that we have less optimism?</p><p>I'm 33 years old. When my dad was my age, he was a mere civil servant, with less education than I have now, and he was able to own a house, 2 cars, and support a family of 4 on his salary alone.</p><p>For me, home ownership (granted I live in an expensive city) means either moving out to god-awful suburbs and turning my 20-minute commute into a 90 minute (each way) commute, or requires a lottery win.</p><p>When my dad was my age, your median value house had a purchase price of 5X the median income, not 10-15X median income.</p><p>We're seeing something unique in recent history - for at least the last 100 years, (maybe more, depending on where you are) most people expected to do better, economically speaking, than their parents did.</p><p>I am \_already\_ not doing as well economically as my parents did when they were my age.</p><p>We all thought that automation and industrialism would lead to more leisure time and less work. Well, yeah, that's happened - it's lead to unemployment. Presumably, the unemployed have more leisure time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , is it any surprise that we have less optimism ? I 'm 33 years old .
When my dad was my age , he was a mere civil servant , with less education than I have now , and he was able to own a house , 2 cars , and support a family of 4 on his salary alone.For me , home ownership ( granted I live in an expensive city ) means either moving out to god-awful suburbs and turning my 20-minute commute into a 90 minute ( each way ) commute , or requires a lottery win.When my dad was my age , your median value house had a purchase price of 5X the median income , not 10-15X median income.We 're seeing something unique in recent history - for at least the last 100 years , ( maybe more , depending on where you are ) most people expected to do better , economically speaking , than their parents did.I am \ _already \ _ not doing as well economically as my parents did when they were my age.We all thought that automation and industrialism would lead to more leisure time and less work .
Well , yeah , that 's happened - it 's lead to unemployment .
Presumably , the unemployed have more leisure time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, is it any surprise that we have less optimism?I'm 33 years old.
When my dad was my age, he was a mere civil servant, with less education than I have now, and he was able to own a house, 2 cars, and support a family of 4 on his salary alone.For me, home ownership (granted I live in an expensive city) means either moving out to god-awful suburbs and turning my 20-minute commute into a 90 minute (each way) commute, or requires a lottery win.When my dad was my age, your median value house had a purchase price of 5X the median income, not 10-15X median income.We're seeing something unique in recent history - for at least the last 100 years, (maybe more, depending on where you are) most people expected to do better, economically speaking, than their parents did.I am \_already\_ not doing as well economically as my parents did when they were my age.We all thought that automation and industrialism would lead to more leisure time and less work.
Well, yeah, that's happened - it's lead to unemployment.
Presumably, the unemployed have more leisure time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164417</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1243792680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If you go back, before the rise of the automobile, you'll find trolleys in many major American cities. Check the history of your own town. Did it have trolleys? If so, where did they go?</i> <p>
More or less where the primary bus lines run now and the horse cars ran a generation earlier. There would be some suburban services and quite likely a lake shore trolley park.</p><p>
The trolley ran down the center of the street. It could be a brutally congested and dangerous environment downtown. Boarding the trolley was not half so easy or as much fun as the movie makes it.</p><p> You need to think big city - a working class city - Buffalo, Chicago.</p><p>To make financial sense a mass transit line has always needed to move a lot of people within a relatively confined and manageable space.</p><p>

<i>Why did the Federal Government decide to commit it's resources to an Interstate Highway System rather than an Interstate Rail System?</i> </p><p>
Because we already had an interstate rail system.</p><p>
Rail is very good at moving bulk freight.<br> Industrial feed stocks.<br> The mile long unit train that moves nothing but coal from the mine to the power plant.</p><p>
But on a smaller scale - portal to portal - the car or the truck is likely be at least as fast and far more flexible.
</p><p><i>Why do passenger trains criss cross Europe and Japan, but not the United States?</i> </p><p> 
Passenger rail needs a relatively short, high density, corridor to be profitable.<br> Boston - New York - Washington.</p><p>
The geek needs to think more clearly about American geography. How our cities and transport systems evolved.</p><p>
The Great Lakes and the Mohawk Valley encouraged deep penetration inland.</p><p>But the natural trade routes are almost entirely north-south.</p><p> The Atlantic Coast. The Mississippi Valley. The Pacific Coast. The Appalachians and the Rockies were always significant barriers. </p><p>
The Hispanic will be reminded of El Camino Real - the Mission Trai. El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro - the road to Mexico City.</p><p>
Criss-crossing the United States has never been an easy problem to solve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go back , before the rise of the automobile , you 'll find trolleys in many major American cities .
Check the history of your own town .
Did it have trolleys ?
If so , where did they go ?
More or less where the primary bus lines run now and the horse cars ran a generation earlier .
There would be some suburban services and quite likely a lake shore trolley park .
The trolley ran down the center of the street .
It could be a brutally congested and dangerous environment downtown .
Boarding the trolley was not half so easy or as much fun as the movie makes it .
You need to think big city - a working class city - Buffalo , Chicago.To make financial sense a mass transit line has always needed to move a lot of people within a relatively confined and manageable space .
Why did the Federal Government decide to commit it 's resources to an Interstate Highway System rather than an Interstate Rail System ?
Because we already had an interstate rail system .
Rail is very good at moving bulk freight .
Industrial feed stocks .
The mile long unit train that moves nothing but coal from the mine to the power plant .
But on a smaller scale - portal to portal - the car or the truck is likely be at least as fast and far more flexible .
Why do passenger trains criss cross Europe and Japan , but not the United States ?
Passenger rail needs a relatively short , high density , corridor to be profitable .
Boston - New York - Washington .
The geek needs to think more clearly about American geography .
How our cities and transport systems evolved .
The Great Lakes and the Mohawk Valley encouraged deep penetration inland.But the natural trade routes are almost entirely north-south .
The Atlantic Coast .
The Mississippi Valley .
The Pacific Coast .
The Appalachians and the Rockies were always significant barriers .
The Hispanic will be reminded of El Camino Real - the Mission Trai .
El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro - the road to Mexico City .
Criss-crossing the United States has never been an easy problem to solve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go back, before the rise of the automobile, you'll find trolleys in many major American cities.
Check the history of your own town.
Did it have trolleys?
If so, where did they go?
More or less where the primary bus lines run now and the horse cars ran a generation earlier.
There would be some suburban services and quite likely a lake shore trolley park.
The trolley ran down the center of the street.
It could be a brutally congested and dangerous environment downtown.
Boarding the trolley was not half so easy or as much fun as the movie makes it.
You need to think big city - a working class city - Buffalo, Chicago.To make financial sense a mass transit line has always needed to move a lot of people within a relatively confined and manageable space.
Why did the Federal Government decide to commit it's resources to an Interstate Highway System rather than an Interstate Rail System?
Because we already had an interstate rail system.
Rail is very good at moving bulk freight.
Industrial feed stocks.
The mile long unit train that moves nothing but coal from the mine to the power plant.
But on a smaller scale - portal to portal - the car or the truck is likely be at least as fast and far more flexible.
Why do passenger trains criss cross Europe and Japan, but not the United States?
Passenger rail needs a relatively short, high density, corridor to be profitable.
Boston - New York - Washington.
The geek needs to think more clearly about American geography.
How our cities and transport systems evolved.
The Great Lakes and the Mohawk Valley encouraged deep penetration inland.But the natural trade routes are almost entirely north-south.
The Atlantic Coast.
The Mississippi Valley.
The Pacific Coast.
The Appalachians and the Rockies were always significant barriers.
The Hispanic will be reminded of El Camino Real - the Mission Trai.
El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro - the road to Mexico City.
Criss-crossing the United States has never been an easy problem to solve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157797</id>
	<title>SPOILER!</title>
	<author>Zero\_Independent</author>
	<datestamp>1243781100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FUCKING SPOILER ALERT! Article gives away ending of Battlestar Galactica. Goddamn it! I mean that shit hasn't been concluded for more than a year or two. What the hell?</htmltext>
<tokenext>FUCKING SPOILER ALERT !
Article gives away ending of Battlestar Galactica .
Goddamn it !
I mean that shit has n't been concluded for more than a year or two .
What the hell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUCKING SPOILER ALERT!
Article gives away ending of Battlestar Galactica.
Goddamn it!
I mean that shit hasn't been concluded for more than a year or two.
What the hell?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158523</id>
	<title>Re:Ego</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1243787520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh please.</p><p>Anyone with a copy of your high school yearbook can mine more data that you gave to Facebook.</p><p>Plus, plenty of it is obviously bogus noise. It can either be in<br>jest, or socially expedient or intentionally wrong specifically<br>meant to foul those data warehouses.</p><p>I am more bothered by the local B&amp;M store cashier doing this than the likes of facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh please.Anyone with a copy of your high school yearbook can mine more data that you gave to Facebook.Plus , plenty of it is obviously bogus noise .
It can either be injest , or socially expedient or intentionally wrong specificallymeant to foul those data warehouses.I am more bothered by the local B&amp;M store cashier doing this than the likes of facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh please.Anyone with a copy of your high school yearbook can mine more data that you gave to Facebook.Plus, plenty of it is obviously bogus noise.
It can either be injest, or socially expedient or intentionally wrong specificallymeant to foul those data warehouses.I am more bothered by the local B&amp;M store cashier doing this than the likes of facebook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161867</id>
	<title>Nope, Slavery not abolished...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243770540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The abolition of <i>legal</i> slavery, but we still have lots of slavery here.  (And a lot more around the world.)  It's actually cheaper to own a slave today than it was in the 1800s, which means slaves are more disposable.  (See <a href="http://www.riverofinnocents.com/" title="riverofinnocents.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.riverofinnocents.com/</a> [riverofinnocents.com])</p><p>It's also worth noting that the abolition of slavery in the 1800s was by no means something that Americans simply accepted.  The Civil war was rather a big deal.</p><p>You're right about desegregation, though--it, too, had opponents, but as a nation we mostly embraced it.  (Though there are still plenty of towns where you can should expect to be harassed by uniformed men with guns if your skin is the wrong color.)</p><p>Also, women's suffrage and equal opportunity employment between genders are good examples that support your point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The abolition of legal slavery , but we still have lots of slavery here .
( And a lot more around the world .
) It 's actually cheaper to own a slave today than it was in the 1800s , which means slaves are more disposable .
( See http : //www.riverofinnocents.com/ [ riverofinnocents.com ] ) It 's also worth noting that the abolition of slavery in the 1800s was by no means something that Americans simply accepted .
The Civil war was rather a big deal.You 're right about desegregation , though--it , too , had opponents , but as a nation we mostly embraced it .
( Though there are still plenty of towns where you can should expect to be harassed by uniformed men with guns if your skin is the wrong color .
) Also , women 's suffrage and equal opportunity employment between genders are good examples that support your point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The abolition of legal slavery, but we still have lots of slavery here.
(And a lot more around the world.
)  It's actually cheaper to own a slave today than it was in the 1800s, which means slaves are more disposable.
(See http://www.riverofinnocents.com/ [riverofinnocents.com])It's also worth noting that the abolition of slavery in the 1800s was by no means something that Americans simply accepted.
The Civil war was rather a big deal.You're right about desegregation, though--it, too, had opponents, but as a nation we mostly embraced it.
(Though there are still plenty of towns where you can should expect to be harassed by uniformed men with guns if your skin is the wrong color.
)Also, women's suffrage and equal opportunity employment between genders are good examples that support your point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159541</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243795500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities. Well the thing is they could have done a lot. Why hasn't this happened?</i> </p><p>It did happen.  Cities are so much cleaner and smell so much nicer than they used to that it is practically a miracle.  You kids today have no idea how awful cities used to be.  I still don't like them and they still smell bad, but they are nothing compared to the filthy hell-holes they used to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities .
Well the thing is they could have done a lot .
Why has n't this happened ?
It did happen .
Cities are so much cleaner and smell so much nicer than they used to that it is practically a miracle .
You kids today have no idea how awful cities used to be .
I still do n't like them and they still smell bad , but they are nothing compared to the filthy hell-holes they used to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at the example in TFS - motor vehicles cleaning up our cities.
Well the thing is they could have done a lot.
Why hasn't this happened?
It did happen.
Cities are so much cleaner and smell so much nicer than they used to that it is practically a miracle.
You kids today have no idea how awful cities used to be.
I still don't like them and they still smell bad, but they are nothing compared to the filthy hell-holes they used to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28162689</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1243778160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then why was Galileo executed by the Church?</p></div><p>For starters, Galileo <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo\_affair#The\_Trial" title="wikipedia.org">wasn't executed by anyone</a> [wikipedia.org]. His sentence was a house arrest.</p><p>Furthermore, he was on trial for his heliocentrical views (as opposed to the geocentricity prevalent at the time). The idea of flat earth never even figured in this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why was Galileo executed by the Church ? For starters , Galileo was n't executed by anyone [ wikipedia.org ] .
His sentence was a house arrest.Furthermore , he was on trial for his heliocentrical views ( as opposed to the geocentricity prevalent at the time ) .
The idea of flat earth never even figured in this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why was Galileo executed by the Church?For starters, Galileo wasn't executed by anyone [wikipedia.org].
His sentence was a house arrest.Furthermore, he was on trial for his heliocentrical views (as opposed to the geocentricity prevalent at the time).
The idea of flat earth never even figured in this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158177</id>
	<title>Re:easy solution</title>
	<author>MaggieL</author>
	<datestamp>1243784280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since he claims to be able to shut up, maybe he should.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since he claims to be able to shut up , maybe he should .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since he claims to be able to shut up, maybe he should.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157827</id>
	<title>And?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243781340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'There were a lot of predictions associated with early automobiles,' Corn says. 'They would help eliminate congestion in the city and the messy, unsanitary streets of the city.'</p></div><p>Okay, so how well has it done? Obviously we still have congestion (better than it was? worse? I don't know) and obviously we have pollution problems associated with cars but how does that compare to the problems we had before? Have they been a big step forwards or not? I don't see how the article can use this example to mock people's ability to forecast the effects of technology when it doesn't comment at all on whether cars have in fact resulted in more sanitary streets. I don't know how bad the horse shit and carcases problem was but by the sounds of things, the cars are an improvement and the prognosticators of the time were broadly right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'There were a lot of predictions associated with early automobiles, ' Corn says .
'They would help eliminate congestion in the city and the messy , unsanitary streets of the city .
'Okay , so how well has it done ?
Obviously we still have congestion ( better than it was ?
worse ? I do n't know ) and obviously we have pollution problems associated with cars but how does that compare to the problems we had before ?
Have they been a big step forwards or not ?
I do n't see how the article can use this example to mock people 's ability to forecast the effects of technology when it does n't comment at all on whether cars have in fact resulted in more sanitary streets .
I do n't know how bad the horse shit and carcases problem was but by the sounds of things , the cars are an improvement and the prognosticators of the time were broadly right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'There were a lot of predictions associated with early automobiles,' Corn says.
'They would help eliminate congestion in the city and the messy, unsanitary streets of the city.
'Okay, so how well has it done?
Obviously we still have congestion (better than it was?
worse? I don't know) and obviously we have pollution problems associated with cars but how does that compare to the problems we had before?
Have they been a big step forwards or not?
I don't see how the article can use this example to mock people's ability to forecast the effects of technology when it doesn't comment at all on whether cars have in fact resulted in more sanitary streets.
I don't know how bad the horse shit and carcases problem was but by the sounds of things, the cars are an improvement and the prognosticators of the time were broadly right.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28171095</id>
	<title>Hubris</title>
	<author>GPS Pilot</author>
	<datestamp>1243884780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>could have meant much more leisure time </i><br>In fact, people <i>do</i> tend to have much more leisure time these days than before the invention of our many labor-saving devices.</p><p><i>increasingly pointless jobs </i><br>How about we let the person paying the salary, not h4rm0ny, determine whether a job is pointless?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>could have meant much more leisure time In fact , people do tend to have much more leisure time these days than before the invention of our many labor-saving devices.increasingly pointless jobs How about we let the person paying the salary , not h4rm0ny , determine whether a job is pointless ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>could have meant much more leisure time In fact, people do tend to have much more leisure time these days than before the invention of our many labor-saving devices.increasingly pointless jobs How about we let the person paying the salary, not h4rm0ny, determine whether a job is pointless?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28166305</id>
	<title>The more things change</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1243861980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, the typical 19th-century American city was crowded and smelly. The problem was horses. They created traffic jams, filled the streets with their droppings and, when they died, their carcasses.</p></div><p>Just replace "horses" with "cars" and "droppings" with "carbon emissions" and the premise remains unchanged. With the added irony that feeding them means going from local crops to imported arab oil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , the typical 19th-century American city was crowded and smelly .
The problem was horses .
They created traffic jams , filled the streets with their droppings and , when they died , their carcasses.Just replace " horses " with " cars " and " droppings " with " carbon emissions " and the premise remains unchanged .
With the added irony that feeding them means going from local crops to imported arab oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, the typical 19th-century American city was crowded and smelly.
The problem was horses.
They created traffic jams, filled the streets with their droppings and, when they died, their carcasses.Just replace "horses" with "cars" and "droppings" with "carbon emissions" and the premise remains unchanged.
With the added irony that feeding them means going from local crops to imported arab oil.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157923</id>
	<title>It's about subtracting things, not just adding</title>
	<author>rlseaman</author>
	<datestamp>1243782240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As the name "horseless carriage" suggests, technological evolution is as much - or more - about subtracting things from society as about adding them.  The <a href="http://williamhorberg.typepad.com/.a/6a00e553df648988340115707da8a6970b-800wi" title="typepad.com">Popular Science</a> [typepad.com] view of a jetpack in every garage and a submarine in every bathtub also neglects the layers of infrastructure needed to make a new paradigm work.</p><p>Combine these two and you must face dark economic wizards like Malthus, and evil powers like the <a href="http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art\_tragedy\_of\_the\_commons.html" title="garretthardinsociety.org">Tragedy of the Commons</a> [garretthardinsociety.org].  James Bond (or rather, Q) can employ a single jetpack.  But a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1218.html" title="nytimes.com">Robert Moses</a> [nytimes.com] is needed to bring us all to the promised land of some new visionary technology (casually crushing the <a href="http://www.mcny.org/images/content/7/9/790.jpg" title="mcny.org">South Bronx</a> [mcny.org] along the way, of course).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the name " horseless carriage " suggests , technological evolution is as much - or more - about subtracting things from society as about adding them .
The Popular Science [ typepad.com ] view of a jetpack in every garage and a submarine in every bathtub also neglects the layers of infrastructure needed to make a new paradigm work.Combine these two and you must face dark economic wizards like Malthus , and evil powers like the Tragedy of the Commons [ garretthardinsociety.org ] .
James Bond ( or rather , Q ) can employ a single jetpack .
But a Robert Moses [ nytimes.com ] is needed to bring us all to the promised land of some new visionary technology ( casually crushing the South Bronx [ mcny.org ] along the way , of course ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the name "horseless carriage" suggests, technological evolution is as much - or more - about subtracting things from society as about adding them.
The Popular Science [typepad.com] view of a jetpack in every garage and a submarine in every bathtub also neglects the layers of infrastructure needed to make a new paradigm work.Combine these two and you must face dark economic wizards like Malthus, and evil powers like the Tragedy of the Commons [garretthardinsociety.org].
James Bond (or rather, Q) can employ a single jetpack.
But a Robert Moses [nytimes.com] is needed to bring us all to the promised land of some new visionary technology (casually crushing the South Bronx [mcny.org] along the way, of course).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161033</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1243762980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And just for the record, I don't own a car, I bike to work or ride the subway.</i> </p><p>The timeline here is tightly compressed.</p><p>The modern "safety" bicycle became popular in the 1890s.<br>The safety bicycle helped make "good roads" and personal transportation a socially and politically potent ideal.</p><p>The first American subway opens in Boston in 1897.<br>Inner city electric trolley lines and commuter heavy-rail electric service can be more or less correctly placed here as well.</p><p>The automobile enters the picture at a time of great experimentation and none of the alternatives are well-anchored.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And just for the record , I do n't own a car , I bike to work or ride the subway .
The timeline here is tightly compressed.The modern " safety " bicycle became popular in the 1890s.The safety bicycle helped make " good roads " and personal transportation a socially and politically potent ideal.The first American subway opens in Boston in 1897.Inner city electric trolley lines and commuter heavy-rail electric service can be more or less correctly placed here as well.The automobile enters the picture at a time of great experimentation and none of the alternatives are well-anchored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And just for the record, I don't own a car, I bike to work or ride the subway.
The timeline here is tightly compressed.The modern "safety" bicycle became popular in the 1890s.The safety bicycle helped make "good roads" and personal transportation a socially and politically potent ideal.The first American subway opens in Boston in 1897.Inner city electric trolley lines and commuter heavy-rail electric service can be more or less correctly placed here as well.The automobile enters the picture at a time of great experimentation and none of the alternatives are well-anchored.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161149</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243764240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original Greek view was that the world was a disk.  This changed even in classical times, but for the purposes of the grandparent post, I think it supports making the statement he made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original Greek view was that the world was a disk .
This changed even in classical times , but for the purposes of the grandparent post , I think it supports making the statement he made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original Greek view was that the world was a disk.
This changed even in classical times, but for the purposes of the grandparent post, I think it supports making the statement he made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158095</id>
	<title>radical political solutions... 1776 called</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243783560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i dont know if you remember something called the 'american revolution', but it was fucking revolutionary. and radical.</p><p>why can't "science" people seem to so often make horribly incorrect statements about history?</p><p>is it because it is a 'evil liberal art', they feel no need to check facts or reign in their tendency for hyperbole?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i dont know if you remember something called the 'american revolution ' , but it was fucking revolutionary .
and radical.why ca n't " science " people seem to so often make horribly incorrect statements about history ? is it because it is a 'evil liberal art ' , they feel no need to check facts or reign in their tendency for hyperbole ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i dont know if you remember something called the 'american revolution', but it was fucking revolutionary.
and radical.why can't "science" people seem to so often make horribly incorrect statements about history?is it because it is a 'evil liberal art', they feel no need to check facts or reign in their tendency for hyperbole?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159027</id>
	<title>Re:I still prefer technology</title>
	<author>zoney\_ie</author>
	<datestamp>1243791540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been a while since 1776 and the world has changed somewhat!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been a while since 1776 and the world has changed somewhat !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been a while since 1776 and the world has changed somewhat!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28169201</id>
	<title>Re:Top 10 reasons today is better.</title>
	<author>big\_paul76</author>
	<datestamp>1243875960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like your #10, but I would've put it higher...</p><p>I went to see William Gibson do a reading when "spook country" came out. He mentioned how, when he wrote Neuromancer, lots of people criticized it as being a pessimistic view of our future. He said that (this was when nuclear war was much more in the public eye) he thought that, by virtue of the fact that civilization still \_exists\_ in the future, it was a fundamentally optimistic book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like your # 10 , but I would 've put it higher...I went to see William Gibson do a reading when " spook country " came out .
He mentioned how , when he wrote Neuromancer , lots of people criticized it as being a pessimistic view of our future .
He said that ( this was when nuclear war was much more in the public eye ) he thought that , by virtue of the fact that civilization still \ _exists \ _ in the future , it was a fundamentally optimistic book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like your #10, but I would've put it higher...I went to see William Gibson do a reading when "spook country" came out.
He mentioned how, when he wrote Neuromancer, lots of people criticized it as being a pessimistic view of our future.
He said that (this was when nuclear war was much more in the public eye) he thought that, by virtue of the fact that civilization still \_exists\_ in the future, it was a fundamentally optimistic book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021</id>
	<title>Never?</title>
	<author>tukang</author>
	<datestamp>1243783080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future.</i>

<p>Sorry but I think Corn is dead wrong on this assertion. America was founded on a radical political transformation and the abolition of slavery and the end of segregation are both radical transformations that have arguably changed the future of all Americans more than any single technology. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future .
Sorry but I think Corn is dead wrong on this assertion .
America was founded on a radical political transformation and the abolition of slavery and the end of segregation are both radical transformations that have arguably changed the future of all Americans more than any single technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future.
Sorry but I think Corn is dead wrong on this assertion.
America was founded on a radical political transformation and the abolition of slavery and the end of segregation are both radical transformations that have arguably changed the future of all Americans more than any single technology. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161881</id>
	<title>Re:Never?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243770660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They weren't Americans until they had already accepted a radical political transformation as subjects of England.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were n't Americans until they had already accepted a radical political transformation as subjects of England .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They weren't Americans until they had already accepted a radical political transformation as subjects of England.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28166663</id>
	<title>The main reason</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1243864440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We lost our favorite 4 stars....Starwars, StarTrek, Stargate and Battlestar Galactica....w<br>hat else are we supposed to do, there is nothing left to watch</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We lost our favorite 4 stars....Starwars , StarTrek , Stargate and Battlestar Galactica....what else are we supposed to do , there is nothing left to watch</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We lost our favorite 4 stars....Starwars, StarTrek, Stargate and Battlestar Galactica....what else are we supposed to do, there is nothing left to watch</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28172959</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243848180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He never said "in Medieval Europe" or even "in ancient Europe." Do you really think that prehistoric humans had worked out that the world was round? At some point, humans did think the world was flat. It's a logical assumption if you don't have the tools that at least the ancient Greeks had.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He never said " in Medieval Europe " or even " in ancient Europe .
" Do you really think that prehistoric humans had worked out that the world was round ?
At some point , humans did think the world was flat .
It 's a logical assumption if you do n't have the tools that at least the ancient Greeks had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He never said "in Medieval Europe" or even "in ancient Europe.
" Do you really think that prehistoric humans had worked out that the world was round?
At some point, humans did think the world was flat.
It's a logical assumption if you don't have the tools that at least the ancient Greeks had.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789</id>
	<title>The real reason.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243780980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because humans are obsessed with bureaucracy and pointless endeavours like greed. You can bet if our species was as fanatical about science as it is about religious bureaucracy we would be in a better world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because humans are obsessed with bureaucracy and pointless endeavours like greed .
You can bet if our species was as fanatical about science as it is about religious bureaucracy we would be in a better world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because humans are obsessed with bureaucracy and pointless endeavours like greed.
You can bet if our species was as fanatical about science as it is about religious bureaucracy we would be in a better world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160241</id>
	<title>Re:Amnesia</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1243800720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if he only puts 10k on the odometer a year?</p><p>The *manual* for my PT Cruiser says there's no problem if you change oil every 5,000 miles. So that equates to twice a year for my car. (I know some people recommend every 3,000 miles, but if the manual says 5,000 I'm going with 5,000.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if he only puts 10k on the odometer a year ? The * manual * for my PT Cruiser says there 's no problem if you change oil every 5,000 miles .
So that equates to twice a year for my car .
( I know some people recommend every 3,000 miles , but if the manual says 5,000 I 'm going with 5,000 .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if he only puts 10k on the odometer a year?The *manual* for my PT Cruiser says there's no problem if you change oil every 5,000 miles.
So that equates to twice a year for my car.
(I know some people recommend every 3,000 miles, but if the manual says 5,000 I'm going with 5,000.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158847</id>
	<title>Re:the 4 barriers to progress</title>
	<author>Dun Malg</author>
	<datestamp>1243790100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Number 4 is crap. It's tinfoil hat fantasy. Reeks of the nonsense about [GM|oil company|*] buying up and burying the "100 mpg carburetor", which doesn't even pass the basic logic smell test. The very idea is premised upon the notion that inventions come only from the rare inspiration of lone individuals, and that by somehow silencing this flash of insight one can prevent an invention from <i>ever happening</i>. That notion is crap. Look at how many people invented the light bulb virtually simultaneously. Or the telephone. Or color photography. Or logarithms. Or the thermometer. Or the telescope. Or the typewriter. The list is essentially endless. Inventions happen because their time has come and the supporting science behind them has arrived, not because some guy tinkering in his basement accidentally mixed chicken bones with quicklime and invented an engine that runs on tap water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Number 4 is crap .
It 's tinfoil hat fantasy .
Reeks of the nonsense about [ GM | oil company | * ] buying up and burying the " 100 mpg carburetor " , which does n't even pass the basic logic smell test .
The very idea is premised upon the notion that inventions come only from the rare inspiration of lone individuals , and that by somehow silencing this flash of insight one can prevent an invention from ever happening .
That notion is crap .
Look at how many people invented the light bulb virtually simultaneously .
Or the telephone .
Or color photography .
Or logarithms .
Or the thermometer .
Or the telescope .
Or the typewriter .
The list is essentially endless .
Inventions happen because their time has come and the supporting science behind them has arrived , not because some guy tinkering in his basement accidentally mixed chicken bones with quicklime and invented an engine that runs on tap water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Number 4 is crap.
It's tinfoil hat fantasy.
Reeks of the nonsense about [GM|oil company|*] buying up and burying the "100 mpg carburetor", which doesn't even pass the basic logic smell test.
The very idea is premised upon the notion that inventions come only from the rare inspiration of lone individuals, and that by somehow silencing this flash of insight one can prevent an invention from ever happening.
That notion is crap.
Look at how many people invented the light bulb virtually simultaneously.
Or the telephone.
Or color photography.
Or logarithms.
Or the thermometer.
Or the telescope.
Or the typewriter.
The list is essentially endless.
Inventions happen because their time has come and the supporting science behind them has arrived, not because some guy tinkering in his basement accidentally mixed chicken bones with quicklime and invented an engine that runs on tap water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157841</id>
	<title>An alternate theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243781460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have all kinds of technology with the power to make our lives better. For the most part it is being used to make rich people richer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have all kinds of technology with the power to make our lives better .
For the most part it is being used to make rich people richer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have all kinds of technology with the power to make our lives better.
For the most part it is being used to make rich people richer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159917</id>
	<title>Re:Greed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243798260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em><br>Buses are much faster than horse and carriages, they carry many more people.<br></em></p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, buses are a kludge, and not a very good one...  I'm going to quote Judge Doon from <i>Who Framed Roger Rabbit?</i> now:</p><blockquote><div><p>Judge: "Of course not. You lack vision."</p><p>"I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day and all night!"</p><p>"Soon, where Toontown once stood will be a string of gas stations, inexpensive motels, restaurants that serve rapidly prepared food, tire salons, automobile dealerships, and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see."</p><p>"My God, it'll be beautiful."</p><p>Eddie: "Come on! Nobody's going to drive this lousy freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel."</p><p>Judge: "Oh they'll drive. They'll have to."</p><p>"You see, I bought the Red Car so I could dismantle it."</p></div></blockquote><p>If you go back, before the rise of the automobile, you'll find trolleys in many major American cities.  Check the history of your own town.  Did it have <a href="http://www.phillytrolley.org/" title="phillytrolley.org">trolleys</a> [phillytrolley.org]?  If so, where did the go?</p><p>Why did the Federal Government decide to commit it's resources to an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate\_Highway\_System" title="wikipedia.org">Interstate Highway System</a> [wikipedia.org] rather than an Interstate Rail System?</p><p>Why do passenger trains criss cross <a href="http://www.eurail.com/" title="eurail.com">Europe</a> [eurail.com] and <a href="http://www.japanrail.com/" title="japanrail.com">Japan</a> [japanrail.com], but not the United States?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buses are much faster than horse and carriages , they carry many more people.Actually , buses are a kludge , and not a very good one... I 'm going to quote Judge Doon from Who Framed Roger Rabbit ?
now : Judge : " Of course not .
You lack vision .
" " I see a place where people get on and off the freeway .
On and off , off and on all day and all night !
" " Soon , where Toontown once stood will be a string of gas stations , inexpensive motels , restaurants that serve rapidly prepared food , tire salons , automobile dealerships , and wonderful , wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see .
" " My God , it 'll be beautiful .
" Eddie : " Come on !
Nobody 's going to drive this lousy freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel .
" Judge : " Oh they 'll drive .
They 'll have to .
" " You see , I bought the Red Car so I could dismantle it .
" If you go back , before the rise of the automobile , you 'll find trolleys in many major American cities .
Check the history of your own town .
Did it have trolleys [ phillytrolley.org ] ?
If so , where did the go ? Why did the Federal Government decide to commit it 's resources to an Interstate Highway System [ wikipedia.org ] rather than an Interstate Rail System ? Why do passenger trains criss cross Europe [ eurail.com ] and Japan [ japanrail.com ] , but not the United States ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Buses are much faster than horse and carriages, they carry many more people.Actually, buses are a kludge, and not a very good one...  I'm going to quote Judge Doon from Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
now:Judge: "Of course not.
You lack vision.
""I see a place where people get on and off the freeway.
On and off, off and on all day and all night!
""Soon, where Toontown once stood will be a string of gas stations, inexpensive motels, restaurants that serve rapidly prepared food, tire salons, automobile dealerships, and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see.
""My God, it'll be beautiful.
"Eddie: "Come on!
Nobody's going to drive this lousy freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel.
"Judge: "Oh they'll drive.
They'll have to.
""You see, I bought the Red Car so I could dismantle it.
"If you go back, before the rise of the automobile, you'll find trolleys in many major American cities.
Check the history of your own town.
Did it have trolleys [phillytrolley.org]?
If so, where did the go?Why did the Federal Government decide to commit it's resources to an Interstate Highway System [wikipedia.org] rather than an Interstate Rail System?Why do passenger trains criss cross Europe [eurail.com] and Japan [japanrail.com], but not the United States?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157909</id>
	<title>Twenty-first century arrives with slight delay</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1243782120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After a <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/01/01/twenty-first-century-arrives-after-slight-delay/" title="today.com">minor shipping delay</a> [today.com], flying cars have arrived for all. As of today, all major cities also feature moving pavements and weather control and commuter flights to the Moon will be commencing tomorrow.

</p><p>Earth President Barack Obama welcomed the representatives of the Galactic Brotherhood to Washington, assuring them that the many wars on Earth were now to be conducted entirely by robots, though the robots would be carefully monitored and pulled out of battle and granted citizenship the moment they achieved sentience. He also offered the galactics free access to Google, with only the requirement for tasteful contextually-attuned text advertising to be imprinted on their DNA.

</p><p>The reactionary forces of the twentieth-century United States finally conceded defeat and shut down the Five-Year Plan Tractor Plants of Detroit, where ridiculous oversized transport was bashed together by semi-literate peasants between fifths of vodka from the nerve gas factory next door, and the Five-Year Plan Software Plants of Redmond, where ridiculous oversized operating systems were bashed together by semi-numerate fresh graduates between fifths of Red Bull. The record and movie company back catalogues have been placed into the public domain for the preservation of human culture and the comic-book capitalists of Wall Street have been sent to calming, soothing, humanistic re-education facilities. "We'll teach them to love again," said Mr Obama.

</p><p>Robot housecleaners are now universally available at quite reasonable prices. The robot companion for your child, designed to say "I LOVE YOU" while the child hits it repeatedly, was <a href="http://www.vtechuk.com/products-and-accessories/lullaby-light-up-lamb/" title="vtechuk.com">an early release for Christmas 2007</a> [vtechuk.com]. The new model features the voice of Justin Fletcher from CBeebies and is designed for parents to hit repeatedly.

</p><p>Future innovations for the century include the rise of the Great Old Ones from their eternal sleep to take back the Earth and consume the souls of all humanity, first driving them slowly insane. The citizenry is being prepared for this eventuality using repeated broadcasts of <i> <a href="http://inthenightgarden.co.uk/" title="inthenightgarden.co.uk">In The Night Garden</a> [inthenightgarden.co.uk].</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After a minor shipping delay [ today.com ] , flying cars have arrived for all .
As of today , all major cities also feature moving pavements and weather control and commuter flights to the Moon will be commencing tomorrow .
Earth President Barack Obama welcomed the representatives of the Galactic Brotherhood to Washington , assuring them that the many wars on Earth were now to be conducted entirely by robots , though the robots would be carefully monitored and pulled out of battle and granted citizenship the moment they achieved sentience .
He also offered the galactics free access to Google , with only the requirement for tasteful contextually-attuned text advertising to be imprinted on their DNA .
The reactionary forces of the twentieth-century United States finally conceded defeat and shut down the Five-Year Plan Tractor Plants of Detroit , where ridiculous oversized transport was bashed together by semi-literate peasants between fifths of vodka from the nerve gas factory next door , and the Five-Year Plan Software Plants of Redmond , where ridiculous oversized operating systems were bashed together by semi-numerate fresh graduates between fifths of Red Bull .
The record and movie company back catalogues have been placed into the public domain for the preservation of human culture and the comic-book capitalists of Wall Street have been sent to calming , soothing , humanistic re-education facilities .
" We 'll teach them to love again , " said Mr Obama .
Robot housecleaners are now universally available at quite reasonable prices .
The robot companion for your child , designed to say " I LOVE YOU " while the child hits it repeatedly , was an early release for Christmas 2007 [ vtechuk.com ] .
The new model features the voice of Justin Fletcher from CBeebies and is designed for parents to hit repeatedly .
Future innovations for the century include the rise of the Great Old Ones from their eternal sleep to take back the Earth and consume the souls of all humanity , first driving them slowly insane .
The citizenry is being prepared for this eventuality using repeated broadcasts of In The Night Garden [ inthenightgarden.co.uk ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After a minor shipping delay [today.com], flying cars have arrived for all.
As of today, all major cities also feature moving pavements and weather control and commuter flights to the Moon will be commencing tomorrow.
Earth President Barack Obama welcomed the representatives of the Galactic Brotherhood to Washington, assuring them that the many wars on Earth were now to be conducted entirely by robots, though the robots would be carefully monitored and pulled out of battle and granted citizenship the moment they achieved sentience.
He also offered the galactics free access to Google, with only the requirement for tasteful contextually-attuned text advertising to be imprinted on their DNA.
The reactionary forces of the twentieth-century United States finally conceded defeat and shut down the Five-Year Plan Tractor Plants of Detroit, where ridiculous oversized transport was bashed together by semi-literate peasants between fifths of vodka from the nerve gas factory next door, and the Five-Year Plan Software Plants of Redmond, where ridiculous oversized operating systems were bashed together by semi-numerate fresh graduates between fifths of Red Bull.
The record and movie company back catalogues have been placed into the public domain for the preservation of human culture and the comic-book capitalists of Wall Street have been sent to calming, soothing, humanistic re-education facilities.
"We'll teach them to love again," said Mr Obama.
Robot housecleaners are now universally available at quite reasonable prices.
The robot companion for your child, designed to say "I LOVE YOU" while the child hits it repeatedly, was an early release for Christmas 2007 [vtechuk.com].
The new model features the voice of Justin Fletcher from CBeebies and is designed for parents to hit repeatedly.
Future innovations for the century include the rise of the Great Old Ones from their eternal sleep to take back the Earth and consume the souls of all humanity, first driving them slowly insane.
The citizenry is being prepared for this eventuality using repeated broadcasts of  In The Night Garden [inthenightgarden.co.uk].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157865</id>
	<title>Re:Cars *are* a great improvement.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243781700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shhhh, you're not supposed to say that here!</p><p>When I see Obongo and his Secret Service detail rolling around in a fleet of armored Priuses, then I *MIGHT* consider getting one for myself.  Call me old fashioned, but I was taught to believe that leaders should lead by example.  If every single politician and their security detail can drive an SUV, then so can I.  If you don't like it, then you can lick my ball sack.  Unless you're Barney Frank, in which case you might actually enjoy that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shhhh , you 're not supposed to say that here ! When I see Obongo and his Secret Service detail rolling around in a fleet of armored Priuses , then I * MIGHT * consider getting one for myself .
Call me old fashioned , but I was taught to believe that leaders should lead by example .
If every single politician and their security detail can drive an SUV , then so can I. If you do n't like it , then you can lick my ball sack .
Unless you 're Barney Frank , in which case you might actually enjoy that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shhhh, you're not supposed to say that here!When I see Obongo and his Secret Service detail rolling around in a fleet of armored Priuses, then I *MIGHT* consider getting one for myself.
Call me old fashioned, but I was taught to believe that leaders should lead by example.
If every single politician and their security detail can drive an SUV, then so can I.  If you don't like it, then you can lick my ball sack.
Unless you're Barney Frank, in which case you might actually enjoy that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157929</id>
	<title>Re:I *am* living in the furture....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243782360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We have machines that can scan the inside of our bodies without cutting us open. </i></p><p>I've got an image processing textbook around here somewhere that explains the math of generating images from projections (as CAT and NMR scanners do), and even twenty years later, it still impresses the hell out of me that anyone ever imagined it, let alone actually got it to market.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have machines that can scan the inside of our bodies without cutting us open .
I 've got an image processing textbook around here somewhere that explains the math of generating images from projections ( as CAT and NMR scanners do ) , and even twenty years later , it still impresses the hell out of me that anyone ever imagined it , let alone actually got it to market.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have machines that can scan the inside of our bodies without cutting us open.
I've got an image processing textbook around here somewhere that explains the math of generating images from projections (as CAT and NMR scanners do), and even twenty years later, it still impresses the hell out of me that anyone ever imagined it, let alone actually got it to market.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159889</id>
	<title>America's most wanted invention: middle-class</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243798020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>America was one of the latest stronghold of slavery and segregation around the world, which supports the theory that Americans are slow to accept radical political change.</p><p>But that's the past, what's more curious is the present.</p><p>America was admired by others as a land of social mobility and the land of massive middle-class.<br>What we have been witnessing in the past decade is the fundamental change in that area.<br>Globalization, pushed primarily by major US corporate interest, is causing a radical political, social change in America without asking the electorate: the admired middle-class is evaporating, transferring the wealth of the middle-class to the wealth of an increasingly smaller segment of society.</p><p>In it's tendency it might be described as a "reverse slavery", at least in economical sense: the masses who loose their homes, their middle-class earning jobs, are being converted right in front of our eyes to minimum-wage, part-time, contract "slave" minimum-wage-class.</p><p>These American millions are without health insurance, which is of course also one of the "too radical political idea" for America to turn into a public institution, like in most of the developed industrial nations.</p><p>Ford created a successful company not only based on technology, but on a social assumption: making cars can make enough wage for the workers so they can buy the cars they produce. With the practical elimination of politically demonized trade unions in the US car industry in the past months Ford's marketing vision is also gone, together with an other huge block of US middle-class earners.</p><p>The US is trying to revive their dying car industry. For the death of Motown one of the common blame is the high union wages, benefits for workers in car industry. The problem with this argument is that those "union wages" were needed to buy the ever growing sized SUVs, which became the "normal American car".</p><p>But America is still unable to accept radical political change: just look at GM's Volt, which is supposed to resurrect the American car industry.<br>It's easy to see why it will actually fail massively.</p><p>Not because it is introduced much later than the Japanese competing models, not for some technological issues, it is going to fail, because the economy of Volt (including pricing) is still based on the assumption that America has a massive middle-class with middle-class earning power ("unionized car factory workers"). By the time Volt comes out, that won't be the case. America will be transformed by then to a mass of low, irregular income society, which will hardly afford even a half-priced Toyota Prius.</p><p>America should face the reality: forget about Volt for the common people, start thinking about Tata as the new reality for the American masses.</p><p>What America needs to re-invent is not a miracle technology: it's re-inventing the middle-class.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>America was one of the latest stronghold of slavery and segregation around the world , which supports the theory that Americans are slow to accept radical political change.But that 's the past , what 's more curious is the present.America was admired by others as a land of social mobility and the land of massive middle-class.What we have been witnessing in the past decade is the fundamental change in that area.Globalization , pushed primarily by major US corporate interest , is causing a radical political , social change in America without asking the electorate : the admired middle-class is evaporating , transferring the wealth of the middle-class to the wealth of an increasingly smaller segment of society.In it 's tendency it might be described as a " reverse slavery " , at least in economical sense : the masses who loose their homes , their middle-class earning jobs , are being converted right in front of our eyes to minimum-wage , part-time , contract " slave " minimum-wage-class.These American millions are without health insurance , which is of course also one of the " too radical political idea " for America to turn into a public institution , like in most of the developed industrial nations.Ford created a successful company not only based on technology , but on a social assumption : making cars can make enough wage for the workers so they can buy the cars they produce .
With the practical elimination of politically demonized trade unions in the US car industry in the past months Ford 's marketing vision is also gone , together with an other huge block of US middle-class earners.The US is trying to revive their dying car industry .
For the death of Motown one of the common blame is the high union wages , benefits for workers in car industry .
The problem with this argument is that those " union wages " were needed to buy the ever growing sized SUVs , which became the " normal American car " .But America is still unable to accept radical political change : just look at GM 's Volt , which is supposed to resurrect the American car industry.It 's easy to see why it will actually fail massively.Not because it is introduced much later than the Japanese competing models , not for some technological issues , it is going to fail , because the economy of Volt ( including pricing ) is still based on the assumption that America has a massive middle-class with middle-class earning power ( " unionized car factory workers " ) .
By the time Volt comes out , that wo n't be the case .
America will be transformed by then to a mass of low , irregular income society , which will hardly afford even a half-priced Toyota Prius.America should face the reality : forget about Volt for the common people , start thinking about Tata as the new reality for the American masses.What America needs to re-invent is not a miracle technology : it 's re-inventing the middle-class .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America was one of the latest stronghold of slavery and segregation around the world, which supports the theory that Americans are slow to accept radical political change.But that's the past, what's more curious is the present.America was admired by others as a land of social mobility and the land of massive middle-class.What we have been witnessing in the past decade is the fundamental change in that area.Globalization, pushed primarily by major US corporate interest, is causing a radical political, social change in America without asking the electorate: the admired middle-class is evaporating, transferring the wealth of the middle-class to the wealth of an increasingly smaller segment of society.In it's tendency it might be described as a "reverse slavery", at least in economical sense: the masses who loose their homes, their middle-class earning jobs, are being converted right in front of our eyes to minimum-wage, part-time, contract "slave" minimum-wage-class.These American millions are without health insurance, which is of course also one of the "too radical political idea" for America to turn into a public institution, like in most of the developed industrial nations.Ford created a successful company not only based on technology, but on a social assumption: making cars can make enough wage for the workers so they can buy the cars they produce.
With the practical elimination of politically demonized trade unions in the US car industry in the past months Ford's marketing vision is also gone, together with an other huge block of US middle-class earners.The US is trying to revive their dying car industry.
For the death of Motown one of the common blame is the high union wages, benefits for workers in car industry.
The problem with this argument is that those "union wages" were needed to buy the ever growing sized SUVs, which became the "normal American car".But America is still unable to accept radical political change: just look at GM's Volt, which is supposed to resurrect the American car industry.It's easy to see why it will actually fail massively.Not because it is introduced much later than the Japanese competing models, not for some technological issues, it is going to fail, because the economy of Volt (including pricing) is still based on the assumption that America has a massive middle-class with middle-class earning power ("unionized car factory workers").
By the time Volt comes out, that won't be the case.
America will be transformed by then to a mass of low, irregular income society, which will hardly afford even a half-priced Toyota Prius.America should face the reality: forget about Volt for the common people, start thinking about Tata as the new reality for the American masses.What America needs to re-invent is not a miracle technology: it's re-inventing the middle-class.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160299</id>
	<title>Re:Top 10 reasons today is better.</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1243801200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But on the down-side, our cars are a lot less interesting than the ones in Mad Max.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But on the down-side , our cars are a lot less interesting than the ones in Mad Max .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But on the down-side, our cars are a lot less interesting than the ones in Mad Max.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159041</id>
	<title>Re:Um?</title>
	<author>An Onerous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1243791720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The radical political transformations you cite were extremely negative ones.  The story author was saying that we have little faith in positive political transformations.  Your counterexamples seem to support his argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The radical political transformations you cite were extremely negative ones .
The story author was saying that we have little faith in positive political transformations .
Your counterexamples seem to support his argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The radical political transformations you cite were extremely negative ones.
The story author was saying that we have little faith in positive political transformations.
Your counterexamples seem to support his argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160021</id>
	<title>Technology Advances are for the Rich to get Richer</title>
	<author>get\_your\_guns</author>
	<datestamp>1243798920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> The major research being conducted into advancing technology is not to better humanity but to make better the people investing in said advances to get richer. Yes, there is trickle down benefits to all people as this happens, but if a company like IBM did not research/develop adding machines so they could make more money to sell them, one could ague that the modern computer would never have been developed. This can be traced back to the invention of the abacus.

There have only been a few discoveries that are the core of modern technologies. Someone invented a way to domesticate animals for the better of people. Someone discovered electricity, and it was only the research into using electricity that has lead to the modern day computer. The computer can be seen as entertaining, but the real use of computers is for the research/application of creating more wealth, if you break it down into where most of the computer cycles go to, I think the majority is for making more wealth. This is not a bad thing, for it does trickle down, but when you have companies using computer programs to figure out how to increase profits with the leaders of these companies blindly following the computers output. Look at the Wall Street variables that went into affect that has changed the world forever, just because a computer program said it would be better. Ask the people who lost their lifetime investments, do you think the computer program even cared about being wrong?

Look at the steam engine. This brought great improvements to modern people. The steam engine lead to the internal combustion engine which provided even more improvements to modern people. But, if these inventions did not offer the wealthy to get wealthier, they would never have been applied. For an example, look at the nuclear age many visionaries thought we would be living today. Yes, a couple of A bombs did unimaginable destruction, but what happened to all the low cost power we were supposed to have. Splitting the atom was and still is a great invention/discovery, but, it has been held back mainly from the wealthy energy companies mass marketing/political investing to keep mass acceptance from ever happening. It is amazing that last year when the cost of oil was north of $100 per barrel, there was more talk of nuclear energy, and now the cost of oil has dropped to where the nuclear energy does not even make a minor post, even though the new nuclear plants are almost impossible to melt down.

Look at the fall of the rail shipping system. If the railroads where not allowed to be bought out by the larger trucking companies, you would have only regional trucking from the nearest railhead to customer, versus cross country truck shipping. How much oil, pollution and road accidents/wear and tear could we eliminate by using rail lines again for what there were originally designed for?

All of this leads to where our futures lead. For the residents of this earth to fully realize discoveries/inventions, the people of this earth need to demand accountability of the uses of said advances. This will never happen with the rich getting richer. I don't care about who has what toys, but if these companies use these advances to make me work harder or lay me off when the computer model says the time is right,even when these companies are making more profit than ever imagined even 100 years ago, where are we as a civilization?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The major research being conducted into advancing technology is not to better humanity but to make better the people investing in said advances to get richer .
Yes , there is trickle down benefits to all people as this happens , but if a company like IBM did not research/develop adding machines so they could make more money to sell them , one could ague that the modern computer would never have been developed .
This can be traced back to the invention of the abacus .
There have only been a few discoveries that are the core of modern technologies .
Someone invented a way to domesticate animals for the better of people .
Someone discovered electricity , and it was only the research into using electricity that has lead to the modern day computer .
The computer can be seen as entertaining , but the real use of computers is for the research/application of creating more wealth , if you break it down into where most of the computer cycles go to , I think the majority is for making more wealth .
This is not a bad thing , for it does trickle down , but when you have companies using computer programs to figure out how to increase profits with the leaders of these companies blindly following the computers output .
Look at the Wall Street variables that went into affect that has changed the world forever , just because a computer program said it would be better .
Ask the people who lost their lifetime investments , do you think the computer program even cared about being wrong ?
Look at the steam engine .
This brought great improvements to modern people .
The steam engine lead to the internal combustion engine which provided even more improvements to modern people .
But , if these inventions did not offer the wealthy to get wealthier , they would never have been applied .
For an example , look at the nuclear age many visionaries thought we would be living today .
Yes , a couple of A bombs did unimaginable destruction , but what happened to all the low cost power we were supposed to have .
Splitting the atom was and still is a great invention/discovery , but , it has been held back mainly from the wealthy energy companies mass marketing/political investing to keep mass acceptance from ever happening .
It is amazing that last year when the cost of oil was north of $ 100 per barrel , there was more talk of nuclear energy , and now the cost of oil has dropped to where the nuclear energy does not even make a minor post , even though the new nuclear plants are almost impossible to melt down .
Look at the fall of the rail shipping system .
If the railroads where not allowed to be bought out by the larger trucking companies , you would have only regional trucking from the nearest railhead to customer , versus cross country truck shipping .
How much oil , pollution and road accidents/wear and tear could we eliminate by using rail lines again for what there were originally designed for ?
All of this leads to where our futures lead .
For the residents of this earth to fully realize discoveries/inventions , the people of this earth need to demand accountability of the uses of said advances .
This will never happen with the rich getting richer .
I do n't care about who has what toys , but if these companies use these advances to make me work harder or lay me off when the computer model says the time is right,even when these companies are making more profit than ever imagined even 100 years ago , where are we as a civilization ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The major research being conducted into advancing technology is not to better humanity but to make better the people investing in said advances to get richer.
Yes, there is trickle down benefits to all people as this happens, but if a company like IBM did not research/develop adding machines so they could make more money to sell them, one could ague that the modern computer would never have been developed.
This can be traced back to the invention of the abacus.
There have only been a few discoveries that are the core of modern technologies.
Someone invented a way to domesticate animals for the better of people.
Someone discovered electricity, and it was only the research into using electricity that has lead to the modern day computer.
The computer can be seen as entertaining, but the real use of computers is for the research/application of creating more wealth, if you break it down into where most of the computer cycles go to, I think the majority is for making more wealth.
This is not a bad thing, for it does trickle down, but when you have companies using computer programs to figure out how to increase profits with the leaders of these companies blindly following the computers output.
Look at the Wall Street variables that went into affect that has changed the world forever, just because a computer program said it would be better.
Ask the people who lost their lifetime investments, do you think the computer program even cared about being wrong?
Look at the steam engine.
This brought great improvements to modern people.
The steam engine lead to the internal combustion engine which provided even more improvements to modern people.
But, if these inventions did not offer the wealthy to get wealthier, they would never have been applied.
For an example, look at the nuclear age many visionaries thought we would be living today.
Yes, a couple of A bombs did unimaginable destruction, but what happened to all the low cost power we were supposed to have.
Splitting the atom was and still is a great invention/discovery, but, it has been held back mainly from the wealthy energy companies mass marketing/political investing to keep mass acceptance from ever happening.
It is amazing that last year when the cost of oil was north of $100 per barrel, there was more talk of nuclear energy, and now the cost of oil has dropped to where the nuclear energy does not even make a minor post, even though the new nuclear plants are almost impossible to melt down.
Look at the fall of the rail shipping system.
If the railroads where not allowed to be bought out by the larger trucking companies, you would have only regional trucking from the nearest railhead to customer, versus cross country truck shipping.
How much oil, pollution and road accidents/wear and tear could we eliminate by using rail lines again for what there were originally designed for?
All of this leads to where our futures lead.
For the residents of this earth to fully realize discoveries/inventions, the people of this earth need to demand accountability of the uses of said advances.
This will never happen with the rich getting richer.
I don't care about who has what toys, but if these companies use these advances to make me work harder or lay me off when the computer model says the time is right,even when these companies are making more profit than ever imagined even 100 years ago, where are we as a civilization?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28167315</id>
	<title>Profit Driven</title>
	<author>sherriw</author>
	<datestamp>1243867860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, I think much of that sci-fi future hasn't happened because even though a lot of awesome inventions exist, our society is based on profit. If you can't figure out how to profit financially from something, it doesn't get produced. Things are also kept scarce so that there will be a demand for them, or so they will seem like 'prestigious' items. How many people are dying in 3rd world countries b/c sending vaccines and drugs to them isn't profitable in a monetary sense?</p><p>I think Open Source Software is one step away from that problem. Many people, myself included will create and release software simply b/c there is a need/want for it, and profit desires are either secondary, or non-existent (granted not in all OSS, but many). If we can figure out how to apply that model to other areas of society- that would be a fantastic step.</p><p>I'm not anti-profit, but there's more to life that just that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , I think much of that sci-fi future has n't happened because even though a lot of awesome inventions exist , our society is based on profit .
If you ca n't figure out how to profit financially from something , it does n't get produced .
Things are also kept scarce so that there will be a demand for them , or so they will seem like 'prestigious ' items .
How many people are dying in 3rd world countries b/c sending vaccines and drugs to them is n't profitable in a monetary sense ? I think Open Source Software is one step away from that problem .
Many people , myself included will create and release software simply b/c there is a need/want for it , and profit desires are either secondary , or non-existent ( granted not in all OSS , but many ) .
If we can figure out how to apply that model to other areas of society- that would be a fantastic step.I 'm not anti-profit , but there 's more to life that just that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, I think much of that sci-fi future hasn't happened because even though a lot of awesome inventions exist, our society is based on profit.
If you can't figure out how to profit financially from something, it doesn't get produced.
Things are also kept scarce so that there will be a demand for them, or so they will seem like 'prestigious' items.
How many people are dying in 3rd world countries b/c sending vaccines and drugs to them isn't profitable in a monetary sense?I think Open Source Software is one step away from that problem.
Many people, myself included will create and release software simply b/c there is a need/want for it, and profit desires are either secondary, or non-existent (granted not in all OSS, but many).
If we can figure out how to apply that model to other areas of society- that would be a fantastic step.I'm not anti-profit, but there's more to life that just that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161843</id>
	<title>Real life teleportation?</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1243770300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article mentions a successful teleportation of a photon done during 1993.  Now I know teleportation of quantum states is possible, and that there are attempts to use it as an advanced encryption scheme. However, this article seems to indicate real teleportation of physical matter has been achieved.  Am I misinterpreting something, or are the CNN writers woefully misinformed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions a successful teleportation of a photon done during 1993 .
Now I know teleportation of quantum states is possible , and that there are attempts to use it as an advanced encryption scheme .
However , this article seems to indicate real teleportation of physical matter has been achieved .
Am I misinterpreting something , or are the CNN writers woefully misinformed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article mentions a successful teleportation of a photon done during 1993.
Now I know teleportation of quantum states is possible, and that there are attempts to use it as an advanced encryption scheme.
However, this article seems to indicate real teleportation of physical matter has been achieved.
Am I misinterpreting something, or are the CNN writers woefully misinformed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158007</id>
	<title>Re:An alternate theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243783020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and "poor" people richer as well.  Other than the United States, where else do you see homeless people with cell phones?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and " poor " people richer as well .
Other than the United States , where else do you see homeless people with cell phones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and "poor" people richer as well.
Other than the United States, where else do you see homeless people with cell phones?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158469</id>
	<title>Re:Amnesia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243786980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You only change your  oil twice a year?!</p><p>Don't count on that acura being hyper-reliable forever..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You only change your oil twice a year ?
! Do n't count on that acura being hyper-reliable forever. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You only change your  oil twice a year?
!Don't count on that acura being hyper-reliable forever..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159019</id>
	<title>"Americans have never accepted...."</title>
	<author>whitroth</author>
	<datestamp>1243791480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, yes they have. In the early years of the century, during the thirties, and again in the sixties, we looked for radical transformation. The wealthy, who own the media and a *lot* of politicians(come on, argue that), have spent since the end of WWI, and esp. since the seventies, brainwashing the public to believe that real change can't come, and if it did, it would only be a change of masters, and not better for most folks....</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mark</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yes they have .
In the early years of the century , during the thirties , and again in the sixties , we looked for radical transformation .
The wealthy , who own the media and a * lot * of politicians ( come on , argue that ) , have spent since the end of WWI , and esp .
since the seventies , brainwashing the public to believe that real change ca n't come , and if it did , it would only be a change of masters , and not better for most folks... .             mark</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yes they have.
In the early years of the century, during the thirties, and again in the sixties, we looked for radical transformation.
The wealthy, who own the media and a *lot* of politicians(come on, argue that), have spent since the end of WWI, and esp.
since the seventies, brainwashing the public to believe that real change can't come, and if it did, it would only be a change of masters, and not better for most folks....
            mark</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158187</id>
	<title>Never?</title>
	<author>MaggieL</author>
	<datestamp>1243784400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future." Apparently Corn flunked American History in high school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future .
" Apparently Corn flunked American History in high school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Americans have never accepted a radical political transformation that would change their future.
" Apparently Corn flunked American History in high school.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164937</id>
	<title>Re:Never?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243799160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard it argued that the end of slavery was <i>because</i> of advances in technology. In effect, industrialization made slavery obsolete.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard it argued that the end of slavery was because of advances in technology .
In effect , industrialization made slavery obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard it argued that the end of slavery was because of advances in technology.
In effect, industrialization made slavery obsolete.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158829</id>
	<title>Americans tend to technology fixes; for how long?</title>
	<author>awfar</author>
	<datestamp>1243789980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Americans could look to technology as long as the resources of the land supported individualism (that IMHO cannot last further than, say, another century based upon population growth). As our needs overlap,  the need to cooperate and find political solutions will grow as fast, maybe faster, than even technology needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans could look to technology as long as the resources of the land supported individualism ( that IMHO can not last further than , say , another century based upon population growth ) .
As our needs overlap , the need to cooperate and find political solutions will grow as fast , maybe faster , than even technology needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans could look to technology as long as the resources of the land supported individualism (that IMHO cannot last further than, say, another century based upon population growth).
As our needs overlap,  the need to cooperate and find political solutions will grow as fast, maybe faster, than even technology needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731</id>
	<title>Ego</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243780320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today's "exciting new technologies" are all based on exploiting people's egos. Twitter, Facebook, blogs, mobile devices allowing you to do all of these things on the move&mdash;this is what people would claim is revolutionary and liberating use of modern technology&mdash;but in reality it is a massive trap, and fantastically annoying for those of us who <b>can</b> shut the fuck up.</p><p>(The captcha required for posting this message was "contempt").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today 's " exciting new technologies " are all based on exploiting people 's egos .
Twitter , Facebook , blogs , mobile devices allowing you to do all of these things on the move    this is what people would claim is revolutionary and liberating use of modern technology    but in reality it is a massive trap , and fantastically annoying for those of us who can shut the fuck up .
( The captcha required for posting this message was " contempt " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today's "exciting new technologies" are all based on exploiting people's egos.
Twitter, Facebook, blogs, mobile devices allowing you to do all of these things on the move—this is what people would claim is revolutionary and liberating use of modern technology—but in reality it is a massive trap, and fantastically annoying for those of us who can shut the fuck up.
(The captcha required for posting this message was "contempt").</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28165667</id>
	<title>Re:Ego</title>
	<author>Tuoqui</author>
	<datestamp>1243853700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>turnitin.com</p><p>Seriously... Why arent editors running their stories through it too to prevent plagiarism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>turnitin.comSeriously... Why arent editors running their stories through it too to prevent plagiarism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>turnitin.comSeriously... Why arent editors running their stories through it too to prevent plagiarism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161201</id>
	<title>Re:Pfft, give me a break</title>
	<author>Fallingcow</author>
	<datestamp>1243764660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You get this all the time in anti-progress screeds, the "well we traded one problem for another", and then they just leave that hanging, like one problem is exactly the same as another. As Azimov noted, however, this ignores any change in quality. For instance, people used to think the world was flat like a pizza, then they thought it was a perfect sphere. They were wrong too, but, and this is the critical point, a sphere is "more right" than a pizza. THAT is how science works, approaching the asymptote.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh cool, someone else who's read that essay!</p><p>The Relativity of Wrong, collected in a book of the same name IIRC.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You get this all the time in anti-progress screeds , the " well we traded one problem for another " , and then they just leave that hanging , like one problem is exactly the same as another .
As Azimov noted , however , this ignores any change in quality .
For instance , people used to think the world was flat like a pizza , then they thought it was a perfect sphere .
They were wrong too , but , and this is the critical point , a sphere is " more right " than a pizza .
THAT is how science works , approaching the asymptote.Oh cool , someone else who 's read that essay ! The Relativity of Wrong , collected in a book of the same name IIRC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You get this all the time in anti-progress screeds, the "well we traded one problem for another", and then they just leave that hanging, like one problem is exactly the same as another.
As Azimov noted, however, this ignores any change in quality.
For instance, people used to think the world was flat like a pizza, then they thought it was a perfect sphere.
They were wrong too, but, and this is the critical point, a sphere is "more right" than a pizza.
THAT is how science works, approaching the asymptote.Oh cool, someone else who's read that essay!The Relativity of Wrong, collected in a book of the same name IIRC.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28165087</id>
	<title>Re:Vested interests</title>
	<author>dwye</author>
	<datestamp>1243888200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Why do you think companies like Westinghouse and Texas Instruments are still around,</p><p>Westinghouse is around because David Letterman is considered funny, and NCIS interesting.  The company that *was* Westinghouse became CBS, after it bought the network and sold all the real Westinghouse parts except for the broadcasting network (about 20 radio and TV stations, which was rolled into CBS TV and radio).</p><p>The "Westinghouse" that makes washers and dryers is White Appliances.  The one that makes nuclear reactors is a division of Siemans.  Other parts were folded or sold to other companies.  Some of the surviving pieces got the right to the name, which the CBS people didn't want.</p><p>In short, Westinghouse is dead.  Only the name remains, to confuse consumers.</p><p>Oh, and Westinghouse Air Brake (the other Westinghouse) is still around, but doesn't even use the WABCO name that they did in the 1970s, let alone the Westinghouse one.  I *think* that they still use the W in their acronym.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why do you think companies like Westinghouse and Texas Instruments are still around,Westinghouse is around because David Letterman is considered funny , and NCIS interesting .
The company that * was * Westinghouse became CBS , after it bought the network and sold all the real Westinghouse parts except for the broadcasting network ( about 20 radio and TV stations , which was rolled into CBS TV and radio ) .The " Westinghouse " that makes washers and dryers is White Appliances .
The one that makes nuclear reactors is a division of Siemans .
Other parts were folded or sold to other companies .
Some of the surviving pieces got the right to the name , which the CBS people did n't want.In short , Westinghouse is dead .
Only the name remains , to confuse consumers.Oh , and Westinghouse Air Brake ( the other Westinghouse ) is still around , but does n't even use the WABCO name that they did in the 1970s , let alone the Westinghouse one .
I * think * that they still use the W in their acronym .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Why do you think companies like Westinghouse and Texas Instruments are still around,Westinghouse is around because David Letterman is considered funny, and NCIS interesting.
The company that *was* Westinghouse became CBS, after it bought the network and sold all the real Westinghouse parts except for the broadcasting network (about 20 radio and TV stations, which was rolled into CBS TV and radio).The "Westinghouse" that makes washers and dryers is White Appliances.
The one that makes nuclear reactors is a division of Siemans.
Other parts were folded or sold to other companies.
Some of the surviving pieces got the right to the name, which the CBS people didn't want.In short, Westinghouse is dead.
Only the name remains, to confuse consumers.Oh, and Westinghouse Air Brake (the other Westinghouse) is still around, but doesn't even use the WABCO name that they did in the 1970s, let alone the Westinghouse one.
I *think* that they still use the W in their acronym.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159267</id>
	<title>America's greatest sci-fi book still holds on</title>
	<author>Vamman</author>
	<datestamp>1243793580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Theres a really cool sci-fi book I recently discovered called the Bible! It has all sorts of tales of super-men with powers to create entire worlds in 7 days (and he even took the day off on one of those days!), tales of sci-fi monsters, hybrid human/super-men crosses that can heal normal men with one touch, ability to part seas, walk on water, what a wonderous book! I wonder when men will see one of these great sci-fi stories come to truth....... wait....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theres a really cool sci-fi book I recently discovered called the Bible !
It has all sorts of tales of super-men with powers to create entire worlds in 7 days ( and he even took the day off on one of those days !
) , tales of sci-fi monsters , hybrid human/super-men crosses that can heal normal men with one touch , ability to part seas , walk on water , what a wonderous book !
I wonder when men will see one of these great sci-fi stories come to truth....... wait... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theres a really cool sci-fi book I recently discovered called the Bible!
It has all sorts of tales of super-men with powers to create entire worlds in 7 days (and he even took the day off on one of those days!
), tales of sci-fi monsters, hybrid human/super-men crosses that can heal normal men with one touch, ability to part seas, walk on water, what a wonderous book!
I wonder when men will see one of these great sci-fi stories come to truth....... wait....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160563</id>
	<title>Re:Top 10 reasons today is better.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243803180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; We have [...] better food than we could have ever had before.<br><br>Umm... bullshit? Yeah, sure, it lasts longer on the shelf, and maybe even tastes better... But, I just don't trust a product that has five different E numbers listed among the ingredients.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; We have [ ... ] better food than we could have ever had before.Umm... bullshit ? Yeah , sure , it lasts longer on the shelf , and maybe even tastes better... But , I just do n't trust a product that has five different E numbers listed among the ingredients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; We have [...] better food than we could have ever had before.Umm... bullshit? Yeah, sure, it lasts longer on the shelf, and maybe even tastes better... But, I just don't trust a product that has five different E numbers listed among the ingredients.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164277</id>
	<title>Re:We're much less optimistic now!</title>
	<author>twostix</author>
	<datestamp>1243791300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last centuries fiction in all categories was borne out of a generation of people who had seen with their own eyes humanity at it's absolute worst on a world wide scale.  Half a billion dead in two wars that were made only possible because of the newest technology of the day that were waged because of the "modern" way of life - huge unfettered 'corporations' (that make this centuries look like charities by comparison) combined with exchanges, central banks, industrial power and most importantly instant communications allowed tiny political groups to position themselves to occupy the politically doe-eyed whole world with only a small number of men in (the critical part) - *direct* command of everything.</p><p>This was in contrast to most of human history where money, productivity and command was extremely decentralised by comparison.  Take Australia for example, it used to take *six months* for a letter sent from England to arrive in Australia.  It was largely self governed simply because day to day and month to month issues physically couldn't be dealt with by the central government. So power had to be delegated and with that delegation came (often to fury of the central government) - enormous amounts of dilution and personal interpretation of the governments wishes by everyone in the chain.</p><p>Anyway, I think you'll find that a lot of the pie in the sky fiction from last century was people desperately trying to search and carve out a new hope for a broken people.  They were the optimists, saying - "look, technology could make life  *great* if we just try!"</p><p>And they were largely right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last centuries fiction in all categories was borne out of a generation of people who had seen with their own eyes humanity at it 's absolute worst on a world wide scale .
Half a billion dead in two wars that were made only possible because of the newest technology of the day that were waged because of the " modern " way of life - huge unfettered 'corporations ' ( that make this centuries look like charities by comparison ) combined with exchanges , central banks , industrial power and most importantly instant communications allowed tiny political groups to position themselves to occupy the politically doe-eyed whole world with only a small number of men in ( the critical part ) - * direct * command of everything.This was in contrast to most of human history where money , productivity and command was extremely decentralised by comparison .
Take Australia for example , it used to take * six months * for a letter sent from England to arrive in Australia .
It was largely self governed simply because day to day and month to month issues physically could n't be dealt with by the central government .
So power had to be delegated and with that delegation came ( often to fury of the central government ) - enormous amounts of dilution and personal interpretation of the governments wishes by everyone in the chain.Anyway , I think you 'll find that a lot of the pie in the sky fiction from last century was people desperately trying to search and carve out a new hope for a broken people .
They were the optimists , saying - " look , technology could make life * great * if we just try !
" And they were largely right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last centuries fiction in all categories was borne out of a generation of people who had seen with their own eyes humanity at it's absolute worst on a world wide scale.
Half a billion dead in two wars that were made only possible because of the newest technology of the day that were waged because of the "modern" way of life - huge unfettered 'corporations' (that make this centuries look like charities by comparison) combined with exchanges, central banks, industrial power and most importantly instant communications allowed tiny political groups to position themselves to occupy the politically doe-eyed whole world with only a small number of men in (the critical part) - *direct* command of everything.This was in contrast to most of human history where money, productivity and command was extremely decentralised by comparison.
Take Australia for example, it used to take *six months* for a letter sent from England to arrive in Australia.
It was largely self governed simply because day to day and month to month issues physically couldn't be dealt with by the central government.
So power had to be delegated and with that delegation came (often to fury of the central government) - enormous amounts of dilution and personal interpretation of the governments wishes by everyone in the chain.Anyway, I think you'll find that a lot of the pie in the sky fiction from last century was people desperately trying to search and carve out a new hope for a broken people.
They were the optimists, saying - "look, technology could make life  *great* if we just try!
"And they were largely right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157873</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28165205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28165087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28169201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28163727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28186069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28168867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28171095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28170217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28168903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28162689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28163679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28166099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28162669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28163791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28168991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28169093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28172959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_130202_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28165667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159027
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28168903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158451
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28166099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160897
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28162689
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28186069
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28172959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28168991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158397
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28165667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28165205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158159
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157825
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28171095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159541
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158741
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159021
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28170217
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28163679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159917
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28168867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28169201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160563
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28162669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158023
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158715
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158469
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160241
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28163727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28165087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28163791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28164937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28169093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28162033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_130202.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28157791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28158041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28161479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28160059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_130202.28159041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
