<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_24_135221</id>
	<title>Hitler's Stealth Fighter</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245850560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:DesScorp@Gmai\%5B\%5Dom\%5B'l.c'ingap\%5D" rel="nofollow">DesScorp</a> writes <i>"Aviation Week reports on a television special from the National Geographic Channel on what may have been <a href="http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&amp;plckScript=blogScript&amp;plckElementId=blogDest&amp;plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&amp;plckPostId=Blog\%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post\%3A41a656fb-92f6-4a9e-97ee-0b44f7587550">the world's first true stealth fighter</a>, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho\_229">Horten Ho 229</a>, a wooden design that was to include a layer of carbon material sandwiched in the leading edge to defeat radar. Northrop Grumman, experts at stealth technology from their Tacit Blue and B-2 programs, have <a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hitler-s-stealth-fighter-3942/Overview23">built a full-size replica of the airframe and tested it</a> at their desert facilities where they determined that the design was indeed stealthy, and would have been practically invisible to Britain's  Chain Home radar system of WWII."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DesScorp writes " Aviation Week reports on a television special from the National Geographic Channel on what may have been the world 's first true stealth fighter , the Horten Ho 229 , a wooden design that was to include a layer of carbon material sandwiched in the leading edge to defeat radar .
Northrop Grumman , experts at stealth technology from their Tacit Blue and B-2 programs , have built a full-size replica of the airframe and tested it at their desert facilities where they determined that the design was indeed stealthy , and would have been practically invisible to Britain 's Chain Home radar system of WWII .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DesScorp writes "Aviation Week reports on a television special from the National Geographic Channel on what may have been the world's first true stealth fighter, the Horten Ho 229, a wooden design that was to include a layer of carbon material sandwiched in the leading edge to defeat radar.
Northrop Grumman, experts at stealth technology from their Tacit Blue and B-2 programs, have built a full-size replica of the airframe and tested it at their desert facilities where they determined that the design was indeed stealthy, and would have been practically invisible to Britain's  Chain Home radar system of WWII.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735</id>
	<title>NSFW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245854760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>what with swastika flags and all. I'll be in trouble if someone has overseen my screen just then, being a german living in Britain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what with swastika flags and all .
I 'll be in trouble if someone has overseen my screen just then , being a german living in Britain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what with swastika flags and all.
I'll be in trouble if someone has overseen my screen just then, being a german living in Britain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1245855360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The development of stealth technology is one of those secretive fields that has an instant fascination. I quite enjoyed reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/0316743003/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1245851287&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com">Ben Rich's autobiography</a> [amazon.com]. Also <a href="http://www.youtube.com/view\_play\_list?p=D60656B4CE4AA4EC" title="youtube.com">Hitler's plan to atom bomb New York</a> [youtube.com] and <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-Heroes-Telemark-Mission-Hitlers/dp/0340830158" title="amazon.co.uk">The Real Heroes of Telemark</a> [amazon.co.uk] were both quite interesting, casting two sides of the same global battle from very different perspectives. German scientists were some of the best in the world (not that they are so bad today..). Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The development of stealth technology is one of those secretive fields that has an instant fascination .
I quite enjoyed reading Ben Rich 's autobiography [ amazon.com ] .
Also Hitler 's plan to atom bomb New York [ youtube.com ] and The Real Heroes of Telemark [ amazon.co.uk ] were both quite interesting , casting two sides of the same global battle from very different perspectives .
German scientists were some of the best in the world ( not that they are so bad today.. ) .
Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history , and things could easily have gone the other way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The development of stealth technology is one of those secretive fields that has an instant fascination.
I quite enjoyed reading Ben Rich's autobiography [amazon.com].
Also Hitler's plan to atom bomb New York [youtube.com] and The Real Heroes of Telemark [amazon.co.uk] were both quite interesting, casting two sides of the same global battle from very different perspectives.
German scientists were some of the best in the world (not that they are so bad today..).
Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456981</id>
	<title>Re:What Killed the Stealth fighter design?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1245874860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The military couldn't drop what they didn't have...  The F-117 was all angles because the computation required to design a smoother shape were essentially impossible to accomplish at that time.  The cost of computation dropped greatly between the F-117 and the B-2, and thus the flat/angular stealth scheme vanished into history.  Cell phones had fuck-all to do with it since they wouldn't become common until a decade after this happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The military could n't drop what they did n't have... The F-117 was all angles because the computation required to design a smoother shape were essentially impossible to accomplish at that time .
The cost of computation dropped greatly between the F-117 and the B-2 , and thus the flat/angular stealth scheme vanished into history .
Cell phones had fuck-all to do with it since they would n't become common until a decade after this happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The military couldn't drop what they didn't have...  The F-117 was all angles because the computation required to design a smoother shape were essentially impossible to accomplish at that time.
The cost of computation dropped greatly between the F-117 and the B-2, and thus the flat/angular stealth scheme vanished into history.
Cell phones had fuck-all to do with it since they wouldn't become common until a decade after this happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451973</id>
	<title>Old News</title>
	<author>TDyl</author>
	<datestamp>1245856140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was flying this in BF1942 Secret Weapons of WWII in 2003.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was flying this in BF1942 Secret Weapons of WWII in 2003 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was flying this in BF1942 Secret Weapons of WWII in 2003.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451915</id>
	<title>We were THIS close</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245855840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to winning that damned war. How much better would the world be if we had won? Answer: a lot better.</p><p>We could be living in a utopia right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to winning that damned war .
How much better would the world be if we had won ?
Answer : a lot better.We could be living in a utopia right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to winning that damned war.
How much better would the world be if we had won?
Answer: a lot better.We could be living in a utopia right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453151</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245861360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, he lost because he over extended himself into Russia.<br>No weapon at the time wold have stopped the russians once the begain moving toward Germany.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , he lost because he over extended himself into Russia.No weapon at the time wold have stopped the russians once the begain moving toward Germany .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, he lost because he over extended himself into Russia.No weapon at the time wold have stopped the russians once the begain moving toward Germany.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452059</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>13bPower</author>
	<datestamp>1245856680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In America, we call it a sausage in the mouth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In America , we call it a sausage in the mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In America, we call it a sausage in the mouth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452479</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245858720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some parts of the world got unlucky. The Soviets and Americans winning the war was not good for everybody.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some parts of the world got unlucky .
The Soviets and Americans winning the war was not good for everybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some parts of the world got unlucky.
The Soviets and Americans winning the war was not good for everybody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452387</id>
	<title>Re:Another Example of German Technical Achievement</title>
	<author>Jodka</author>
	<datestamp>1245858240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is the parent moderated "-1, Troll" ?</p><p>Cultures have both good and bad aspects.  We must not condemn an entire culture because it contains some bad elements, however horrific those are .  German scientific and technological achievements of the period were significant.  Condemn the bad aspects of a culture and praise the good ones.  The moderators are behaving like anti-german bigots, moderating as troll an accurate statement about the scientific and technological accomplishments of Germany.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the parent moderated " -1 , Troll " ? Cultures have both good and bad aspects .
We must not condemn an entire culture because it contains some bad elements , however horrific those are .
German scientific and technological achievements of the period were significant .
Condemn the bad aspects of a culture and praise the good ones .
The moderators are behaving like anti-german bigots , moderating as troll an accurate statement about the scientific and technological accomplishments of Germany .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the parent moderated "-1, Troll" ?Cultures have both good and bad aspects.
We must not condemn an entire culture because it contains some bad elements, however horrific those are .
German scientific and technological achievements of the period were significant.
Condemn the bad aspects of a culture and praise the good ones.
The moderators are behaving like anti-german bigots, moderating as troll an accurate statement about the scientific and technological accomplishments of Germany.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045</id>
	<title>The Germans build nice stuff...</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245856560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technical sophistication is one advantage on the battlefield, but manufacturing capacity is also important.</p><p>The Germans choose technical complexity over quantity believing that superior machines could beat the vast numbers of inferior machines the allies built.</p><p>The Germans were wrong.</p><p>As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all its own".  A stealth aircraft or two may have been pretty trick, but if you have thousands of targets to bomb, you better have hundreds if not thousands of aircraft (and pilots) to do the job.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technical sophistication is one advantage on the battlefield , but manufacturing capacity is also important.The Germans choose technical complexity over quantity believing that superior machines could beat the vast numbers of inferior machines the allies built.The Germans were wrong.As Stalin said " quantity has a quality all its own " .
A stealth aircraft or two may have been pretty trick , but if you have thousands of targets to bomb , you better have hundreds if not thousands of aircraft ( and pilots ) to do the job.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technical sophistication is one advantage on the battlefield, but manufacturing capacity is also important.The Germans choose technical complexity over quantity believing that superior machines could beat the vast numbers of inferior machines the allies built.The Germans were wrong.As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all its own".
A stealth aircraft or two may have been pretty trick, but if you have thousands of targets to bomb, you better have hundreds if not thousands of aircraft (and pilots) to do the job.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451949</id>
	<title>Re:Another Example of German Technical Achievement</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1245855960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>An African invented peanut-butter. Since most nerds can't cook, peanut-butter sandwiches have sustained the lives of countless engineers and scientists.

I wouldn't call that contribution little!</htmltext>
<tokenext>An African invented peanut-butter .
Since most nerds ca n't cook , peanut-butter sandwiches have sustained the lives of countless engineers and scientists .
I would n't call that contribution little !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An African invented peanut-butter.
Since most nerds can't cook, peanut-butter sandwiches have sustained the lives of countless engineers and scientists.
I wouldn't call that contribution little!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451809</id>
	<title>Re:Man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245855240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What DIDN'T Hitler Do?</i> <br>
<br>
Succeed as an artist?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What DID N'T Hitler Do ?
Succeed as an artist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What DIDN'T Hitler Do?
Succeed as an artist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455417</id>
	<title>Iron Storm</title>
	<author>mister\_playboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245869100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I first learned about this, and many other cool end of the war vehicles, from the Sega Saturn hex-strategy game Iron Storm... which is an English port of the Japanese Dai Senryaku series.</p><p>A great game!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I first learned about this , and many other cool end of the war vehicles , from the Sega Saturn hex-strategy game Iron Storm... which is an English port of the Japanese Dai Senryaku series.A great game !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I first learned about this, and many other cool end of the war vehicles, from the Sega Saturn hex-strategy game Iron Storm... which is an English port of the Japanese Dai Senryaku series.A great game!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452293</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>mog007</author>
	<datestamp>1245857760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hitler didn't make a single ultimate mistake.  He made several.  Launching into an unneeded second front when he broke the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union was a huge mistake.  He also diverted a lot of supplies for his war effort into his political posturing bullshit about the purity of the Aryans.  If he'd been like a real politician and just said what he had to, instead of actually following through with it, his trains could have been hauling soldiers and firearms to the front, instead of Jews and homosexuals to death camps.</p><p>So remember kids:  if you want to eradicate people who look a certain way and you also want to become ruler of the planet, it's best to take over everything first, then you can genocide to your heart's content.  Also, don't get involved with war in the winter in Russia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hitler did n't make a single ultimate mistake .
He made several .
Launching into an unneeded second front when he broke the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union was a huge mistake .
He also diverted a lot of supplies for his war effort into his political posturing bullshit about the purity of the Aryans .
If he 'd been like a real politician and just said what he had to , instead of actually following through with it , his trains could have been hauling soldiers and firearms to the front , instead of Jews and homosexuals to death camps.So remember kids : if you want to eradicate people who look a certain way and you also want to become ruler of the planet , it 's best to take over everything first , then you can genocide to your heart 's content .
Also , do n't get involved with war in the winter in Russia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hitler didn't make a single ultimate mistake.
He made several.
Launching into an unneeded second front when he broke the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union was a huge mistake.
He also diverted a lot of supplies for his war effort into his political posturing bullshit about the purity of the Aryans.
If he'd been like a real politician and just said what he had to, instead of actually following through with it, his trains could have been hauling soldiers and firearms to the front, instead of Jews and homosexuals to death camps.So remember kids:  if you want to eradicate people who look a certain way and you also want to become ruler of the planet, it's best to take over everything first, then you can genocide to your heart's content.
Also, don't get involved with war in the winter in Russia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453543</id>
	<title>Re:Control surfaces?</title>
	<author>Quantos</author>
	<datestamp>1245862740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and yes that is a DIG on current pilots, many cant fly if the GPS is not working.</p></div><p>
So all of the training that pilots go through for navigation and instrument flight is what-a pipe dream?
<br>
I guess that <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/15/2009-01-15\_us\_airways\_airplane\_crashes\_in\_hudson\_ri.html" title="nydailynews.com" rel="nofollow">Captain Chesley Sullenburger III</a> [nydailynews.com] was just some hack in a suit.
<br>
You might need the GPS to get your head out of your ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and yes that is a DIG on current pilots , many cant fly if the GPS is not working .
So all of the training that pilots go through for navigation and instrument flight is what-a pipe dream ?
I guess that Captain Chesley Sullenburger III [ nydailynews.com ] was just some hack in a suit .
You might need the GPS to get your head out of your ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and yes that is a DIG on current pilots, many cant fly if the GPS is not working.
So all of the training that pilots go through for navigation and instrument flight is what-a pipe dream?
I guess that Captain Chesley Sullenburger III [nydailynews.com] was just some hack in a suit.
You might need the GPS to get your head out of your ass.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455733</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>spartacus\_prime</author>
	<datestamp>1245869940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, in America, we just call it a sausage.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , in America , we just call it a sausage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, in America, we just call it a sausage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452339</id>
	<title>Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245857940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's stealthy relative to the time-period; Not compared to ours.  Radar then is definitely not comparable to what we have now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's stealthy relative to the time-period ; Not compared to ours .
Radar then is definitely not comparable to what we have now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's stealthy relative to the time-period; Not compared to ours.
Radar then is definitely not comparable to what we have now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456677</id>
	<title>Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG</title>
	<author>edivad</author>
	<datestamp>1245873480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, jet engines of the era were extremely inefficient, <b>especially German ones</b> where poor alloys limited exhaust temperatures in the turbine.
</p></div><p>Especially the German ones? Sorry, which other country was producing jet engines at that time?<br>
You must have some pretty serious insider knowledge if you're aware of any.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , jet engines of the era were extremely inefficient , especially German ones where poor alloys limited exhaust temperatures in the turbine .
Especially the German ones ?
Sorry , which other country was producing jet engines at that time ?
You must have some pretty serious insider knowledge if you 're aware of any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, jet engines of the era were extremely inefficient, especially German ones where poor alloys limited exhaust temperatures in the turbine.
Especially the German ones?
Sorry, which other country was producing jet engines at that time?
You must have some pretty serious insider knowledge if you're aware of any.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28459051</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245839280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Therefore, in order to completely disavow that era, European governments have decided to turn the power to curtail free speech towards the purposes of good</p></div><p> This is because they seem to think one can misuse ones rights in Europe. This view is not that of the goverments but that of the European Court of Human Rights and therefore applicable to goverment policies of the all European goverments who incidentally have signed the corresponding Convention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Therefore , in order to completely disavow that era , European governments have decided to turn the power to curtail free speech towards the purposes of good This is because they seem to think one can misuse ones rights in Europe .
This view is not that of the goverments but that of the European Court of Human Rights and therefore applicable to goverment policies of the all European goverments who incidentally have signed the corresponding Convention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Therefore, in order to completely disavow that era, European governments have decided to turn the power to curtail free speech towards the purposes of good This is because they seem to think one can misuse ones rights in Europe.
This view is not that of the goverments but that of the European Court of Human Rights and therefore applicable to goverment policies of the all European goverments who incidentally have signed the corresponding Convention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452713</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1245859680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He was under enormous economic pressures to continue the process at that point (much of which was his own fault - while Germany's economy had, of course, been trashed after WW1, there were new economic problems from the occupations themselves - Austria wasn't too bad, a bit over budget, but Czechoslovakia cost much more than projected and return benefits were much, much lower. You could compare it to the US claims circa 2002 that the Iraq war would cost 40 Billion total and oil production would be fully restored within 9 Months, although the Reich's predictions weren't <b>that</b> far off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He was under enormous economic pressures to continue the process at that point ( much of which was his own fault - while Germany 's economy had , of course , been trashed after WW1 , there were new economic problems from the occupations themselves - Austria was n't too bad , a bit over budget , but Czechoslovakia cost much more than projected and return benefits were much , much lower .
You could compare it to the US claims circa 2002 that the Iraq war would cost 40 Billion total and oil production would be fully restored within 9 Months , although the Reich 's predictions were n't that far off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He was under enormous economic pressures to continue the process at that point (much of which was his own fault - while Germany's economy had, of course, been trashed after WW1, there were new economic problems from the occupations themselves - Austria wasn't too bad, a bit over budget, but Czechoslovakia cost much more than projected and return benefits were much, much lower.
You could compare it to the US claims circa 2002 that the Iraq war would cost 40 Billion total and oil production would be fully restored within 9 Months, although the Reich's predictions weren't that far off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28461649</id>
	<title>Re:Shame we didn't learn this lesson in Vietnam</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1245854460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Instead, we had the likes of unstealthy aircraft flying over Vietnam and getting shot down with rather significant losses to surface to air missiles.</p></div></blockquote><p>

It wasn't lack of stealth technology that lead to the US's defeat in Vietnam, it was incompetent leadership and ambiguous goals (both military and political). The NVA and Vietcong would have fought the US and South Vietnam even if the US had armed space ships and hand held laser weapons. The war was fought for dubious political reasons, supporting a corrupt and unpopular state, that's what doomed it to failure before its beginning.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead , we had the likes of unstealthy aircraft flying over Vietnam and getting shot down with rather significant losses to surface to air missiles .
It was n't lack of stealth technology that lead to the US 's defeat in Vietnam , it was incompetent leadership and ambiguous goals ( both military and political ) .
The NVA and Vietcong would have fought the US and South Vietnam even if the US had armed space ships and hand held laser weapons .
The war was fought for dubious political reasons , supporting a corrupt and unpopular state , that 's what doomed it to failure before its beginning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead, we had the likes of unstealthy aircraft flying over Vietnam and getting shot down with rather significant losses to surface to air missiles.
It wasn't lack of stealth technology that lead to the US's defeat in Vietnam, it was incompetent leadership and ambiguous goals (both military and political).
The NVA and Vietcong would have fought the US and South Vietnam even if the US had armed space ships and hand held laser weapons.
The war was fought for dubious political reasons, supporting a corrupt and unpopular state, that's what doomed it to failure before its beginning.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28459787</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1245842580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Supposedly he was worried about Soviet tank developments and having his forces obsoleted, AFAIK his advisors said that if they don't strike when they did they'll end up with outdated military gear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Supposedly he was worried about Soviet tank developments and having his forces obsoleted , AFAIK his advisors said that if they do n't strike when they did they 'll end up with outdated military gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Supposedly he was worried about Soviet tank developments and having his forces obsoleted, AFAIK his advisors said that if they don't strike when they did they'll end up with outdated military gear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28461487</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1245853140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>German scientists were some of the best in the world (not that they are so bad today..).</p></div></blockquote><p>

Our German scientist were pretty good as well, in fact one of the keys to winning the war was the fact that our German scientists were better then their German scientists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>German scientists were some of the best in the world ( not that they are so bad today.. ) .
Our German scientist were pretty good as well , in fact one of the keys to winning the war was the fact that our German scientists were better then their German scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>German scientists were some of the best in the world (not that they are so bad today..).
Our German scientist were pretty good as well, in fact one of the keys to winning the war was the fact that our German scientists were better then their German scientists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635</id>
	<title>Man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245854220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What DIDN'T Hitler Do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What DID N'T Hitler Do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What DIDN'T Hitler Do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009</id>
	<title>Shame we didn't learn this lesson in Vietnam</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245856320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's remarkable that we had in our hands a German aircraft that contained within it a very important lesson that we flat out ignored.  Building a stealth plane in 1943 meant the Germans had learned something it would take us another 30 years to figure out.  Stealth is essential in aircraft.</p><p>Instead, we had the likes of unstealthy aircraft flying over Vietnam and getting shot down with rather significant losses to surface to air missiles.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft\_losses\_of\_the\_Vietnam\_War" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft\_losses\_of\_the\_Vietnam\_War</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>More than 1700 US aircraft were shot down.  That's a catastrophe.  It was in response to that that the US Stealth fighter program was initiated in the early 1970s. But, just imagine if we had thought, geez, the Germans had came up with a way to evade radar, we have the plane, newer technology...</p><p>You have to wonder, what if?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's remarkable that we had in our hands a German aircraft that contained within it a very important lesson that we flat out ignored .
Building a stealth plane in 1943 meant the Germans had learned something it would take us another 30 years to figure out .
Stealth is essential in aircraft.Instead , we had the likes of unstealthy aircraft flying over Vietnam and getting shot down with rather significant losses to surface to air missiles.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft \ _losses \ _of \ _the \ _Vietnam \ _War [ wikipedia.org ] More than 1700 US aircraft were shot down .
That 's a catastrophe .
It was in response to that that the US Stealth fighter program was initiated in the early 1970s .
But , just imagine if we had thought , geez , the Germans had came up with a way to evade radar , we have the plane , newer technology...You have to wonder , what if ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's remarkable that we had in our hands a German aircraft that contained within it a very important lesson that we flat out ignored.
Building a stealth plane in 1943 meant the Germans had learned something it would take us another 30 years to figure out.
Stealth is essential in aircraft.Instead, we had the likes of unstealthy aircraft flying over Vietnam and getting shot down with rather significant losses to surface to air missiles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft\_losses\_of\_the\_Vietnam\_War [wikipedia.org]More than 1700 US aircraft were shot down.
That's a catastrophe.
It was in response to that that the US Stealth fighter program was initiated in the early 1970s.
But, just imagine if we had thought, geez, the Germans had came up with a way to evade radar, we have the plane, newer technology...You have to wonder, what if?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452577</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1245859080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>German scientists were some of the best in the world..</p></div><p>Yep, and were a little to Jewish or otherwise and left Germany and then ended up in the Manhattan project. Define Irony.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>German scientists were some of the best in the world..Yep , and were a little to Jewish or otherwise and left Germany and then ended up in the Manhattan project .
Define Irony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>German scientists were some of the best in the world..Yep, and were a little to Jewish or otherwise and left Germany and then ended up in the Manhattan project.
Define Irony.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28462697</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245863160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So remember kids:  if you want to eradicate people who look a certain way and you also want to become ruler of the planet, it's best to take over everything first, then you can genocide to your heart's content.  </p></div><p>Time to do some reading:</p><ul>
<li>Der Judenstaat, 1896, by Theodor Herzl</li><li>Verhandlungen des Deutschen Reichstages ("The Reichstag Peace Resolution"), July 19, 1917</li><li>Balfour Declaration, November 2, 1917</li><li>The Peace Treaty of Versailles, June 28, 1919</li></ul><p>

Now why do you think the Jews were expelled from Germany?<br> <br>

It may be difficult to understand if you're an American living in a melting pot with no long-term territorial imperative...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So remember kids : if you want to eradicate people who look a certain way and you also want to become ruler of the planet , it 's best to take over everything first , then you can genocide to your heart 's content .
Time to do some reading : Der Judenstaat , 1896 , by Theodor HerzlVerhandlungen des Deutschen Reichstages ( " The Reichstag Peace Resolution " ) , July 19 , 1917Balfour Declaration , November 2 , 1917The Peace Treaty of Versailles , June 28 , 1919 Now why do you think the Jews were expelled from Germany ?
It may be difficult to understand if you 're an American living in a melting pot with no long-term territorial imperative.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So remember kids:  if you want to eradicate people who look a certain way and you also want to become ruler of the planet, it's best to take over everything first, then you can genocide to your heart's content.
Time to do some reading:
Der Judenstaat, 1896, by Theodor HerzlVerhandlungen des Deutschen Reichstages ("The Reichstag Peace Resolution"), July 19, 1917Balfour Declaration, November 2, 1917The Peace Treaty of Versailles, June 28, 1919

Now why do you think the Jews were expelled from Germany?
It may be difficult to understand if you're an American living in a melting pot with no long-term territorial imperative...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452415</id>
	<title>Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG</title>
	<author>dw\_g</author>
	<datestamp>1245858360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Different approaches are used depending upon the frequency of the radar that you're going up against, and the tactics involved in the defense ring.

First detection is usually handled by a long wavelength radar and after detection the target is handed off to a tracking radar, which uses a shorter wavelength, and finally to a targeting radar that uses the shortest wavelength.

One tactic is to avoid that first radar, then you're never handed off to the next layer.  The Horton could probably get past the coastal radars, and after that it might be able to approach its target unhindered.

The fact that there was a carbon layer in the wind leading edge (a primitive form of dielectric RAM) indicates that radar reduction was being considered.  The Nazis also coated the periscopes of their submarines to reduce the signature after they learned that the British had radar on their search airplanes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Different approaches are used depending upon the frequency of the radar that you 're going up against , and the tactics involved in the defense ring .
First detection is usually handled by a long wavelength radar and after detection the target is handed off to a tracking radar , which uses a shorter wavelength , and finally to a targeting radar that uses the shortest wavelength .
One tactic is to avoid that first radar , then you 're never handed off to the next layer .
The Horton could probably get past the coastal radars , and after that it might be able to approach its target unhindered .
The fact that there was a carbon layer in the wind leading edge ( a primitive form of dielectric RAM ) indicates that radar reduction was being considered .
The Nazis also coated the periscopes of their submarines to reduce the signature after they learned that the British had radar on their search airplanes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Different approaches are used depending upon the frequency of the radar that you're going up against, and the tactics involved in the defense ring.
First detection is usually handled by a long wavelength radar and after detection the target is handed off to a tracking radar, which uses a shorter wavelength, and finally to a targeting radar that uses the shortest wavelength.
One tactic is to avoid that first radar, then you're never handed off to the next layer.
The Horton could probably get past the coastal radars, and after that it might be able to approach its target unhindered.
The fact that there was a carbon layer in the wind leading edge (a primitive form of dielectric RAM) indicates that radar reduction was being considered.
The Nazis also coated the periscopes of their submarines to reduce the signature after they learned that the British had radar on their search airplanes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456049</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>mce</author>
	<datestamp>1245871080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right about the A bomb, but they did have other things. Such as the Type XXI U-boat (fortunately it was ready too late, but that's in part because early in the war they slowed its development down in order to more quickly build more type VII and type IX boats). The V2 would also have helped if they'd had it before they were in a lost position anyway (note that I do not include the V1 in this list, as it was far too easy to kill). The ME-262 fighter would also have helped, if they'd focused more on it earlier on and if Hitler had not stupidly insisted that it also be made into a bomber.
</p><p>
Of course, the real problem for the Germans was that - strategically speaking - they were from the start doomed to loose sooner or later anyway. They simply did not have and could not hope to gain and keep the required resources to really take on all the countries that they did take on. But it could have taken much longer to get to the same outcome (or a worse one, since the US would in that case have had the A bomb in time for use in Europe)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right about the A bomb , but they did have other things .
Such as the Type XXI U-boat ( fortunately it was ready too late , but that 's in part because early in the war they slowed its development down in order to more quickly build more type VII and type IX boats ) .
The V2 would also have helped if they 'd had it before they were in a lost position anyway ( note that I do not include the V1 in this list , as it was far too easy to kill ) .
The ME-262 fighter would also have helped , if they 'd focused more on it earlier on and if Hitler had not stupidly insisted that it also be made into a bomber .
Of course , the real problem for the Germans was that - strategically speaking - they were from the start doomed to loose sooner or later anyway .
They simply did not have and could not hope to gain and keep the required resources to really take on all the countries that they did take on .
But it could have taken much longer to get to the same outcome ( or a worse one , since the US would in that case have had the A bomb in time for use in Europe )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right about the A bomb, but they did have other things.
Such as the Type XXI U-boat (fortunately it was ready too late, but that's in part because early in the war they slowed its development down in order to more quickly build more type VII and type IX boats).
The V2 would also have helped if they'd had it before they were in a lost position anyway (note that I do not include the V1 in this list, as it was far too easy to kill).
The ME-262 fighter would also have helped, if they'd focused more on it earlier on and if Hitler had not stupidly insisted that it also be made into a bomber.
Of course, the real problem for the Germans was that - strategically speaking - they were from the start doomed to loose sooner or later anyway.
They simply did not have and could not hope to gain and keep the required resources to really take on all the countries that they did take on.
But it could have taken much longer to get to the same outcome (or a worse one, since the US would in that case have had the A bomb in time for use in Europe)
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452893</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>Actually, I do RTFA</author>
	<datestamp>1245860400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hitler's primary, and ultimately fatal, mistake was underestimating the French and British will to fight for Poland.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and so went for Poland before his war machine was fully ready.</p></div></blockquote><p>Germany's war machine was not full geared up, true.  But Britain's and France's were in worse shape.  And given that both countries had more production capability, it would have worked against Germany to wait.</p><p>In fact, it is sometimes seen as a British blunder to get involved as early as they did, as a few more years of prep would have helped them out dramatically.</p><p>The top three German mistakes were (in chronological order):</p><ol> <li>Letting the British escape at the Battle of the Bulge (Hitler overriding his commanders).</li><li>Attacking Russia before dealing with Britain.</li><li>Allowing Japan to attack the US, and get involved.  That was a miscalculation of the highest order.</li></ol><p>I've also seen on the list (although I'm not sure of it's veracity) that they could have carpet-bombed England into submission a lot faster, possibly before the US got involved, if Hitler had authorized a yet more deadly air campaign.  There are all kinds of reasons (irrational love of the British?) posited as to why he did not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hitler 's primary , and ultimately fatal , mistake was underestimating the French and British will to fight for Poland .
... and so went for Poland before his war machine was fully ready.Germany 's war machine was not full geared up , true .
But Britain 's and France 's were in worse shape .
And given that both countries had more production capability , it would have worked against Germany to wait.In fact , it is sometimes seen as a British blunder to get involved as early as they did , as a few more years of prep would have helped them out dramatically.The top three German mistakes were ( in chronological order ) : Letting the British escape at the Battle of the Bulge ( Hitler overriding his commanders ) .Attacking Russia before dealing with Britain.Allowing Japan to attack the US , and get involved .
That was a miscalculation of the highest order.I 've also seen on the list ( although I 'm not sure of it 's veracity ) that they could have carpet-bombed England into submission a lot faster , possibly before the US got involved , if Hitler had authorized a yet more deadly air campaign .
There are all kinds of reasons ( irrational love of the British ?
) posited as to why he did not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hitler's primary, and ultimately fatal, mistake was underestimating the French and British will to fight for Poland.
... and so went for Poland before his war machine was fully ready.Germany's war machine was not full geared up, true.
But Britain's and France's were in worse shape.
And given that both countries had more production capability, it would have worked against Germany to wait.In fact, it is sometimes seen as a British blunder to get involved as early as they did, as a few more years of prep would have helped them out dramatically.The top three German mistakes were (in chronological order): Letting the British escape at the Battle of the Bulge (Hitler overriding his commanders).Attacking Russia before dealing with Britain.Allowing Japan to attack the US, and get involved.
That was a miscalculation of the highest order.I've also seen on the list (although I'm not sure of it's veracity) that they could have carpet-bombed England into submission a lot faster, possibly before the US got involved, if Hitler had authorized a yet more deadly air campaign.
There are all kinds of reasons (irrational love of the British?
) posited as to why he did not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28466075</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245943260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people who developed the first nuke were from Germany, they fled from there for many reasons. Germans were the first to have planes with jet engines and the first to have Cruise missiles (V2) (and most of the rocket science that led to the development of the rockets that took americans and soviets to the space were of German origin)</p><p>Sure they were far away from attacking the states directly with a missile, but to say they were far from it is silly.</p><p>Germany downfall came from stupid things their leader decided, the fact that going against 2 of the biggest countries in the word at the same time is just plain stupid and just plain inability to produce enough stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who developed the first nuke were from Germany , they fled from there for many reasons .
Germans were the first to have planes with jet engines and the first to have Cruise missiles ( V2 ) ( and most of the rocket science that led to the development of the rockets that took americans and soviets to the space were of German origin ) Sure they were far away from attacking the states directly with a missile , but to say they were far from it is silly.Germany downfall came from stupid things their leader decided , the fact that going against 2 of the biggest countries in the word at the same time is just plain stupid and just plain inability to produce enough stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who developed the first nuke were from Germany, they fled from there for many reasons.
Germans were the first to have planes with jet engines and the first to have Cruise missiles (V2) (and most of the rocket science that led to the development of the rockets that took americans and soviets to the space were of German origin)Sure they were far away from attacking the states directly with a missile, but to say they were far from it is silly.Germany downfall came from stupid things their leader decided, the fact that going against 2 of the biggest countries in the word at the same time is just plain stupid and just plain inability to produce enough stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452073</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1245856740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, but WTF?  It's somehow verboten to view a swastika in a historical context? What kind of constitution do you have over there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but WTF ?
It 's somehow verboten to view a swastika in a historical context ?
What kind of constitution do you have over there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but WTF?
It's somehow verboten to view a swastika in a historical context?
What kind of constitution do you have over there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456927</id>
	<title>yes, like Einstein, Szilard, Teller, Fermi, ..er..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245874680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>oh wait those guys all had to leave germany (or italy) in the 30s because of nazi racism.</p><p>so actually.. you might want to say 'all the best scientists were german, but they were living in america / england'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>oh wait those guys all had to leave germany ( or italy ) in the 30s because of nazi racism.so actually.. you might want to say 'all the best scientists were german , but they were living in america / england'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh wait those guys all had to leave germany (or italy) in the 30s because of nazi racism.so actually.. you might want to say 'all the best scientists were german, but they were living in america / england'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452743</id>
	<title>Re:Control surfaces?</title>
	<author>JWSmythe</author>
	<datestamp>1245859800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; From what I understand, elevon and spoiler configurations aren't bad to operate.   The elevon is a combined input of the stick, and the spoilers operate as the rudder.  Now, the prone position that the Horton Ho's were designed to be flown in looks either incredible uncomfortable, or a good way to fall asleep flying.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Sure, modern spiffy keen state of the art aircraft are all computer controlled.  That doesn't mean it's a requirement to fly.  Oddly enough, people manually controlled aircraft for many years.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; And to add a car analogy (just for grins, I assure you), car engines ran before they were computer operated.  A mechanic would (oh my gosh) set the timing advance, mixture, and idle speed by (deep breath) HAND.  But bah, we have computers for that now, so mechanics aren't necessary, unless any of the hundreds of sensors and controls don't operate properly.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    From what I understand , elevon and spoiler configurations are n't bad to operate .
The elevon is a combined input of the stick , and the spoilers operate as the rudder .
Now , the prone position that the Horton Ho 's were designed to be flown in looks either incredible uncomfortable , or a good way to fall asleep flying .
: )     Sure , modern spiffy keen state of the art aircraft are all computer controlled .
That does n't mean it 's a requirement to fly .
Oddly enough , people manually controlled aircraft for many years .
: )     And to add a car analogy ( just for grins , I assure you ) , car engines ran before they were computer operated .
A mechanic would ( oh my gosh ) set the timing advance , mixture , and idle speed by ( deep breath ) HAND .
But bah , we have computers for that now , so mechanics are n't necessary , unless any of the hundreds of sensors and controls do n't operate properly .
: )    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    From what I understand, elevon and spoiler configurations aren't bad to operate.
The elevon is a combined input of the stick, and the spoilers operate as the rudder.
Now, the prone position that the Horton Ho's were designed to be flown in looks either incredible uncomfortable, or a good way to fall asleep flying.
:)
    Sure, modern spiffy keen state of the art aircraft are all computer controlled.
That doesn't mean it's a requirement to fly.
Oddly enough, people manually controlled aircraft for many years.
:)
    And to add a car analogy (just for grins, I assure you), car engines ran before they were computer operated.
A mechanic would (oh my gosh) set the timing advance, mixture, and idle speed by (deep breath) HAND.
But bah, we have computers for that now, so mechanics aren't necessary, unless any of the hundreds of sensors and controls don't operate properly.
:)
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452355</id>
	<title>Re:Shame we didn't learn this lesson in Vietnam</title>
	<author>Spamalope</author>
	<datestamp>1245858000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It was in response to that that the US Stealth fighter program was initiated in the early 1970s. But, just imagine if we had thought, geez, the Germans had came up with a way to evade radar, we have the plane, newer technology...</p><p>You have to wonder, what if?</p></div><p>
And when your slower, more expensive 'Radar' stealth fighter was shot down by heat seeking missiles anyway, what good would you have done? Your needed more than just radar stealth by the 60s.</p><p>The F4 and A6 used in Vietnam had either bomb load and/or speed as considerations. You two 500 pound bomb fighter will have to be very busy to keep up with an A6 that carries a larger payload than a B-17. Radar stealth didn't arrive sooner in practice because tech arrived that could find you without radar, and because radar got better faster than practical radar stealth did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was in response to that that the US Stealth fighter program was initiated in the early 1970s .
But , just imagine if we had thought , geez , the Germans had came up with a way to evade radar , we have the plane , newer technology...You have to wonder , what if ?
And when your slower , more expensive 'Radar ' stealth fighter was shot down by heat seeking missiles anyway , what good would you have done ?
Your needed more than just radar stealth by the 60s.The F4 and A6 used in Vietnam had either bomb load and/or speed as considerations .
You two 500 pound bomb fighter will have to be very busy to keep up with an A6 that carries a larger payload than a B-17 .
Radar stealth did n't arrive sooner in practice because tech arrived that could find you without radar , and because radar got better faster than practical radar stealth did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It was in response to that that the US Stealth fighter program was initiated in the early 1970s.
But, just imagine if we had thought, geez, the Germans had came up with a way to evade radar, we have the plane, newer technology...You have to wonder, what if?
And when your slower, more expensive 'Radar' stealth fighter was shot down by heat seeking missiles anyway, what good would you have done?
Your needed more than just radar stealth by the 60s.The F4 and A6 used in Vietnam had either bomb load and/or speed as considerations.
You two 500 pound bomb fighter will have to be very busy to keep up with an A6 that carries a larger payload than a B-17.
Radar stealth didn't arrive sooner in practice because tech arrived that could find you without radar, and because radar got better faster than practical radar stealth did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456821</id>
	<title>Re:Hehe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245874200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FFS. The <b>allies</b> developed an atom bomb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FFS .
The allies developed an atom bomb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FFS.
The allies developed an atom bomb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451963</id>
	<title>Re:I like the decoration</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1245856020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you aren't mature enough to look at a swastika in a relevant place (we're talking about Nazi Germany here) you shouldn't be on the internet. Let me guess, you are also for the elimination of the flag of the Confederate States too? Please, show some maturity, if you can't handle seeing a swastika, perhaps you shouldn't be looking up information on Nazi Germany.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are n't mature enough to look at a swastika in a relevant place ( we 're talking about Nazi Germany here ) you should n't be on the internet .
Let me guess , you are also for the elimination of the flag of the Confederate States too ?
Please , show some maturity , if you ca n't handle seeing a swastika , perhaps you should n't be looking up information on Nazi Germany .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you aren't mature enough to look at a swastika in a relevant place (we're talking about Nazi Germany here) you shouldn't be on the internet.
Let me guess, you are also for the elimination of the flag of the Confederate States too?
Please, show some maturity, if you can't handle seeing a swastika, perhaps you shouldn't be looking up information on Nazi Germany.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460285</id>
	<title>Re:What Killed the Stealth fighter design?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245845160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember reading about that in I think Popular Science years ago. In their case they didn't use cell signals, but TV signals - you have a radar that "picks up" those signals and watches for any holes in the spectrum. It was touted as an advanced radar because since you didn't have the part of a normal radar that broadcasts signals, you could just stealthily watch the sky and not make it known to aircraft where your radar site was at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading about that in I think Popular Science years ago .
In their case they did n't use cell signals , but TV signals - you have a radar that " picks up " those signals and watches for any holes in the spectrum .
It was touted as an advanced radar because since you did n't have the part of a normal radar that broadcasts signals , you could just stealthily watch the sky and not make it known to aircraft where your radar site was at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading about that in I think Popular Science years ago.
In their case they didn't use cell signals, but TV signals - you have a radar that "picks up" those signals and watches for any holes in the spectrum.
It was touted as an advanced radar because since you didn't have the part of a normal radar that broadcasts signals, you could just stealthily watch the sky and not make it known to aircraft where your radar site was at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451823</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1245855300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell them you were reminding yourself about just how bad a person Hitler was.  And then chomp down on a big banger while saluting a picture of the queen to let them know how much you love England.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell them you were reminding yourself about just how bad a person Hitler was .
And then chomp down on a big banger while saluting a picture of the queen to let them know how much you love England .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell them you were reminding yourself about just how bad a person Hitler was.
And then chomp down on a big banger while saluting a picture of the queen to let them know how much you love England.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452379</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1245858180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.</p></div></blockquote><p>Mostly because you've bought into the hype surrounding WWII German VunderVeapons.  In reality, Germany never had an atom bomb (they weren't even close), let alone a plane capable of delivering it over strategic distances (they weren't even close), let alone a plan to use these non existent bombs and aircraft to attack New York.  Sure, they had enough bits and pieces that with enough hype and lack of journalistic integrity one could create the illusion of such things for entertainment value...  But such entertainment should not be confused with a documentary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history , and things could easily have gone the other way.Mostly because you 've bought into the hype surrounding WWII German VunderVeapons .
In reality , Germany never had an atom bomb ( they were n't even close ) , let alone a plane capable of delivering it over strategic distances ( they were n't even close ) , let alone a plan to use these non existent bombs and aircraft to attack New York .
Sure , they had enough bits and pieces that with enough hype and lack of journalistic integrity one could create the illusion of such things for entertainment value... But such entertainment should not be confused with a documentary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.Mostly because you've bought into the hype surrounding WWII German VunderVeapons.
In reality, Germany never had an atom bomb (they weren't even close), let alone a plane capable of delivering it over strategic distances (they weren't even close), let alone a plan to use these non existent bombs and aircraft to attack New York.
Sure, they had enough bits and pieces that with enough hype and lack of journalistic integrity one could create the illusion of such things for entertainment value...  But such entertainment should not be confused with a documentary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452229</id>
	<title>Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG</title>
	<author>darkstar949</author>
	<datestamp>1245857520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Saying that the plane was stealthy kind of depends upon the state-of-the-art of radar technology at the time. That isn't exactly my field, but my understanding is that we are leaps and bounds ahead of the 1940's in terms of resolution and as such, even a plane with a moderately low radar profile might have been invisible to 1940's radar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Saying that the plane was stealthy kind of depends upon the state-of-the-art of radar technology at the time .
That is n't exactly my field , but my understanding is that we are leaps and bounds ahead of the 1940 's in terms of resolution and as such , even a plane with a moderately low radar profile might have been invisible to 1940 's radar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Saying that the plane was stealthy kind of depends upon the state-of-the-art of radar technology at the time.
That isn't exactly my field, but my understanding is that we are leaps and bounds ahead of the 1940's in terms of resolution and as such, even a plane with a moderately low radar profile might have been invisible to 1940's radar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458093</id>
	<title>Re:Man</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1245835920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He won a bunch of smaller wars before he lost the big one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He won a bunch of smaller wars before he lost the big one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He won a bunch of smaller wars before he lost the big one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28464029</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1245922800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, deciding to develop things like a tank weighing in at 1500 metric tons didn't really help. Hitler did make some very questionable technology decisions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , deciding to develop things like a tank weighing in at 1500 metric tons did n't really help .
Hitler did make some very questionable technology decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, deciding to develop things like a tank weighing in at 1500 metric tons didn't really help.
Hitler did make some very questionable technology decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28459731</id>
	<title>Narrative Fallacy</title>
	<author>drinsilence</author>
	<datestamp>1245842280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of "Narrative Fallacy" as presented in Black Swan ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Black\_Swan\_(Taleb\_book)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Black\_Swan\_(Taleb\_book)</a> [wikipedia.org] ) by Taleb.
For people who prefer video over text, <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1964621955986036383" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1964621955986036383</a> [google.com] .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of " Narrative Fallacy " as presented in Black Swan ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Black \ _Swan \ _ ( Taleb \ _book ) [ wikipedia.org ] ) by Taleb .
For people who prefer video over text , http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = 1964621955986036383 [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of "Narrative Fallacy" as presented in Black Swan ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Black\_Swan\_(Taleb\_book) [wikipedia.org] ) by Taleb.
For people who prefer video over text, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1964621955986036383 [google.com] .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456955</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245874800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Mostly because you've bought into the hype surrounding WWII German VunderVeapons.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; </i><br>Hype? They had jets and Missiles, how do we fight wars to this day? With Jets and Missiles. Also they were at the forefront of tank, communication, computer and submarine technology... those technologies took A lot of honing but they're clearly the weapons of war of today.</p><p>
&nbsp; <i><br>In reality, Germany never had an atom bomb (they weren't even close)</i></p><p>If they had spies inside America then they were close.  Directional explosives, math and uranium are the ingredients... most of the world's uranium is in Canada and Ukraine, seems like they were headed for the nearest source</p><p><i>Let alone a plane capable of delivering it over strategic distances (they weren't even close). Let alone a plan to use these non existent bombs and aircraft to attack New York.</i> </p><p>U-Boat + V2 + Atom Bomb = BAD NEWS, or, they could just smuggle it in.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; I hope this post has been disturbing. There's a simple reason, "might doesn't make right" is a disturbing philosophy... because YOU could be right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly because you 've bought into the hype surrounding WWII German VunderVeapons .
    Hype ?
They had jets and Missiles , how do we fight wars to this day ?
With Jets and Missiles .
Also they were at the forefront of tank , communication , computer and submarine technology... those technologies took A lot of honing but they 're clearly the weapons of war of today .
  In reality , Germany never had an atom bomb ( they were n't even close ) If they had spies inside America then they were close .
Directional explosives , math and uranium are the ingredients... most of the world 's uranium is in Canada and Ukraine , seems like they were headed for the nearest sourceLet alone a plane capable of delivering it over strategic distances ( they were n't even close ) .
Let alone a plan to use these non existent bombs and aircraft to attack New York .
U-Boat + V2 + Atom Bomb = BAD NEWS , or , they could just smuggle it in .
    I hope this post has been disturbing .
There 's a simple reason , " might does n't make right " is a disturbing philosophy... because YOU could be right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly because you've bought into the hype surrounding WWII German VunderVeapons.
  
  Hype?
They had jets and Missiles, how do we fight wars to this day?
With Jets and Missiles.
Also they were at the forefront of tank, communication, computer and submarine technology... those technologies took A lot of honing but they're clearly the weapons of war of today.
  In reality, Germany never had an atom bomb (they weren't even close)If they had spies inside America then they were close.
Directional explosives, math and uranium are the ingredients... most of the world's uranium is in Canada and Ukraine, seems like they were headed for the nearest sourceLet alone a plane capable of delivering it over strategic distances (they weren't even close).
Let alone a plan to use these non existent bombs and aircraft to attack New York.
U-Boat + V2 + Atom Bomb = BAD NEWS, or, they could just smuggle it in.
  
  I hope this post has been disturbing.
There's a simple reason, "might doesn't make right" is a disturbing philosophy... because YOU could be right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460051</id>
	<title>Breaking news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245844020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wright brothers' wooden plane was never seen doesn't show up on radar.  Canvas hot air balloons don't show up on radar.  Most birds don't show up on radar. Are these "stealth" inventions? No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wright brothers ' wooden plane was never seen does n't show up on radar .
Canvas hot air balloons do n't show up on radar .
Most birds do n't show up on radar .
Are these " stealth " inventions ?
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wright brothers' wooden plane was never seen doesn't show up on radar.
Canvas hot air balloons don't show up on radar.
Most birds don't show up on radar.
Are these "stealth" inventions?
No.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28468375</id>
	<title>Re:holy crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245953340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno.  I'd rather imagine what would have happened if they HADN'T gone collectively insane as a nation and tried wiping out an entire nation/ethnicity/religion, as well as the various communists, Roma, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other conscientious objectors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno .
I 'd rather imagine what would have happened if they HAD N'T gone collectively insane as a nation and tried wiping out an entire nation/ethnicity/religion , as well as the various communists , Roma , homosexuals , Jehovah 's Witnesses , and other conscientious objectors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno.
I'd rather imagine what would have happened if they HADN'T gone collectively insane as a nation and tried wiping out an entire nation/ethnicity/religion, as well as the various communists, Roma, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other conscientious objectors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28459593</id>
	<title>Flying Wings</title>
	<author>Jonathan A</author>
	<datestamp>1245841620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I understand it, flying wings were difficult to fly, in part because of the lack of vertical stabilizers.  I remember reading somewhere that because of this instability, the flying wing design was not practical until the advent of fly-by-wire.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , flying wings were difficult to fly , in part because of the lack of vertical stabilizers .
I remember reading somewhere that because of this instability , the flying wing design was not practical until the advent of fly-by-wire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, flying wings were difficult to fly, in part because of the lack of vertical stabilizers.
I remember reading somewhere that because of this instability, the flying wing design was not practical until the advent of fly-by-wire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28466455</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245945180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He didn't say he lived in England.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He did n't say he lived in England .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He didn't say he lived in England.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453861</id>
	<title>Shameful if we use Nazi tech!!!</title>
	<author>catmistake</author>
	<datestamp>1245863820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget that there were moral issues concerning the use of the scientific advancement gained by the Nazi's, espescially, but not limited to, Nazi medical advances. One may speculate that the means (bad Nazi's that tortured, maimed, killed innocents, and advanced technologically) justifies the ends (using advanced Nazi technology to enrich our own), but in the Kantian sense it's clearly immoral. Americans surely considerred this at the time, and  periodically debated it as time progessed. Someone very well may have considerred further developing the Nazi stealth technology, but ultimately rejected the idea due to ethical considerations.

sorta skew from the subject of stealth planes, but along the lines of Nazi's and morality:
 IBM &amp; BMW both served the Nazi's. BMW prolly didn't have a choice, but for IBM it was greed driving their interests.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that there were moral issues concerning the use of the scientific advancement gained by the Nazi 's , espescially , but not limited to , Nazi medical advances .
One may speculate that the means ( bad Nazi 's that tortured , maimed , killed innocents , and advanced technologically ) justifies the ends ( using advanced Nazi technology to enrich our own ) , but in the Kantian sense it 's clearly immoral .
Americans surely considerred this at the time , and periodically debated it as time progessed .
Someone very well may have considerred further developing the Nazi stealth technology , but ultimately rejected the idea due to ethical considerations .
sorta skew from the subject of stealth planes , but along the lines of Nazi 's and morality : IBM &amp; BMW both served the Nazi 's .
BMW prolly did n't have a choice , but for IBM it was greed driving their interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that there were moral issues concerning the use of the scientific advancement gained by the Nazi's, espescially, but not limited to, Nazi medical advances.
One may speculate that the means (bad Nazi's that tortured, maimed, killed innocents, and advanced technologically) justifies the ends (using advanced Nazi technology to enrich our own), but in the Kantian sense it's clearly immoral.
Americans surely considerred this at the time, and  periodically debated it as time progessed.
Someone very well may have considerred further developing the Nazi stealth technology, but ultimately rejected the idea due to ethical considerations.
sorta skew from the subject of stealth planes, but along the lines of Nazi's and morality:
 IBM &amp; BMW both served the Nazi's.
BMW prolly didn't have a choice, but for IBM it was greed driving their interests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452475</id>
	<title>Is Goodwin (tag)...</title>
	<author>TDyl</author>
	<datestamp>1245858660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...the new <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's\_law" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Godwin</a> [wikipedia.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the new Godwin [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the new Godwin [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452383</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245858240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Europe learned a lesson from the fascists.  Curtailing free speech was a powerful aid in keeping those regimes in power.</p><p>Therefore, in order to completely disavow that era, European governments have decided to turn the power to curtail free speech towards the purposes of good.  If you are a European government minister, this makes complete sense.</p><p>It's important to bear in mind that free speech has never had the same value or application in Europe that it has in places like the US.  In the US, its a sacred right, the Most Holy First Amendment.  In Europe, it's just considered a pretty good idea, as long as it doesn't get overly inconvenient or embarrassing for the government.  Just because they invented the concept doesn't mean that they have fully implemented it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Europe learned a lesson from the fascists .
Curtailing free speech was a powerful aid in keeping those regimes in power.Therefore , in order to completely disavow that era , European governments have decided to turn the power to curtail free speech towards the purposes of good .
If you are a European government minister , this makes complete sense.It 's important to bear in mind that free speech has never had the same value or application in Europe that it has in places like the US .
In the US , its a sacred right , the Most Holy First Amendment .
In Europe , it 's just considered a pretty good idea , as long as it does n't get overly inconvenient or embarrassing for the government .
Just because they invented the concept does n't mean that they have fully implemented it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Europe learned a lesson from the fascists.
Curtailing free speech was a powerful aid in keeping those regimes in power.Therefore, in order to completely disavow that era, European governments have decided to turn the power to curtail free speech towards the purposes of good.
If you are a European government minister, this makes complete sense.It's important to bear in mind that free speech has never had the same value or application in Europe that it has in places like the US.
In the US, its a sacred right, the Most Holy First Amendment.
In Europe, it's just considered a pretty good idea, as long as it doesn't get overly inconvenient or embarrassing for the government.
Just because they invented the concept doesn't mean that they have fully implemented it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455461</id>
	<title>Keep in mind...</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1245869160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From the article (yeah I know, Slashdot, not supposed to, etc)</p><blockquote><div><p>If Nazi engineers had had more time, would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war?</p></div></blockquote><p>IIRC the United States developed something called Atomic Bombs that would have counteracted any advantage Germany would have gained from stealth jets.</p></div><p>Keep in mind that the Manhattan Project only had enough material for two bombs in 1945. Once they were gone, we were out of atom bombs for a period of months at the very least. So if Hitler gets his stealth aircraft, do you bomb Germany, or do you save those two bombs for Japan, where a manned invasion will cost hundreds of thousands of casualties? Choices, choices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article ( yeah I know , Slashdot , not supposed to , etc ) If Nazi engineers had had more time , would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war ? IIRC the United States developed something called Atomic Bombs that would have counteracted any advantage Germany would have gained from stealth jets.Keep in mind that the Manhattan Project only had enough material for two bombs in 1945 .
Once they were gone , we were out of atom bombs for a period of months at the very least .
So if Hitler gets his stealth aircraft , do you bomb Germany , or do you save those two bombs for Japan , where a manned invasion will cost hundreds of thousands of casualties ?
Choices , choices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article (yeah I know, Slashdot, not supposed to, etc)If Nazi engineers had had more time, would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war?IIRC the United States developed something called Atomic Bombs that would have counteracted any advantage Germany would have gained from stealth jets.Keep in mind that the Manhattan Project only had enough material for two bombs in 1945.
Once they were gone, we were out of atom bombs for a period of months at the very least.
So if Hitler gets his stealth aircraft, do you bomb Germany, or do you save those two bombs for Japan, where a manned invasion will cost hundreds of thousands of casualties?
Choices, choices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28476847</id>
	<title>The plane</title>
	<author>AG the other</author>
	<datestamp>1245946380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't help thinking about the plane itself.  OK it was wood and wooden planes worked so well during WWII.  There was the Mosquito made by the aluminum poor British.  It just kept falling apart in midair.</p><p>The US was working on the Northrup flying wing.  The Air Force decided that it was just too unstable to try to fly it.  It wasn't until computer controls that the B2 was made that such an unstable aircraft was flyable.</p><p>AG</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help thinking about the plane itself .
OK it was wood and wooden planes worked so well during WWII .
There was the Mosquito made by the aluminum poor British .
It just kept falling apart in midair.The US was working on the Northrup flying wing .
The Air Force decided that it was just too unstable to try to fly it .
It was n't until computer controls that the B2 was made that such an unstable aircraft was flyable.AG</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help thinking about the plane itself.
OK it was wood and wooden planes worked so well during WWII.
There was the Mosquito made by the aluminum poor British.
It just kept falling apart in midair.The US was working on the Northrup flying wing.
The Air Force decided that it was just too unstable to try to fly it.
It wasn't until computer controls that the B2 was made that such an unstable aircraft was flyable.AG</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456279</id>
	<title>Okay, I admit I'm a  geek</title>
	<author>Datamonstar</author>
	<datestamp>1245871980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I looked at TFA and cried a bit. No seriously, I cried. It's so beautiful, but so sinister. Looking at that plane that comes from such a romantic time of aircraft, I was overtaken by an awed and creepy feeling. It's right out of history, yet right out of fiction. I just can't imagine something like that on the battlefield. I'm not a war monger, but I do have much admiration for the planes of that era and the valiant men who flew them. I am glad they dd not have to face this lovely monster in combat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked at TFA and cried a bit .
No seriously , I cried .
It 's so beautiful , but so sinister .
Looking at that plane that comes from such a romantic time of aircraft , I was overtaken by an awed and creepy feeling .
It 's right out of history , yet right out of fiction .
I just ca n't imagine something like that on the battlefield .
I 'm not a war monger , but I do have much admiration for the planes of that era and the valiant men who flew them .
I am glad they dd not have to face this lovely monster in combat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked at TFA and cried a bit.
No seriously, I cried.
It's so beautiful, but so sinister.
Looking at that plane that comes from such a romantic time of aircraft, I was overtaken by an awed and creepy feeling.
It's right out of history, yet right out of fiction.
I just can't imagine something like that on the battlefield.
I'm not a war monger, but I do have much admiration for the planes of that era and the valiant men who flew them.
I am glad they dd not have to face this lovely monster in combat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451875</id>
	<title>Minor mistake in the heading</title>
	<author>downix</author>
	<datestamp>1245855600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Horton was a bomber, not a fighter.  It was part of Hitlers 1000,1000,1000 goal.  1000kg of bombs 1000km at 1000km/hr.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Horton was a bomber , not a fighter .
It was part of Hitlers 1000,1000,1000 goal .
1000kg of bombs 1000km at 1000km/hr .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Horton was a bomber, not a fighter.
It was part of Hitlers 1000,1000,1000 goal.
1000kg of bombs 1000km at 1000km/hr.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452165</id>
	<title>Re:Control surfaces?</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1245857160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same way we had out flying wing in the air without computers.</p><p>Back then they had insanely skilled pilots instead of computer operators in the cockpit.</p><p>and yes that is a DIG on current pilots,  many cant fly if the GPS is not working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same way we had out flying wing in the air without computers.Back then they had insanely skilled pilots instead of computer operators in the cockpit.and yes that is a DIG on current pilots , many cant fly if the GPS is not working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same way we had out flying wing in the air without computers.Back then they had insanely skilled pilots instead of computer operators in the cockpit.and yes that is a DIG on current pilots,  many cant fly if the GPS is not working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453979</id>
	<title>It looks mean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245864240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stealth or not. It looks pretty sophisticated compared to what everyone else was flying. They could have flown it and let footage leak out just to scare the hell out of everyone, as if everyone else was not already afraid as hell. First post got it right; What didn't he do ?? If they keep looking, there's probably an antigravity machine over there somewhere, a computer that looks like a Sun E10k and the entire DNA desequenced on a thing called a "CD Rom" that they invented.. just sitting there gathering dust all these years. I bet Sadam Hussein was a clone of Hitler that was hatched in a test tube after the war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stealth or not .
It looks pretty sophisticated compared to what everyone else was flying .
They could have flown it and let footage leak out just to scare the hell out of everyone , as if everyone else was not already afraid as hell .
First post got it right ; What did n't he do ? ?
If they keep looking , there 's probably an antigravity machine over there somewhere , a computer that looks like a Sun E10k and the entire DNA desequenced on a thing called a " CD Rom " that they invented.. just sitting there gathering dust all these years .
I bet Sadam Hussein was a clone of Hitler that was hatched in a test tube after the war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stealth or not.
It looks pretty sophisticated compared to what everyone else was flying.
They could have flown it and let footage leak out just to scare the hell out of everyone, as if everyone else was not already afraid as hell.
First post got it right; What didn't he do ??
If they keep looking, there's probably an antigravity machine over there somewhere, a computer that looks like a Sun E10k and the entire DNA desequenced on a thing called a "CD Rom" that they invented.. just sitting there gathering dust all these years.
I bet Sadam Hussein was a clone of Hitler that was hatched in a test tube after the war.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453315</id>
	<title>Re:Shame we didn't learn this lesson in Vietnam</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1245861960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd have to guess that most planes lost in Vietnam weren't due to SAMs firing at targets that were only visible to radar. Most losses were more likely up-close and personal - dogfights and AA fire aimed at clearly visible planes on low-level bombing runs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have to guess that most planes lost in Vietnam were n't due to SAMs firing at targets that were only visible to radar .
Most losses were more likely up-close and personal - dogfights and AA fire aimed at clearly visible planes on low-level bombing runs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have to guess that most planes lost in Vietnam weren't due to SAMs firing at targets that were only visible to radar.
Most losses were more likely up-close and personal - dogfights and AA fire aimed at clearly visible planes on low-level bombing runs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457359</id>
	<title>Re:The Germans build nice stuff...</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1245876300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all its own".---</p><p>I thought Lenin said that.</p><p>More....<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; :<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; V</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--As Stalin said " quantity has a quality all its own " .---I thought Lenin said that.More... .                     :                     :                     :                   V</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all its own".---I thought Lenin said that.More....
                    :
                    :
                    :
                  V</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455211</id>
	<title>holy crap</title>
	<author>Mr\_Nitro</author>
	<datestamp>1245868380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They were totally completely superior! moreover they left their best jew and alike brains go abroad, imagine if they kept those.
As someone said, compare this to what other flew at the time...  I can clearly see where B2 comes from....
And not to forget what V1/V2 were if compared to other airplane dumb-bombs...  V2 impacted at supersonic speed  thousands of miles away. And no satellites nor computers... (well until they find the Reich satellites orbit eh).
That's an example of what a really determined nation can do, and all humanity could do (in the right direction of course).
If only we would stop throwing sticks at each other... by now we could have been colonizing the inner solar system....no kidding.

cheers
mrn</htmltext>
<tokenext>They were totally completely superior !
moreover they left their best jew and alike brains go abroad , imagine if they kept those .
As someone said , compare this to what other flew at the time... I can clearly see where B2 comes from... . And not to forget what V1/V2 were if compared to other airplane dumb-bombs... V2 impacted at supersonic speed thousands of miles away .
And no satellites nor computers... ( well until they find the Reich satellites orbit eh ) .
That 's an example of what a really determined nation can do , and all humanity could do ( in the right direction of course ) .
If only we would stop throwing sticks at each other... by now we could have been colonizing the inner solar system....no kidding .
cheers mrn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were totally completely superior!
moreover they left their best jew and alike brains go abroad, imagine if they kept those.
As someone said, compare this to what other flew at the time...  I can clearly see where B2 comes from....
And not to forget what V1/V2 were if compared to other airplane dumb-bombs...  V2 impacted at supersonic speed  thousands of miles away.
And no satellites nor computers... (well until they find the Reich satellites orbit eh).
That's an example of what a really determined nation can do, and all humanity could do (in the right direction of course).
If only we would stop throwing sticks at each other... by now we could have been colonizing the inner solar system....no kidding.
cheers
mrn</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453325</id>
	<title>Re:Hehe</title>
	<author>jeffasselin</author>
	<datestamp>1245861960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the Germans were also working on one.  So if you extend the timeline to allow the Germans to develop this stealth jet, would they have had time to develop their own atomic bomb as well?</p></div><p>Except that the Germans were going the wrong way about it, thanks to the fact many of the scientists working for them were actually working against them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyway...  Just because you've got an atomic bomb doesn't mean you win the war.</p></div><p>Actually, yes it does. If you have an atomic bomb and no one else does, you win the war. The atomic bomb is a dissuasion weapon more than a destructive one. Its destructive power is incredible obviously, which is why it is so dissuasive, but at that level of destruction, you don't need to use it. The Nagasaki and Hiroshima drops were more demonstrative than actually effective.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> You have to be able to actually deliver your payload.  Stealth jets could make this more difficult.  Stealth jets might be able to strike more effectively at your airbases and reduce your ability to launch a mission carrying an atomic bomb.  Or they might be better able to intercept such a mission.</p></div><p>No, not really. You'd have to know where the bases are that host the weapon, and be able to reach them without the enemy knowing that. The fact that the Nazi codes had been broken repeatedly whereas the allied codes were much more effective makes this a very tenuous proposition at best.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Would we than have dropped atomic bombs on London to clear out the Nazis?</p></div><p>No. We could have bombed any German city with a single bomb, and they would have capitulated, just like Japan did.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the Germans were also working on one .
So if you extend the timeline to allow the Germans to develop this stealth jet , would they have had time to develop their own atomic bomb as well ? Except that the Germans were going the wrong way about it , thanks to the fact many of the scientists working for them were actually working against them.Anyway... Just because you 've got an atomic bomb does n't mean you win the war.Actually , yes it does .
If you have an atomic bomb and no one else does , you win the war .
The atomic bomb is a dissuasion weapon more than a destructive one .
Its destructive power is incredible obviously , which is why it is so dissuasive , but at that level of destruction , you do n't need to use it .
The Nagasaki and Hiroshima drops were more demonstrative than actually effective .
You have to be able to actually deliver your payload .
Stealth jets could make this more difficult .
Stealth jets might be able to strike more effectively at your airbases and reduce your ability to launch a mission carrying an atomic bomb .
Or they might be better able to intercept such a mission.No , not really .
You 'd have to know where the bases are that host the weapon , and be able to reach them without the enemy knowing that .
The fact that the Nazi codes had been broken repeatedly whereas the allied codes were much more effective makes this a very tenuous proposition at best.Would we than have dropped atomic bombs on London to clear out the Nazis ? No .
We could have bombed any German city with a single bomb , and they would have capitulated , just like Japan did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the Germans were also working on one.
So if you extend the timeline to allow the Germans to develop this stealth jet, would they have had time to develop their own atomic bomb as well?Except that the Germans were going the wrong way about it, thanks to the fact many of the scientists working for them were actually working against them.Anyway...  Just because you've got an atomic bomb doesn't mean you win the war.Actually, yes it does.
If you have an atomic bomb and no one else does, you win the war.
The atomic bomb is a dissuasion weapon more than a destructive one.
Its destructive power is incredible obviously, which is why it is so dissuasive, but at that level of destruction, you don't need to use it.
The Nagasaki and Hiroshima drops were more demonstrative than actually effective.
You have to be able to actually deliver your payload.
Stealth jets could make this more difficult.
Stealth jets might be able to strike more effectively at your airbases and reduce your ability to launch a mission carrying an atomic bomb.
Or they might be better able to intercept such a mission.No, not really.
You'd have to know where the bases are that host the weapon, and be able to reach them without the enemy knowing that.
The fact that the Nazi codes had been broken repeatedly whereas the allied codes were much more effective makes this a very tenuous proposition at best.Would we than have dropped atomic bombs on London to clear out the Nazis?No.
We could have bombed any German city with a single bomb, and they would have capitulated, just like Japan did.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457931</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>mvdwege</author>
	<datestamp>1245835320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm. The Germans did come up with planes like the Fw-190, the Ta-152 and even the Me-262 (although that one was too late to make a difference). Also, the Bf-109K is a rather different plane than the Bf-109E used in the Battle of Britain.</p><p>In terms of performance, the comparatively fewer German types could hold their own against the Allies until early 1944. After that, the sheer numerical advantage of the Allies began to tell, and after losing much of their basing capacity, the Germans were basically forced to revert to just-in-time interceptions from bases in Germany. Which, aside from the numerical inferiority, also left them at a distinct tactical disadvantage, as they had to climb up to the fight. The few times they did manage to get a Geschwader up before the Allies arrived, they still managed to hit the Allied bomber streams <em>hard</em>.</p><p>
Mart</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm .
The Germans did come up with planes like the Fw-190 , the Ta-152 and even the Me-262 ( although that one was too late to make a difference ) .
Also , the Bf-109K is a rather different plane than the Bf-109E used in the Battle of Britain.In terms of performance , the comparatively fewer German types could hold their own against the Allies until early 1944 .
After that , the sheer numerical advantage of the Allies began to tell , and after losing much of their basing capacity , the Germans were basically forced to revert to just-in-time interceptions from bases in Germany .
Which , aside from the numerical inferiority , also left them at a distinct tactical disadvantage , as they had to climb up to the fight .
The few times they did manage to get a Geschwader up before the Allies arrived , they still managed to hit the Allied bomber streams hard .
Mart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm.
The Germans did come up with planes like the Fw-190, the Ta-152 and even the Me-262 (although that one was too late to make a difference).
Also, the Bf-109K is a rather different plane than the Bf-109E used in the Battle of Britain.In terms of performance, the comparatively fewer German types could hold their own against the Allies until early 1944.
After that, the sheer numerical advantage of the Allies began to tell, and after losing much of their basing capacity, the Germans were basically forced to revert to just-in-time interceptions from bases in Germany.
Which, aside from the numerical inferiority, also left them at a distinct tactical disadvantage, as they had to climb up to the fight.
The few times they did manage to get a Geschwader up before the Allies arrived, they still managed to hit the Allied bomber streams hard.
Mart</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452013</id>
	<title>Re:I like the decoration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was a plane designed by the Nazis for their war effort. Kind of makes sense to put up a Nazi flag, no?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was a plane designed by the Nazis for their war effort .
Kind of makes sense to put up a Nazi flag , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was a plane designed by the Nazis for their war effort.
Kind of makes sense to put up a Nazi flag, no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455697</id>
	<title>Re:Another Example of German Technical Achievement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it was modded down as -1 Troll because there's no -1 Racist for the biting little comment at the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it was modded down as -1 Troll because there 's no -1 Racist for the biting little comment at the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it was modded down as -1 Troll because there's no -1 Racist for the biting little comment at the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451961</id>
	<title>Re:Hehe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From the article (yeah I know, Slashdot, not supposed to, etc)</p><blockquote><div><p>If Nazi engineers had had more time, would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war?</p></div></blockquote><p>IIRC the United States developed something called Atomic Bombs that would have counteracted any advantage Germany would have gained from stealth jets.</p></div><p>Maybe, maybe not.</p><p>Obviously this is all speculation, and doesn't matter much when you're comparing it to a real timeline...  Yes, the United States developed an atomic bomb...  But the Germans were also working on one.  So if you extend the timeline to allow the Germans to develop this stealth jet, would they have had time to develop their own atomic bomb as well?</p><p>Anyway...  Just because you've got an atomic bomb doesn't mean you win the war.  You have to be able to actually deliver your payload.  Stealth jets could make this more difficult.  Stealth jets might be able to strike more effectively at your airbases and reduce your ability to launch a mission carrying an atomic bomb.  Or they might be better able to intercept such a mission.</p><p>And if these things were used against the UK they might have been very effective.  The British would have had a very hard time launching fighters to intercept these things.  The German bombing runs would have been more effective.  Effective enough, perhaps, to lay claim to the UK.  Would we than have dropped atomic bombs on London to clear out the Nazis?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article ( yeah I know , Slashdot , not supposed to , etc ) If Nazi engineers had had more time , would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war ? IIRC the United States developed something called Atomic Bombs that would have counteracted any advantage Germany would have gained from stealth jets.Maybe , maybe not.Obviously this is all speculation , and does n't matter much when you 're comparing it to a real timeline... Yes , the United States developed an atomic bomb... But the Germans were also working on one .
So if you extend the timeline to allow the Germans to develop this stealth jet , would they have had time to develop their own atomic bomb as well ? Anyway... Just because you 've got an atomic bomb does n't mean you win the war .
You have to be able to actually deliver your payload .
Stealth jets could make this more difficult .
Stealth jets might be able to strike more effectively at your airbases and reduce your ability to launch a mission carrying an atomic bomb .
Or they might be better able to intercept such a mission.And if these things were used against the UK they might have been very effective .
The British would have had a very hard time launching fighters to intercept these things .
The German bombing runs would have been more effective .
Effective enough , perhaps , to lay claim to the UK .
Would we than have dropped atomic bombs on London to clear out the Nazis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article (yeah I know, Slashdot, not supposed to, etc)If Nazi engineers had had more time, would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war?IIRC the United States developed something called Atomic Bombs that would have counteracted any advantage Germany would have gained from stealth jets.Maybe, maybe not.Obviously this is all speculation, and doesn't matter much when you're comparing it to a real timeline...  Yes, the United States developed an atomic bomb...  But the Germans were also working on one.
So if you extend the timeline to allow the Germans to develop this stealth jet, would they have had time to develop their own atomic bomb as well?Anyway...  Just because you've got an atomic bomb doesn't mean you win the war.
You have to be able to actually deliver your payload.
Stealth jets could make this more difficult.
Stealth jets might be able to strike more effectively at your airbases and reduce your ability to launch a mission carrying an atomic bomb.
Or they might be better able to intercept such a mission.And if these things were used against the UK they might have been very effective.
The British would have had a very hard time launching fighters to intercept these things.
The German bombing runs would have been more effective.
Effective enough, perhaps, to lay claim to the UK.
Would we than have dropped atomic bombs on London to clear out the Nazis?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653</id>
	<title>Best Photos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245854340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most interesting photos:</p><p><a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942\_Hitlers\_Stealth\_Fighter-09\_10240768.jpg" title="nationalgeographic.com">http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942\_Hitlers\_Stealth\_Fighter-09\_10240768.jpg</a> [nationalgeographic.com]<br><a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942\_Hitlers\_Stealth\_Fighter-08\_10240768.jpg" title="nationalgeographic.com">http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942\_Hitlers\_Stealth\_Fighter-08\_10240768.jpg</a> [nationalgeographic.com]<br><a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942\_Hitlers\_Stealth\_Fighter-04\_10240768.jpg" title="nationalgeographic.com">http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942\_Hitlers\_Stealth\_Fighter-04\_10240768.jpg</a> [nationalgeographic.com]<br><a href="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942\_Hitlers\_Stealth\_Fighter-11\_10240768.jpg" title="nationalgeographic.com">http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942\_Hitlers\_Stealth\_Fighter-11\_10240768.jpg</a> [nationalgeographic.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most interesting photos : http : //channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942 \ _Hitlers \ _Stealth \ _Fighter-09 \ _10240768.jpg [ nationalgeographic.com ] http : //channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942 \ _Hitlers \ _Stealth \ _Fighter-08 \ _10240768.jpg [ nationalgeographic.com ] http : //channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942 \ _Hitlers \ _Stealth \ _Fighter-04 \ _10240768.jpg [ nationalgeographic.com ] http : //channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942 \ _Hitlers \ _Stealth \ _Fighter-11 \ _10240768.jpg [ nationalgeographic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most interesting photos:http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942\_Hitlers\_Stealth\_Fighter-09\_10240768.jpg [nationalgeographic.com]http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942\_Hitlers\_Stealth\_Fighter-08\_10240768.jpg [nationalgeographic.com]http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942\_Hitlers\_Stealth\_Fighter-04\_10240768.jpg [nationalgeographic.com]http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGC/StaticFiles/Images/Show/39xx/394x/3942\_Hitlers\_Stealth\_Fighter-11\_10240768.jpg [nationalgeographic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452139</id>
	<title>Re:Another Example of German Technical Achievement</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245856980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Germans did not invent calculus.  See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi\%C3\%A6\_Naturalis\_Principia\_Mathematica" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica</a> [wikipedia.org] by Sir Isaac Newton.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Germans did not invent calculus .
See Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica [ wikipedia.org ] by Sir Isaac Newton .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Germans did not invent calculus.
See Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica [wikipedia.org] by Sir Isaac Newton.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28514181</id>
	<title>A summary</title>
	<author>MasaMuneCyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1246291080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose I should have described the article since it's rather lengthy.</p><p>Basically, stealth technology works very well against a single or even several radar points. The problem is if you have hundreds, even thousands of radars. Building that many radars would be prohibitively expensive, but cell phone towers are already in place every few miles, and so we have our "thousands of radars" network.</p><p>It's not an easy task, by any means, but it is an accomplishable task to detect stealth fighters using the cell phone networks. The principle is that stealth aircraft bounce radar in a different direction than it comes. Presumably, one of these randomly bounced signals will hit another radar somewhere (a cell phone tower). The required computing power is immense, but doable with modern technology, as there are very, very, very few points in which a stealth aircraft would bounce a signal perfectly back to a different radar, so you'd have to be scanning a multitude of cell phone towers very carefully. This can be done, however, and if you do it, by more carefully analyzing the data, the velocity, size, shape, and even characteristics such as engine rotation or structural vibration can be calculated.</p><p>Fortunately, US defense contractors are ahead of the game, and this idea has been thought of already. It is apparently important in naval radar detection because underwater vessels naturally don't reflect very well, so radar arrays are necessary to do meaningful detection; thusly, this principle has been extended to the air, as well. Also, Lockheed has already been working on just such a detection system, using TV broadcasts instead of cell phone towers. The idea is that there are fewer but still many TV broadcasting towers, reducing the computing requirements, and TV towers emit radio waves much more powerfully than cell phone towers.</p><p>Experts also said that even if you could detect a stealth aircraft, things such as cell phone towers are very susceptible to jamming, and even if you could detect a stealth aircraft well, you need to get a missile extremely close to it to shoot it down, anyways.</p><p>Anyways, the technology is relatively sound and research is actively being done on it. Any such systems based on the concept are also either in the very, very early prototype stage or not developed, at all. And it's good to know that the stealth and radar experts are on top of things, already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose I should have described the article since it 's rather lengthy.Basically , stealth technology works very well against a single or even several radar points .
The problem is if you have hundreds , even thousands of radars .
Building that many radars would be prohibitively expensive , but cell phone towers are already in place every few miles , and so we have our " thousands of radars " network.It 's not an easy task , by any means , but it is an accomplishable task to detect stealth fighters using the cell phone networks .
The principle is that stealth aircraft bounce radar in a different direction than it comes .
Presumably , one of these randomly bounced signals will hit another radar somewhere ( a cell phone tower ) .
The required computing power is immense , but doable with modern technology , as there are very , very , very few points in which a stealth aircraft would bounce a signal perfectly back to a different radar , so you 'd have to be scanning a multitude of cell phone towers very carefully .
This can be done , however , and if you do it , by more carefully analyzing the data , the velocity , size , shape , and even characteristics such as engine rotation or structural vibration can be calculated.Fortunately , US defense contractors are ahead of the game , and this idea has been thought of already .
It is apparently important in naval radar detection because underwater vessels naturally do n't reflect very well , so radar arrays are necessary to do meaningful detection ; thusly , this principle has been extended to the air , as well .
Also , Lockheed has already been working on just such a detection system , using TV broadcasts instead of cell phone towers .
The idea is that there are fewer but still many TV broadcasting towers , reducing the computing requirements , and TV towers emit radio waves much more powerfully than cell phone towers.Experts also said that even if you could detect a stealth aircraft , things such as cell phone towers are very susceptible to jamming , and even if you could detect a stealth aircraft well , you need to get a missile extremely close to it to shoot it down , anyways.Anyways , the technology is relatively sound and research is actively being done on it .
Any such systems based on the concept are also either in the very , very early prototype stage or not developed , at all .
And it 's good to know that the stealth and radar experts are on top of things , already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose I should have described the article since it's rather lengthy.Basically, stealth technology works very well against a single or even several radar points.
The problem is if you have hundreds, even thousands of radars.
Building that many radars would be prohibitively expensive, but cell phone towers are already in place every few miles, and so we have our "thousands of radars" network.It's not an easy task, by any means, but it is an accomplishable task to detect stealth fighters using the cell phone networks.
The principle is that stealth aircraft bounce radar in a different direction than it comes.
Presumably, one of these randomly bounced signals will hit another radar somewhere (a cell phone tower).
The required computing power is immense, but doable with modern technology, as there are very, very, very few points in which a stealth aircraft would bounce a signal perfectly back to a different radar, so you'd have to be scanning a multitude of cell phone towers very carefully.
This can be done, however, and if you do it, by more carefully analyzing the data, the velocity, size, shape, and even characteristics such as engine rotation or structural vibration can be calculated.Fortunately, US defense contractors are ahead of the game, and this idea has been thought of already.
It is apparently important in naval radar detection because underwater vessels naturally don't reflect very well, so radar arrays are necessary to do meaningful detection; thusly, this principle has been extended to the air, as well.
Also, Lockheed has already been working on just such a detection system, using TV broadcasts instead of cell phone towers.
The idea is that there are fewer but still many TV broadcasting towers, reducing the computing requirements, and TV towers emit radio waves much more powerfully than cell phone towers.Experts also said that even if you could detect a stealth aircraft, things such as cell phone towers are very susceptible to jamming, and even if you could detect a stealth aircraft well, you need to get a missile extremely close to it to shoot it down, anyways.Anyways, the technology is relatively sound and research is actively being done on it.
Any such systems based on the concept are also either in the very, very early prototype stage or not developed, at all.
And it's good to know that the stealth and radar experts are on top of things, already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456855</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245874320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you've never seen the ME-262?  You've never seen the German saucers or the prototypes which gave the US stealth technology?  We copied numerous things from them.  Their problem was in the implementation of technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you 've never seen the ME-262 ?
You 've never seen the German saucers or the prototypes which gave the US stealth technology ?
We copied numerous things from them .
Their problem was in the implementation of technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you've never seen the ME-262?
You've never seen the German saucers or the prototypes which gave the US stealth technology?
We copied numerous things from them.
Their problem was in the implementation of technologies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28499499</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246111500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a lotta hindsight here. First off, Hitler didn't rust Russia to keep their pact. In order to fight the Western Front, Hitler would have to pull troops from his East. Russia could have taken Berlin, handed Hitler's head to the West, and it would be all over. Stalin just had a purge too, if Hitler wanted to attack, THAT was the best time. Stalin wanted the Peace Pact so he could have time consolidating his power, Hitler wanted it so that he could surprise attack Russia.</p><p>But no one messes with the Russian Winter. Russia also had a lot of resources, like nat. gas and oil, which Germany was starved for, since italy couldn't hold north africa. The only way for Germany to win the war was to trust Russia. And Hitler didnt' trust Stalin. Then again, would you trust Stalin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a lotta hindsight here .
First off , Hitler did n't rust Russia to keep their pact .
In order to fight the Western Front , Hitler would have to pull troops from his East .
Russia could have taken Berlin , handed Hitler 's head to the West , and it would be all over .
Stalin just had a purge too , if Hitler wanted to attack , THAT was the best time .
Stalin wanted the Peace Pact so he could have time consolidating his power , Hitler wanted it so that he could surprise attack Russia.But no one messes with the Russian Winter .
Russia also had a lot of resources , like nat .
gas and oil , which Germany was starved for , since italy could n't hold north africa .
The only way for Germany to win the war was to trust Russia .
And Hitler didnt ' trust Stalin .
Then again , would you trust Stalin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a lotta hindsight here.
First off, Hitler didn't rust Russia to keep their pact.
In order to fight the Western Front, Hitler would have to pull troops from his East.
Russia could have taken Berlin, handed Hitler's head to the West, and it would be all over.
Stalin just had a purge too, if Hitler wanted to attack, THAT was the best time.
Stalin wanted the Peace Pact so he could have time consolidating his power, Hitler wanted it so that he could surprise attack Russia.But no one messes with the Russian Winter.
Russia also had a lot of resources, like nat.
gas and oil, which Germany was starved for, since italy couldn't hold north africa.
The only way for Germany to win the war was to trust Russia.
And Hitler didnt' trust Stalin.
Then again, would you trust Stalin?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452521</id>
	<title>Re:The Germans build nice stuff...</title>
	<author>Archimonde</author>
	<datestamp>1245858900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You actually didn't show that their strategy wasn't bad at all. On the contrary, prima facie their argument can seem reasonable because the germany had limited number of material, pilots, engineers and workers in general, so it is natural to expect to go high tech to combat the mass numbers of allies.</p><p>Moreover, they didn't have much problem with the technology by the end of the war, they had extremely large problem of material and fuel supplies. This is one of the reasons the horten (which was build at the end of the war) from the article had wooden wings. That problem would be even more pronounced if they went with large numbers. So they weren't "wrong" as you excitedly exclaim in that sense. They did lost the war and air superiority, but not because of going with the high-tech route.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You actually did n't show that their strategy was n't bad at all .
On the contrary , prima facie their argument can seem reasonable because the germany had limited number of material , pilots , engineers and workers in general , so it is natural to expect to go high tech to combat the mass numbers of allies.Moreover , they did n't have much problem with the technology by the end of the war , they had extremely large problem of material and fuel supplies .
This is one of the reasons the horten ( which was build at the end of the war ) from the article had wooden wings .
That problem would be even more pronounced if they went with large numbers .
So they were n't " wrong " as you excitedly exclaim in that sense .
They did lost the war and air superiority , but not because of going with the high-tech route .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You actually didn't show that their strategy wasn't bad at all.
On the contrary, prima facie their argument can seem reasonable because the germany had limited number of material, pilots, engineers and workers in general, so it is natural to expect to go high tech to combat the mass numbers of allies.Moreover, they didn't have much problem with the technology by the end of the war, they had extremely large problem of material and fuel supplies.
This is one of the reasons the horten (which was build at the end of the war) from the article had wooden wings.
That problem would be even more pronounced if they went with large numbers.
So they weren't "wrong" as you excitedly exclaim in that sense.
They did lost the war and air superiority, but not because of going with the high-tech route.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458661</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1245837720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Real Heroes of Telemark [was] quite interesting</i></p><p>You should also consider reading (if you can find a copy) <i>Skis Against the Atom</i> by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knut\_Haukelid" title="wikipedia.org">Knut Haukelid</a> [wikipedia.org], who was one of the participants in the attack on the Telemark heavy water plant.  I found it a very enlightening book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Real Heroes of Telemark [ was ] quite interestingYou should also consider reading ( if you can find a copy ) Skis Against the Atom by Knut Haukelid [ wikipedia.org ] , who was one of the participants in the attack on the Telemark heavy water plant .
I found it a very enlightening book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Real Heroes of Telemark [was] quite interestingYou should also consider reading (if you can find a copy) Skis Against the Atom by Knut Haukelid [wikipedia.org], who was one of the participants in the attack on the Telemark heavy water plant.
I found it a very enlightening book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460361</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>LLKrisJ</author>
	<datestamp>1245845520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lol... at least we don't get up in arms when somebody shows a nipple on telly or when somebody says f**k on the radio.</p><p>Also, we don't go about meddling in other peoples backyard, telling them what to do and not do... free speech I hear you say?</p><p>I'll take our version of freedom any day...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lol... at least we do n't get up in arms when somebody shows a nipple on telly or when somebody says f * * k on the radio.Also , we do n't go about meddling in other peoples backyard , telling them what to do and not do... free speech I hear you say ? I 'll take our version of freedom any day.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lol... at least we don't get up in arms when somebody shows a nipple on telly or when somebody says f**k on the radio.Also, we don't go about meddling in other peoples backyard, telling them what to do and not do... free speech I hear you say?I'll take our version of freedom any day...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452531</id>
	<title>Re:Another Example of German Technical Achievement</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1245858900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Newton apparently invented the Calculus in parallel to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who was German.  Newton, who is well known to have been a complete asshole, decided to make sure to tell everyone that Leibniz "plagiarized" him.  This was not the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Newton apparently invented the Calculus in parallel to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz , who was German .
Newton , who is well known to have been a complete asshole , decided to make sure to tell everyone that Leibniz " plagiarized " him .
This was not the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Newton apparently invented the Calculus in parallel to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who was German.
Newton, who is well known to have been a complete asshole, decided to make sure to tell everyone that Leibniz "plagiarized" him.
This was not the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453421</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1245862260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think it went about as well as it could have for the Nazis.  In reality, they didn't have bad luck, I think they got about as far as they did mostly based on extremely good luck.</p><p>The Nazi state might have looked like a regimented and centralized powerhouse, but that was an illusion on many levels.  Hitler encouraged infighting between his lieutenants, and war profiteering and corruption were rife.  The Germans were very technically oriented and had their super-weapons, but we shouldn't forget that one of the best tanks, if not the best tank of the war was the Soviet T-34 and that the other Allied countries actually made full use of their technologies for creating better RADAR and code breaking.  So I think that we shouldn't be overwhelmed with their technical superiority.</p><p>Also, the Nazis pretty much doomed their own efforts at things like the atom bomb because they drove out or hunted down a particular ethnic group who had a lot of prominent scientists: the Jews.</p><p>The reality of the pre-war map of Europe was a France, UK and even Czechoslovakia that should have been able to deal with the Germans. The Germans happened to luck out in that those countries were adverse to war, and therefore allowed themselves to be divided piecemeal even before the war started.  The Czechs themselves had better tanks than the Germans in 1935 and had France and the UK not simply given away the Sudetenland, which had all of the border defenses, the Czechs themselves might have been able to hold off the Germans by themselves for awhile, maybe even indefinitely.</p><p>I think the reality of fascism is more like what happened to Mussolini.  He had been running Italy longer than Hitler ran Germany, so he was far from an incompetent leader, but like Hitler, he had no idea how to successfully create the empire that was his ultimate goal.    And without the luck that the Germans had, Italy did about as well as could be expected.</p><p>This is not to underestimate the threat of fascism and militarism to the world.  I think that Germany was in the right place at the right time to have the successes that it did, but that only went to prove that when the stars align, something truly dangerous can come from fringe movements like Nazism.  Still, it's important to understand that the victory of more liberal societies was no fluke of luck, but rather based on their inherent strengths. From all I have seen, the war was fundamentally biased against an Axis victory from the beginning.  The more I look at it, the more evident that becomes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think it went about as well as it could have for the Nazis .
In reality , they did n't have bad luck , I think they got about as far as they did mostly based on extremely good luck.The Nazi state might have looked like a regimented and centralized powerhouse , but that was an illusion on many levels .
Hitler encouraged infighting between his lieutenants , and war profiteering and corruption were rife .
The Germans were very technically oriented and had their super-weapons , but we should n't forget that one of the best tanks , if not the best tank of the war was the Soviet T-34 and that the other Allied countries actually made full use of their technologies for creating better RADAR and code breaking .
So I think that we should n't be overwhelmed with their technical superiority.Also , the Nazis pretty much doomed their own efforts at things like the atom bomb because they drove out or hunted down a particular ethnic group who had a lot of prominent scientists : the Jews.The reality of the pre-war map of Europe was a France , UK and even Czechoslovakia that should have been able to deal with the Germans .
The Germans happened to luck out in that those countries were adverse to war , and therefore allowed themselves to be divided piecemeal even before the war started .
The Czechs themselves had better tanks than the Germans in 1935 and had France and the UK not simply given away the Sudetenland , which had all of the border defenses , the Czechs themselves might have been able to hold off the Germans by themselves for awhile , maybe even indefinitely.I think the reality of fascism is more like what happened to Mussolini .
He had been running Italy longer than Hitler ran Germany , so he was far from an incompetent leader , but like Hitler , he had no idea how to successfully create the empire that was his ultimate goal .
And without the luck that the Germans had , Italy did about as well as could be expected.This is not to underestimate the threat of fascism and militarism to the world .
I think that Germany was in the right place at the right time to have the successes that it did , but that only went to prove that when the stars align , something truly dangerous can come from fringe movements like Nazism .
Still , it 's important to understand that the victory of more liberal societies was no fluke of luck , but rather based on their inherent strengths .
From all I have seen , the war was fundamentally biased against an Axis victory from the beginning .
The more I look at it , the more evident that becomes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think it went about as well as it could have for the Nazis.
In reality, they didn't have bad luck, I think they got about as far as they did mostly based on extremely good luck.The Nazi state might have looked like a regimented and centralized powerhouse, but that was an illusion on many levels.
Hitler encouraged infighting between his lieutenants, and war profiteering and corruption were rife.
The Germans were very technically oriented and had their super-weapons, but we shouldn't forget that one of the best tanks, if not the best tank of the war was the Soviet T-34 and that the other Allied countries actually made full use of their technologies for creating better RADAR and code breaking.
So I think that we shouldn't be overwhelmed with their technical superiority.Also, the Nazis pretty much doomed their own efforts at things like the atom bomb because they drove out or hunted down a particular ethnic group who had a lot of prominent scientists: the Jews.The reality of the pre-war map of Europe was a France, UK and even Czechoslovakia that should have been able to deal with the Germans.
The Germans happened to luck out in that those countries were adverse to war, and therefore allowed themselves to be divided piecemeal even before the war started.
The Czechs themselves had better tanks than the Germans in 1935 and had France and the UK not simply given away the Sudetenland, which had all of the border defenses, the Czechs themselves might have been able to hold off the Germans by themselves for awhile, maybe even indefinitely.I think the reality of fascism is more like what happened to Mussolini.
He had been running Italy longer than Hitler ran Germany, so he was far from an incompetent leader, but like Hitler, he had no idea how to successfully create the empire that was his ultimate goal.
And without the luck that the Germans had, Italy did about as well as could be expected.This is not to underestimate the threat of fascism and militarism to the world.
I think that Germany was in the right place at the right time to have the successes that it did, but that only went to prove that when the stars align, something truly dangerous can come from fringe movements like Nazism.
Still, it's important to understand that the victory of more liberal societies was no fluke of luck, but rather based on their inherent strengths.
From all I have seen, the war was fundamentally biased against an Axis victory from the beginning.
The more I look at it, the more evident that becomes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457471</id>
	<title>Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245876780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The layer of carbon is actually a mix of carbon/glue, used as balsa "ersatz" (replacement)<br>Just like in normal composite structures, the Horten brothers used a relatively light core material between two sheets of tension/compression bearing material (in this case plywood). The radar absorbing effect of this material was purely coincidental, something the Hortens only found out about well after the war had ended.</p><p>Furthermore, the HO 229 was not a 1000x1000x1000 design. It was a fighter.<br>Its task would have been to take out bombers, and requiring a lot of armor around the cockpit in order to solve CG-issues inherent to this design, the pilot survivability might have been quite good even if the aircraft were to be shot to pieces.</p><p>The Hortens DID work on 1000x1000x1000 designs, but these never got beyond the drawingboard.</p><p>Oh, and IAAAD</p><p>Flutter<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The layer of carbon is actually a mix of carbon/glue , used as balsa " ersatz " ( replacement ) Just like in normal composite structures , the Horten brothers used a relatively light core material between two sheets of tension/compression bearing material ( in this case plywood ) .
The radar absorbing effect of this material was purely coincidental , something the Hortens only found out about well after the war had ended.Furthermore , the HO 229 was not a 1000x1000x1000 design .
It was a fighter.Its task would have been to take out bombers , and requiring a lot of armor around the cockpit in order to solve CG-issues inherent to this design , the pilot survivability might have been quite good even if the aircraft were to be shot to pieces.The Hortens DID work on 1000x1000x1000 designs , but these never got beyond the drawingboard.Oh , and IAAADFlutter  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The layer of carbon is actually a mix of carbon/glue, used as balsa "ersatz" (replacement)Just like in normal composite structures, the Horten brothers used a relatively light core material between two sheets of tension/compression bearing material (in this case plywood).
The radar absorbing effect of this material was purely coincidental, something the Hortens only found out about well after the war had ended.Furthermore, the HO 229 was not a 1000x1000x1000 design.
It was a fighter.Its task would have been to take out bombers, and requiring a lot of armor around the cockpit in order to solve CG-issues inherent to this design, the pilot survivability might have been quite good even if the aircraft were to be shot to pieces.The Hortens DID work on 1000x1000x1000 designs, but these never got beyond the drawingboard.Oh, and IAAADFlutter
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452249</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245857580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one said illegal, they said NSFW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one said illegal , they said NSFW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one said illegal, they said NSFW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460921</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1245848580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No, he lost because he over extended himself into Russia."</p><p>Germany DEFEATED Russia in WW1, and but for their late invasion and split effort which failed to take Moscow could have done so again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No , he lost because he over extended himself into Russia .
" Germany DEFEATED Russia in WW1 , and but for their late invasion and split effort which failed to take Moscow could have done so again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No, he lost because he over extended himself into Russia.
"Germany DEFEATED Russia in WW1, and but for their late invasion and split effort which failed to take Moscow could have done so again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457041</id>
	<title>Read the article for a change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245875040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho\_229" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Read about it</a> [wikipedia.org] and learn something new.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Reiman Horton said he mixed charcoal dust in with the wood glue to absorb electromagnetic waves (radar), which could have shielded the aircraft from detection by British early warning ground-based radar known as Chain Home. This application was tested by Northrop-Grumman in early 2009 and found to have been successful, making the Ho-229 the first aircraft to successfully incorporate "stealth technology" in its design.[1]</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read about it [ wikipedia.org ] and learn something new .
  Reiman Horton said he mixed charcoal dust in with the wood glue to absorb electromagnetic waves ( radar ) , which could have shielded the aircraft from detection by British early warning ground-based radar known as Chain Home .
This application was tested by Northrop-Grumman in early 2009 and found to have been successful , making the Ho-229 the first aircraft to successfully incorporate " stealth technology " in its design .
[ 1 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Read about it [wikipedia.org] and learn something new.
  Reiman Horton said he mixed charcoal dust in with the wood glue to absorb electromagnetic waves (radar), which could have shielded the aircraft from detection by British early warning ground-based radar known as Chain Home.
This application was tested by Northrop-Grumman in early 2009 and found to have been successful, making the Ho-229 the first aircraft to successfully incorporate "stealth technology" in its design.
[1]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453365</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1245862140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As to the value of so-called 'wonder weapons', you should really read Arthur C. Clark's short story 'Superiority'.  And before everyone says "it's just a sci-fi story, it has no bearing on real life" you should keep in mind that this story has been required reading at the US military colleges for almost 40 years.</p><p>It's not just the time and effort that goes into R+D; it's building up a manufacturing base, getting the necessary raw materials, training your soldiers on new equipment, adapting strategies to the new technology (often a forgotten step), shipping the new technology out into the field.  Then, you've got a new, fragile, and rushed technology being subjected to the worst conditions imaginable and having people's lives rely on it.</p><p>The only obvious exception is the A-bomb, and even that was a fluke.  The US was safe from invasion and damage, didn't have to worry nearly as much as Germany about having the whole project ruined in a bombing raid.  You only need a few A-bombs to make a huge difference in the war, not true of most Germany's pet projects (except, obviously, their own A-bomb research).  Since you only need a few, it's much easier to training, deployment, and maintenance are much simpler than a mass produced weapon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As to the value of so-called 'wonder weapons ' , you should really read Arthur C. Clark 's short story 'Superiority' .
And before everyone says " it 's just a sci-fi story , it has no bearing on real life " you should keep in mind that this story has been required reading at the US military colleges for almost 40 years.It 's not just the time and effort that goes into R + D ; it 's building up a manufacturing base , getting the necessary raw materials , training your soldiers on new equipment , adapting strategies to the new technology ( often a forgotten step ) , shipping the new technology out into the field .
Then , you 've got a new , fragile , and rushed technology being subjected to the worst conditions imaginable and having people 's lives rely on it.The only obvious exception is the A-bomb , and even that was a fluke .
The US was safe from invasion and damage , did n't have to worry nearly as much as Germany about having the whole project ruined in a bombing raid .
You only need a few A-bombs to make a huge difference in the war , not true of most Germany 's pet projects ( except , obviously , their own A-bomb research ) .
Since you only need a few , it 's much easier to training , deployment , and maintenance are much simpler than a mass produced weapon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As to the value of so-called 'wonder weapons', you should really read Arthur C. Clark's short story 'Superiority'.
And before everyone says "it's just a sci-fi story, it has no bearing on real life" you should keep in mind that this story has been required reading at the US military colleges for almost 40 years.It's not just the time and effort that goes into R+D; it's building up a manufacturing base, getting the necessary raw materials, training your soldiers on new equipment, adapting strategies to the new technology (often a forgotten step), shipping the new technology out into the field.
Then, you've got a new, fragile, and rushed technology being subjected to the worst conditions imaginable and having people's lives rely on it.The only obvious exception is the A-bomb, and even that was a fluke.
The US was safe from invasion and damage, didn't have to worry nearly as much as Germany about having the whole project ruined in a bombing raid.
You only need a few A-bombs to make a huge difference in the war, not true of most Germany's pet projects (except, obviously, their own A-bomb research).
Since you only need a few, it's much easier to training, deployment, and maintenance are much simpler than a mass produced weapon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458785</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245838260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>German scientists were some of the best in the world (not that they are so bad today..).</p></div><p>Made in Germany. You know the Germans always make good stuff!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>German scientists were some of the best in the world ( not that they are so bad today.. ) .Made in Germany .
You know the Germans always make good stuff !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>German scientists were some of the best in the world (not that they are so bad today..).Made in Germany.
You know the Germans always make good stuff!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455091</id>
	<title>Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1245868020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because if I were designing a jet intended to go transonic, using wood, I'd sure put carbon laminate over the leading edge just to keep the wings from falling off.  Even primitive carbon laminates available then had superb stiffness per cross-sectional area, and in tension would give an *enormous* amount of stiffness and strength to the wing in exactly the direction it needs it.</p></div><p>While I would normally agree with you, looking into it further shows this isn't the case.  The plywood was made using glue mixed with charcoal dust.  There is no additional strength to be had from doing that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if I were designing a jet intended to go transonic , using wood , I 'd sure put carbon laminate over the leading edge just to keep the wings from falling off .
Even primitive carbon laminates available then had superb stiffness per cross-sectional area , and in tension would give an * enormous * amount of stiffness and strength to the wing in exactly the direction it needs it.While I would normally agree with you , looking into it further shows this is n't the case .
The plywood was made using glue mixed with charcoal dust .
There is no additional strength to be had from doing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if I were designing a jet intended to go transonic, using wood, I'd sure put carbon laminate over the leading edge just to keep the wings from falling off.
Even primitive carbon laminates available then had superb stiffness per cross-sectional area, and in tension would give an *enormous* amount of stiffness and strength to the wing in exactly the direction it needs it.While I would normally agree with you, looking into it further shows this isn't the case.
The plywood was made using glue mixed with charcoal dust.
There is no additional strength to be had from doing that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453195</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245861540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"he broke the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union was a huge mistake."<br>That was his single mistake that cost him the war.<br>He could ahve held a lot of what he had, regardless of his internal issues.<br>Don't get me wrong, I am very happy for that mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" he broke the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union was a huge mistake .
" That was his single mistake that cost him the war.He could ahve held a lot of what he had , regardless of his internal issues.Do n't get me wrong , I am very happy for that mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"he broke the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union was a huge mistake.
"That was his single mistake that cost him the war.He could ahve held a lot of what he had, regardless of his internal issues.Don't get me wrong, I am very happy for that mistake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452247</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>ijakings</author>
	<datestamp>1245857580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think albert einstein proved this correct when he travelled back in time and killed hitler.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think albert einstein proved this correct when he travelled back in time and killed hitler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think albert einstein proved this correct when he travelled back in time and killed hitler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458871</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>ThousandStars</author>
	<datestamp>1245838620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great post. For more on the subject of how incredibly far Germany (and Japan) were from atomic weapons, try Richard Rhodes' <i>The Making of the Atomic Bomb</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great post .
For more on the subject of how incredibly far Germany ( and Japan ) were from atomic weapons , try Richard Rhodes ' The Making of the Atomic Bomb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great post.
For more on the subject of how incredibly far Germany (and Japan) were from atomic weapons, try Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453455</id>
	<title>Germany was working on stealth technology in WW-II</title>
	<author>DrJimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1245862440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The very first reference to radar "stealth technology" that I'm aware of was in Arnold Sommerfeld's Lectures on Theoretical Physics, IIRC in the volume on Electrodynamics, which was published in Germany in 1948.   Sommerfeld briefly explained how layering of certain materials could be used to reduce radar cross sections.  He also discussed the technical challenges and trade-offs (weight versus efficacy).
<br> <br>
I first became aware of this when I was using the English translation as part of my physics studies in the 1970's so I was somewhat surprised when many years later "stealth technology" was considered something new and novel. I am even more surprised that it is not now common knowledge that Germany was working on stealth technology during WW-II since that technology was described in a <i>German textbook</i> published at the end of WW-II.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The very first reference to radar " stealth technology " that I 'm aware of was in Arnold Sommerfeld 's Lectures on Theoretical Physics , IIRC in the volume on Electrodynamics , which was published in Germany in 1948 .
Sommerfeld briefly explained how layering of certain materials could be used to reduce radar cross sections .
He also discussed the technical challenges and trade-offs ( weight versus efficacy ) .
I first became aware of this when I was using the English translation as part of my physics studies in the 1970 's so I was somewhat surprised when many years later " stealth technology " was considered something new and novel .
I am even more surprised that it is not now common knowledge that Germany was working on stealth technology during WW-II since that technology was described in a German textbook published at the end of WW-II .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The very first reference to radar "stealth technology" that I'm aware of was in Arnold Sommerfeld's Lectures on Theoretical Physics, IIRC in the volume on Electrodynamics, which was published in Germany in 1948.
Sommerfeld briefly explained how layering of certain materials could be used to reduce radar cross sections.
He also discussed the technical challenges and trade-offs (weight versus efficacy).
I first became aware of this when I was using the English translation as part of my physics studies in the 1970's so I was somewhat surprised when many years later "stealth technology" was considered something new and novel.
I am even more surprised that it is not now common knowledge that Germany was working on stealth technology during WW-II since that technology was described in a German textbook published at the end of WW-II.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28461193</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245850620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He made bad choices later on, too. It was his idea to use the Me262 as a light bomber rather than a fighter. That meant the jet fighter entered the war too late to have much effect on the Allied bomber streams crippling German industry.<br>You can be sure he'd have done the same with his "stealth" fighter. After all, what use is a stealth fighter over Germany? Allied bombers didn't carry anti-aircraft radar as it would give away their position. The only Allied planes with radar were the night-fighters. Maybe the stealth fighter would have been effective against them.<br>A stealth bomber was an altogether different weapon, however limited in its payload.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He made bad choices later on , too .
It was his idea to use the Me262 as a light bomber rather than a fighter .
That meant the jet fighter entered the war too late to have much effect on the Allied bomber streams crippling German industry.You can be sure he 'd have done the same with his " stealth " fighter .
After all , what use is a stealth fighter over Germany ?
Allied bombers did n't carry anti-aircraft radar as it would give away their position .
The only Allied planes with radar were the night-fighters .
Maybe the stealth fighter would have been effective against them.A stealth bomber was an altogether different weapon , however limited in its payload .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He made bad choices later on, too.
It was his idea to use the Me262 as a light bomber rather than a fighter.
That meant the jet fighter entered the war too late to have much effect on the Allied bomber streams crippling German industry.You can be sure he'd have done the same with his "stealth" fighter.
After all, what use is a stealth fighter over Germany?
Allied bombers didn't carry anti-aircraft radar as it would give away their position.
The only Allied planes with radar were the night-fighters.
Maybe the stealth fighter would have been effective against them.A stealth bomber was an altogether different weapon, however limited in its payload.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075</id>
	<title>Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hitler wasn't some demonic bad-ass bad-guy.  He was a crazed political genius at the right place and right time.  His downfall: he wasn't a real geek!  He lost because of technical cluelessness!  He didn't have the technical knowledge to realize the value of the wonder-weapons until late in the war when the 3rd Reich got desperate, and then it was too late.  His right-hand man Goering didn't have a complete grasp of the importance of good intelligence and command and control.  (He would have won the Battle of Britain, but he didn't know that he should've continued his campaign against the sector stations.)  Even Hitler's understanding of economic warfare was that of an enthusiastic amateur.</p><p>We won not because our geeks were better, though they were darn good.  We won because we *listened* to them!</p><p>The Secret History of Silicon Valley.  (How geeks won WWII and the Cold War, and how that led to Silicon Valley.)<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSPHfZQpIQ" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSPHfZQpIQ</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hitler was n't some demonic bad-ass bad-guy .
He was a crazed political genius at the right place and right time .
His downfall : he was n't a real geek !
He lost because of technical cluelessness !
He did n't have the technical knowledge to realize the value of the wonder-weapons until late in the war when the 3rd Reich got desperate , and then it was too late .
His right-hand man Goering did n't have a complete grasp of the importance of good intelligence and command and control .
( He would have won the Battle of Britain , but he did n't know that he should 've continued his campaign against the sector stations .
) Even Hitler 's understanding of economic warfare was that of an enthusiastic amateur.We won not because our geeks were better , though they were darn good .
We won because we * listened * to them ! The Secret History of Silicon Valley .
( How geeks won WWII and the Cold War , and how that led to Silicon Valley .
) http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = hFSPHfZQpIQ [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hitler wasn't some demonic bad-ass bad-guy.
He was a crazed political genius at the right place and right time.
His downfall: he wasn't a real geek!
He lost because of technical cluelessness!
He didn't have the technical knowledge to realize the value of the wonder-weapons until late in the war when the 3rd Reich got desperate, and then it was too late.
His right-hand man Goering didn't have a complete grasp of the importance of good intelligence and command and control.
(He would have won the Battle of Britain, but he didn't know that he should've continued his campaign against the sector stations.
)  Even Hitler's understanding of economic warfare was that of an enthusiastic amateur.We won not because our geeks were better, though they were darn good.
We won because we *listened* to them!The Secret History of Silicon Valley.
(How geeks won WWII and the Cold War, and how that led to Silicon Valley.
)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSPHfZQpIQ [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453329</id>
	<title>Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1245862020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since I can't get to the article for whatever reason, I have to speculate.<br>Does the article say that the carbon laminate was intended specifically and primarily to reduce radar signature?  Because if I were designing a jet intended to go transonic, using wood, I'd sure put carbon laminate over the leading edge just to keep the wings from falling off.  Even primitive carbon laminates available then had superb stiffness per cross-sectional area, and in tension would give an *enormous* amount of stiffness and strength to the wing in exactly the direction it needs it.  A majority of modern aircraft designs use a high modulus of elasticity fabric adhered to the surface of a thick layer of low-density material, as their basic system of fuselage and wing construction.  That's exactly what this is.<br><br>As an aside, the Germans also pioneered use of bubble-filled polyurethane rubber coatings on submarines to reduce their sonar signature by 30 dB, a technology not imitated by either the US or the USSR until the 1970's.  &lt;a href="http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=594958"&gt;Here's an article&lt;/a&gt; about it.  There's a better one on Wikipedia but I can't find it right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I ca n't get to the article for whatever reason , I have to speculate.Does the article say that the carbon laminate was intended specifically and primarily to reduce radar signature ?
Because if I were designing a jet intended to go transonic , using wood , I 'd sure put carbon laminate over the leading edge just to keep the wings from falling off .
Even primitive carbon laminates available then had superb stiffness per cross-sectional area , and in tension would give an * enormous * amount of stiffness and strength to the wing in exactly the direction it needs it .
A majority of modern aircraft designs use a high modulus of elasticity fabric adhered to the surface of a thick layer of low-density material , as their basic system of fuselage and wing construction .
That 's exactly what this is.As an aside , the Germans also pioneered use of bubble-filled polyurethane rubber coatings on submarines to reduce their sonar signature by 30 dB , a technology not imitated by either the US or the USSR until the 1970 's .
Here 's an article about it .
There 's a better one on Wikipedia but I ca n't find it right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I can't get to the article for whatever reason, I have to speculate.Does the article say that the carbon laminate was intended specifically and primarily to reduce radar signature?
Because if I were designing a jet intended to go transonic, using wood, I'd sure put carbon laminate over the leading edge just to keep the wings from falling off.
Even primitive carbon laminates available then had superb stiffness per cross-sectional area, and in tension would give an *enormous* amount of stiffness and strength to the wing in exactly the direction it needs it.
A majority of modern aircraft designs use a high modulus of elasticity fabric adhered to the surface of a thick layer of low-density material, as their basic system of fuselage and wing construction.
That's exactly what this is.As an aside, the Germans also pioneered use of bubble-filled polyurethane rubber coatings on submarines to reduce their sonar signature by 30 dB, a technology not imitated by either the US or the USSR until the 1970's.
Here's an article about it.
There's a better one on Wikipedia but I can't find it right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453743</id>
	<title>Re:Man</title>
	<author>nospam007</author>
	<datestamp>1245863400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Succeed as an artist?</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Mmmm, the book still sells.</p><p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1245859744&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1245859744&amp;sr=8-1</a> [amazon.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Succeed as an artist ?
Mmmm , the book still sells.http : //www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037/ref = sr \ _1 \ _1 ? ie = UTF8&amp;s = books&amp;qid = 1245859744&amp;sr = 8-1 [ amazon.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Succeed as an artist?
Mmmm, the book still sells.http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/0395925037/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1245859744&amp;sr=8-1 [amazon.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451811</id>
	<title>Another Example of German Technical Achievement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245855240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>After the start of the Enlightenment, Germans have made many contributions to engineering and science.  In addition to the first stealth fighter, the Germans invented calculus (co-invented with an Englishman), the guided missle (which later became the American Saturn V), the car (beating Henry Ford to the punch), etc.  A Germany co-discovered <a href="http://nobelprize.org/nobel\_prizes/physics/laureates/1987/" title="nobelprize.org" rel="nofollow">superconductivity in ceramics</a> [nobelprize.org], which paved the way for the synthesis of high-temperature superconductors.
<p>
Why have Germans accomplished so much in engineering and science?  Here, "German" includes Germans of all religious groups, including Judaism.
</p><p>
Why have Africans made little contribution to engineering and science?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the start of the Enlightenment , Germans have made many contributions to engineering and science .
In addition to the first stealth fighter , the Germans invented calculus ( co-invented with an Englishman ) , the guided missle ( which later became the American Saturn V ) , the car ( beating Henry Ford to the punch ) , etc .
A Germany co-discovered superconductivity in ceramics [ nobelprize.org ] , which paved the way for the synthesis of high-temperature superconductors .
Why have Germans accomplished so much in engineering and science ?
Here , " German " includes Germans of all religious groups , including Judaism .
Why have Africans made little contribution to engineering and science ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the start of the Enlightenment, Germans have made many contributions to engineering and science.
In addition to the first stealth fighter, the Germans invented calculus (co-invented with an Englishman), the guided missle (which later became the American Saturn V), the car (beating Henry Ford to the punch), etc.
A Germany co-discovered superconductivity in ceramics [nobelprize.org], which paved the way for the synthesis of high-temperature superconductors.
Why have Germans accomplished so much in engineering and science?
Here, "German" includes Germans of all religious groups, including Judaism.
Why have Africans made little contribution to engineering and science?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455761</id>
	<title>very safe for work</title>
	<author>ccozan</author>
	<datestamp>1245870060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that is no svastika!!!! That is the Wehrmacht sign <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht" title="wikipedia.org">http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht</a> [wikipedia.org] , and today used in a styled way for Bundeswehr <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>that is no svastika ! ! ! !
That is the Wehrmacht sign http : //de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht [ wikipedia.org ] , and today used in a styled way for Bundeswehr http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that is no svastika!!!!
That is the Wehrmacht sign http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht [wikipedia.org] , and today used in a styled way for Bundeswehr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453651</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Eternauta3k</author>
	<datestamp>1245863040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>what with swastika flags and all. I'll be in trouble if someone has overseen my screen just then, being a german living in Britain.</p></div><p>Speaking of which (and paraphrasing The Extras), where did these people get those huge swastikas?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what with swastika flags and all .
I 'll be in trouble if someone has overseen my screen just then , being a german living in Britain.Speaking of which ( and paraphrasing The Extras ) , where did these people get those huge swastikas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what with swastika flags and all.
I'll be in trouble if someone has overseen my screen just then, being a german living in Britain.Speaking of which (and paraphrasing The Extras), where did these people get those huge swastikas?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452185</id>
	<title>Re:I like the decoration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245857280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What banners where? I tried to find them but couldn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What banners where ?
I tried to find them but could n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What banners where?
I tried to find them but couldn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452751</id>
	<title>Re:The Germans build nice stuff...</title>
	<author>mike2R</author>
	<datestamp>1245859860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And by this point in the war, the desperate need was for advanced fighter aircraft to stop the allied bombing offensive.  I'm sure there is a bit in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert\_Speer" title="wikipedia.org">Speer</a> [wikipedia.org]'s book, or maybe one of his interviews, about trying to convince Hitler to switch all jet production to fighter aircraft, but Hitler (who's grip on reality was seriously slipping by this point) wanted bombers to attack Germany's enemies.<br> <br>
Speer was of course a liar about many things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And by this point in the war , the desperate need was for advanced fighter aircraft to stop the allied bombing offensive .
I 'm sure there is a bit in Speer [ wikipedia.org ] 's book , or maybe one of his interviews , about trying to convince Hitler to switch all jet production to fighter aircraft , but Hitler ( who 's grip on reality was seriously slipping by this point ) wanted bombers to attack Germany 's enemies .
Speer was of course a liar about many things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And by this point in the war, the desperate need was for advanced fighter aircraft to stop the allied bombing offensive.
I'm sure there is a bit in Speer [wikipedia.org]'s book, or maybe one of his interviews, about trying to convince Hitler to switch all jet production to fighter aircraft, but Hitler (who's grip on reality was seriously slipping by this point) wanted bombers to attack Germany's enemies.
Speer was of course a liar about many things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455799</id>
	<title>Not true</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245870180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Building a stealth plane in 1943 meant the Germans had learned something it would take us another 30 years to figure out. Stealth is essential in aircraft."<br>False.</p><p>We new that, but we went with the fly higher and faster method. Which worked for quite well for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Building a stealth plane in 1943 meant the Germans had learned something it would take us another 30 years to figure out .
Stealth is essential in aircraft .
" False.We new that , but we went with the fly higher and faster method .
Which worked for quite well for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Building a stealth plane in 1943 meant the Germans had learned something it would take us another 30 years to figure out.
Stealth is essential in aircraft.
"False.We new that, but we went with the fly higher and faster method.
Which worked for quite well for a while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456647</id>
	<title>Also, if you want good music and literature...</title>
	<author>StCredZero</author>
	<datestamp>1245873360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pick out a particular ethnic group, and oppress the hell out of them for about 3 generations, at least.  Caveats: this also results in terrorism and religious extremism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pick out a particular ethnic group , and oppress the hell out of them for about 3 generations , at least .
Caveats : this also results in terrorism and religious extremism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pick out a particular ethnic group, and oppress the hell out of them for about 3 generations, at least.
Caveats: this also results in terrorism and religious extremism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452113</id>
	<title>tech vs manpower</title>
	<author>jlebrech</author>
	<datestamp>1245856860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's quite an amazing feat of the German scientists, if they hadn't scapegoated the jews to get into power they may have also had the atom bomb but years before the usa.</p><p>The allies only won the war because they just threw a lot more bodies than there were German bullets for the invasion of normandy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's quite an amazing feat of the German scientists , if they had n't scapegoated the jews to get into power they may have also had the atom bomb but years before the usa.The allies only won the war because they just threw a lot more bodies than there were German bullets for the invasion of normandy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's quite an amazing feat of the German scientists, if they hadn't scapegoated the jews to get into power they may have also had the atom bomb but years before the usa.The allies only won the war because they just threw a lot more bodies than there were German bullets for the invasion of normandy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1245857400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While it's true the Germans made some serious strategic blunders, Hitler's primary, and ultimately fatal, mistake was underestimating the French and British will to fight for Poland.  Had he understood that the French and British were through with the appeasement policy that had allowed him to absorb Austria and Czechoslovakia, he might have waited a few more years before attacking Poland.  As it was, he was convinced the French and British would not fight, and so went for Poland before his war machine was fully ready.
<br> <br>
Of course, the success of his audacious moves against Austria and Czechoslovakia against the advice of his military leaders were the primary factor in his consolidation of total power over the military, and therefore over the country, so it seems his recklessness in military matters may have been both the key to his success as well as the reason for his ultimate failure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it 's true the Germans made some serious strategic blunders , Hitler 's primary , and ultimately fatal , mistake was underestimating the French and British will to fight for Poland .
Had he understood that the French and British were through with the appeasement policy that had allowed him to absorb Austria and Czechoslovakia , he might have waited a few more years before attacking Poland .
As it was , he was convinced the French and British would not fight , and so went for Poland before his war machine was fully ready .
Of course , the success of his audacious moves against Austria and Czechoslovakia against the advice of his military leaders were the primary factor in his consolidation of total power over the military , and therefore over the country , so it seems his recklessness in military matters may have been both the key to his success as well as the reason for his ultimate failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it's true the Germans made some serious strategic blunders, Hitler's primary, and ultimately fatal, mistake was underestimating the French and British will to fight for Poland.
Had he understood that the French and British were through with the appeasement policy that had allowed him to absorb Austria and Czechoslovakia, he might have waited a few more years before attacking Poland.
As it was, he was convinced the French and British would not fight, and so went for Poland before his war machine was fully ready.
Of course, the success of his audacious moves against Austria and Czechoslovakia against the advice of his military leaders were the primary factor in his consolidation of total power over the military, and therefore over the country, so it seems his recklessness in military matters may have been both the key to his success as well as the reason for his ultimate failure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457365</id>
	<title>Re:The Germans build nice stuff...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245876300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I have an F2-2 and you have Bi-Wings you don't have a chance until I run out of missiles. Missiles which can be remarkably crappy when I'm shooting at Bi-Wings.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; Size is a disadvantage in war, bigger = easier to hit.<br>
&nbsp; <br>
&nbsp; Manufacturing strength is important and is a combination of technology and resources. Consider that an F-22 consists of less resources than even the smallest tank...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I have an F2-2 and you have Bi-Wings you do n't have a chance until I run out of missiles .
Missiles which can be remarkably crappy when I 'm shooting at Bi-Wings .
    Size is a disadvantage in war , bigger = easier to hit .
    Manufacturing strength is important and is a combination of technology and resources .
Consider that an F-22 consists of less resources than even the smallest tank.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I have an F2-2 and you have Bi-Wings you don't have a chance until I run out of missiles.
Missiles which can be remarkably crappy when I'm shooting at Bi-Wings.
  
  Size is a disadvantage in war, bigger = easier to hit.
  
  Manufacturing strength is important and is a combination of technology and resources.
Consider that an F-22 consists of less resources than even the smallest tank...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451859</id>
	<title>Re:Man</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1245855540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Die with two testicles?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Die with two testicles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Die with two testicles?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452685</id>
	<title>Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG</title>
	<author>milkmage</author>
	<datestamp>1245859560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"ANYTHING else, including these "stealth" features, were utterly secondary."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...well, not quite secondary. According to the wikipedia "Reiman Horton said he mixed charcoal dust in with the wood glue to absorb electromagnetic waves (radar), which could have shielded the aircraft from detection by British early warning ground-based radar known as Chain Home. This application was tested by Northrop-Grumman in early 2009 and found to have been successful, making the Ho-229 the first aircraft to successfully incorporate "stealth technology" in its design.[1]"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...stealth was probably an added bonus, but they did at least one thing to try to capitalize on the reduced radar signature inherent in the basic design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ANYTHING else , including these " stealth " features , were utterly secondary .
" ...well , not quite secondary .
According to the wikipedia " Reiman Horton said he mixed charcoal dust in with the wood glue to absorb electromagnetic waves ( radar ) , which could have shielded the aircraft from detection by British early warning ground-based radar known as Chain Home .
This application was tested by Northrop-Grumman in early 2009 and found to have been successful , making the Ho-229 the first aircraft to successfully incorporate " stealth technology " in its design .
[ 1 ] " ...stealth was probably an added bonus , but they did at least one thing to try to capitalize on the reduced radar signature inherent in the basic design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"ANYTHING else, including these "stealth" features, were utterly secondary.
" ...well, not quite secondary.
According to the wikipedia "Reiman Horton said he mixed charcoal dust in with the wood glue to absorb electromagnetic waves (radar), which could have shielded the aircraft from detection by British early warning ground-based radar known as Chain Home.
This application was tested by Northrop-Grumman in early 2009 and found to have been successful, making the Ho-229 the first aircraft to successfully incorporate "stealth technology" in its design.
[1]" ...stealth was probably an added bonus, but they did at least one thing to try to capitalize on the reduced radar signature inherent in the basic design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454349</id>
	<title>Fer Godwin's sake</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245865440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can someone explain to me what one of the evilest empires on earth was doing being so dang innovative?  Next, we're going to find out that they invented Windows SS (rev Zwei of course)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can someone explain to me what one of the evilest empires on earth was doing being so dang innovative ?
Next , we 're going to find out that they invented Windows SS ( rev Zwei of course ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can someone explain to me what one of the evilest empires on earth was doing being so dang innovative?
Next, we're going to find out that they invented Windows SS (rev Zwei of course) ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454243</id>
	<title>Stretching Credibility</title>
	<author>nick\_davison</author>
	<datestamp>1245865140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"RCS testing showed that an Ho-229 approaching the English Coast from France flying at 550 mph at 50 to 100 feet above the water would not have been visible to Chain Home radar."</p></div><p>The flying wing was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying\_wing#Design\_issues" title="wikipedia.org">a hugely unstable design</a> [wikipedia.org]. The sole Ho IX V2 crashed on 18 February 1945, after only two hours of flight time. On 5 June 1948, Northrop's YB-49 (their second attempt to build a flying wing after the B-35 was cancelled due to insurmountable technical issues) crashed, killing its pilot and co-pilot Daniel Forbes and Glen Edwards, for whom Forbes and Edwards airforce bases are named. It took until the 80s for them to figure it out and make a success of the B2.</p><p>So, so long as a pilot could buzz the waves at an altitude that would make most pilots of conventional fighters of the era nervous, at the high end of speeds for the era (a good 100mph faster than a P-51 Mustang), before flitting up over the cliffs of southern England (the famed white cliffs of Dover reaching up to 106m, a good 70m over the 100 feet the plane was flying across the channel at), then it could have been invisible to British radar of the time.</p><p>One can only imagine, if production had worked out, the teenagers Germany was strapping in to planes at the time (having lost most of its experienced pilots by that point in the war) would have been doing this on a daily basis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" RCS testing showed that an Ho-229 approaching the English Coast from France flying at 550 mph at 50 to 100 feet above the water would not have been visible to Chain Home radar .
" The flying wing was a hugely unstable design [ wikipedia.org ] .
The sole Ho IX V2 crashed on 18 February 1945 , after only two hours of flight time .
On 5 June 1948 , Northrop 's YB-49 ( their second attempt to build a flying wing after the B-35 was cancelled due to insurmountable technical issues ) crashed , killing its pilot and co-pilot Daniel Forbes and Glen Edwards , for whom Forbes and Edwards airforce bases are named .
It took until the 80s for them to figure it out and make a success of the B2.So , so long as a pilot could buzz the waves at an altitude that would make most pilots of conventional fighters of the era nervous , at the high end of speeds for the era ( a good 100mph faster than a P-51 Mustang ) , before flitting up over the cliffs of southern England ( the famed white cliffs of Dover reaching up to 106m , a good 70m over the 100 feet the plane was flying across the channel at ) , then it could have been invisible to British radar of the time.One can only imagine , if production had worked out , the teenagers Germany was strapping in to planes at the time ( having lost most of its experienced pilots by that point in the war ) would have been doing this on a daily basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"RCS testing showed that an Ho-229 approaching the English Coast from France flying at 550 mph at 50 to 100 feet above the water would not have been visible to Chain Home radar.
"The flying wing was a hugely unstable design [wikipedia.org].
The sole Ho IX V2 crashed on 18 February 1945, after only two hours of flight time.
On 5 June 1948, Northrop's YB-49 (their second attempt to build a flying wing after the B-35 was cancelled due to insurmountable technical issues) crashed, killing its pilot and co-pilot Daniel Forbes and Glen Edwards, for whom Forbes and Edwards airforce bases are named.
It took until the 80s for them to figure it out and make a success of the B2.So, so long as a pilot could buzz the waves at an altitude that would make most pilots of conventional fighters of the era nervous, at the high end of speeds for the era (a good 100mph faster than a P-51 Mustang), before flitting up over the cliffs of southern England (the famed white cliffs of Dover reaching up to 106m, a good 70m over the 100 feet the plane was flying across the channel at), then it could have been invisible to British radar of the time.One can only imagine, if production had worked out, the teenagers Germany was strapping in to planes at the time (having lost most of its experienced pilots by that point in the war) would have been doing this on a daily basis.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451867</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Quantos</author>
	<datestamp>1245855540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just remind them of the <a href="http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type\_212/" title="naval-technology.com" rel="nofollow"> Type 212 Submarine.</a> [naval-technology.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just remind them of the Type 212 Submarine .
[ naval-technology.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just remind them of the  Type 212 Submarine.
[naval-technology.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451937</id>
	<title>Re:Man</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1245855900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get into college?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Get into college ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get into college?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458601</id>
	<title>Re:What Killed the Stealth fighter design?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245837540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone find the article or info on this?</p></div><p>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cell+phone+stealth+plane</p><p>First two results.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone find the article or info on this ? http : //lmgtfy.com/ ? q = cell + phone + stealth + planeFirst two results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone find the article or info on this?http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cell+phone+stealth+planeFirst two results.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452043</id>
	<title>Re:Control surfaces?</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1245856560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Current technology requires computers to keep designs like this stable in the air.</p></div><p>Umm, not quite.  The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop\_N-1M" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">N-1M</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop\_N-9M" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">N-9M</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop\_YB-35" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">YB-35</a> [wikipedia.org], and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop\_YB-49" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">YB-49</a> [wikipedia.org] were all flying wings developed and flown well before the advent of computerized flight controls.  All of them were naturally stable to varying degrees, with yaw stability (rotation about the vertical axis) often being weak and poorly damped, but still positive.</p><p>So flying wings can be made stable without computers.  But having computerized controls may buy you other advantages (better payload or less trim drag, for example).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Current technology requires computers to keep designs like this stable in the air.Umm , not quite .
The N-1M [ wikipedia.org ] , N-9M [ wikipedia.org ] , YB-35 [ wikipedia.org ] , and YB-49 [ wikipedia.org ] were all flying wings developed and flown well before the advent of computerized flight controls .
All of them were naturally stable to varying degrees , with yaw stability ( rotation about the vertical axis ) often being weak and poorly damped , but still positive.So flying wings can be made stable without computers .
But having computerized controls may buy you other advantages ( better payload or less trim drag , for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Current technology requires computers to keep designs like this stable in the air.Umm, not quite.
The N-1M [wikipedia.org], N-9M [wikipedia.org], YB-35 [wikipedia.org], and YB-49 [wikipedia.org] were all flying wings developed and flown well before the advent of computerized flight controls.
All of them were naturally stable to varying degrees, with yaw stability (rotation about the vertical axis) often being weak and poorly damped, but still positive.So flying wings can be made stable without computers.
But having computerized controls may buy you other advantages (better payload or less trim drag, for example).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460621</id>
	<title>Re:Not bloody likely.</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1245846720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Britain had centimetric radar in 1940:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_radar#Centimetric\_radar" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_radar#Centimetric\_radar</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>And I hope you meant wavelengths in thhe 10-meter range.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain had centimetric radar in 1940 : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History \ _of \ _radar # Centimetric \ _radar [ wikipedia.org ] And I hope you meant wavelengths in thhe 10-meter range .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain had centimetric radar in 1940:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History\_of\_radar#Centimetric\_radar [wikipedia.org]And I hope you meant wavelengths in thhe 10-meter range.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456209</id>
	<title>Re:Hehe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245871680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who do you think sorted out the nukes? Look up U-234 that surrendered to the US on its way to Japan after Germany capitulated. There is a reason for why the atom bombs were only deployed AFTER Germany was out of the war. Hell, as far as I can remember, the yanks didn't even have enough radioactive material ready to make the bombs as quickly as they did even IF they knew how to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who do you think sorted out the nukes ?
Look up U-234 that surrendered to the US on its way to Japan after Germany capitulated .
There is a reason for why the atom bombs were only deployed AFTER Germany was out of the war .
Hell , as far as I can remember , the yanks did n't even have enough radioactive material ready to make the bombs as quickly as they did even IF they knew how to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who do you think sorted out the nukes?
Look up U-234 that surrendered to the US on its way to Japan after Germany capitulated.
There is a reason for why the atom bombs were only deployed AFTER Germany was out of the war.
Hell, as far as I can remember, the yanks didn't even have enough radioactive material ready to make the bombs as quickly as they did even IF they knew how to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455487</id>
	<title>personal info</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to work for Northrop Grumman... in one word: Cocksuckers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to work for Northrop Grumman... in one word : Cocksuckers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to work for Northrop Grumman... in one word: Cocksuckers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452067</id>
	<title>Re:Control surfaces?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's one of the problems. It is possible to fly a delta wing (quite) stably without a rear "shark-fin" most of the time by using only the wing controls. It's not as easy to fly as a normal plane, but it's possible. However, under certain circumstances (strong shear winds maybe? I'm not a pilot...) the plane could "oscillate" out of control.</p><p>This circumstance is exaclty what put this kind of wing-shaped planes out of use for quite a while, until, at some point, computers became so powerful that they could assist in stabilizing planes even as unhandy to use as the F117 Nighthawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117\_Nighthawk).</p><p>Then, with the techonolgy in place to avoid loss of control, these kind of planes were introduced again, one of the more (most?) modern being stealth bomber B-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2\_Spirit), BTW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's one of the problems .
It is possible to fly a delta wing ( quite ) stably without a rear " shark-fin " most of the time by using only the wing controls .
It 's not as easy to fly as a normal plane , but it 's possible .
However , under certain circumstances ( strong shear winds maybe ?
I 'm not a pilot... ) the plane could " oscillate " out of control.This circumstance is exaclty what put this kind of wing-shaped planes out of use for quite a while , until , at some point , computers became so powerful that they could assist in stabilizing planes even as unhandy to use as the F117 Nighthawk ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117 \ _Nighthawk ) .Then , with the techonolgy in place to avoid loss of control , these kind of planes were introduced again , one of the more ( most ?
) modern being stealth bomber B-2 ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2 \ _Spirit ) , BTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's one of the problems.
It is possible to fly a delta wing (quite) stably without a rear "shark-fin" most of the time by using only the wing controls.
It's not as easy to fly as a normal plane, but it's possible.
However, under certain circumstances (strong shear winds maybe?
I'm not a pilot...) the plane could "oscillate" out of control.This circumstance is exaclty what put this kind of wing-shaped planes out of use for quite a while, until, at some point, computers became so powerful that they could assist in stabilizing planes even as unhandy to use as the F117 Nighthawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117\_Nighthawk).Then, with the techonolgy in place to avoid loss of control, these kind of planes were introduced again, one of the more (most?
) modern being stealth bomber B-2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2\_Spirit), BTW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451947</id>
	<title>Not bloody likely.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245855960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's unlikely that a plywood plane would show up on England's chain-home or chain-home-low radars.</p><p>The technology at the time forced them to use frequencies in the 10-meter range.<br>An object has to be at least 1/4 the wavelength in order to give a sizeable reflection.</p><p>So a plane with just two smallish metal engines would likely be invisible among the usual sea and ground clutter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's unlikely that a plywood plane would show up on England 's chain-home or chain-home-low radars.The technology at the time forced them to use frequencies in the 10-meter range.An object has to be at least 1/4 the wavelength in order to give a sizeable reflection.So a plane with just two smallish metal engines would likely be invisible among the usual sea and ground clutter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's unlikely that a plywood plane would show up on England's chain-home or chain-home-low radars.The technology at the time forced them to use frequencies in the 10-meter range.An object has to be at least 1/4 the wavelength in order to give a sizeable reflection.So a plane with just two smallish metal engines would likely be invisible among the usual sea and ground clutter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453659</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>Nutria</author>
	<datestamp>1245863100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>He didn't have the technical knowledge to realize the value of the wonder-weapons until late in the war when the 3rd Reich got desperate,</i><br>snip<br><i>We won not because our geeks were better, though they were darn good. We won because we *listened* to them!</i></p><p>How many wonder weapons did the Allies have, besides the B-29 and the A-bomb (neither of which used in Europe), and RADAR (which was a British invention)?</p><p>The US advantages were:</p><ul> <li>a good repeating rifle, the M1,</li><li>enormous production capacity,</li><li>some great -- but not revolutionary Wonder-weapon -- airplanes,</li><li>political leaders that didn't often override ground commanders,</li><li>and a completely mechanized army (the Germans still used horse carts...)</li></ul><p>Jerry stuck with the Me-109, while the US kept improving, bringing out larger numbers of the P-51, the P-47, the P-39 (and in the Pacific, the Hellcat and Corsair).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He did n't have the technical knowledge to realize the value of the wonder-weapons until late in the war when the 3rd Reich got desperate,snipWe won not because our geeks were better , though they were darn good .
We won because we * listened * to them ! How many wonder weapons did the Allies have , besides the B-29 and the A-bomb ( neither of which used in Europe ) , and RADAR ( which was a British invention ) ? The US advantages were : a good repeating rifle , the M1,enormous production capacity,some great -- but not revolutionary Wonder-weapon -- airplanes,political leaders that did n't often override ground commanders,and a completely mechanized army ( the Germans still used horse carts... ) Jerry stuck with the Me-109 , while the US kept improving , bringing out larger numbers of the P-51 , the P-47 , the P-39 ( and in the Pacific , the Hellcat and Corsair ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He didn't have the technical knowledge to realize the value of the wonder-weapons until late in the war when the 3rd Reich got desperate,snipWe won not because our geeks were better, though they were darn good.
We won because we *listened* to them!How many wonder weapons did the Allies have, besides the B-29 and the A-bomb (neither of which used in Europe), and RADAR (which was a British invention)?The US advantages were: a good repeating rifle, the M1,enormous production capacity,some great -- but not revolutionary Wonder-weapon -- airplanes,political leaders that didn't often override ground commanders,and a completely mechanized army (the Germans still used horse carts...)Jerry stuck with the Me-109, while the US kept improving, bringing out larger numbers of the P-51, the P-47, the P-39 (and in the Pacific, the Hellcat and Corsair).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452311</id>
	<title>"Superiority" required reading at West Point!</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1245857880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a short story written by Arthur C. Clarke titled "Superiority" that discussed this.  Of course, it being science fiction, the weapons were very interesting (matter annihilators, space distortion systems).  Also, since it was written (in the 50s?) some of the vocabulary is quaint (I think the term "torpedoes" refer to what we would call missiles).<br>Still I didn't know (according to Wikipedia) that it was (once?) required reading at West Point!  (For those not from the U.S., that is one of the premiere military academies).<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority\_(short\_story)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority\_(short\_story)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a short story written by Arthur C. Clarke titled " Superiority " that discussed this .
Of course , it being science fiction , the weapons were very interesting ( matter annihilators , space distortion systems ) .
Also , since it was written ( in the 50s ?
) some of the vocabulary is quaint ( I think the term " torpedoes " refer to what we would call missiles ) .Still I did n't know ( according to Wikipedia ) that it was ( once ?
) required reading at West Point !
( For those not from the U.S. , that is one of the premiere military academies ) .http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority \ _ ( short \ _story ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a short story written by Arthur C. Clarke titled "Superiority" that discussed this.
Of course, it being science fiction, the weapons were very interesting (matter annihilators, space distortion systems).
Also, since it was written (in the 50s?
) some of the vocabulary is quaint (I think the term "torpedoes" refer to what we would call missiles).Still I didn't know (according to Wikipedia) that it was (once?
) required reading at West Point!
(For those not from the U.S., that is one of the premiere military academies).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority\_(short\_story) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455403</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245869040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Also, don't get involved with war in the winter in Russia."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..or in the spring and fall, only a short window for avoiding the mud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Also , do n't get involved with war in the winter in Russia .
" ..or in the spring and fall , only a short window for avoiding the mud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Also, don't get involved with war in the winter in Russia.
" ..or in the spring and fall, only a short window for avoiding the mud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454423</id>
	<title>Re:I like the decoration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245865680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Let me guess, you are also for the elimination of the flag of the Confederate States too?"<br>as an item of history? no.<br>As an actual flag representing oppression, and as an excuse to say the war isn't over? yes.</p><p>Just like I would find people rallying around the swastika in need of elimination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Let me guess , you are also for the elimination of the flag of the Confederate States too ?
" as an item of history ?
no.As an actual flag representing oppression , and as an excuse to say the war is n't over ?
yes.Just like I would find people rallying around the swastika in need of elimination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Let me guess, you are also for the elimination of the flag of the Confederate States too?
"as an item of history?
no.As an actual flag representing oppression, and as an excuse to say the war isn't over?
yes.Just like I would find people rallying around the swastika in need of elimination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452167</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>weffew...</author>
	<datestamp>1245857160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just make it into a Fawlty Towers joke, ignore any comments and then have a cuppa: it's a more British than anything else I can imagine at the moment.</p><p>Most Germans I know these days have a good sense of humour. If Ein Britisher has a sense of humour failure, that's their problem.</p><p>Cheers</p><p>C</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just make it into a Fawlty Towers joke , ignore any comments and then have a cuppa : it 's a more British than anything else I can imagine at the moment.Most Germans I know these days have a good sense of humour .
If Ein Britisher has a sense of humour failure , that 's their problem.CheersC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just make it into a Fawlty Towers joke, ignore any comments and then have a cuppa: it's a more British than anything else I can imagine at the moment.Most Germans I know these days have a good sense of humour.
If Ein Britisher has a sense of humour failure, that's their problem.CheersC</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452337</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>ak3ldama</author>
	<datestamp>1245857940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.</p></div><p>This is of course based on the belief that German rule would have been worse than the resulting dual rule by the Western Powers and the USSR...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history , and things could easily have gone the other way.This is of course based on the belief that German rule would have been worse than the resulting dual rule by the Western Powers and the USSR.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.This is of course based on the belief that German rule would have been worse than the resulting dual rule by the Western Powers and the USSR...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452565</id>
	<title>Too soon!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245859080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This thing would be bitch to fly  without fly-by-wire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This thing would be bitch to fly without fly-by-wire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This thing would be bitch to fly  without fly-by-wire.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453579</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Mister Whirly</author>
	<datestamp>1245862800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or by it's "unofficial" name - Lance Bass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or by it 's " unofficial " name - Lance Bass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or by it's "unofficial" name - Lance Bass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452153</id>
	<title>Mass Production trumps high tech at least in war..</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ken</author>
	<datestamp>1245857040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>German engineering made some of the best war technology of the conflict. But mass production is what won it for the allies. If the Nazis killed 7 allied tanks to losing 1 of theirs it seems like a good trade-off for them until you realize that American industrial production could overcome even that ratio. War is about attrition and it was that feature that caused the Nazis to ultimately lose despite their scientific and  engineering prowess. (The Nazis also exiled or gassed many of their leading nuclear physicists or they'd have got the atomic bomb first too. And that would have been a real game changer.)

At the risk of being modded flamebait here, look at the Iraq situation. Simple weapons (AK-47 rifles, RPGs and IEDs) are what are killing American soldiers. The insurgents' losses are also much higher than their kills (due to America's vastly superior war technology) but in the end they can "out lose" the Americans in KIA as long as they need to in order to outlast the American and make them withdraw.   History doesn't repeat but it often rhymes, eh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>German engineering made some of the best war technology of the conflict .
But mass production is what won it for the allies .
If the Nazis killed 7 allied tanks to losing 1 of theirs it seems like a good trade-off for them until you realize that American industrial production could overcome even that ratio .
War is about attrition and it was that feature that caused the Nazis to ultimately lose despite their scientific and engineering prowess .
( The Nazis also exiled or gassed many of their leading nuclear physicists or they 'd have got the atomic bomb first too .
And that would have been a real game changer .
) At the risk of being modded flamebait here , look at the Iraq situation .
Simple weapons ( AK-47 rifles , RPGs and IEDs ) are what are killing American soldiers .
The insurgents ' losses are also much higher than their kills ( due to America 's vastly superior war technology ) but in the end they can " out lose " the Americans in KIA as long as they need to in order to outlast the American and make them withdraw .
History does n't repeat but it often rhymes , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>German engineering made some of the best war technology of the conflict.
But mass production is what won it for the allies.
If the Nazis killed 7 allied tanks to losing 1 of theirs it seems like a good trade-off for them until you realize that American industrial production could overcome even that ratio.
War is about attrition and it was that feature that caused the Nazis to ultimately lose despite their scientific and  engineering prowess.
(The Nazis also exiled or gassed many of their leading nuclear physicists or they'd have got the atomic bomb first too.
And that would have been a real game changer.
)

At the risk of being modded flamebait here, look at the Iraq situation.
Simple weapons (AK-47 rifles, RPGs and IEDs) are what are killing American soldiers.
The insurgents' losses are also much higher than their kills (due to America's vastly superior war technology) but in the end they can "out lose" the Americans in KIA as long as they need to in order to outlast the American and make them withdraw.
History doesn't repeat but it often rhymes, eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452575</id>
	<title>Re:Minor mistake in the heading</title>
	<author>nelsonal</author>
	<datestamp>1245859080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In it's original design, but the protoit got mission creeped into adding some machine guns for a fighter role.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In it 's original design , but the protoit got mission creeped into adding some machine guns for a fighter role .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In it's original design, but the protoit got mission creeped into adding some machine guns for a fighter role.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452099</id>
	<title>Hitler's Stealth Fighter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also known as: "Reichsflugscheibe"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also known as : " Reichsflugscheibe "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also known as: "Reichsflugscheibe"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451749</id>
	<title>Control surfaces?</title>
	<author>Quantos</author>
	<datestamp>1245854880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How would they actually achieve stable flight though?<br>
Current technology requires computers to keep designs like this stable in the air.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would they actually achieve stable flight though ?
Current technology requires computers to keep designs like this stable in the air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would they actually achieve stable flight though?
Current technology requires computers to keep designs like this stable in the air.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452367</id>
	<title>Re:Another Example of German Technical Achievement</title>
	<author>Funderburk</author>
	<datestamp>1245858120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you suggesting a German invented the car before Henry Ford did? That's silly! Henry Ford had nothing to do with the invention of the automobile. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry\_Ford" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Henry Ford</a> [wikipedia.org] pioneered the use of assembly lines in production.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you suggesting a German invented the car before Henry Ford did ?
That 's silly !
Henry Ford had nothing to do with the invention of the automobile .
Henry Ford [ wikipedia.org ] pioneered the use of assembly lines in production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you suggesting a German invented the car before Henry Ford did?
That's silly!
Henry Ford had nothing to do with the invention of the automobile.
Henry Ford [wikipedia.org] pioneered the use of assembly lines in production.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452353</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>ragefan</author>
	<datestamp>1245858000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just cannot imagine that an article titled "Hitler's Stealth Fighter" would include links to photos that contain images of a plane that have swastikas painted on them!</p><p>&lt;/sarcasm&gt;</p><p>If you were really that afraid of getting in trouble for having Nazi-related material on your screen, why are you even reading and posting to this Slashdot article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just can not imagine that an article titled " Hitler 's Stealth Fighter " would include links to photos that contain images of a plane that have swastikas painted on them ! If you were really that afraid of getting in trouble for having Nazi-related material on your screen , why are you even reading and posting to this Slashdot article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just cannot imagine that an article titled "Hitler's Stealth Fighter" would include links to photos that contain images of a plane that have swastikas painted on them!If you were really that afraid of getting in trouble for having Nazi-related material on your screen, why are you even reading and posting to this Slashdot article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454291</id>
	<title>Germans had nuclear weapon BEFORE USA</title>
	<author>timeodd</author>
	<datestamp>1245865260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really as powerful as the one dropped on Hiroshima, but Germany tested TWO nuclear devices well before the US tested theirs.  The German tests came in 1944 and early 1945 (compare to US first test in July 1945).  The German nuclear initiative was headed by this man <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt\_Diebner" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt\_Diebner</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>There are number of recently publicized documents and eyewitness accounts of the actual nuclear tests.  Even Mussolini gave a speech praising the new German weapon.  And Germany was not far away from putting nuclear warheads on the V2.  Do some more research before you dismiss German technology as futile.  Western historians wouldn't be happy to admit that the Nazis were the first to the bomb.  Strictly speaking though, the German bomb was little more than a dirty bomb.  But they came within a hair of developing a full-scale nuclear weapon and nuclear missiles.  Some more information is available here <a href="http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22270" title="physicsworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22270</a> [physicsworld.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really as powerful as the one dropped on Hiroshima , but Germany tested TWO nuclear devices well before the US tested theirs .
The German tests came in 1944 and early 1945 ( compare to US first test in July 1945 ) .
The German nuclear initiative was headed by this man http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt \ _Diebner [ wikipedia.org ] There are number of recently publicized documents and eyewitness accounts of the actual nuclear tests .
Even Mussolini gave a speech praising the new German weapon .
And Germany was not far away from putting nuclear warheads on the V2 .
Do some more research before you dismiss German technology as futile .
Western historians would n't be happy to admit that the Nazis were the first to the bomb .
Strictly speaking though , the German bomb was little more than a dirty bomb .
But they came within a hair of developing a full-scale nuclear weapon and nuclear missiles .
Some more information is available here http : //physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22270 [ physicsworld.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really as powerful as the one dropped on Hiroshima, but Germany tested TWO nuclear devices well before the US tested theirs.
The German tests came in 1944 and early 1945 (compare to US first test in July 1945).
The German nuclear initiative was headed by this man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt\_Diebner [wikipedia.org] There are number of recently publicized documents and eyewitness accounts of the actual nuclear tests.
Even Mussolini gave a speech praising the new German weapon.
And Germany was not far away from putting nuclear warheads on the V2.
Do some more research before you dismiss German technology as futile.
Western historians wouldn't be happy to admit that the Nazis were the first to the bomb.
Strictly speaking though, the German bomb was little more than a dirty bomb.
But they came within a hair of developing a full-scale nuclear weapon and nuclear missiles.
Some more information is available here http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22270 [physicsworld.com] </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28459989</id>
	<title>My next screenplay</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1245843720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heisenberg gets a hair up his ass about some mystical application of quantum mechanics of gold from Jewish teeth (he' been talking to the Nazi archaeologists tracking down the Ark) and demands that the underground factory for the stealth plane be retooled so the Jewish slaves can inlay gold, gathered from the crematorium floors of the death camps, rather than carbon in the wings.  He then, laughing maniacally, while (for good luck as was his habit) chomping on the foot of a Jewish baby he cut from the belly of its still living mother, climbs into the satanic monstrosity, loaded with his atom bomb, to turn Big Ben into high velocity plasma.  As he lifts off, however, the British radar activates the Jewish tooth gold and the plane starts to take on an unearthly green glow as Heisenberg, suddenly realizing too late evil error of his ways -- but too late -- starts melting in his seat as his face drains silences his screaming mouth just before his head explodes.
<p>
That's all I have at the moment and the phone is already ringing off the hook...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heisenberg gets a hair up his ass about some mystical application of quantum mechanics of gold from Jewish teeth ( he ' been talking to the Nazi archaeologists tracking down the Ark ) and demands that the underground factory for the stealth plane be retooled so the Jewish slaves can inlay gold , gathered from the crematorium floors of the death camps , rather than carbon in the wings .
He then , laughing maniacally , while ( for good luck as was his habit ) chomping on the foot of a Jewish baby he cut from the belly of its still living mother , climbs into the satanic monstrosity , loaded with his atom bomb , to turn Big Ben into high velocity plasma .
As he lifts off , however , the British radar activates the Jewish tooth gold and the plane starts to take on an unearthly green glow as Heisenberg , suddenly realizing too late evil error of his ways -- but too late -- starts melting in his seat as his face drains silences his screaming mouth just before his head explodes .
That 's all I have at the moment and the phone is already ringing off the hook.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heisenberg gets a hair up his ass about some mystical application of quantum mechanics of gold from Jewish teeth (he' been talking to the Nazi archaeologists tracking down the Ark) and demands that the underground factory for the stealth plane be retooled so the Jewish slaves can inlay gold, gathered from the crematorium floors of the death camps, rather than carbon in the wings.
He then, laughing maniacally, while (for good luck as was his habit) chomping on the foot of a Jewish baby he cut from the belly of its still living mother, climbs into the satanic monstrosity, loaded with his atom bomb, to turn Big Ben into high velocity plasma.
As he lifts off, however, the British radar activates the Jewish tooth gold and the plane starts to take on an unearthly green glow as Heisenberg, suddenly realizing too late evil error of his ways -- but too late -- starts melting in his seat as his face drains silences his screaming mouth just before his head explodes.
That's all I have at the moment and the phone is already ringing off the hook...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451821</id>
	<title>I like the decoration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245855300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The banners in the background are extremely effective in demonstrating the stealth capabilities of the aeroplane.<br> <br>Totally unnecessary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The banners in the background are extremely effective in demonstrating the stealth capabilities of the aeroplane .
Totally unnecessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The banners in the background are extremely effective in demonstrating the stealth capabilities of the aeroplane.
Totally unnecessary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452431</id>
	<title>Re:The Germans build nice stuff...</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1245858480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all its own". A stealth aircraft or two may have been pretty trick, but if you have thousands of targets to bomb, you better have hundreds if not thousands of aircraft (and pilots) to do the job.</p></div></blockquote><p>And fuel for both the aircraft and the trainers used for the pilots.  And a functioning logistics pipeline to get the fuel, bombs, spares, pilots, etc... etc... ready to go.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Which by 1944 the Germans were starting to have significant problems with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Stalin said " quantity has a quality all its own " .
A stealth aircraft or two may have been pretty trick , but if you have thousands of targets to bomb , you better have hundreds if not thousands of aircraft ( and pilots ) to do the job.And fuel for both the aircraft and the trainers used for the pilots .
And a functioning logistics pipeline to get the fuel , bombs , spares , pilots , etc... etc... ready to go .
  Which by 1944 the Germans were starting to have significant problems with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Stalin said "quantity has a quality all its own".
A stealth aircraft or two may have been pretty trick, but if you have thousands of targets to bomb, you better have hundreds if not thousands of aircraft (and pilots) to do the job.And fuel for both the aircraft and the trainers used for the pilots.
And a functioning logistics pipeline to get the fuel, bombs, spares, pilots, etc... etc... ready to go.
  Which by 1944 the Germans were starting to have significant problems with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454451</id>
	<title>Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245865800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, your source riddled with speculation and assumptions must be superior to their source riddled with speculation and assumptions .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , your source riddled with speculation and assumptions must be superior to their source riddled with speculation and assumptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, your source riddled with speculation and assumptions must be superior to their source riddled with speculation and assumptions .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454381</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Curmudgeonlyoldbloke</author>
	<datestamp>1245865500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's just demonstrating that it's perfectly possible for a German to have a sense of humour.</p><p>Unlike some of the replies...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's just demonstrating that it 's perfectly possible for a German to have a sense of humour.Unlike some of the replies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's just demonstrating that it's perfectly possible for a German to have a sense of humour.Unlike some of the replies...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455257</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1245868500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.</i></p><p>Yes and no on the luck comment. It's really a long series of "ifs"...</p><p>If Hitler had been assassinated some two or three years before the end of the war...</p><p>If conscientious German scientists hadn't purposely dragged their nuclear bomb feet...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...the bulk of the world would be speaking German today - and the Jews would very likely be extinct today.</p><p>In a very, very odd bit of irony, you can actually thank Hitler for Jews being alive today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history , and things could easily have gone the other way.Yes and no on the luck comment .
It 's really a long series of " ifs " ...If Hitler had been assassinated some two or three years before the end of the war...If conscientious German scientists had n't purposely dragged their nuclear bomb feet... ...the bulk of the world would be speaking German today - and the Jews would very likely be extinct today.In a very , very odd bit of irony , you can actually thank Hitler for Jews being alive today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I think that the world got lucky - a few small changes in history, and things could easily have gone the other way.Yes and no on the luck comment.
It's really a long series of "ifs"...If Hitler had been assassinated some two or three years before the end of the war...If conscientious German scientists hadn't purposely dragged their nuclear bomb feet... ...the bulk of the world would be speaking German today - and the Jews would very likely be extinct today.In a very, very odd bit of irony, you can actually thank Hitler for Jews being alive today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452309</id>
	<title>Re:Shame we didn't learn this lesson in Vietnam</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1245857820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, the utterly stupid and ridiculous rules of engagement forced on US forces by the civilian leadership for most of the war prevented them from doing anything against those air defense sites except in reaction to being fired upon.  It's kinda like fighting while handcuffed.</p><p>Also, the German technology was mostly serindipitous.  Radar cross-section is much more a function of airframe shaping than materials; it just happened that flying wings tended to be better-shaped than traditional aircraft.  But all of this was a trial-and-error process.  We learned some from this, and incorporated those lessons into the B-70 proposal and the SR-71.  However, it wasn't until the F-117 program (and its contemporaries) came along that we had</p><p>A. The theoretical base on which to reliably compute radar reflections (ironically enough, most of that was developed by the Soviets and seemed to be largely ignored by them for a while).</p><p>B. The computational power to work out reflections over even a simple faceted shape.</p><p>C. The control technology to make such shapes flyable.</p><p>And even then, the result was a flat-faceted, ungainly monstrosity.  It took a little longer before we could compute reflections of curved surfaces, and develop something like the B-2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , the utterly stupid and ridiculous rules of engagement forced on US forces by the civilian leadership for most of the war prevented them from doing anything against those air defense sites except in reaction to being fired upon .
It 's kinda like fighting while handcuffed.Also , the German technology was mostly serindipitous .
Radar cross-section is much more a function of airframe shaping than materials ; it just happened that flying wings tended to be better-shaped than traditional aircraft .
But all of this was a trial-and-error process .
We learned some from this , and incorporated those lessons into the B-70 proposal and the SR-71 .
However , it was n't until the F-117 program ( and its contemporaries ) came along that we hadA .
The theoretical base on which to reliably compute radar reflections ( ironically enough , most of that was developed by the Soviets and seemed to be largely ignored by them for a while ) .B .
The computational power to work out reflections over even a simple faceted shape.C .
The control technology to make such shapes flyable.And even then , the result was a flat-faceted , ungainly monstrosity .
It took a little longer before we could compute reflections of curved surfaces , and develop something like the B-2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, the utterly stupid and ridiculous rules of engagement forced on US forces by the civilian leadership for most of the war prevented them from doing anything against those air defense sites except in reaction to being fired upon.
It's kinda like fighting while handcuffed.Also, the German technology was mostly serindipitous.
Radar cross-section is much more a function of airframe shaping than materials; it just happened that flying wings tended to be better-shaped than traditional aircraft.
But all of this was a trial-and-error process.
We learned some from this, and incorporated those lessons into the B-70 proposal and the SR-71.
However, it wasn't until the F-117 program (and its contemporaries) came along that we hadA.
The theoretical base on which to reliably compute radar reflections (ironically enough, most of that was developed by the Soviets and seemed to be largely ignored by them for a while).B.
The computational power to work out reflections over even a simple faceted shape.C.
The control technology to make such shapes flyable.And even then, the result was a flat-faceted, ungainly monstrosity.
It took a little longer before we could compute reflections of curved surfaces, and develop something like the B-2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28513785</id>
	<title>Re:What Killed the Stealth fighter design?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246289220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Courtesy of MIT<br>http://tech.mit.edu/V121/N63/Stealth.63f.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Courtesy of MIThttp : //tech.mit.edu/V121/N63/Stealth.63f.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Courtesy of MIThttp://tech.mit.edu/V121/N63/Stealth.63f.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451855</id>
	<title>Re:Man</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245855480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Win the war, thankfully.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Win the war , thankfully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Win the war, thankfully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452283</id>
	<title>Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1245857700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And that's why the 229 looks like it does. It lacks the profusion of surfaces that conventional designs had, and minimized wetted surface due to the almost non-existent fuselage.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

You are going on about the shape, which wasn't even claimed to be for stealthiness.  The claimed stealth feature was the layer of carbon material sandwiched into the leading edge of the plane to reduce its radar signature.  Thus, it was the first plane to incorporate design features specifically for stealth.  Nothing you said even addresses that.  Whether stealth was considered of secondary importance, or whether <i>all</i> the components were designed for stealth, is irrelevant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's why the 229 looks like it does .
It lacks the profusion of surfaces that conventional designs had , and minimized wetted surface due to the almost non-existent fuselage .
You are going on about the shape , which was n't even claimed to be for stealthiness .
The claimed stealth feature was the layer of carbon material sandwiched into the leading edge of the plane to reduce its radar signature .
Thus , it was the first plane to incorporate design features specifically for stealth .
Nothing you said even addresses that .
Whether stealth was considered of secondary importance , or whether all the components were designed for stealth , is irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's why the 229 looks like it does.
It lacks the profusion of surfaces that conventional designs had, and minimized wetted surface due to the almost non-existent fuselage.
You are going on about the shape, which wasn't even claimed to be for stealthiness.
The claimed stealth feature was the layer of carbon material sandwiched into the leading edge of the plane to reduce its radar signature.
Thus, it was the first plane to incorporate design features specifically for stealth.
Nothing you said even addresses that.
Whether stealth was considered of secondary importance, or whether all the components were designed for stealth, is irrelevant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457295</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1245876060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm French but I must agree. The US can suffer criticism for a lot of reason, but when it comes to free speech and its protection we can shut up. And it's not just legal, if you make a joke of dubious taste about the Jews then not only will you get prosecuted and fined but you'll get publicly crucified on television even after you're done flatly apologising.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm French but I must agree .
The US can suffer criticism for a lot of reason , but when it comes to free speech and its protection we can shut up .
And it 's not just legal , if you make a joke of dubious taste about the Jews then not only will you get prosecuted and fined but you 'll get publicly crucified on television even after you 're done flatly apologising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm French but I must agree.
The US can suffer criticism for a lot of reason, but when it comes to free speech and its protection we can shut up.
And it's not just legal, if you make a joke of dubious taste about the Jews then not only will you get prosecuted and fined but you'll get publicly crucified on television even after you're done flatly apologising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452159</id>
	<title>Re:I like the decoration</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1245857160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should also like totally ban the use of eagles as a symbol of state or country, as it was used by Romans when they pillaged, murdered and enslaved all across Europe and Mediterranean.<br>They threw people to lions because of their religion, for Christ's sake!</p><p>Use of eagles on flags, coat of arms and seals is TOTALLY unnecessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should also like totally ban the use of eagles as a symbol of state or country , as it was used by Romans when they pillaged , murdered and enslaved all across Europe and Mediterranean.They threw people to lions because of their religion , for Christ 's sake ! Use of eagles on flags , coat of arms and seals is TOTALLY unnecessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should also like totally ban the use of eagles as a symbol of state or country, as it was used by Romans when they pillaged, murdered and enslaved all across Europe and Mediterranean.They threw people to lions because of their religion, for Christ's sake!Use of eagles on flags, coat of arms and seals is TOTALLY unnecessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453611</id>
	<title>Re:Shame we didn't learn this lesson in Vietnam</title>
	<author>NivekEnterprises</author>
	<datestamp>1245862860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of things could have kept US aircraft from getting shot down in Vietnam.</p><p>Stay the hell away from the war might have been a good place to start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of things could have kept US aircraft from getting shot down in Vietnam.Stay the hell away from the war might have been a good place to start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of things could have kept US aircraft from getting shot down in Vietnam.Stay the hell away from the war might have been a good place to start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453433</id>
	<title>How is this News?</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1245862320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone familiar with WWII and aviation history knows about this. The U.S. also had a stealth flying wing bomber. The idea was patented in 1910, and by early 30's was being kicked around for stealth usage. Basically stealth aircraft designs where around before radar, or at least developed alongside radar.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying\_wing" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying\_wing</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone familiar with WWII and aviation history knows about this .
The U.S. also had a stealth flying wing bomber .
The idea was patented in 1910 , and by early 30 's was being kicked around for stealth usage .
Basically stealth aircraft designs where around before radar , or at least developed alongside radar.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying \ _wing [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone familiar with WWII and aviation history knows about this.
The U.S. also had a stealth flying wing bomber.
The idea was patented in 1910, and by early 30's was being kicked around for stealth usage.
Basically stealth aircraft designs where around before radar, or at least developed alongside radar.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying\_wing [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453559</id>
	<title>Nice children's book</title>
	<author>motherpusbucket</author>
	<datestamp>1245862740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The name sounds like a Dr. Seuss book.  Horten hears a Ho. <br> That's funny on a couple of levels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The name sounds like a Dr. Seuss book .
Horten hears a Ho .
That 's funny on a couple of levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The name sounds like a Dr. Seuss book.
Horten hears a Ho.
That's funny on a couple of levels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452781</id>
	<title>Re:Minor mistake in the heading</title>
	<author>BigJClark</author>
	<datestamp>1245859980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
Praise Jebus, someone got it right.  The Horton (Or Gotha) 229 technology isn't new by any stretch.  The planet has known about the craft since end the war.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Praise Jebus , someone got it right .
The Horton ( Or Gotha ) 229 technology is n't new by any stretch .
The planet has known about the craft since end the war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Praise Jebus, someone got it right.
The Horton (Or Gotha) 229 technology isn't new by any stretch.
The planet has known about the craft since end the war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453795</id>
	<title>What Killed the Stealth fighter design?</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1245863640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can not find it now, but I remember encountering an article several years ago in a local Las Vegas newspaper that described how the stealth fighters could be detected easily. In places like Nevada where there are secret military bases all over the place, there are hobby stealth watchers and they had discovered that there are so many cell phones in use all over the world that stealth fighters get lit up like a x-mas tree from the ground based signals emanating from the cell phones. Even amateur stealth watchers could track them flying around the Western United States. It was not long after that article the military officially started dropping all plans for future production related to designs based primarily on right angles and radar.</p><p>Can anyone find the article or info on this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not find it now , but I remember encountering an article several years ago in a local Las Vegas newspaper that described how the stealth fighters could be detected easily .
In places like Nevada where there are secret military bases all over the place , there are hobby stealth watchers and they had discovered that there are so many cell phones in use all over the world that stealth fighters get lit up like a x-mas tree from the ground based signals emanating from the cell phones .
Even amateur stealth watchers could track them flying around the Western United States .
It was not long after that article the military officially started dropping all plans for future production related to designs based primarily on right angles and radar.Can anyone find the article or info on this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can not find it now, but I remember encountering an article several years ago in a local Las Vegas newspaper that described how the stealth fighters could be detected easily.
In places like Nevada where there are secret military bases all over the place, there are hobby stealth watchers and they had discovered that there are so many cell phones in use all over the world that stealth fighters get lit up like a x-mas tree from the ground based signals emanating from the cell phones.
Even amateur stealth watchers could track them flying around the Western United States.
It was not long after that article the military officially started dropping all plans for future production related to designs based primarily on right angles and radar.Can anyone find the article or info on this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454161</id>
	<title>Early cloaking technology</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1245864840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of early attempts to cloak planes to the naked eye by putting a row of lights around the edges.  It was reasonably effective on a bright overcast day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of early attempts to cloak planes to the naked eye by putting a row of lights around the edges .
It was reasonably effective on a bright overcast day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of early attempts to cloak planes to the naked eye by putting a row of lights around the edges.
It was reasonably effective on a bright overcast day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454493</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1245865980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Europe learned a lesson from the fascists. Curtailing free speech was a powerful aid in keeping those regimes in power.</p><p>Therefore, in order to completely disavow that era, European governments have decided to turn the power to curtail free speech towards the purposes of good. If you are a European government minister, this makes complete sense.</p></div></blockquote><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I stand corrected. What better way to show your commitment to the maintainence of an orderly society? After all, a good idea is a good idea ($1 to Selma Bouvier...).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; If only there were some way to protect the forces of good by isolating the people who want to damage European society, maybe resettling them, or concentrating them, in a few areas where their bad and counterproductive ideas and culture cannot harm the rest of the good people.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Brett</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Europe learned a lesson from the fascists .
Curtailing free speech was a powerful aid in keeping those regimes in power.Therefore , in order to completely disavow that era , European governments have decided to turn the power to curtail free speech towards the purposes of good .
If you are a European government minister , this makes complete sense .
    I stand corrected .
What better way to show your commitment to the maintainence of an orderly society ?
After all , a good idea is a good idea ( $ 1 to Selma Bouvier... ) .
      If only there were some way to protect the forces of good by isolating the people who want to damage European society , maybe resettling them , or concentrating them , in a few areas where their bad and counterproductive ideas and culture can not harm the rest of the good people .
      Brett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Europe learned a lesson from the fascists.
Curtailing free speech was a powerful aid in keeping those regimes in power.Therefore, in order to completely disavow that era, European governments have decided to turn the power to curtail free speech towards the purposes of good.
If you are a European government minister, this makes complete sense.
    I stand corrected.
What better way to show your commitment to the maintainence of an orderly society?
After all, a good idea is a good idea ($1 to Selma Bouvier...).
      If only there were some way to protect the forces of good by isolating the people who want to damage European society, maybe resettling them, or concentrating them, in a few areas where their bad and counterproductive ideas and culture cannot harm the rest of the good people.
      Brett
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453477</id>
	<title>Re:I like the decoration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245862500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just so that you know - the word Swastika is Sanskrit, it is a Hindu religious symbol, still worshipped widely in India by Hindus. And the Nazis got<br>it wrong - Hitler's symbol is not Swastika - at least not drawn correctly.</p><p>Just FYI and being mature also implies being informed.</p><p>For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just so that you know - the word Swastika is Sanskrit , it is a Hindu religious symbol , still worshipped widely in India by Hindus .
And the Nazis gotit wrong - Hitler 's symbol is not Swastika - at least not drawn correctly.Just FYI and being mature also implies being informed.For more information : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just so that you know - the word Swastika is Sanskrit, it is a Hindu religious symbol, still worshipped widely in India by Hindus.
And the Nazis gotit wrong - Hitler's symbol is not Swastika - at least not drawn correctly.Just FYI and being mature also implies being informed.For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451703</id>
	<title>Re:Man</title>
	<author>cool\_story\_bro</author>
	<datestamp>1245854580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What DIDN'T Hitler Do?</p></div><p>make friends as a child?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What DID N'T Hitler Do ? make friends as a child ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What DIDN'T Hitler Do?make friends as a child?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457529</id>
	<title>Re:I like the decoration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245876960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're one of those characters that thinks the Confederate flag is ok?  Funnily, there would be outrage if there were swastika flags on government buildings, pickup trucks, etc.  but rednecks can display their confederate flags (which are a hateful symbol of slavery, murder, terrorism) and it's deemed ok.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're one of those characters that thinks the Confederate flag is ok ?
Funnily , there would be outrage if there were swastika flags on government buildings , pickup trucks , etc .
but rednecks can display their confederate flags ( which are a hateful symbol of slavery , murder , terrorism ) and it 's deemed ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're one of those characters that thinks the Confederate flag is ok?
Funnily, there would be outrage if there were swastika flags on government buildings, pickup trucks, etc.
but rednecks can display their confederate flags (which are a hateful symbol of slavery, murder, terrorism) and it's deemed ok.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28463283</id>
	<title>Re:Good thing he wasn't a Nerd</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1245870240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>No, he lost because he over extended himself into Russia.</i> <br> <br>
Agreed. Things would have been much worse had that not happened. But then you have to wonder about the original non-aggression pact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , he lost because he over extended himself into Russia .
Agreed. Things would have been much worse had that not happened .
But then you have to wonder about the original non-aggression pact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, he lost because he over extended himself into Russia.
Agreed. Things would have been much worse had that not happened.
But then you have to wonder about the original non-aggression pact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28461195</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245850620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another American Hill Billy trying to lecture Europeans about Freedom, In Europe its not rare to see political parties covering the full expectrum from the left to the right, and its OK and life continues, in the US being a Comunist is a mayor crime, being a fascist is OK if you are white anglosaxon believe in god and swear for the stars and stripes, there is not chance whatsoever fior a atheist candidate to became President, as for free speech, yea, like mafia infiltrating workers unions with the bless of the government, with nice historical figures like Macarty or E. Hoover, media manipulation, the best government propaganda money can buy, wire taping, NSA, CIA....</p><p>as for the topic, those planes looks fantastic even for today standards</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another American Hill Billy trying to lecture Europeans about Freedom , In Europe its not rare to see political parties covering the full expectrum from the left to the right , and its OK and life continues , in the US being a Comunist is a mayor crime , being a fascist is OK if you are white anglosaxon believe in god and swear for the stars and stripes , there is not chance whatsoever fior a atheist candidate to became President , as for free speech , yea , like mafia infiltrating workers unions with the bless of the government , with nice historical figures like Macarty or E. Hoover , media manipulation , the best government propaganda money can buy , wire taping , NSA , CIA....as for the topic , those planes looks fantastic even for today standards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another American Hill Billy trying to lecture Europeans about Freedom, In Europe its not rare to see political parties covering the full expectrum from the left to the right, and its OK and life continues, in the US being a Comunist is a mayor crime, being a fascist is OK if you are white anglosaxon believe in god and swear for the stars and stripes, there is not chance whatsoever fior a atheist candidate to became President, as for free speech, yea, like mafia infiltrating workers unions with the bless of the government, with nice historical figures like Macarty or E. Hoover, media manipulation, the best government propaganda money can buy, wire taping, NSA, CIA....as for the topic, those planes looks fantastic even for today standards</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28462699</id>
	<title>Re:Another Example of German Technical Achievement</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1245863280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG!  Hitler was an African?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG !
Hitler was an African ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG!
Hitler was an African?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452413</id>
	<title>Re:Control surfaces?</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1245858360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How would they actually achieve stable flight though?</p><p>Current technology requires computers to keep designs like this stable in the air.</p></div><p>The Horten Bros. actually flew many all-wing crafts, including the glider prototype for this wonderweapon.</p><p>Check out Dave Power's (cool name, eh?) efforts to build an RC replica of a flat NASA prototype <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-5ctTWQODk&amp;feature=channel\_page" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-5ctTWQODk&amp;feature=channel\_page</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would they actually achieve stable flight though ? Current technology requires computers to keep designs like this stable in the air.The Horten Bros. actually flew many all-wing crafts , including the glider prototype for this wonderweapon.Check out Dave Power 's ( cool name , eh ?
) efforts to build an RC replica of a flat NASA prototype http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = E-5ctTWQODk&amp;feature = channel \ _page [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would they actually achieve stable flight though?Current technology requires computers to keep designs like this stable in the air.The Horten Bros. actually flew many all-wing crafts, including the glider prototype for this wonderweapon.Check out Dave Power's (cool name, eh?
) efforts to build an RC replica of a flat NASA prototype http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-5ctTWQODk&amp;feature=channel\_page [youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28459253</id>
	<title>Northrup Grumman</title>
	<author>glucoseboy</author>
	<datestamp>1245839940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you imagine the project rollout meeting?

"Hey Folks, National Geographic wants us to build a 1:1 model of this secret Nazi stealth bomber."

How cool is that?  What a great Job!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine the project rollout meeting ?
" Hey Folks , National Geographic wants us to build a 1 : 1 model of this secret Nazi stealth bomber .
" How cool is that ?
What a great Job !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine the project rollout meeting?
"Hey Folks, National Geographic wants us to build a 1:1 model of this secret Nazi stealth bomber.
"

How cool is that?
What a great Job!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967</id>
	<title>Bah, another crappy science article in NG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245856080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is utterly bogus. Not that National Geographic has ever been known for quality writing on highly technical topics.</p><p>The Ho 229 was built as it was specifically to meet the "1000-1000-1000" bomber contract. This called for an aircraft that could fly 1000 km at 1000 km/h while carrying a 1000 kg warload. And it had to be built of wood, because all of the aluminum, and metalworkers, were accounted for in current projects.</p><p>The only way to possibly meet the speed requirement was through jet engines. However, jet engines of the era were extremely inefficient, especially German ones where poor alloys limited exhaust temperatures in the turbine. So in order to get the range while keeping the speed, you needed to cut drag to an absolute minimum.</p><p>And that's why the 229 looks like it does. It lacks the profusion of surfaces that conventional designs had, and minimized wetted surface due to the almost non-existent fuselage. This thing is all wing, which means you're losing all the parasitic drag.</p><p>ANYTHING else, including these "stealth" features, were utterly secondary.</p><p>Moreover I have a very serious problem with the claims that this plane is stealthy. Compressor disks in the engines are an extremely effective radar mirror. This is why the F-117 has "blinds" over the inlets, or why the F-22 has a S-shaped intake system. As you can see in the pictures, in the 229 the compressor face is directly exposed to the front.</p><p>Sure, the CH radars were longwave and wouldn't have been good against this aircraft, but that would be true of any small jet of the era. They were extremely good against targets a few meters in size, like a propeller, but anything smaller would be difficult to see.</p><p>Claiming this plane was developed \_as a stealth plane\_ is like claiming the DC-3 was a swept-wing design. Accidental features do not indicate design intent.</p><p>Maury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is utterly bogus .
Not that National Geographic has ever been known for quality writing on highly technical topics.The Ho 229 was built as it was specifically to meet the " 1000-1000-1000 " bomber contract .
This called for an aircraft that could fly 1000 km at 1000 km/h while carrying a 1000 kg warload .
And it had to be built of wood , because all of the aluminum , and metalworkers , were accounted for in current projects.The only way to possibly meet the speed requirement was through jet engines .
However , jet engines of the era were extremely inefficient , especially German ones where poor alloys limited exhaust temperatures in the turbine .
So in order to get the range while keeping the speed , you needed to cut drag to an absolute minimum.And that 's why the 229 looks like it does .
It lacks the profusion of surfaces that conventional designs had , and minimized wetted surface due to the almost non-existent fuselage .
This thing is all wing , which means you 're losing all the parasitic drag.ANYTHING else , including these " stealth " features , were utterly secondary.Moreover I have a very serious problem with the claims that this plane is stealthy .
Compressor disks in the engines are an extremely effective radar mirror .
This is why the F-117 has " blinds " over the inlets , or why the F-22 has a S-shaped intake system .
As you can see in the pictures , in the 229 the compressor face is directly exposed to the front.Sure , the CH radars were longwave and would n't have been good against this aircraft , but that would be true of any small jet of the era .
They were extremely good against targets a few meters in size , like a propeller , but anything smaller would be difficult to see.Claiming this plane was developed \ _as a stealth plane \ _ is like claiming the DC-3 was a swept-wing design .
Accidental features do not indicate design intent.Maury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is utterly bogus.
Not that National Geographic has ever been known for quality writing on highly technical topics.The Ho 229 was built as it was specifically to meet the "1000-1000-1000" bomber contract.
This called for an aircraft that could fly 1000 km at 1000 km/h while carrying a 1000 kg warload.
And it had to be built of wood, because all of the aluminum, and metalworkers, were accounted for in current projects.The only way to possibly meet the speed requirement was through jet engines.
However, jet engines of the era were extremely inefficient, especially German ones where poor alloys limited exhaust temperatures in the turbine.
So in order to get the range while keeping the speed, you needed to cut drag to an absolute minimum.And that's why the 229 looks like it does.
It lacks the profusion of surfaces that conventional designs had, and minimized wetted surface due to the almost non-existent fuselage.
This thing is all wing, which means you're losing all the parasitic drag.ANYTHING else, including these "stealth" features, were utterly secondary.Moreover I have a very serious problem with the claims that this plane is stealthy.
Compressor disks in the engines are an extremely effective radar mirror.
This is why the F-117 has "blinds" over the inlets, or why the F-22 has a S-shaped intake system.
As you can see in the pictures, in the 229 the compressor face is directly exposed to the front.Sure, the CH radars were longwave and wouldn't have been good against this aircraft, but that would be true of any small jet of the era.
They were extremely good against targets a few meters in size, like a propeller, but anything smaller would be difficult to see.Claiming this plane was developed \_as a stealth plane\_ is like claiming the DC-3 was a swept-wing design.
Accidental features do not indicate design intent.Maury</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453893</id>
	<title>Re:Best Photos</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1245863940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the Nazis have, in my opinion, shot themselves in the foot with their "Final solution": they wanted to exterminate all Jews, but many of the most prominent scientists and engineers were Jews. And in fact, the Nazi propaganda machine has put the "Jewish science" in its crosshairs. This was mainly the "newfangled" quantum physics and related disciplines. Even though they had Leo Szil&#225;rd in Berlin, who discovered the nuclear chain reaction, because of the persecution of Jews, he fled to London. Thus, Nazi's Germany lost a huge leg-up to the Allied forces in the development of the nuclear bomb. Let me state this again: Germany had THE best physicists between the two world wars; it was a powerhouse in physics, especially atomic physics. They were in the lead, they had the scientists, the laboratories and the academic structure in place. But they threw it all away by killing or persecuting a sizable part of these scientists. They gave this huge advantage to the Allies, specifically to the US. Sure, the US had to build up all what Germany had pretty much from scratch, but where there is a will there is a way.</p><p>What would have happened had Hitler developed and built the atomic bomb before the end of the war? I submit to you that it would have had a very important strategic advantage: a nuclear explosion in London would have almost certainly achieved an armistice on the Western front. And this doesn't even take into consideration all the other benefits that the Nazis would have had from all the Jewish scientists, engineers and physicians/surgeons. And it also doesn't take into consideration the benefit of not having forces and resources tied down in the pursuit of the "final solution". With their obsession of exterminating Jews, Germany may very well have lost the war on that account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the Nazis have , in my opinion , shot themselves in the foot with their " Final solution " : they wanted to exterminate all Jews , but many of the most prominent scientists and engineers were Jews .
And in fact , the Nazi propaganda machine has put the " Jewish science " in its crosshairs .
This was mainly the " newfangled " quantum physics and related disciplines .
Even though they had Leo Szil   rd in Berlin , who discovered the nuclear chain reaction , because of the persecution of Jews , he fled to London .
Thus , Nazi 's Germany lost a huge leg-up to the Allied forces in the development of the nuclear bomb .
Let me state this again : Germany had THE best physicists between the two world wars ; it was a powerhouse in physics , especially atomic physics .
They were in the lead , they had the scientists , the laboratories and the academic structure in place .
But they threw it all away by killing or persecuting a sizable part of these scientists .
They gave this huge advantage to the Allies , specifically to the US .
Sure , the US had to build up all what Germany had pretty much from scratch , but where there is a will there is a way.What would have happened had Hitler developed and built the atomic bomb before the end of the war ?
I submit to you that it would have had a very important strategic advantage : a nuclear explosion in London would have almost certainly achieved an armistice on the Western front .
And this does n't even take into consideration all the other benefits that the Nazis would have had from all the Jewish scientists , engineers and physicians/surgeons .
And it also does n't take into consideration the benefit of not having forces and resources tied down in the pursuit of the " final solution " .
With their obsession of exterminating Jews , Germany may very well have lost the war on that account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the Nazis have, in my opinion, shot themselves in the foot with their "Final solution": they wanted to exterminate all Jews, but many of the most prominent scientists and engineers were Jews.
And in fact, the Nazi propaganda machine has put the "Jewish science" in its crosshairs.
This was mainly the "newfangled" quantum physics and related disciplines.
Even though they had Leo Szilárd in Berlin, who discovered the nuclear chain reaction, because of the persecution of Jews, he fled to London.
Thus, Nazi's Germany lost a huge leg-up to the Allied forces in the development of the nuclear bomb.
Let me state this again: Germany had THE best physicists between the two world wars; it was a powerhouse in physics, especially atomic physics.
They were in the lead, they had the scientists, the laboratories and the academic structure in place.
But they threw it all away by killing or persecuting a sizable part of these scientists.
They gave this huge advantage to the Allies, specifically to the US.
Sure, the US had to build up all what Germany had pretty much from scratch, but where there is a will there is a way.What would have happened had Hitler developed and built the atomic bomb before the end of the war?
I submit to you that it would have had a very important strategic advantage: a nuclear explosion in London would have almost certainly achieved an armistice on the Western front.
And this doesn't even take into consideration all the other benefits that the Nazis would have had from all the Jewish scientists, engineers and physicians/surgeons.
And it also doesn't take into consideration the benefit of not having forces and resources tied down in the pursuit of the "final solution".
With their obsession of exterminating Jews, Germany may very well have lost the war on that account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452163</id>
	<title>Like the name</title>
	<author>msoori</author>
	<datestamp>1245857160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if a marketing team came up with the name...

My Ho is gonna fcuk you over!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if a marketing team came up with the name.. . My Ho is gon na fcuk you over !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if a marketing team came up with the name...

My Ho is gonna fcuk you over!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452561</id>
	<title>Welcome back!</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1245859080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you guys get out of the NOC just long enough to get to the laundry, but there were a lot of famous first in Der Fuher's arsenal.</p><p>- V1 'Buzz Bomb': first cruise missile<br>- V2 Rocket: first sub-orbital bomb<br>- Me 163: used photocells, not gunsights to take down bombers by firing panzerfausts (bazookas) at bombers<br>- First jet bomber (per Hitler): Me 262</p><p>These folks tried all kinds of odd things. The Arado 234 had two engines. One front, one back, and room for two cockpits.  The Bv141 had a greenhouse on one side, and an engine pod on the other: the most assymetrical aircraft you ever saw.</p><p>Now, I don't understand how we get to cool Luftwaffe goodies on Slashdot, but it's nice to see people who think the US and Germany were the only participants, to look back and see the BRIALLIANCE of the German war machines. (So cool that their tools are outlawed, when they lose a major war).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you guys get out of the NOC just long enough to get to the laundry , but there were a lot of famous first in Der Fuher 's arsenal.- V1 'Buzz Bomb ' : first cruise missile- V2 Rocket : first sub-orbital bomb- Me 163 : used photocells , not gunsights to take down bombers by firing panzerfausts ( bazookas ) at bombers- First jet bomber ( per Hitler ) : Me 262These folks tried all kinds of odd things .
The Arado 234 had two engines .
One front , one back , and room for two cockpits .
The Bv141 had a greenhouse on one side , and an engine pod on the other : the most assymetrical aircraft you ever saw.Now , I do n't understand how we get to cool Luftwaffe goodies on Slashdot , but it 's nice to see people who think the US and Germany were the only participants , to look back and see the BRIALLIANCE of the German war machines .
( So cool that their tools are outlawed , when they lose a major war ) .
: &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you guys get out of the NOC just long enough to get to the laundry, but there were a lot of famous first in Der Fuher's arsenal.- V1 'Buzz Bomb': first cruise missile- V2 Rocket: first sub-orbital bomb- Me 163: used photocells, not gunsights to take down bombers by firing panzerfausts (bazookas) at bombers- First jet bomber (per Hitler): Me 262These folks tried all kinds of odd things.
The Arado 234 had two engines.
One front, one back, and room for two cockpits.
The Bv141 had a greenhouse on one side, and an engine pod on the other: the most assymetrical aircraft you ever saw.Now, I don't understand how we get to cool Luftwaffe goodies on Slashdot, but it's nice to see people who think the US and Germany were the only participants, to look back and see the BRIALLIANCE of the German war machines.
(So cool that their tools are outlawed, when they lose a major war).
:&gt;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451885</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Kuroji</author>
	<datestamp>1245855660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got mod points, but I can't find anything that matches +1 Frightful Police State.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got mod points , but I ca n't find anything that matches + 1 Frightful Police State .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got mod points, but I can't find anything that matches +1 Frightful Police State.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451813</id>
	<title>Hehe</title>
	<author>mewsenews</author>
	<datestamp>1245855300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article (yeah I know, Slashdot, not supposed to, etc)</p><blockquote><div><p>If Nazi engineers had had more time, would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war?</p></div></blockquote><p>IIRC the United States developed something called Atomic Bombs that would have counteracted any advantage Germany would have gained from stealth jets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article ( yeah I know , Slashdot , not supposed to , etc ) If Nazi engineers had had more time , would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war ? IIRC the United States developed something called Atomic Bombs that would have counteracted any advantage Germany would have gained from stealth jets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article (yeah I know, Slashdot, not supposed to, etc)If Nazi engineers had had more time, would this jet have ultimately changed the outcome of the war?IIRC the United States developed something called Atomic Bombs that would have counteracted any advantage Germany would have gained from stealth jets.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454863</id>
	<title>Re:Man</title>
	<author>BotnetZombie</author>
	<datestamp>1245867300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1wKO3rID9g" title="youtube.com">what really happened</a> [youtube.com] back then</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what really happened [ youtube.com ] back then</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what really happened [youtube.com] back then</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454303</id>
	<title>Re:NSFW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245865320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually had something like that happen to me in college. I was researching German military history for some class in one of the dorm computer labs. Apparently a girl I knew's roomate was looking over my shoulder and saw a swastika. Like a week later I notice that the girl wasn't talking to me. When I asked her about it she accused me of being a closet nazi.</p><p>I basically laughed and asked her if the thought that it was for a class had even crossed her mind? She just shut up and goes "umm... oh".</p><p>So yeah... people are still stupid about the it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually had something like that happen to me in college .
I was researching German military history for some class in one of the dorm computer labs .
Apparently a girl I knew 's roomate was looking over my shoulder and saw a swastika .
Like a week later I notice that the girl was n't talking to me .
When I asked her about it she accused me of being a closet nazi.I basically laughed and asked her if the thought that it was for a class had even crossed her mind ?
She just shut up and goes " umm... oh " .So yeah... people are still stupid about the it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually had something like that happen to me in college.
I was researching German military history for some class in one of the dorm computer labs.
Apparently a girl I knew's roomate was looking over my shoulder and saw a swastika.
Like a week later I notice that the girl wasn't talking to me.
When I asked her about it she accused me of being a closet nazi.I basically laughed and asked her if the thought that it was for a class had even crossed her mind?
She just shut up and goes "umm... oh".So yeah... people are still stupid about the it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456457</id>
	<title>Re:Bah, another crappy science article in NG</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1245872700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Whether stealth was considered of secondary importance, or whether all the components were designed for stealth, is irrelevant.</p><p>Except that it's called a "Stealth Fighter", not a "jet bomber with some stealthy features". The implication is clear, and you're take seems widely off the mark.</p><p>&gt; Northorp Grumman says their tests proved the stealth value of the aircraft</p><p>And NG didn't put engines in the thing. So it's basically worthless.</p><p>Maury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Whether stealth was considered of secondary importance , or whether all the components were designed for stealth , is irrelevant.Except that it 's called a " Stealth Fighter " , not a " jet bomber with some stealthy features " .
The implication is clear , and you 're take seems widely off the mark. &gt; Northorp Grumman says their tests proved the stealth value of the aircraftAnd NG did n't put engines in the thing .
So it 's basically worthless.Maury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Whether stealth was considered of secondary importance, or whether all the components were designed for stealth, is irrelevant.Except that it's called a "Stealth Fighter", not a "jet bomber with some stealthy features".
The implication is clear, and you're take seems widely off the mark.&gt; Northorp Grumman says their tests proved the stealth value of the aircraftAnd NG didn't put engines in the thing.
So it's basically worthless.Maury</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452283</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28464029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28462697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28459787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28499499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28459051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28461193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456821
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28466075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28463283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28461649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28461195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28514181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28513785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28466455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28468375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28462699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28461487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_24_135221_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28476847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451963
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453477
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451961
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453329
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452195
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452713
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28459787
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28461193
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452893
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452293
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28499499
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455403
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28462697
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453195
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453659
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453365
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453151
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28463283
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460921
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28464029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454863
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452113
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457359
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451973
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28461649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28513785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28514181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458601
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451811
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452139
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451949
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28462699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452387
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458661
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452379
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458871
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456049
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456955
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456855
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28466075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452337
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28456927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28458785
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28461487
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455761
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453651
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451823
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452059
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455733
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28453579
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28466455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28451885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452073
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452383
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28459051
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28457295
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454493
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28461195
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28460361
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28454381
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28452249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_24_135221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28455211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_24_135221.28468375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
