<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_28_2145220</id>
	<title>Chicken Feathers May Hold Key To Hydrogen Storage</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246185960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>pitterpatter writes <i>"A researcher trying to find a use for them claims that after being heated enough to carbonize, <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/06/feathered\_fuel\_tank\_soaks\_up\_h.html">chicken feathers hold as much hydrogen as carbon nanotubes do</a>. So chicken feather charcoal might solve the storage problem for the new hydrogen economy.  One problem down, half a zillion to go."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>pitterpatter writes " A researcher trying to find a use for them claims that after being heated enough to carbonize , chicken feathers hold as much hydrogen as carbon nanotubes do .
So chicken feather charcoal might solve the storage problem for the new hydrogen economy .
One problem down , half a zillion to go .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pitterpatter writes "A researcher trying to find a use for them claims that after being heated enough to carbonize, chicken feathers hold as much hydrogen as carbon nanotubes do.
So chicken feather charcoal might solve the storage problem for the new hydrogen economy.
One problem down, half a zillion to go.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508689</id>
	<title>Re:Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1246198740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you dare interfere with my 2nd Amendment right to bear poultry!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you dare interfere with my 2nd Amendment right to bear poultry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you dare interfere with my 2nd Amendment right to bear poultry!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512507</id>
	<title>Re:Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1246280820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They carbonized Han Solo, remember. It worked out for him in the end, though. He got Princess Leia. The chickens? Not so much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They carbonized Han Solo , remember .
It worked out for him in the end , though .
He got Princess Leia .
The chickens ?
Not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They carbonized Han Solo, remember.
It worked out for him in the end, though.
He got Princess Leia.
The chickens?
Not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509289</id>
	<title>Re:New metric for H powered cars???</title>
	<author>BluBrick</author>
	<datestamp>1246205520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fortu- ah say - fortunately, ah keep ma feathers numbered fo' jus' such an occasion!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortu- ah say - fortunately , ah keep ma feathers numbered fo ' jus ' such an occasion !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortu- ah say - fortunately, ah keep ma feathers numbered fo' jus' such an occasion!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510789</id>
	<title>Stanley Steamer Mark II</title>
	<author>mac1235</author>
	<datestamp>1246219020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article didn't mention how to get the hydrogen OUT of the feathers.  Maybe you just burn the feathers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article did n't mention how to get the hydrogen OUT of the feathers .
Maybe you just burn the feathers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article didn't mention how to get the hydrogen OUT of the feathers.
Maybe you just burn the feathers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508641</id>
	<title>Re:New metric for H powered cars???</title>
	<author>sokoban</author>
	<datestamp>1246198200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's that in hogsheads?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's that in hogsheads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's that in hogsheads?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510405</id>
	<title>Re:Urban legend != actual facts!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246215660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The physics you're looking for here is impulse, specifically, the change in p = mv over time. P is momentum, which begins changing from the moment of impact. The longer the impulse (projectile's contact with another object), the more gradually this object comes to rest.  Your pipe wrench wants to bounce off of your car because of the lack of "give"/time in contact with your car, while your laundry bag is in contact with the car for much longer before coming to rest, thereby not breaking your windshield.</p><p>This also happens to be the same reason that you have to follow through on your swing while hitting a baseball or tennis ball or whathaveyou to get the longest distance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The physics you 're looking for here is impulse , specifically , the change in p = mv over time .
P is momentum , which begins changing from the moment of impact .
The longer the impulse ( projectile 's contact with another object ) , the more gradually this object comes to rest .
Your pipe wrench wants to bounce off of your car because of the lack of " give " /time in contact with your car , while your laundry bag is in contact with the car for much longer before coming to rest , thereby not breaking your windshield.This also happens to be the same reason that you have to follow through on your swing while hitting a baseball or tennis ball or whathaveyou to get the longest distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The physics you're looking for here is impulse, specifically, the change in p = mv over time.
P is momentum, which begins changing from the moment of impact.
The longer the impulse (projectile's contact with another object), the more gradually this object comes to rest.
Your pipe wrench wants to bounce off of your car because of the lack of "give"/time in contact with your car, while your laundry bag is in contact with the car for much longer before coming to rest, thereby not breaking your windshield.This also happens to be the same reason that you have to follow through on your swing while hitting a baseball or tennis ball or whathaveyou to get the longest distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877</id>
	<title>A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>TrumpetPower!</author>
	<datestamp>1246191240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hydrogen will burn just fine in a conventional internal combustion engine. The modifications to a modern gasoline-powered engine to make it run on hydrogen are essentially the same as those to make it run off compressed natural gas. I&rsquo;m sure many of you have noticed fleet vehicles with a CNG sticker on them; though not widespread, the conversion isn&rsquo;t exactly uncommon, either.</p><p>There are three main problems with converting to hydrogen. First, though hydrogen has much more energy density per unit of <em>mass</em> than gasoline, it has much less energy density per unit of <em>volume</em> in any of the ways it&rsquo;s currently practically available. Second, for similar reasons, getting a sufficient density of fuel / air mixture to the pistons is a bit of a challenge and generally requires turbocharging, pressurized fuel lines, etc. (Or, you can live with an underpowered vehicle.) The last problem, of course, is producing hydrogen.</p><p>If the claims of TFA are accurate, then we may actually be on the verge of solving all three problems.</p><p>If we&rsquo;ll soon see affordable high-capacity tanks, that solves the first problem. The second can be dealt with by making use of many of the high-performance tricks we&rsquo;re already familiar with.</p><p>The last...well, hydrogen can trivially be made by running a current through water. If you&rsquo;ve got a photovoltaic array on your roof, you can analyze water and get essentially free hydrogen. While we&rsquo;ll never see cars powered in &ldquo;real time&rdquo; by the sun, it&rsquo;s quite easy make in a couple days as much hydrogen as you&rsquo;ll need to power your car for a week of normal driving.</p><p>Put all these pieces together, and in a few years or so real solar-powered cars may be as common as home-converted home-brewed biodiesel cars are today.</p><p>Cheers,</p><p>b&amp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hydrogen will burn just fine in a conventional internal combustion engine .
The modifications to a modern gasoline-powered engine to make it run on hydrogen are essentially the same as those to make it run off compressed natural gas .
I    m sure many of you have noticed fleet vehicles with a CNG sticker on them ; though not widespread , the conversion isn    t exactly uncommon , either.There are three main problems with converting to hydrogen .
First , though hydrogen has much more energy density per unit of mass than gasoline , it has much less energy density per unit of volume in any of the ways it    s currently practically available .
Second , for similar reasons , getting a sufficient density of fuel / air mixture to the pistons is a bit of a challenge and generally requires turbocharging , pressurized fuel lines , etc .
( Or , you can live with an underpowered vehicle .
) The last problem , of course , is producing hydrogen.If the claims of TFA are accurate , then we may actually be on the verge of solving all three problems.If we    ll soon see affordable high-capacity tanks , that solves the first problem .
The second can be dealt with by making use of many of the high-performance tricks we    re already familiar with.The last...well , hydrogen can trivially be made by running a current through water .
If you    ve got a photovoltaic array on your roof , you can analyze water and get essentially free hydrogen .
While we    ll never see cars powered in    real time    by the sun , it    s quite easy make in a couple days as much hydrogen as you    ll need to power your car for a week of normal driving.Put all these pieces together , and in a few years or so real solar-powered cars may be as common as home-converted home-brewed biodiesel cars are today.Cheers,b&amp;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hydrogen will burn just fine in a conventional internal combustion engine.
The modifications to a modern gasoline-powered engine to make it run on hydrogen are essentially the same as those to make it run off compressed natural gas.
I’m sure many of you have noticed fleet vehicles with a CNG sticker on them; though not widespread, the conversion isn’t exactly uncommon, either.There are three main problems with converting to hydrogen.
First, though hydrogen has much more energy density per unit of mass than gasoline, it has much less energy density per unit of volume in any of the ways it’s currently practically available.
Second, for similar reasons, getting a sufficient density of fuel / air mixture to the pistons is a bit of a challenge and generally requires turbocharging, pressurized fuel lines, etc.
(Or, you can live with an underpowered vehicle.
) The last problem, of course, is producing hydrogen.If the claims of TFA are accurate, then we may actually be on the verge of solving all three problems.If we’ll soon see affordable high-capacity tanks, that solves the first problem.
The second can be dealt with by making use of many of the high-performance tricks we’re already familiar with.The last...well, hydrogen can trivially be made by running a current through water.
If you’ve got a photovoltaic array on your roof, you can analyze water and get essentially free hydrogen.
While we’ll never see cars powered in “real time” by the sun, it’s quite easy make in a couple days as much hydrogen as you’ll need to power your car for a week of normal driving.Put all these pieces together, and in a few years or so real solar-powered cars may be as common as home-converted home-brewed biodiesel cars are today.Cheers,b&amp;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509471</id>
	<title>Re:How much more energy</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1246207080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>C</b>harred <b>C</b>hickens are <b>C</b>arbon neutral as long as you don't <b>F</b>eed them <b>F</b>ossil <b>F</b>uels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charred Chickens are Carbon neutral as long as you do n't Feed them Fossil Fuels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charred Chickens are Carbon neutral as long as you don't Feed them Fossil Fuels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508825</id>
	<title>Re:PETA won't hear of it</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1246200240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dammit, you beat me to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dammit , you beat me to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dammit, you beat me to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509625</id>
	<title>Re:One big problem, not a zillion.</title>
	<author>type40</author>
	<datestamp>1246208340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I would say one big problem to go. That problem is platinum. We simply have not been able to eliminate the need for platinum in fuel cells to extract the electricity from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen.</p></div><p>Ah, yes we <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2004/12/23/nano-nickel-fuel-cells-and-what-will-be/" title="engadget.com" rel="nofollow">have</a> [engadget.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say one big problem to go .
That problem is platinum .
We simply have not been able to eliminate the need for platinum in fuel cells to extract the electricity from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen.Ah , yes we have [ engadget.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I would say one big problem to go.
That problem is platinum.
We simply have not been able to eliminate the need for platinum in fuel cells to extract the electricity from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen.Ah, yes we have [engadget.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28516533</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Cross-Threaded</author>
	<datestamp>1246300860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Beautiful, intimate, economically secure, cheaper, safer, cleaner, more fun, less boring, less predictable and more arty...</p></div><p>You left out 'highly annoying'.</p><p>While I applaud your enthusiasm, and believe this is a pretty good idea for those that would be happy in that environment, your opinion of what the best living conditions are is vastly different than mine.</p><p>This model of living effectively sends shivers up my spine.</p><p>My preferred way of living is to be away from population centers, and only visit them when I have a need to do so.</p><p>If I want to be around people, I'll go find them. If I need supplies, I'll go to a place where I can get them.</p><p>Believe me, you don't want me around when I've had my fill of people. (The asshole switch really flips on.)</p><p>If this means that occasionally I'll have to slug along in the occasional 10-mile long traffic jam, I'm okay with that.</p><p>I don't see it as a waste of time, at all.</p><p>Sometimes less is more, but oftentimes, less is simply less.</p><p>So lets make sure we focus on ways to improve energy efficiency for everyone, not just those that would prefer to be city dwellers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Beautiful , intimate , economically secure , cheaper , safer , cleaner , more fun , less boring , less predictable and more arty...You left out 'highly annoying'.While I applaud your enthusiasm , and believe this is a pretty good idea for those that would be happy in that environment , your opinion of what the best living conditions are is vastly different than mine.This model of living effectively sends shivers up my spine.My preferred way of living is to be away from population centers , and only visit them when I have a need to do so.If I want to be around people , I 'll go find them .
If I need supplies , I 'll go to a place where I can get them.Believe me , you do n't want me around when I 've had my fill of people .
( The asshole switch really flips on .
) If this means that occasionally I 'll have to slug along in the occasional 10-mile long traffic jam , I 'm okay with that.I do n't see it as a waste of time , at all.Sometimes less is more , but oftentimes , less is simply less.So lets make sure we focus on ways to improve energy efficiency for everyone , not just those that would prefer to be city dwellers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beautiful, intimate, economically secure, cheaper, safer, cleaner, more fun, less boring, less predictable and more arty...You left out 'highly annoying'.While I applaud your enthusiasm, and believe this is a pretty good idea for those that would be happy in that environment, your opinion of what the best living conditions are is vastly different than mine.This model of living effectively sends shivers up my spine.My preferred way of living is to be away from population centers, and only visit them when I have a need to do so.If I want to be around people, I'll go find them.
If I need supplies, I'll go to a place where I can get them.Believe me, you don't want me around when I've had my fill of people.
(The asshole switch really flips on.
)If this means that occasionally I'll have to slug along in the occasional 10-mile long traffic jam, I'm okay with that.I don't see it as a waste of time, at all.Sometimes less is more, but oftentimes, less is simply less.So lets make sure we focus on ways to improve energy efficiency for everyone, not just those that would prefer to be city dwellers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510193</id>
	<title>Re:We've done it!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246213680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The year is 3120. A lonely philosopher stands by the seashore glazing at the sunset when suddenly he utters:<br> <br>Which came first, the chicken or nuclear fusion?<br> <br>And for a brief moment the world is struck silent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The year is 3120 .
A lonely philosopher stands by the seashore glazing at the sunset when suddenly he utters : Which came first , the chicken or nuclear fusion ?
And for a brief moment the world is struck silent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The year is 3120.
A lonely philosopher stands by the seashore glazing at the sunset when suddenly he utters: Which came first, the chicken or nuclear fusion?
And for a brief moment the world is struck silent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28517511</id>
	<title>Re:One big problem, not a zillion.</title>
	<author>Cephacles</author>
	<datestamp>1246304520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're working on it: <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090514153022.htm" title="sciencedaily.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090514153022.htm</a> [sciencedaily.com]

<a href="http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/more-efficient-palladium-fuel-cell-catalysts/" title="alternativ...-news.info" rel="nofollow">http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/more-efficient-palladium-fuel-cell-catalysts/</a> [alternativ...-news.info]</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're working on it : http : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090514153022.htm [ sciencedaily.com ] http : //www.alternative-energy-news.info/more-efficient-palladium-fuel-cell-catalysts/ [ alternativ...-news.info ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're working on it: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090514153022.htm [sciencedaily.com]

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/more-efficient-palladium-fuel-cell-catalysts/ [alternativ...-news.info]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28518139</id>
	<title>Physics question concerning impulse and force.</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1246307160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, serious question here.</p><p>Let's say I can take a hammer and swing it and flatten a piece of wire.</p><p>How can I calculate what the equivalent force would be required to do the same deformation by, say, squeezing the wire in a vise?</p><p>In other words, how can I relate impulse into a constant force?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , serious question here.Let 's say I can take a hammer and swing it and flatten a piece of wire.How can I calculate what the equivalent force would be required to do the same deformation by , say , squeezing the wire in a vise ? In other words , how can I relate impulse into a constant force ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, serious question here.Let's say I can take a hammer and swing it and flatten a piece of wire.How can I calculate what the equivalent force would be required to do the same deformation by, say, squeezing the wire in a vise?In other words, how can I relate impulse into a constant force?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507979</id>
	<title>H2 Guano</title>
	<author>JustOK</author>
	<datestamp>1246192140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A chicken for every potentiometer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A chicken for every potentiometer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A chicken for every potentiometer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508683</id>
	<title>Re:Urban legend != actual facts!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246198740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Adam and Jamie tackled this one on Mythbusters.</p><p>Using the same protocols as the 'official' testing, they found that thawed chickens busted windscreens as effectively as thawed chickens.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYyZXh9vCLU" title="youtube.com">Wrong</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>They revisited the myth and proved, beyond a doubt, that frozen chickens cause more damage.</p><p>To be fair, though, they went over that myth like three times before they finally came up with a test that proved it once and for all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adam and Jamie tackled this one on Mythbusters.Using the same protocols as the 'official ' testing , they found that thawed chickens busted windscreens as effectively as thawed chickens .
Wrong [ youtube.com ] .They revisited the myth and proved , beyond a doubt , that frozen chickens cause more damage.To be fair , though , they went over that myth like three times before they finally came up with a test that proved it once and for all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adam and Jamie tackled this one on Mythbusters.Using the same protocols as the 'official' testing, they found that thawed chickens busted windscreens as effectively as thawed chickens.
Wrong [youtube.com].They revisited the myth and proved, beyond a doubt, that frozen chickens cause more damage.To be fair, though, they went over that myth like three times before they finally came up with a test that proved it once and for all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511043</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246308060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your argument assumes that the pricing mechanism will solve the environment's problems. However, you're conveniently forgetting one thing which is pretty important if you're going to talk about price: economics.</p><p>Let's say your tax comes in and triples the price of meat products. Demand for meat falls dramatically. Almost everyone begins buying non-meat substitutes.</p><p>The demand for non-meat substitutes therefore skyrockets, which means the price of these substitutes rises significantly. Conversely, the meat industry must lower their prices to compete with the substitutes and recapture some demand.</p><p>The tax creates a shortage in meat demand and an excess in meat-substitute demand. Prices will always move towards equilibrium, which means meat prices will fall and meat-substitute prices will rise. Since the meat-substitutes are, by definition, a substitute good, economic theory dictates that the two prices will gravitate towards each other to some degree (depending on the cross-corellation of demand) - assuming the meat industry survives (more on that in a bit).</p><p>There will probably be short-term shortages as practically everyone converts over to these substitutes almost overnight. Your policy will likely result in widespread civil unrest. People unable to purchase meat-substitutes are forced to pay your exhorbitant meat tax. People may not care much about privacy, censorship and whatnot, but if you threaten their ability to put food on the table, they will riot en masse.</p><p>So your plan to tax meat and force everyone onto substitutes has failed spectacularly, because now everyone is paying more for everything. Setting aside the ridiculous assertion that you could calculate the "true cost" of meat in the airy fairy manner you describe, the end result is that you've pushed up the prices of EVERYTHING (not just food - a little more economic thinking makes this obvious). Food is not a luxury item that is optional to purchase (though some foods may be classified as luxury foods, a standard steak certainly is not).</p><p>Your chances of another term in office are zero. Incidentally, you have a pretty good chance of being shot.</p><p>Which brings me to my final point about the survival of the meat industry - it is not going anywhere, not now, and not ever. It will always survive, because people will always want to eat meat. There is no chance of the supply of meat vanishing because there'll be enough people to either vote bright sparks like you out of office or riot in the streets until your own party pushes you out.</p><p>And honestly, your entire post screams: "since these taxes won't affect me, I am in favour of them, as that will force other people to subsidise my own, different life style choices". You don't want *people* to pay the "full cost" of anything. You want *other people* to pay more for purchases which *you* aren't going to make, under the twisted and erroneous logic that your costs will go down. A very selfish view, given that your main implication is that other people are being too selfish with their consumption.</p><p>I hope that clarifies things for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your argument assumes that the pricing mechanism will solve the environment 's problems .
However , you 're conveniently forgetting one thing which is pretty important if you 're going to talk about price : economics.Let 's say your tax comes in and triples the price of meat products .
Demand for meat falls dramatically .
Almost everyone begins buying non-meat substitutes.The demand for non-meat substitutes therefore skyrockets , which means the price of these substitutes rises significantly .
Conversely , the meat industry must lower their prices to compete with the substitutes and recapture some demand.The tax creates a shortage in meat demand and an excess in meat-substitute demand .
Prices will always move towards equilibrium , which means meat prices will fall and meat-substitute prices will rise .
Since the meat-substitutes are , by definition , a substitute good , economic theory dictates that the two prices will gravitate towards each other to some degree ( depending on the cross-corellation of demand ) - assuming the meat industry survives ( more on that in a bit ) .There will probably be short-term shortages as practically everyone converts over to these substitutes almost overnight .
Your policy will likely result in widespread civil unrest .
People unable to purchase meat-substitutes are forced to pay your exhorbitant meat tax .
People may not care much about privacy , censorship and whatnot , but if you threaten their ability to put food on the table , they will riot en masse.So your plan to tax meat and force everyone onto substitutes has failed spectacularly , because now everyone is paying more for everything .
Setting aside the ridiculous assertion that you could calculate the " true cost " of meat in the airy fairy manner you describe , the end result is that you 've pushed up the prices of EVERYTHING ( not just food - a little more economic thinking makes this obvious ) .
Food is not a luxury item that is optional to purchase ( though some foods may be classified as luxury foods , a standard steak certainly is not ) .Your chances of another term in office are zero .
Incidentally , you have a pretty good chance of being shot.Which brings me to my final point about the survival of the meat industry - it is not going anywhere , not now , and not ever .
It will always survive , because people will always want to eat meat .
There is no chance of the supply of meat vanishing because there 'll be enough people to either vote bright sparks like you out of office or riot in the streets until your own party pushes you out.And honestly , your entire post screams : " since these taxes wo n't affect me , I am in favour of them , as that will force other people to subsidise my own , different life style choices " .
You do n't want * people * to pay the " full cost " of anything .
You want * other people * to pay more for purchases which * you * are n't going to make , under the twisted and erroneous logic that your costs will go down .
A very selfish view , given that your main implication is that other people are being too selfish with their consumption.I hope that clarifies things for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your argument assumes that the pricing mechanism will solve the environment's problems.
However, you're conveniently forgetting one thing which is pretty important if you're going to talk about price: economics.Let's say your tax comes in and triples the price of meat products.
Demand for meat falls dramatically.
Almost everyone begins buying non-meat substitutes.The demand for non-meat substitutes therefore skyrockets, which means the price of these substitutes rises significantly.
Conversely, the meat industry must lower their prices to compete with the substitutes and recapture some demand.The tax creates a shortage in meat demand and an excess in meat-substitute demand.
Prices will always move towards equilibrium, which means meat prices will fall and meat-substitute prices will rise.
Since the meat-substitutes are, by definition, a substitute good, economic theory dictates that the two prices will gravitate towards each other to some degree (depending on the cross-corellation of demand) - assuming the meat industry survives (more on that in a bit).There will probably be short-term shortages as practically everyone converts over to these substitutes almost overnight.
Your policy will likely result in widespread civil unrest.
People unable to purchase meat-substitutes are forced to pay your exhorbitant meat tax.
People may not care much about privacy, censorship and whatnot, but if you threaten their ability to put food on the table, they will riot en masse.So your plan to tax meat and force everyone onto substitutes has failed spectacularly, because now everyone is paying more for everything.
Setting aside the ridiculous assertion that you could calculate the "true cost" of meat in the airy fairy manner you describe, the end result is that you've pushed up the prices of EVERYTHING (not just food - a little more economic thinking makes this obvious).
Food is not a luxury item that is optional to purchase (though some foods may be classified as luxury foods, a standard steak certainly is not).Your chances of another term in office are zero.
Incidentally, you have a pretty good chance of being shot.Which brings me to my final point about the survival of the meat industry - it is not going anywhere, not now, and not ever.
It will always survive, because people will always want to eat meat.
There is no chance of the supply of meat vanishing because there'll be enough people to either vote bright sparks like you out of office or riot in the streets until your own party pushes you out.And honestly, your entire post screams: "since these taxes won't affect me, I am in favour of them, as that will force other people to subsidise my own, different life style choices".
You don't want *people* to pay the "full cost" of anything.
You want *other people* to pay more for purchases which *you* aren't going to make, under the twisted and erroneous logic that your costs will go down.
A very selfish view, given that your main implication is that other people are being too selfish with their consumption.I hope that clarifies things for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509691</id>
	<title>Re:NPR Interview</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1246208880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a backpacker, I'm amazed every year they fail to find a synthetic sleeping bag insulation superior to goose down.  Synthetics are somewhat competitive per lb, and insulate better when wet, but they don't compress nearly as much as down.  I wonder if the hydrogen-absorbing power of feathers is related to the air-trapping, insulating power of feathers?  The article says the strong, hollow tubes of feathers are part of why they hold hydrogen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a backpacker , I 'm amazed every year they fail to find a synthetic sleeping bag insulation superior to goose down .
Synthetics are somewhat competitive per lb , and insulate better when wet , but they do n't compress nearly as much as down .
I wonder if the hydrogen-absorbing power of feathers is related to the air-trapping , insulating power of feathers ?
The article says the strong , hollow tubes of feathers are part of why they hold hydrogen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a backpacker, I'm amazed every year they fail to find a synthetic sleeping bag insulation superior to goose down.
Synthetics are somewhat competitive per lb, and insulate better when wet, but they don't compress nearly as much as down.
I wonder if the hydrogen-absorbing power of feathers is related to the air-trapping, insulating power of feathers?
The article says the strong, hollow tubes of feathers are part of why they hold hydrogen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508083</id>
	<title>why?</title>
	<author>dayton967</author>
	<datestamp>1246193220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do I have a feeling there is now going to be some "Why did the chicken cross the road" jokes to start because of this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do I have a feeling there is now going to be some " Why did the chicken cross the road " jokes to start because of this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do I have a feeling there is now going to be some "Why did the chicken cross the road" jokes to start because of this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511393</id>
	<title>Foolishness!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246269900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will solve nothing and simply drive up the cost of pillows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will solve nothing and simply drive up the cost of pillows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will solve nothing and simply drive up the cost of pillows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755</id>
	<title>Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246190160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm...Carbonized chickens and hydrogen.  There has to be a joke in there somewhere about chickens being classified as munitions...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm...Carbonized chickens and hydrogen .
There has to be a joke in there somewhere about chickens being classified as munitions.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm...Carbonized chickens and hydrogen.
There has to be a joke in there somewhere about chickens being classified as munitions...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514167</id>
	<title>Re:Urban legend != actual facts!!!!</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1246291020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Using the same protocols as the 'official' testing, they found that thawed chickens busted windscreens as effectively as thawed chickens.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Wrong.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I find that hard to believe.  Are you trying to say that there is a significant difference between thawed chickens and thawed chickens?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Using the same protocols as the 'official ' testing , they found that thawed chickens busted windscreens as effectively as thawed chickens .
Wrong . I find that hard to believe .
Are you trying to say that there is a significant difference between thawed chickens and thawed chickens ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using the same protocols as the 'official' testing, they found that thawed chickens busted windscreens as effectively as thawed chickens.
Wrong.
I find that hard to believe.
Are you trying to say that there is a significant difference between thawed chickens and thawed chickens?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509713</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1246209060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Hydrogen will burn just fine in a conventional internal combustion engine. The modifications to a modern gasoline-powered engine to make it run on hydrogen are essentially the same as those to make it run off compressed natural gas.</p></div></blockquote><p>No Sir, incorrect.</p><p>You cannot burn hydrogen in a standard IC engine over extended periods of time. If you do, a process known as hydrogen embrittlement will occur. Eventually your valves and piston rings will crack and shatter like glass among other things. While building a hydrogen IC is probably doable with the right alloys, it would no doubt be extremely cost prohibitive to do so.</p><p>Ever wonder why Honda, Toyota, and BMW put a halt to burning hydrogen in a standard IC engine? Two words. Hydrogen Embrittlement. Now you know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hydrogen will burn just fine in a conventional internal combustion engine .
The modifications to a modern gasoline-powered engine to make it run on hydrogen are essentially the same as those to make it run off compressed natural gas.No Sir , incorrect.You can not burn hydrogen in a standard IC engine over extended periods of time .
If you do , a process known as hydrogen embrittlement will occur .
Eventually your valves and piston rings will crack and shatter like glass among other things .
While building a hydrogen IC is probably doable with the right alloys , it would no doubt be extremely cost prohibitive to do so.Ever wonder why Honda , Toyota , and BMW put a halt to burning hydrogen in a standard IC engine ?
Two words .
Hydrogen Embrittlement .
Now you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hydrogen will burn just fine in a conventional internal combustion engine.
The modifications to a modern gasoline-powered engine to make it run on hydrogen are essentially the same as those to make it run off compressed natural gas.No Sir, incorrect.You cannot burn hydrogen in a standard IC engine over extended periods of time.
If you do, a process known as hydrogen embrittlement will occur.
Eventually your valves and piston rings will crack and shatter like glass among other things.
While building a hydrogen IC is probably doable with the right alloys, it would no doubt be extremely cost prohibitive to do so.Ever wonder why Honda, Toyota, and BMW put a halt to burning hydrogen in a standard IC engine?
Two words.
Hydrogen Embrittlement.
Now you know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509831</id>
	<title>Re:Urban legend != actual facts!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246210260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called "impulse". Impulse is how quickly the force is transferred between the objects, which is faster with a solid (ice) chicken than with a thawed one. And then you have the force per area, which is larger with a thawed chicken because it deforms on contact whereas a frozen chicken concentrates almost all the force on a small area.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called " impulse " .
Impulse is how quickly the force is transferred between the objects , which is faster with a solid ( ice ) chicken than with a thawed one .
And then you have the force per area , which is larger with a thawed chicken because it deforms on contact whereas a frozen chicken concentrates almost all the force on a small area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called "impulse".
Impulse is how quickly the force is transferred between the objects, which is faster with a solid (ice) chicken than with a thawed one.
And then you have the force per area, which is larger with a thawed chicken because it deforms on contact whereas a frozen chicken concentrates almost all the force on a small area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508097</id>
	<title>SNAFU</title>
	<author>Jerry Rivers</author>
	<datestamp>1246193400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Situation Normal; All Fowled Up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Situation Normal ; All Fowled Up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Situation Normal; All Fowled Up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507931</id>
	<title>Read TFA ...</title>
	<author>Jstlook</author>
	<datestamp>1246191780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because I maintain good intentions, and I assume most people do likewise, I'll also assume that the reporter made an error, and that Oregon researchers aren't actually trying to convert sunlight into hydrogen.  Energy into matter?  I seem to remember something about this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Nope, it's gone.  Now, where did I put my glasses?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I maintain good intentions , and I assume most people do likewise , I 'll also assume that the reporter made an error , and that Oregon researchers are n't actually trying to convert sunlight into hydrogen .
Energy into matter ?
I seem to remember something about this ...Nope , it 's gone .
Now , where did I put my glasses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I maintain good intentions, and I assume most people do likewise, I'll also assume that the reporter made an error, and that Oregon researchers aren't actually trying to convert sunlight into hydrogen.
Energy into matter?
I seem to remember something about this ...Nope, it's gone.
Now, where did I put my glasses?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511845</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Ramze</author>
	<datestamp>1246274220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Normally I don't reply to trolls, but I found your post spectacularly wrong in so many ways, yet peppered with enough economic and statistical jargon that you might actually convince some people of your false logic should they read it.
</p><p>
First, you fail at economics.  Clearly you've taken an undergrad course and heard a few terms.  I encourage you to go back and take a few masters level courses so that you understand them a bit better.  You also fail at psychology if you truly believe there will be rioting and assassination attempts over the tripling of the price of anything which has substitutes in the marketplace.  Just as an example, gasoline has extremely inelastic demand and has quadrupled in price over a few years without any rioting in the streets.  Sure, there have been congressional hearings about gas prices because speculators have manipulated the pricing more than OPEC ever has of late, but there are no riots over congresses inaction in passing legislation to encourage the price of gasoline to go down (lower fed. tax rate, drill for more oil, give tax breaks to build a new gasoline refinery, make it illegal to hold futures contracts without a location to store the oil, etc. etc.).
</p><p>
"Meat" includes many products which will be affected differently by any price increase because they will have different elasticities of demand...  however, since you've mentioned steak, I thought I'd point out that most economics professors would indeed classify a "standard steak" as a luxury good.  It's not as much of a luxury good as say... lobster, but it's up there.  Bologna would not be considered a luxury good, but it is a meat product.  If a pack of bologna were to triple in cost from $1 to $3, demand would likely drop somewhat and shift to other cheaper sources of protein like soy products.  If steak were to also triple from $12 per serving to $36 per serving, demand would likely fall more drastically and shift to other cheaper sources of protein... perhaps even bologna, hot dogs, and hamburgers instead of steak.
</p><p>
You make a LOT of assumptions.  I have no idea what sort of tax would have to be imposed on meat products to include the full cost to society and environmental damage, but you assume it would triple the cost of meat in general (wild assumption...  could be only a 10\% increase which would have little economic impact.)  You also assume surpluses and shortages and prices rising or falling, but don't state time frames.  In economics, short term, long term, and extreme long term results for shifts can be very different, so your post is vague and sounds a bit like gibberish when you discuss these things.  You assume that meat substitute prices will skyrocket without any facts to back up that hypothesis, then go on to say that they may become scarce with a shortage so some people will be forced to buy meat at high prices (another assumption).  Do you realize that soy products are cheap and could easily provide a meat substitute even if demand for soy skyrocketed at a very reasonable price?  even in the short-term?  Have you even heard of price elasticity of demand?  Did they not teach you that term in undergrad econ?
</p><p>
On a personal note, I am definitely a fan of meat... but I'm also a fan of taxing the hell out of things that have hidden environmental costs.  You'd be surprised at how quickly businesses change their processes to produce less waste when they actually have to pay to clean up that waste.  There are economical ways for all businesses to clean up their environmental waste and have a reduced impact on the environment  (Note that 100\% cleanup would likely cost an infinite amount of money because it is difficult to have exactly zero waste, but perhaps an 85 to 95\% reduction might be feasible for some businesses).  Yes, prices might rise on goods as companies pass along environmental cleanup costs, but I have no idea how much -- and nor do you unless you've done an environmental impact study on the matter.
</p><p>
Frankly, when you remove the gibberish and wild speculation from your post, it simply reads as "Waaahhhh...  I love my meat and I don't want to have to pay more for it!"  As you've posted as an anonymous coward, perhaps you already know this is the case.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally I do n't reply to trolls , but I found your post spectacularly wrong in so many ways , yet peppered with enough economic and statistical jargon that you might actually convince some people of your false logic should they read it .
First , you fail at economics .
Clearly you 've taken an undergrad course and heard a few terms .
I encourage you to go back and take a few masters level courses so that you understand them a bit better .
You also fail at psychology if you truly believe there will be rioting and assassination attempts over the tripling of the price of anything which has substitutes in the marketplace .
Just as an example , gasoline has extremely inelastic demand and has quadrupled in price over a few years without any rioting in the streets .
Sure , there have been congressional hearings about gas prices because speculators have manipulated the pricing more than OPEC ever has of late , but there are no riots over congresses inaction in passing legislation to encourage the price of gasoline to go down ( lower fed .
tax rate , drill for more oil , give tax breaks to build a new gasoline refinery , make it illegal to hold futures contracts without a location to store the oil , etc .
etc. ) . " Meat " includes many products which will be affected differently by any price increase because they will have different elasticities of demand... however , since you 've mentioned steak , I thought I 'd point out that most economics professors would indeed classify a " standard steak " as a luxury good .
It 's not as much of a luxury good as say... lobster , but it 's up there .
Bologna would not be considered a luxury good , but it is a meat product .
If a pack of bologna were to triple in cost from $ 1 to $ 3 , demand would likely drop somewhat and shift to other cheaper sources of protein like soy products .
If steak were to also triple from $ 12 per serving to $ 36 per serving , demand would likely fall more drastically and shift to other cheaper sources of protein... perhaps even bologna , hot dogs , and hamburgers instead of steak .
You make a LOT of assumptions .
I have no idea what sort of tax would have to be imposed on meat products to include the full cost to society and environmental damage , but you assume it would triple the cost of meat in general ( wild assumption... could be only a 10 \ % increase which would have little economic impact .
) You also assume surpluses and shortages and prices rising or falling , but do n't state time frames .
In economics , short term , long term , and extreme long term results for shifts can be very different , so your post is vague and sounds a bit like gibberish when you discuss these things .
You assume that meat substitute prices will skyrocket without any facts to back up that hypothesis , then go on to say that they may become scarce with a shortage so some people will be forced to buy meat at high prices ( another assumption ) .
Do you realize that soy products are cheap and could easily provide a meat substitute even if demand for soy skyrocketed at a very reasonable price ?
even in the short-term ?
Have you even heard of price elasticity of demand ?
Did they not teach you that term in undergrad econ ?
On a personal note , I am definitely a fan of meat... but I 'm also a fan of taxing the hell out of things that have hidden environmental costs .
You 'd be surprised at how quickly businesses change their processes to produce less waste when they actually have to pay to clean up that waste .
There are economical ways for all businesses to clean up their environmental waste and have a reduced impact on the environment ( Note that 100 \ % cleanup would likely cost an infinite amount of money because it is difficult to have exactly zero waste , but perhaps an 85 to 95 \ % reduction might be feasible for some businesses ) .
Yes , prices might rise on goods as companies pass along environmental cleanup costs , but I have no idea how much -- and nor do you unless you 've done an environmental impact study on the matter .
Frankly , when you remove the gibberish and wild speculation from your post , it simply reads as " Waaahhhh... I love my meat and I do n't want to have to pay more for it !
" As you 've posted as an anonymous coward , perhaps you already know this is the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Normally I don't reply to trolls, but I found your post spectacularly wrong in so many ways, yet peppered with enough economic and statistical jargon that you might actually convince some people of your false logic should they read it.
First, you fail at economics.
Clearly you've taken an undergrad course and heard a few terms.
I encourage you to go back and take a few masters level courses so that you understand them a bit better.
You also fail at psychology if you truly believe there will be rioting and assassination attempts over the tripling of the price of anything which has substitutes in the marketplace.
Just as an example, gasoline has extremely inelastic demand and has quadrupled in price over a few years without any rioting in the streets.
Sure, there have been congressional hearings about gas prices because speculators have manipulated the pricing more than OPEC ever has of late, but there are no riots over congresses inaction in passing legislation to encourage the price of gasoline to go down (lower fed.
tax rate, drill for more oil, give tax breaks to build a new gasoline refinery, make it illegal to hold futures contracts without a location to store the oil, etc.
etc.).

"Meat" includes many products which will be affected differently by any price increase because they will have different elasticities of demand...  however, since you've mentioned steak, I thought I'd point out that most economics professors would indeed classify a "standard steak" as a luxury good.
It's not as much of a luxury good as say... lobster, but it's up there.
Bologna would not be considered a luxury good, but it is a meat product.
If a pack of bologna were to triple in cost from $1 to $3, demand would likely drop somewhat and shift to other cheaper sources of protein like soy products.
If steak were to also triple from $12 per serving to $36 per serving, demand would likely fall more drastically and shift to other cheaper sources of protein... perhaps even bologna, hot dogs, and hamburgers instead of steak.
You make a LOT of assumptions.
I have no idea what sort of tax would have to be imposed on meat products to include the full cost to society and environmental damage, but you assume it would triple the cost of meat in general (wild assumption...  could be only a 10\% increase which would have little economic impact.
)  You also assume surpluses and shortages and prices rising or falling, but don't state time frames.
In economics, short term, long term, and extreme long term results for shifts can be very different, so your post is vague and sounds a bit like gibberish when you discuss these things.
You assume that meat substitute prices will skyrocket without any facts to back up that hypothesis, then go on to say that they may become scarce with a shortage so some people will be forced to buy meat at high prices (another assumption).
Do you realize that soy products are cheap and could easily provide a meat substitute even if demand for soy skyrocketed at a very reasonable price?
even in the short-term?
Have you even heard of price elasticity of demand?
Did they not teach you that term in undergrad econ?
On a personal note, I am definitely a fan of meat... but I'm also a fan of taxing the hell out of things that have hidden environmental costs.
You'd be surprised at how quickly businesses change their processes to produce less waste when they actually have to pay to clean up that waste.
There are economical ways for all businesses to clean up their environmental waste and have a reduced impact on the environment  (Note that 100\% cleanup would likely cost an infinite amount of money because it is difficult to have exactly zero waste, but perhaps an 85 to 95\% reduction might be feasible for some businesses).
Yes, prices might rise on goods as companies pass along environmental cleanup costs, but I have no idea how much -- and nor do you unless you've done an environmental impact study on the matter.
Frankly, when you remove the gibberish and wild speculation from your post, it simply reads as "Waaahhhh...  I love my meat and I don't want to have to pay more for it!
"  As you've posted as an anonymous coward, perhaps you already know this is the case.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507735</id>
	<title>Carbonized chickens also explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246189860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chicken McNuggets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chicken McNuggets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chicken McNuggets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509185</id>
	<title>Chicken Feathers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246204200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Horse Feathers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Horse Feathers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Horse Feathers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851</id>
	<title>Re:Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246190940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There has to be a joke in there somewhere about chickens being classified as munitions..</p></div><p>Or at least a story...</p><p>I remember hearing about an aircraft canopy design being tested against bird strike by having dead chickens fired at it via an air cannon.  It was the best emulation they could come up with. </p><p>However, somewhere between plan and execution a detail was missed, and the test was performed with frozen chickens.  Results were indeterminate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There has to be a joke in there somewhere about chickens being classified as munitions..Or at least a story...I remember hearing about an aircraft canopy design being tested against bird strike by having dead chickens fired at it via an air cannon .
It was the best emulation they could come up with .
However , somewhere between plan and execution a detail was missed , and the test was performed with frozen chickens .
Results were indeterminate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There has to be a joke in there somewhere about chickens being classified as munitions..Or at least a story...I remember hearing about an aircraft canopy design being tested against bird strike by having dead chickens fired at it via an air cannon.
It was the best emulation they could come up with.
However, somewhere between plan and execution a detail was missed, and the test was performed with frozen chickens.
Results were indeterminate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905</id>
	<title>PETA won't hear of it</title>
	<author>Starlon</author>
	<datestamp>1246191600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plain and simple. Find a solution that utilizes veggies instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plain and simple .
Find a solution that utilizes veggies instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plain and simple.
Find a solution that utilizes veggies instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507787</id>
	<title>How much more energy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246190460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much more energy does it take to turn a chicken feather into a "hydrogen storage unit" than can be stored in the feather anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much more energy does it take to turn a chicken feather into a " hydrogen storage unit " than can be stored in the feather anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much more energy does it take to turn a chicken feather into a "hydrogen storage unit" than can be stored in the feather anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509573</id>
	<title>Re:New metric for H powered cars???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246208040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>0.068 hogshead, assuming one 4 lb. leghorn=2.25 cups by volume(diced), 16 cups to the gallon...we get 7 leghorns per gallon, and 63 gallons/hogshead*, or 442 leghorns/hogshead...thus 3 leghorns would be 0.068 \% of a hogshead</p><p>I don't know how many hectares you could get out of 0.068 of a hogshead of Leghorns, though. YMMV.<br>That advanced physics is a little outside of my field...I used to raise <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter\_Eggers" title="wikipedia.org">Easter Egger</a> [wikipedia.org] chickens instead of Leghorns.</p><p>*It can get confusing though...at least to me. USA's current definition of a hogshead being 63 gallons (US) of wine.<br>I can never remember when converting Leghorns to hogsheads if it is:<br>1. How many Leghorns it takes to drink a hogshead of wine....<br>2. How many Leghorns it takes to make 63 gallons of wine....<br>3. How many dead Leghorns(diced for consistency) it takes to pack into a hogshead....(after drinking the wine!)<br>4. How many live Leghorns you can stuff in a hogshead...(again, after drinking the wine!)<br>5. How many leghorns can you stuff in a hogshead full of wine. (not even considered)</p><p>I started to go with #4, but then reminded me of an incident I witnessed in Breezewood, PA back in the mid 1980's.</p><p>A tractor-trailer hauling a full load of live turkeys from the farm to the processor jackknifed trying to stop at a 'tee intersection', overturned the whole kit and kaboodle, the trailer burst open and released hundreds if turkeys in a restaurant's parking lot the and I-70 W, US Route 30, and I-76/70W intersection.(He was coming from Wash., D.C./Baltimore, MD direction...westbound on I-70, which after coming down Town Hill, you end up facing a deadend, looking at a traffic light, gaurdrails, and a restaurant and parking lot...with hot, worn, substandard braking power. A certain recipe for disaster, but PennDOT feels they have sufficient warning signs posted.)</p><p>Turkeys were <b>everywhere</b>, running around in a panic in all different directions...turkeys in evasive mode everywhere you looked!<br>LOL!<br>Traffic was stopping, fender-benders occurring left and right as some tried avoiding hitting turkeys, many more were stopping and trying to capture a/some turkey/s...pandemonium reigned, a three ring circus run amok!<br>ROFLMAO!<br>Then, I noticed one guy carrying a turkey under each arm, and a third clamped in his hands. He got to his car trunk, clamped the turkey between his legs and one hand while opening the trunk.<br>The trunk springs open, and five turkeys jump out and scatter in different directions at a high rate of speed. Meanwhile, the guy loses two of the three turkeys he just captured trying to get the three in and not losing the five escaping.<br>ROFLCOPTER and ribcramps...damned near pissed myself laughing so hard.</p><p>So, I decided then to use #3, since after all...my Leghorn wrangling skills may be somewhat impaired after drinking the 63 gallons of wine to make room for the Leghorns, if I had used #4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>0.068 hogshead , assuming one 4 lb .
leghorn = 2.25 cups by volume ( diced ) , 16 cups to the gallon...we get 7 leghorns per gallon , and 63 gallons/hogshead * , or 442 leghorns/hogshead...thus 3 leghorns would be 0.068 \ % of a hogsheadI do n't know how many hectares you could get out of 0.068 of a hogshead of Leghorns , though .
YMMV.That advanced physics is a little outside of my field...I used to raise Easter Egger [ wikipedia.org ] chickens instead of Leghorns .
* It can get confusing though...at least to me .
USA 's current definition of a hogshead being 63 gallons ( US ) of wine.I can never remember when converting Leghorns to hogsheads if it is : 1 .
How many Leghorns it takes to drink a hogshead of wine....2 .
How many Leghorns it takes to make 63 gallons of wine....3 .
How many dead Leghorns ( diced for consistency ) it takes to pack into a hogshead.... ( after drinking the wine ! ) 4 .
How many live Leghorns you can stuff in a hogshead... ( again , after drinking the wine ! ) 5 .
How many leghorns can you stuff in a hogshead full of wine .
( not even considered ) I started to go with # 4 , but then reminded me of an incident I witnessed in Breezewood , PA back in the mid 1980 's.A tractor-trailer hauling a full load of live turkeys from the farm to the processor jackknifed trying to stop at a 'tee intersection ' , overturned the whole kit and kaboodle , the trailer burst open and released hundreds if turkeys in a restaurant 's parking lot the and I-70 W , US Route 30 , and I-76/70W intersection .
( He was coming from Wash. , D.C./Baltimore , MD direction...westbound on I-70 , which after coming down Town Hill , you end up facing a deadend , looking at a traffic light , gaurdrails , and a restaurant and parking lot...with hot , worn , substandard braking power .
A certain recipe for disaster , but PennDOT feels they have sufficient warning signs posted .
) Turkeys were everywhere , running around in a panic in all different directions...turkeys in evasive mode everywhere you looked ! LOL ! Traffic was stopping , fender-benders occurring left and right as some tried avoiding hitting turkeys , many more were stopping and trying to capture a/some turkey/s...pandemonium reigned , a three ring circus run amok ! ROFLMAO ! Then , I noticed one guy carrying a turkey under each arm , and a third clamped in his hands .
He got to his car trunk , clamped the turkey between his legs and one hand while opening the trunk.The trunk springs open , and five turkeys jump out and scatter in different directions at a high rate of speed .
Meanwhile , the guy loses two of the three turkeys he just captured trying to get the three in and not losing the five escaping.ROFLCOPTER and ribcramps...damned near pissed myself laughing so hard.So , I decided then to use # 3 , since after all...my Leghorn wrangling skills may be somewhat impaired after drinking the 63 gallons of wine to make room for the Leghorns , if I had used # 4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0.068 hogshead, assuming one 4 lb.
leghorn=2.25 cups by volume(diced), 16 cups to the gallon...we get 7 leghorns per gallon, and 63 gallons/hogshead*, or 442 leghorns/hogshead...thus 3 leghorns would be 0.068 \% of a hogsheadI don't know how many hectares you could get out of 0.068 of a hogshead of Leghorns, though.
YMMV.That advanced physics is a little outside of my field...I used to raise Easter Egger [wikipedia.org] chickens instead of Leghorns.
*It can get confusing though...at least to me.
USA's current definition of a hogshead being 63 gallons (US) of wine.I can never remember when converting Leghorns to hogsheads if it is:1.
How many Leghorns it takes to drink a hogshead of wine....2.
How many Leghorns it takes to make 63 gallons of wine....3.
How many dead Leghorns(diced for consistency) it takes to pack into a hogshead....(after drinking the wine!)4.
How many live Leghorns you can stuff in a hogshead...(again, after drinking the wine!)5.
How many leghorns can you stuff in a hogshead full of wine.
(not even considered)I started to go with #4, but then reminded me of an incident I witnessed in Breezewood, PA back in the mid 1980's.A tractor-trailer hauling a full load of live turkeys from the farm to the processor jackknifed trying to stop at a 'tee intersection', overturned the whole kit and kaboodle, the trailer burst open and released hundreds if turkeys in a restaurant's parking lot the and I-70 W, US Route 30, and I-76/70W intersection.
(He was coming from Wash., D.C./Baltimore, MD direction...westbound on I-70, which after coming down Town Hill, you end up facing a deadend, looking at a traffic light, gaurdrails, and a restaurant and parking lot...with hot, worn, substandard braking power.
A certain recipe for disaster, but PennDOT feels they have sufficient warning signs posted.
)Turkeys were everywhere, running around in a panic in all different directions...turkeys in evasive mode everywhere you looked!LOL!Traffic was stopping, fender-benders occurring left and right as some tried avoiding hitting turkeys, many more were stopping and trying to capture a/some turkey/s...pandemonium reigned, a three ring circus run amok!ROFLMAO!Then, I noticed one guy carrying a turkey under each arm, and a third clamped in his hands.
He got to his car trunk, clamped the turkey between his legs and one hand while opening the trunk.The trunk springs open, and five turkeys jump out and scatter in different directions at a high rate of speed.
Meanwhile, the guy loses two of the three turkeys he just captured trying to get the three in and not losing the five escaping.ROFLCOPTER and ribcramps...damned near pissed myself laughing so hard.So, I decided then to use #3, since after all...my Leghorn wrangling skills may be somewhat impaired after drinking the 63 gallons of wine to make room for the Leghorns, if I had used #4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507987</id>
	<title>Re:Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>Nobody Real</author>
	<datestamp>1246192200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The version of the story that I heard was that some British company was building a high speed train and wanted to test it against bird strikes.  They borrowed a chicken cannon from an American aerospace company (the cannon being a standard item for testing aircraft canopies) and were horrified to see how much damage the train was taking.  The Brits sent the footage to the Americans for review and the Americans simply responded: "Gentlemen, thaw your chickens."</p><p>They tested this pretty thoroughly on Mythbusters.  The final result being that frozen chickens get much better penetration then thawed ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The version of the story that I heard was that some British company was building a high speed train and wanted to test it against bird strikes .
They borrowed a chicken cannon from an American aerospace company ( the cannon being a standard item for testing aircraft canopies ) and were horrified to see how much damage the train was taking .
The Brits sent the footage to the Americans for review and the Americans simply responded : " Gentlemen , thaw your chickens .
" They tested this pretty thoroughly on Mythbusters .
The final result being that frozen chickens get much better penetration then thawed ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The version of the story that I heard was that some British company was building a high speed train and wanted to test it against bird strikes.
They borrowed a chicken cannon from an American aerospace company (the cannon being a standard item for testing aircraft canopies) and were horrified to see how much damage the train was taking.
The Brits sent the footage to the Americans for review and the Americans simply responded: "Gentlemen, thaw your chickens.
"They tested this pretty thoroughly on Mythbusters.
The final result being that frozen chickens get much better penetration then thawed ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508113</id>
	<title>One big problem, not a zillion.</title>
	<author>lgbr</author>
	<datestamp>1246193580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><div><p>I wouldn't say 'about a zillion to go.' I would say one big problem to go. That problem is platinum. We simply have not been able to eliminate the need for platinum in fuel cells to extract the electricity from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen. Platinum is a huge factor in the cost of the fuel cell and the larger problem is that we simply don't have the amount of it necessary to convert all of the vehicles of the world. I spent a few weeks at Los Alamos with a research group that had been given a hefty grant for finding a solution and all they were doing was shrugging their shoulders at it. It seems nearly hopeless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't say 'about a zillion to go .
' I would say one big problem to go .
That problem is platinum .
We simply have not been able to eliminate the need for platinum in fuel cells to extract the electricity from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen .
Platinum is a huge factor in the cost of the fuel cell and the larger problem is that we simply do n't have the amount of it necessary to convert all of the vehicles of the world .
I spent a few weeks at Los Alamos with a research group that had been given a hefty grant for finding a solution and all they were doing was shrugging their shoulders at it .
It seems nearly hopeless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't say 'about a zillion to go.
' I would say one big problem to go.
That problem is platinum.
We simply have not been able to eliminate the need for platinum in fuel cells to extract the electricity from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen.
Platinum is a huge factor in the cost of the fuel cell and the larger problem is that we simply don't have the amount of it necessary to convert all of the vehicles of the world.
I spent a few weeks at Los Alamos with a research group that had been given a hefty grant for finding a solution and all they were doing was shrugging their shoulders at it.
It seems nearly hopeless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508995</id>
	<title>Re:Urban legend != actual facts!!!!</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1246201920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Physics: learn it, use it, benefit from it. (hint: application of kinetic energy would be a starting point to understanding this)</p></div><p>Ok, professor. We'll run an experiment to test this. Assistants will drop water balloons onto each of our heads from a height of 8 meters. I'll test the room temperature balloons, and you can test the frozen ones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Physics : learn it , use it , benefit from it .
( hint : application of kinetic energy would be a starting point to understanding this ) Ok , professor .
We 'll run an experiment to test this .
Assistants will drop water balloons onto each of our heads from a height of 8 meters .
I 'll test the room temperature balloons , and you can test the frozen ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Physics: learn it, use it, benefit from it.
(hint: application of kinetic energy would be a starting point to understanding this)Ok, professor.
We'll run an experiment to test this.
Assistants will drop water balloons onto each of our heads from a height of 8 meters.
I'll test the room temperature balloons, and you can test the frozen ones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510379</id>
	<title>Re:Read TFA ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246215420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Throw in a little water and it's easy to <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/21355/" title="technologyreview.com" rel="nofollow">"convert sunlight into hydrogen"</a> [technologyreview.com]. That's a silly way to phrase it, since you're really using sunlight to bust up water molecules, but that's what they call it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Throw in a little water and it 's easy to " convert sunlight into hydrogen " [ technologyreview.com ] .
That 's a silly way to phrase it , since you 're really using sunlight to bust up water molecules , but that 's what they call it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Throw in a little water and it's easy to "convert sunlight into hydrogen" [technologyreview.com].
That's a silly way to phrase it, since you're really using sunlight to bust up water molecules, but that's what they call it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507931</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509141</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246203660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. If you&rsquo;ve got a photovoltaic array on your roof, you can analyze water and get essentially free hydrogen.</p></div><p>I analyzed water and all I got was this di-hydrogen monoxide!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
If you    ve got a photovoltaic array on your roof , you can analyze water and get essentially free hydrogen.I analyzed water and all I got was this di-hydrogen monoxide !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
If you’ve got a photovoltaic array on your roof, you can analyze water and get essentially free hydrogen.I analyzed water and all I got was this di-hydrogen monoxide!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509521</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246207560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Focusing on the efficiency of those larger cars &amp; trucks (and sports cars), however, requires ditching the philosophy of asceticism and accepting that many people do not want to drive tiny underpowered cars (and they don't want to stop eating red meat or running the AC either, damnit) and working with them to minimize the impact of the cars they do drive, the meat they do eat and the AC they do run. If we can't get to there from here, then environmentalism will always be something that a few people care very strongly about and the rest of the population cares not at all.</p></div><p>No, the important thing is to make sure that people pay the real cost of what they consume. Their behavior would change automatically, and I'm sure it'd be amazing to watch attitudes change after years of selfish subsidization and environmental destruction.</p><p>For instance, if you passed a law to stop the agribusinesses from polluting the Mississippi so much that a dead zone the size of New Jersey forms in the Gulf, meat prices would probably triple. If people paid as much at the tank as it costs to maintain our armies in the middle east, gas prices would at least double. Vehicles should be taxed for their wear and tear on our road system. If you want to drive an F350, fine, but since it weighs three times what my car does, you should pay three times as much into the federal tax system to pay for the infrastructure.</p><p>I don't care if you have a 20 ounce steak every night and park a fleet of hummers in your front yard. But I do want you to pay their full cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Focusing on the efficiency of those larger cars &amp; trucks ( and sports cars ) , however , requires ditching the philosophy of asceticism and accepting that many people do not want to drive tiny underpowered cars ( and they do n't want to stop eating red meat or running the AC either , damnit ) and working with them to minimize the impact of the cars they do drive , the meat they do eat and the AC they do run .
If we ca n't get to there from here , then environmentalism will always be something that a few people care very strongly about and the rest of the population cares not at all.No , the important thing is to make sure that people pay the real cost of what they consume .
Their behavior would change automatically , and I 'm sure it 'd be amazing to watch attitudes change after years of selfish subsidization and environmental destruction.For instance , if you passed a law to stop the agribusinesses from polluting the Mississippi so much that a dead zone the size of New Jersey forms in the Gulf , meat prices would probably triple .
If people paid as much at the tank as it costs to maintain our armies in the middle east , gas prices would at least double .
Vehicles should be taxed for their wear and tear on our road system .
If you want to drive an F350 , fine , but since it weighs three times what my car does , you should pay three times as much into the federal tax system to pay for the infrastructure.I do n't care if you have a 20 ounce steak every night and park a fleet of hummers in your front yard .
But I do want you to pay their full cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Focusing on the efficiency of those larger cars &amp; trucks (and sports cars), however, requires ditching the philosophy of asceticism and accepting that many people do not want to drive tiny underpowered cars (and they don't want to stop eating red meat or running the AC either, damnit) and working with them to minimize the impact of the cars they do drive, the meat they do eat and the AC they do run.
If we can't get to there from here, then environmentalism will always be something that a few people care very strongly about and the rest of the population cares not at all.No, the important thing is to make sure that people pay the real cost of what they consume.
Their behavior would change automatically, and I'm sure it'd be amazing to watch attitudes change after years of selfish subsidization and environmental destruction.For instance, if you passed a law to stop the agribusinesses from polluting the Mississippi so much that a dead zone the size of New Jersey forms in the Gulf, meat prices would probably triple.
If people paid as much at the tank as it costs to maintain our armies in the middle east, gas prices would at least double.
Vehicles should be taxed for their wear and tear on our road system.
If you want to drive an F350, fine, but since it weighs three times what my car does, you should pay three times as much into the federal tax system to pay for the infrastructure.I don't care if you have a 20 ounce steak every night and park a fleet of hummers in your front yard.
But I do want you to pay their full cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28513073</id>
	<title>Re:Unique properties of chicken feathers</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1246284720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-1156" title="state.va.us">Similar</a> [state.va.us] in Virginia, except California requires the feathers to be from live birds, making the disposal of carbonized feathers from the backs of live birds a real PETA issue. </p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...clear water or feathers from live birds...</p></div><p>It's interesting how similar the language is. California:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>a vehicle ( )2 shall not be driven or moved on any highway unless the vehicle is so constructed, covered, or loaded as to prevent any of its contents or load other than clear water or feathers from live birds from dropping, sifting, leaking, blowing, spilling, or otherwise escaping from the vehicle.</p></div><p>Virginia:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>No vehicle shall be operated or moved on any highway unless it is so constructed, maintained, and loaded as to prevent its contents from dropping, sifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping.</p></div><p>Do you think some powerful lobby wrote the legislation?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar [ state.va.us ] in Virginia , except California requires the feathers to be from live birds , making the disposal of carbonized feathers from the backs of live birds a real PETA issue .
...clear water or feathers from live birds...It 's interesting how similar the language is .
California : a vehicle ( ) 2 shall not be driven or moved on any highway unless the vehicle is so constructed , covered , or loaded as to prevent any of its contents or load other than clear water or feathers from live birds from dropping , sifting , leaking , blowing , spilling , or otherwise escaping from the vehicle.Virginia : No vehicle shall be operated or moved on any highway unless it is so constructed , maintained , and loaded as to prevent its contents from dropping , sifting , leaking , or otherwise escaping.Do you think some powerful lobby wrote the legislation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Similar [state.va.us] in Virginia, except California requires the feathers to be from live birds, making the disposal of carbonized feathers from the backs of live birds a real PETA issue.
...clear water or feathers from live birds...It's interesting how similar the language is.
California:a vehicle ( )2 shall not be driven or moved on any highway unless the vehicle is so constructed, covered, or loaded as to prevent any of its contents or load other than clear water or feathers from live birds from dropping, sifting, leaking, blowing, spilling, or otherwise escaping from the vehicle.Virginia:No vehicle shall be operated or moved on any highway unless it is so constructed, maintained, and loaded as to prevent its contents from dropping, sifting, leaking, or otherwise escaping.Do you think some powerful lobby wrote the legislation?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512683</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1246282440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...energy efficient cities.... there is MORE community, more local services and shops within walking distance, MORE connection with a MORE secure local economy that is MORE reliable, intimate and connected to servicing other local economy relationships of interdependence.</i> </p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan's\_Run\_(1976\_film)" title="wikipedia.org">Logan's Run</a> [wikipedia.org] here we come. We'll all be living in a giant shopping mall soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...energy efficient cities.... there is MORE community , more local services and shops within walking distance , MORE connection with a MORE secure local economy that is MORE reliable , intimate and connected to servicing other local economy relationships of interdependence .
Logan 's Run [ wikipedia.org ] here we come .
We 'll all be living in a giant shopping mall soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...energy efficient cities.... there is MORE community, more local services and shops within walking distance, MORE connection with a MORE secure local economy that is MORE reliable, intimate and connected to servicing other local economy relationships of interdependence.
Logan's Run [wikipedia.org] here we come.
We'll all be living in a giant shopping mall soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510369</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246215360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you&rsquo;ve got a photovoltaic array on your roof, you can analyze water and get essentially free hydrogen. </p></div><p>You clearly have never had to pay for water or lived in a desert.  Plus, even if the current cost isn't inhibitive (for the record you can produce approximately 111 grams of hydrogen per liter of water), a drastic increase in water usage (say 4 million early adopters, using a couple kilograms each for their cars on a weekly basis, a stretch, but still) will definitely drive the price of a liter of water through the roof.  Take, for example, the price of corn, which is a key ingredient of ethanol production, when the government mandated the increase in ethanol, the price of a head of corn shot up, making everything more expensive (from bread to meat, animal feed, pretty much everything).  With that as a precedent, I don't think that simply electrolyzing your own water is a reasonable alternative.  A water recycling system would certainly be an interesting application however, the only problem then being storage of large quantities of water produced as well as other chemical contents (I strongly doubt pure H2O will be the only thing produced in a combustion engine if current exhaust is any example).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you    ve got a photovoltaic array on your roof , you can analyze water and get essentially free hydrogen .
You clearly have never had to pay for water or lived in a desert .
Plus , even if the current cost is n't inhibitive ( for the record you can produce approximately 111 grams of hydrogen per liter of water ) , a drastic increase in water usage ( say 4 million early adopters , using a couple kilograms each for their cars on a weekly basis , a stretch , but still ) will definitely drive the price of a liter of water through the roof .
Take , for example , the price of corn , which is a key ingredient of ethanol production , when the government mandated the increase in ethanol , the price of a head of corn shot up , making everything more expensive ( from bread to meat , animal feed , pretty much everything ) .
With that as a precedent , I do n't think that simply electrolyzing your own water is a reasonable alternative .
A water recycling system would certainly be an interesting application however , the only problem then being storage of large quantities of water produced as well as other chemical contents ( I strongly doubt pure H2O will be the only thing produced in a combustion engine if current exhaust is any example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you’ve got a photovoltaic array on your roof, you can analyze water and get essentially free hydrogen.
You clearly have never had to pay for water or lived in a desert.
Plus, even if the current cost isn't inhibitive (for the record you can produce approximately 111 grams of hydrogen per liter of water), a drastic increase in water usage (say 4 million early adopters, using a couple kilograms each for their cars on a weekly basis, a stretch, but still) will definitely drive the price of a liter of water through the roof.
Take, for example, the price of corn, which is a key ingredient of ethanol production, when the government mandated the increase in ethanol, the price of a head of corn shot up, making everything more expensive (from bread to meat, animal feed, pretty much everything).
With that as a precedent, I don't think that simply electrolyzing your own water is a reasonable alternative.
A water recycling system would certainly be an interesting application however, the only problem then being storage of large quantities of water produced as well as other chemical contents (I strongly doubt pure H2O will be the only thing produced in a combustion engine if current exhaust is any example).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28521159</id>
	<title>My Other Car is Vegan</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1246275960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>see sub.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>see sub .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>see sub.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28515935</id>
	<title>Re:PETA won't hear of it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246298520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck PETA.  Why don't we just reclassify chickens as vegetables?  Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck PETA .
Why do n't we just reclassify chickens as vegetables ?
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck PETA.
Why don't we just reclassify chickens as vegetables?
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511319</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>clickety6</author>
	<datestamp>1246268700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>it's not about how we can make an environmentally friendly vehicles, it's about how we can make this vehicle more environmentally friendly without compromising the characteristics that caused people to buy it in the first place./</em></p><p><em><em>I agree that the government is not doing enough research into cheap penile extension surgery. That could reduce the demand for over-powered, over-sized cars by a good 50\%.</em></em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's not about how we can make an environmentally friendly vehicles , it 's about how we can make this vehicle more environmentally friendly without compromising the characteristics that caused people to buy it in the first place./I agree that the government is not doing enough research into cheap penile extension surgery .
That could reduce the demand for over-powered , over-sized cars by a good 50 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's not about how we can make an environmentally friendly vehicles, it's about how we can make this vehicle more environmentally friendly without compromising the characteristics that caused people to buy it in the first place./I agree that the government is not doing enough research into cheap penile extension surgery.
That could reduce the demand for over-powered, over-sized cars by a good 50\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509899</id>
	<title>Re:NPR Interview</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246211100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I think it's an excellent effort and I hope it bears fruit.</p></div><p>No, it bears <i>meat</i>.  It's <i>chicken</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's an excellent effort and I hope it bears fruit.No , it bears meat .
It 's chicken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think it's an excellent effort and I hope it bears fruit.No, it bears meat.
It's chicken.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28513371</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Wrath0fb0b</author>
	<datestamp>1246286880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> They are selling it as MORE, not less, because there is MORE community, more local services and shops within walking distance, MORE connection with a MORE secure local economy that is MORE reliable, intimate and connected to servicing other local economy relationships of interdependence.</p></div><p>No thanks. I'm all for local control and if that's the kind of locality you would like to live in, I really do wish you the best. Unfortunately, this won't work for me on so many levels.</p><p>Let's start with the basics -- I live about a stone's throw from each of my neighbors and <b>I like it that way</b>. I would not chose to live at much higher density because I like having my space. Moreover, it removes the sources of petty conflict (random e.g. that's fresh in my mind: my friend got the police called on him for working on his truck in the driveway of his home, the cop had to politely explain to his neighbor that there's nothing illegal with that, even if it's loud and smelly). Similarly, I was reading about places that don't allow line drying (<a href="http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/lifestyles/home\_garden/article/H-CLOT26\_20090625-185602/276372/" title="timesdispatch.com">http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/lifestyles/home\_garden/article/H-CLOT26\_20090625-185602/276372/</a> [timesdispatch.com]) because they don't like the way it looks.  As people live closer and closer together, they get more and more meddlesome. God forbid I should burn my leaves instead of taking them to the city-approved dump where they can charge me $2/bag to take leaves!</p><p>[As an aside, I always find this very puzzling -- I know all my neighbors and their families and kids' names, my friend that lives in a apartment buildings and rowhouses and don't know any of their neighbors. As far as I can see, living in closer proximity does not, in fact, actually create intimacy but actually causes people to retreat further into their personal space. By you logic, Manhattan should be an oasis of personable and pleasantly polite folks.]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't want to have to spend $20 grand every 5 years or so to stay with a current vehicle if my town can be designed to provide most of my needs and I can just walk everywhere, and go HIRE a car on those rare occasions I do need a vehicle. What kind of moronic society continues to build an oil dependent mode of city plan when we are this close to peak oil anyway?</p></div><p>I have never spent $20k on a car and they've each lasted me in excess of 10 years. You don't have to stay current with the latest model if you don't want to (isn't freedom grand). As for the city development, why don't we agree, as I posited at the top, that your city can develop in line with your (plural) shared priorities and mine can develop like we like our cities. Also, there are no traffic jams in my area -- there just aren't enough residents. And I enjoy my ride to and from work, it gives me some time to think and watch the pretty scenery go by.</p><p>Basically, the gist of what I'm saying is that you may have a wonderful solution for some people but don't try to force it on the rest of us because it's not well suited to us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are selling it as MORE , not less , because there is MORE community , more local services and shops within walking distance , MORE connection with a MORE secure local economy that is MORE reliable , intimate and connected to servicing other local economy relationships of interdependence.No thanks .
I 'm all for local control and if that 's the kind of locality you would like to live in , I really do wish you the best .
Unfortunately , this wo n't work for me on so many levels.Let 's start with the basics -- I live about a stone 's throw from each of my neighbors and I like it that way .
I would not chose to live at much higher density because I like having my space .
Moreover , it removes the sources of petty conflict ( random e.g .
that 's fresh in my mind : my friend got the police called on him for working on his truck in the driveway of his home , the cop had to politely explain to his neighbor that there 's nothing illegal with that , even if it 's loud and smelly ) .
Similarly , I was reading about places that do n't allow line drying ( http : //www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/lifestyles/home \ _garden/article/H-CLOT26 \ _20090625-185602/276372/ [ timesdispatch.com ] ) because they do n't like the way it looks .
As people live closer and closer together , they get more and more meddlesome .
God forbid I should burn my leaves instead of taking them to the city-approved dump where they can charge me $ 2/bag to take leaves !
[ As an aside , I always find this very puzzling -- I know all my neighbors and their families and kids ' names , my friend that lives in a apartment buildings and rowhouses and do n't know any of their neighbors .
As far as I can see , living in closer proximity does not , in fact , actually create intimacy but actually causes people to retreat further into their personal space .
By you logic , Manhattan should be an oasis of personable and pleasantly polite folks .
] I do n't want to have to spend $ 20 grand every 5 years or so to stay with a current vehicle if my town can be designed to provide most of my needs and I can just walk everywhere , and go HIRE a car on those rare occasions I do need a vehicle .
What kind of moronic society continues to build an oil dependent mode of city plan when we are this close to peak oil anyway ? I have never spent $ 20k on a car and they 've each lasted me in excess of 10 years .
You do n't have to stay current with the latest model if you do n't want to ( is n't freedom grand ) .
As for the city development , why do n't we agree , as I posited at the top , that your city can develop in line with your ( plural ) shared priorities and mine can develop like we like our cities .
Also , there are no traffic jams in my area -- there just are n't enough residents .
And I enjoy my ride to and from work , it gives me some time to think and watch the pretty scenery go by.Basically , the gist of what I 'm saying is that you may have a wonderful solution for some people but do n't try to force it on the rest of us because it 's not well suited to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They are selling it as MORE, not less, because there is MORE community, more local services and shops within walking distance, MORE connection with a MORE secure local economy that is MORE reliable, intimate and connected to servicing other local economy relationships of interdependence.No thanks.
I'm all for local control and if that's the kind of locality you would like to live in, I really do wish you the best.
Unfortunately, this won't work for me on so many levels.Let's start with the basics -- I live about a stone's throw from each of my neighbors and I like it that way.
I would not chose to live at much higher density because I like having my space.
Moreover, it removes the sources of petty conflict (random e.g.
that's fresh in my mind: my friend got the police called on him for working on his truck in the driveway of his home, the cop had to politely explain to his neighbor that there's nothing illegal with that, even if it's loud and smelly).
Similarly, I was reading about places that don't allow line drying (http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/lifestyles/home\_garden/article/H-CLOT26\_20090625-185602/276372/ [timesdispatch.com]) because they don't like the way it looks.
As people live closer and closer together, they get more and more meddlesome.
God forbid I should burn my leaves instead of taking them to the city-approved dump where they can charge me $2/bag to take leaves!
[As an aside, I always find this very puzzling -- I know all my neighbors and their families and kids' names, my friend that lives in a apartment buildings and rowhouses and don't know any of their neighbors.
As far as I can see, living in closer proximity does not, in fact, actually create intimacy but actually causes people to retreat further into their personal space.
By you logic, Manhattan should be an oasis of personable and pleasantly polite folks.
]I don't want to have to spend $20 grand every 5 years or so to stay with a current vehicle if my town can be designed to provide most of my needs and I can just walk everywhere, and go HIRE a car on those rare occasions I do need a vehicle.
What kind of moronic society continues to build an oil dependent mode of city plan when we are this close to peak oil anyway?I have never spent $20k on a car and they've each lasted me in excess of 10 years.
You don't have to stay current with the latest model if you don't want to (isn't freedom grand).
As for the city development, why don't we agree, as I posited at the top, that your city can develop in line with your (plural) shared priorities and mine can develop like we like our cities.
Also, there are no traffic jams in my area -- there just aren't enough residents.
And I enjoy my ride to and from work, it gives me some time to think and watch the pretty scenery go by.Basically, the gist of what I'm saying is that you may have a wonderful solution for some people but don't try to force it on the rest of us because it's not well suited to us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508461</id>
	<title>Re:Crazier than Bat Shit</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1246196700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>already a thriving industry mining bat shit (guano) for fertilizer and explosives</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>already a thriving industry mining bat shit ( guano ) for fertilizer and explosives</tokentext>
<sentencetext>already a thriving industry mining bat shit (guano) for fertilizer and explosives</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512763</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246282860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then you should be looking at the 110 MPG Mustang by Doug Pelmear.  I keep waiting for it to be a hoax, and it may well be, but they just received orders from four companies for 300,000 engines.</p><p><a href="http://www.toledoonthemove.com/news/news\_story.aspx?id=317870" title="toledoonthemove.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.toledoonthemove.com/news/news\_story.aspx?id=317870</a> [toledoonthemove.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you should be looking at the 110 MPG Mustang by Doug Pelmear .
I keep waiting for it to be a hoax , and it may well be , but they just received orders from four companies for 300,000 engines.http : //www.toledoonthemove.com/news/news \ _story.aspx ? id = 317870 [ toledoonthemove.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you should be looking at the 110 MPG Mustang by Doug Pelmear.
I keep waiting for it to be a hoax, and it may well be, but they just received orders from four companies for 300,000 engines.http://www.toledoonthemove.com/news/news\_story.aspx?id=317870 [toledoonthemove.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509807</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>joe\_frisch</author>
	<datestamp>1246209960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with your statements. I would add though that cars are not a particularly good place to apply new energy technology. Cars are low usage items: A typical car engine operates for only about 10\% of calendar time, and most of that time it is at around 10\% of maximum output. In addition car engines are very constrained by weight, noise, maintainability, and dealing with harsh and variable environments.

Since a significant fraction of fossil fuels are consumed in fixed power plants, these seem a much better place to spend capital to reduce CO2 emissions. Power plants operate at high duty factors (as near 100\% as their reliability and and maintenance schedule will allow).

We have a limited amount of capital to invest in reducing CO2, we should invest it where it will do the most good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your statements .
I would add though that cars are not a particularly good place to apply new energy technology .
Cars are low usage items : A typical car engine operates for only about 10 \ % of calendar time , and most of that time it is at around 10 \ % of maximum output .
In addition car engines are very constrained by weight , noise , maintainability , and dealing with harsh and variable environments .
Since a significant fraction of fossil fuels are consumed in fixed power plants , these seem a much better place to spend capital to reduce CO2 emissions .
Power plants operate at high duty factors ( as near 100 \ % as their reliability and and maintenance schedule will allow ) .
We have a limited amount of capital to invest in reducing CO2 , we should invest it where it will do the most good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your statements.
I would add though that cars are not a particularly good place to apply new energy technology.
Cars are low usage items: A typical car engine operates for only about 10\% of calendar time, and most of that time it is at around 10\% of maximum output.
In addition car engines are very constrained by weight, noise, maintainability, and dealing with harsh and variable environments.
Since a significant fraction of fossil fuels are consumed in fixed power plants, these seem a much better place to spend capital to reduce CO2 emissions.
Power plants operate at high duty factors (as near 100\% as their reliability and and maintenance schedule will allow).
We have a limited amount of capital to invest in reducing CO2, we should invest it where it will do the most good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508521</id>
	<title>A couple of things...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246197180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The last...well, hydrogen can trivially be made by running a current through water.</p></div><p>Basic electrolysis is pretty lossy up-front.  It makes batteries look *good*.  (41\% efficient for systems running at 100 celsius.  64\% for 850 celsuis.  Not sure that's suitable for consumer equipment!)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If you've got a photovoltaic array on your roof, you can analyze water and get essentially free hydrogen.</p></div><p>It's electrolyze, not analyze.  Also, widely manufactured photovoltaics are still expensive.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>While we'll never see cars powered in "real time" by the sun, it's quite easy make in a couple days as much hydrogen as you'll need to power your car for a week of normal driving.</p></div><p>I think the photovoltaics you'd need to recharge a car in a couple of days are going to be expensive.  Let's say your family drives one half hour a day.  This is pretty reasonable.  A 15 minute commute during the weekdays and some chores on the weekend.  To get yourself a reasonable stack of Thundersky Lithium Ion Phosphate batteries, you'd need to buy something like 30 of them, which is the size of the stack for Kearon's electric Ford Capri.  This gets the stack up to 96 volts and can supposedly push the Capri 90 km or about 55 miles.  It's also 8640 watt-hours.  But remember, your elecrolysis is only 41\% efficient, which means you have to produce 21073 watt-hours.  There's going to be about 5 hours of peak sunlight per day, so let's just say the two days recharging is equivalent to 15 peak hours.  This works out to about 1400 watts of solar panels.  That's about $10,000 of new solar panels for one 55 mile charge completed in two days.  We need about 210 miles range for the 30 minutes of driving a day.  For that, you'd need something like $35,000 of solar panels.</p><p>So our back of the envelope calcs, with an optimistically small car and very modest driving distances with an unreasonable assumption of EV like efficiency, still gives us a pretty hurtful dollar figure.  And this is just the solar panels.  The electrolyzer is going to cost money as well.  However, if you take the solar cells out of the equation, this starts to look good for us.  Why?  Because much of the cost of an electric vehicle is in the batteries.  If we can electrolyze and burn our own hydrogen from a tank that actually fits in a car, we can still come out ahead, assuming the storage systems don't wear out.</p><p><a href="http://www.evcapri.com/" title="evcapri.com">http://www.evcapri.com/</a> [evcapri.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The last...well , hydrogen can trivially be made by running a current through water.Basic electrolysis is pretty lossy up-front .
It makes batteries look * good * .
( 41 \ % efficient for systems running at 100 celsius .
64 \ % for 850 celsuis .
Not sure that 's suitable for consumer equipment !
) If you 've got a photovoltaic array on your roof , you can analyze water and get essentially free hydrogen.It 's electrolyze , not analyze .
Also , widely manufactured photovoltaics are still expensive.While we 'll never see cars powered in " real time " by the sun , it 's quite easy make in a couple days as much hydrogen as you 'll need to power your car for a week of normal driving.I think the photovoltaics you 'd need to recharge a car in a couple of days are going to be expensive .
Let 's say your family drives one half hour a day .
This is pretty reasonable .
A 15 minute commute during the weekdays and some chores on the weekend .
To get yourself a reasonable stack of Thundersky Lithium Ion Phosphate batteries , you 'd need to buy something like 30 of them , which is the size of the stack for Kearon 's electric Ford Capri .
This gets the stack up to 96 volts and can supposedly push the Capri 90 km or about 55 miles .
It 's also 8640 watt-hours .
But remember , your elecrolysis is only 41 \ % efficient , which means you have to produce 21073 watt-hours .
There 's going to be about 5 hours of peak sunlight per day , so let 's just say the two days recharging is equivalent to 15 peak hours .
This works out to about 1400 watts of solar panels .
That 's about $ 10,000 of new solar panels for one 55 mile charge completed in two days .
We need about 210 miles range for the 30 minutes of driving a day .
For that , you 'd need something like $ 35,000 of solar panels.So our back of the envelope calcs , with an optimistically small car and very modest driving distances with an unreasonable assumption of EV like efficiency , still gives us a pretty hurtful dollar figure .
And this is just the solar panels .
The electrolyzer is going to cost money as well .
However , if you take the solar cells out of the equation , this starts to look good for us .
Why ? Because much of the cost of an electric vehicle is in the batteries .
If we can electrolyze and burn our own hydrogen from a tank that actually fits in a car , we can still come out ahead , assuming the storage systems do n't wear out.http : //www.evcapri.com/ [ evcapri.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last...well, hydrogen can trivially be made by running a current through water.Basic electrolysis is pretty lossy up-front.
It makes batteries look *good*.
(41\% efficient for systems running at 100 celsius.
64\% for 850 celsuis.
Not sure that's suitable for consumer equipment!
)If you've got a photovoltaic array on your roof, you can analyze water and get essentially free hydrogen.It's electrolyze, not analyze.
Also, widely manufactured photovoltaics are still expensive.While we'll never see cars powered in "real time" by the sun, it's quite easy make in a couple days as much hydrogen as you'll need to power your car for a week of normal driving.I think the photovoltaics you'd need to recharge a car in a couple of days are going to be expensive.
Let's say your family drives one half hour a day.
This is pretty reasonable.
A 15 minute commute during the weekdays and some chores on the weekend.
To get yourself a reasonable stack of Thundersky Lithium Ion Phosphate batteries, you'd need to buy something like 30 of them, which is the size of the stack for Kearon's electric Ford Capri.
This gets the stack up to 96 volts and can supposedly push the Capri 90 km or about 55 miles.
It's also 8640 watt-hours.
But remember, your elecrolysis is only 41\% efficient, which means you have to produce 21073 watt-hours.
There's going to be about 5 hours of peak sunlight per day, so let's just say the two days recharging is equivalent to 15 peak hours.
This works out to about 1400 watts of solar panels.
That's about $10,000 of new solar panels for one 55 mile charge completed in two days.
We need about 210 miles range for the 30 minutes of driving a day.
For that, you'd need something like $35,000 of solar panels.So our back of the envelope calcs, with an optimistically small car and very modest driving distances with an unreasonable assumption of EV like efficiency, still gives us a pretty hurtful dollar figure.
And this is just the solar panels.
The electrolyzer is going to cost money as well.
However, if you take the solar cells out of the equation, this starts to look good for us.
Why?  Because much of the cost of an electric vehicle is in the batteries.
If we can electrolyze and burn our own hydrogen from a tank that actually fits in a car, we can still come out ahead, assuming the storage systems don't wear out.http://www.evcapri.com/ [evcapri.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508817</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246200180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, correct me if I'm mistaken, but if reality (i.e. the laws of physics vs. our current tech) says those people can't have what they want then they can't. They don't get to pitch a bitch like a petulant, spoiled child.</p><p>The same attitude of "I can have what I want, when I want" as a society caused our current economic crisis. It's not a case of asceticism vs. wanting it all... the laws of nature make it clear that there have to be trade offs and sacrifices. If not immediately, then somewhere down the road.</p><p>I'm not saying we all have to join the Amish tomorrow. It's just that a LOT of people in this country need to get their heads on straight before reality deals them a nasty bitchslap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , correct me if I 'm mistaken , but if reality ( i.e .
the laws of physics vs. our current tech ) says those people ca n't have what they want then they ca n't .
They do n't get to pitch a bitch like a petulant , spoiled child.The same attitude of " I can have what I want , when I want " as a society caused our current economic crisis .
It 's not a case of asceticism vs. wanting it all... the laws of nature make it clear that there have to be trade offs and sacrifices .
If not immediately , then somewhere down the road.I 'm not saying we all have to join the Amish tomorrow .
It 's just that a LOT of people in this country need to get their heads on straight before reality deals them a nasty bitchslap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, correct me if I'm mistaken, but if reality (i.e.
the laws of physics vs. our current tech) says those people can't have what they want then they can't.
They don't get to pitch a bitch like a petulant, spoiled child.The same attitude of "I can have what I want, when I want" as a society caused our current economic crisis.
It's not a case of asceticism vs. wanting it all... the laws of nature make it clear that there have to be trade offs and sacrifices.
If not immediately, then somewhere down the road.I'm not saying we all have to join the Amish tomorrow.
It's just that a LOT of people in this country need to get their heads on straight before reality deals them a nasty bitchslap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508071</id>
	<title>Ten years away</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1246193100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't believe the ten years away figure. Fuel Cell
cars and hydrogen running Internal Combustion engines
are available now. We could start building such cars now,
for example, this <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-hydrogen-car-running-on-empty" title="scientificamerican.com">Honda Demo Vehicle</a> [scientificamerican.com]
the main infrastructure problem, is having hydrogen gas stations.
<p>
-
</p><p>
The idea those sound funny, and i've been laughing at a lot of
the comments here, but chicken feathers are just waste and
nearly free, so what could be cheaper to use for a hydrogen
tank?
</p><p>
-
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Fuel\%20Cells/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Fuel Cell</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed | <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Electric\%20Vehicles/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Electric Vehicle</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe the ten years away figure .
Fuel Cell cars and hydrogen running Internal Combustion engines are available now .
We could start building such cars now , for example , this Honda Demo Vehicle [ scientificamerican.com ] the main infrastructure problem , is having hydrogen gas stations .
- The idea those sound funny , and i 've been laughing at a lot of the comments here , but chicken feathers are just waste and nearly free , so what could be cheaper to use for a hydrogen tank ?
- Fuel Cell [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed | Electric Vehicle [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe the ten years away figure.
Fuel Cell
cars and hydrogen running Internal Combustion engines
are available now.
We could start building such cars now,
for example, this Honda Demo Vehicle [scientificamerican.com]
the main infrastructure problem, is having hydrogen gas stations.
-

The idea those sound funny, and i've been laughing at a lot of
the comments here, but chicken feathers are just waste and
nearly free, so what could be cheaper to use for a hydrogen
tank?
-

Fuel Cell [feeddistiller.com] Feed | Electric Vehicle [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509029</id>
	<title>Foul technology</title>
	<author>GISGEOLOGYGEEK</author>
	<datestamp>1246202400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>haha  now if only chickens could fly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we'd finally have our flying cars!<br>.<br>.<br>cus.gus@hotmail.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>haha now if only chickens could fly ... we 'd finally have our flying cars ! ..cus.gus @ hotmail.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haha  now if only chickens could fly ... we'd finally have our flying cars!..cus.gus@hotmail.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510047</id>
	<title>Re:Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246212240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It uses chicken feathers. You'll have plenty of bare poultry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It uses chicken feathers .
You 'll have plenty of bare poultry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It uses chicken feathers.
You'll have plenty of bare poultry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507873</id>
	<title>Good news</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1246191180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is clucking good news!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is clucking good news !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is clucking good news!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509941</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Eclipse-now</author>
	<datestamp>1246211340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Australia the debate in some quarters is moving beyond energy efficient cars to energy efficient cities. Some proponents do not even mention peak oil or global warming in their talk, and are NOT proposing "ecocities" even though cars are banned within some of these village-town developments. They are selling it as MORE, not less, because there is MORE community, more local services and shops within walking distance, MORE connection with a MORE secure local economy that is MORE reliable, intimate and connected to servicing other local economy relationships of interdependence. Each dollar coming into a Village-Town circulates through the economy numerous times, and the economy of such simple mechanisms of GOOD TOWN PLANNING also generates 80\% of its own economy, creating a more durable local economy during tough times. Existing suburbs can be slowly retrofitted to be car free, as is already happening in Germany. We CAN reclaim the streets, see what is happening in New York. We don't have to be stuck with the current town plan outside your door forever, there are ways to slowly retrofit the world to a post-car model. I'm not saying we totally ELIMINATE the car from all of life, but we can and must massively "discipline" the use of the car. Write to town planners, buy a bike, and... check out what your town's local plans are for peak oil when it hits in a few years.

<br>
<br>

Presented to the University of New South Wales by Claude Lewenz, I highly recommend the Village Towns movie (15 minutes) where the concept is explained further. <br>
<br>

<a href="http://villageforum.com/" title="villageforum.com" rel="nofollow">http://villageforum.com/</a> [villageforum.com]
<br>
<br>
Sometimes less is more.
<br>
<br>



I don't want to have to spend $20 grand every 5 years or so to stay with a current vehicle if my town can be designed to provide most of my needs and I can just walk everywhere, and go HIRE a car on those rare occasions I do need a vehicle. What kind of moronic society continues to build an oil dependent mode of city plan when we are this close to peak oil anyway? The goal should be MORE European than Europe (with Europeans using half the oil of the average American) and further... 20 villages of 500 people each, walled villages with no cars allowed inside, and a local town centre that has the movies, town hall, other facilities. Beautiful, intimate, economically secure, cheaper, safer, cleaner, more fun, less boring, less predictable and more arty: and now GOING MAINSTREAM: not just for eco-village types! (blarrrgh, no thanks!) Yes, this solves global warming and peak oil but you won't hear that from the developer! This is just a better way to live that is MORE fulfilling.

Have fun in your SUV as peak oil hits, or worse, the "uber-expensive" hydrogen economy. I hope it's real fun for you sitting in your high performance vehicle as you speed up to the next traffic jams. Just think: that 10 hours you wasted commuting could have been spent reading a good book, talking to friends as you walk to the local tram stop, or better: arguing with me!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Australia the debate in some quarters is moving beyond energy efficient cars to energy efficient cities .
Some proponents do not even mention peak oil or global warming in their talk , and are NOT proposing " ecocities " even though cars are banned within some of these village-town developments .
They are selling it as MORE , not less , because there is MORE community , more local services and shops within walking distance , MORE connection with a MORE secure local economy that is MORE reliable , intimate and connected to servicing other local economy relationships of interdependence .
Each dollar coming into a Village-Town circulates through the economy numerous times , and the economy of such simple mechanisms of GOOD TOWN PLANNING also generates 80 \ % of its own economy , creating a more durable local economy during tough times .
Existing suburbs can be slowly retrofitted to be car free , as is already happening in Germany .
We CAN reclaim the streets , see what is happening in New York .
We do n't have to be stuck with the current town plan outside your door forever , there are ways to slowly retrofit the world to a post-car model .
I 'm not saying we totally ELIMINATE the car from all of life , but we can and must massively " discipline " the use of the car .
Write to town planners , buy a bike , and... check out what your town 's local plans are for peak oil when it hits in a few years .
Presented to the University of New South Wales by Claude Lewenz , I highly recommend the Village Towns movie ( 15 minutes ) where the concept is explained further .
http : //villageforum.com/ [ villageforum.com ] Sometimes less is more .
I do n't want to have to spend $ 20 grand every 5 years or so to stay with a current vehicle if my town can be designed to provide most of my needs and I can just walk everywhere , and go HIRE a car on those rare occasions I do need a vehicle .
What kind of moronic society continues to build an oil dependent mode of city plan when we are this close to peak oil anyway ?
The goal should be MORE European than Europe ( with Europeans using half the oil of the average American ) and further... 20 villages of 500 people each , walled villages with no cars allowed inside , and a local town centre that has the movies , town hall , other facilities .
Beautiful , intimate , economically secure , cheaper , safer , cleaner , more fun , less boring , less predictable and more arty : and now GOING MAINSTREAM : not just for eco-village types !
( blarrrgh , no thanks !
) Yes , this solves global warming and peak oil but you wo n't hear that from the developer !
This is just a better way to live that is MORE fulfilling .
Have fun in your SUV as peak oil hits , or worse , the " uber-expensive " hydrogen economy .
I hope it 's real fun for you sitting in your high performance vehicle as you speed up to the next traffic jams .
Just think : that 10 hours you wasted commuting could have been spent reading a good book , talking to friends as you walk to the local tram stop , or better : arguing with me !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Australia the debate in some quarters is moving beyond energy efficient cars to energy efficient cities.
Some proponents do not even mention peak oil or global warming in their talk, and are NOT proposing "ecocities" even though cars are banned within some of these village-town developments.
They are selling it as MORE, not less, because there is MORE community, more local services and shops within walking distance, MORE connection with a MORE secure local economy that is MORE reliable, intimate and connected to servicing other local economy relationships of interdependence.
Each dollar coming into a Village-Town circulates through the economy numerous times, and the economy of such simple mechanisms of GOOD TOWN PLANNING also generates 80\% of its own economy, creating a more durable local economy during tough times.
Existing suburbs can be slowly retrofitted to be car free, as is already happening in Germany.
We CAN reclaim the streets, see what is happening in New York.
We don't have to be stuck with the current town plan outside your door forever, there are ways to slowly retrofit the world to a post-car model.
I'm not saying we totally ELIMINATE the car from all of life, but we can and must massively "discipline" the use of the car.
Write to town planners, buy a bike, and... check out what your town's local plans are for peak oil when it hits in a few years.
Presented to the University of New South Wales by Claude Lewenz, I highly recommend the Village Towns movie (15 minutes) where the concept is explained further.
http://villageforum.com/ [villageforum.com]


Sometimes less is more.
I don't want to have to spend $20 grand every 5 years or so to stay with a current vehicle if my town can be designed to provide most of my needs and I can just walk everywhere, and go HIRE a car on those rare occasions I do need a vehicle.
What kind of moronic society continues to build an oil dependent mode of city plan when we are this close to peak oil anyway?
The goal should be MORE European than Europe (with Europeans using half the oil of the average American) and further... 20 villages of 500 people each, walled villages with no cars allowed inside, and a local town centre that has the movies, town hall, other facilities.
Beautiful, intimate, economically secure, cheaper, safer, cleaner, more fun, less boring, less predictable and more arty: and now GOING MAINSTREAM: not just for eco-village types!
(blarrrgh, no thanks!
) Yes, this solves global warming and peak oil but you won't hear that from the developer!
This is just a better way to live that is MORE fulfilling.
Have fun in your SUV as peak oil hits, or worse, the "uber-expensive" hydrogen economy.
I hope it's real fun for you sitting in your high performance vehicle as you speed up to the next traffic jams.
Just think: that 10 hours you wasted commuting could have been spent reading a good book, talking to friends as you walk to the local tram stop, or better: arguing with me!
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509987</id>
	<title>Back to hydrocarbon's eh?</title>
	<author>flyingrobots</author>
	<datestamp>1246211760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm...so they've figured out that storing hydrogen with carbon is actually a great idea.
<br> <br>
Funny, the earth has being doing that for billions of years.  Man, it sure takes us awhile to catch on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm...so they 've figured out that storing hydrogen with carbon is actually a great idea .
Funny , the earth has being doing that for billions of years .
Man , it sure takes us awhile to catch on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm...so they've figured out that storing hydrogen with carbon is actually a great idea.
Funny, the earth has being doing that for billions of years.
Man, it sure takes us awhile to catch on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512435</id>
	<title>Re:Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>instarx</author>
	<datestamp>1246280160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be "simulation" not "emulation".  Emulation is copying the behavior or characteristics of another. They were simulating bird strikes, they were not emulating bird strikes.  And although I know you will argue, they are not synonyms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be " simulation " not " emulation " .
Emulation is copying the behavior or characteristics of another .
They were simulating bird strikes , they were not emulating bird strikes .
And although I know you will argue , they are not synonyms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be "simulation" not "emulation".
Emulation is copying the behavior or characteristics of another.
They were simulating bird strikes, they were not emulating bird strikes.
And although I know you will argue, they are not synonyms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507785</id>
	<title>New metric for H powered cars???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246190400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*pulls up to full service Hydrogen fueling station*<br>"Just put three Leghorns in the tank."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* pulls up to full service Hydrogen fueling station * " Just put three Leghorns in the tank .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*pulls up to full service Hydrogen fueling station*"Just put three Leghorns in the tank.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507917</id>
	<title>chickin'</title>
	<author>Spaham</author>
	<datestamp>1246191720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXfHyDCcTGQ" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXfHyDCcTGQ</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>poooooooooot !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = mXfHyDCcTGQ [ youtube.com ] poooooooooot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXfHyDCcTGQ [youtube.com]poooooooooot !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512659</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Muad'Dave</author>
	<datestamp>1246282200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>There will probably be short-term shortages as practically everyone converts over to these substitutes almost overnight. Your policy will likely result in widespread civil unrest.</i> </p><p>So this is where Thorn calls in the scoops after running out of Soylent Green, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will probably be short-term shortages as practically everyone converts over to these substitutes almost overnight .
Your policy will likely result in widespread civil unrest .
So this is where Thorn calls in the scoops after running out of Soylent Green , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There will probably be short-term shortages as practically everyone converts over to these substitutes almost overnight.
Your policy will likely result in widespread civil unrest.
So this is where Thorn calls in the scoops after running out of Soylent Green, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507803</id>
	<title>Fool!!!</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1246190520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
That's nothing.  You want power?  You want REAL power?
</p><p>
Harness the awesome power of chicken bone.  Ask any programmer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nothing .
You want power ?
You want REAL power ?
Harness the awesome power of chicken bone .
Ask any programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
That's nothing.
You want power?
You want REAL power?
Harness the awesome power of chicken bone.
Ask any programmer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508475</id>
	<title>Re:Good news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246196820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What will KFC use for its secret ingredient now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What will KFC use for its secret ingredient now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What will KFC use for its secret ingredient now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507975</id>
	<title>Somebody paid a researcher to do this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246192140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theres obvious savings in the program to start with - how much hydrogen can a carbonised researcher hold?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theres obvious savings in the program to start with - how much hydrogen can a carbonised researcher hold ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theres obvious savings in the program to start with - how much hydrogen can a carbonised researcher hold?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509347</id>
	<title>Not so correct though.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"The modifications to a modern gasoline-powered engine to make it run on hydrogen are essentially the same as those to make it run off compressed natural gas."</i>
</p><p>Um, <b>no</b>, not at all.
</p><p>Hydrogen can be used in a single a cylinder engine, but because it has an extremely fast a flame front, considerably more so than natural gas <i>(CNG)</i>, then any engine with a common intake runner <i>(like <b>all</b> modern multiple cylinder engines)</i> will cause preignition in all the cylinders, rendering the engine useless for doing any sort of useful work.
</p><p>I order to burn gaseous hydrogen in multiple cylinder engines, one needs to use completely separate intake runners to each cylinder, and other expensive <i>(and illegal)</i> modifications.
</p><p>You're not as educated on this issue as you seem to believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The modifications to a modern gasoline-powered engine to make it run on hydrogen are essentially the same as those to make it run off compressed natural gas .
" Um , no , not at all .
Hydrogen can be used in a single a cylinder engine , but because it has an extremely fast a flame front , considerably more so than natural gas ( CNG ) , then any engine with a common intake runner ( like all modern multiple cylinder engines ) will cause preignition in all the cylinders , rendering the engine useless for doing any sort of useful work .
I order to burn gaseous hydrogen in multiple cylinder engines , one needs to use completely separate intake runners to each cylinder , and other expensive ( and illegal ) modifications .
You 're not as educated on this issue as you seem to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "The modifications to a modern gasoline-powered engine to make it run on hydrogen are essentially the same as those to make it run off compressed natural gas.
"
Um, no, not at all.
Hydrogen can be used in a single a cylinder engine, but because it has an extremely fast a flame front, considerably more so than natural gas (CNG), then any engine with a common intake runner (like all modern multiple cylinder engines) will cause preignition in all the cylinders, rendering the engine useless for doing any sort of useful work.
I order to burn gaseous hydrogen in multiple cylinder engines, one needs to use completely separate intake runners to each cylinder, and other expensive (and illegal) modifications.
You're not as educated on this issue as you seem to believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508639</id>
	<title>Re:NPR Interview</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246198200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I understand it, they use chicken feathers to cook down into a special kind of feed for cattle. I also heard this on NPR (national petroleum radio).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , they use chicken feathers to cook down into a special kind of feed for cattle .
I also heard this on NPR ( national petroleum radio ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, they use chicken feathers to cook down into a special kind of feed for cattle.
I also heard this on NPR (national petroleum radio).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509323</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Sorny</author>
	<datestamp>1246205880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not all sports cars get shitty mileage.

My 2002 Corvette Z06 gets a combined 24MPG, and routinely hits 28-30MPG on long freeway trips. My previous Vette, a 2000 Z19 hardtop, averaged 25MPG, and got 33MPG on a trip from Phoenix to Minneapolis.

Both of the cars have 5.7L V8 motors and 6-speed manual transmissions. The Z gets worse mileage not because of the extra 50HP/TQ, but because it is geared shorter (roughly 250-350RPM higher at any speed in any gear).

I'm not claiming either car is excellent for fuel economy, but you can't say sports cars should be lumped in with trucks when it comes to fuel economy. Just because none of the import sports car makers have figured out how to make a lot of power and get decent mileage, is no reason to badmouth all sports cars. Qualify your statements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all sports cars get shitty mileage .
My 2002 Corvette Z06 gets a combined 24MPG , and routinely hits 28-30MPG on long freeway trips .
My previous Vette , a 2000 Z19 hardtop , averaged 25MPG , and got 33MPG on a trip from Phoenix to Minneapolis .
Both of the cars have 5.7L V8 motors and 6-speed manual transmissions .
The Z gets worse mileage not because of the extra 50HP/TQ , but because it is geared shorter ( roughly 250-350RPM higher at any speed in any gear ) .
I 'm not claiming either car is excellent for fuel economy , but you ca n't say sports cars should be lumped in with trucks when it comes to fuel economy .
Just because none of the import sports car makers have figured out how to make a lot of power and get decent mileage , is no reason to badmouth all sports cars .
Qualify your statements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all sports cars get shitty mileage.
My 2002 Corvette Z06 gets a combined 24MPG, and routinely hits 28-30MPG on long freeway trips.
My previous Vette, a 2000 Z19 hardtop, averaged 25MPG, and got 33MPG on a trip from Phoenix to Minneapolis.
Both of the cars have 5.7L V8 motors and 6-speed manual transmissions.
The Z gets worse mileage not because of the extra 50HP/TQ, but because it is geared shorter (roughly 250-350RPM higher at any speed in any gear).
I'm not claiming either car is excellent for fuel economy, but you can't say sports cars should be lumped in with trucks when it comes to fuel economy.
Just because none of the import sports car makers have figured out how to make a lot of power and get decent mileage, is no reason to badmouth all sports cars.
Qualify your statements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514495</id>
	<title>Re:Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1246292640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Where is my right to bare poultry?<br><br>On aisle 4, next to the salad dressing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Where is my right to bare poultry ? On aisle 4 , next to the salad dressing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Where is my right to bare poultry?On aisle 4, next to the salad dressing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509513</id>
	<title>Chicken Feather Charcoal IS carbon nanotubes</title>
	<author>AllParadox</author>
	<datestamp>1246207380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is this so surprising?

My understanding was that carbonized Chicken Feathers, like many charcoals obtained from natural biologic materials, contains significant amounts of carbon nanotubes, buckyballs, and all sorts of unrelated glop.

The nanotubes cannot be separated from the glop, so researchers write off the whole thing as a failure.

Now to find the reference.  That is going to be a pain.  I heard this a long time ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this so surprising ?
My understanding was that carbonized Chicken Feathers , like many charcoals obtained from natural biologic materials , contains significant amounts of carbon nanotubes , buckyballs , and all sorts of unrelated glop .
The nanotubes can not be separated from the glop , so researchers write off the whole thing as a failure .
Now to find the reference .
That is going to be a pain .
I heard this a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this so surprising?
My understanding was that carbonized Chicken Feathers, like many charcoals obtained from natural biologic materials, contains significant amounts of carbon nanotubes, buckyballs, and all sorts of unrelated glop.
The nanotubes cannot be separated from the glop, so researchers write off the whole thing as a failure.
Now to find the reference.
That is going to be a pain.
I heard this a long time ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28523005</id>
	<title>Re:Urban legend != actual facts!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246286220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is neither KE nor impulse. Furthermore, impulse doesn't have to do with how quickly force is transferred. It is the integral of the force with respect to time.</p><p>Very simply, things break because of stress. Stress is force divided by area. Decrease the force or increase the area and it's less likely to break. The thawed chicken has more contact area, and it decelerates over a greater period of time so it has lower peak forces. The same applies for the pipe wrench vs. laundry example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is neither KE nor impulse .
Furthermore , impulse does n't have to do with how quickly force is transferred .
It is the integral of the force with respect to time.Very simply , things break because of stress .
Stress is force divided by area .
Decrease the force or increase the area and it 's less likely to break .
The thawed chicken has more contact area , and it decelerates over a greater period of time so it has lower peak forces .
The same applies for the pipe wrench vs. laundry example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is neither KE nor impulse.
Furthermore, impulse doesn't have to do with how quickly force is transferred.
It is the integral of the force with respect to time.Very simply, things break because of stress.
Stress is force divided by area.
Decrease the force or increase the area and it's less likely to break.
The thawed chicken has more contact area, and it decelerates over a greater period of time so it has lower peak forces.
The same applies for the pipe wrench vs. laundry example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28515647</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246297620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are you asking the parent to qualify his statement? I think it stands perfectly, as-is.</p><p>I think he is advocating to the environmentalists that you, and people like you, have valid reasons for wanting this type of car. And, that if they want their movement to succeed, that they need to keep people like you in mind when coming up with their eco-friendly solutions.</p><p>In reality, your corvettes are a very good target for the environmentalists to bitch about. From the environmentalist point of view, they represent all the wrong reasons to buy a car. And, from a practical point of view, they are correct. (I still think you can have one if you want one.)</p><p>Not meant as an insult, but, your corvette(s) pretty much have a single purpose - ego boost.</p><p>Your corvette is useless for doing anything other than dragging a maximum of two people around (with minimal luggage). No argument that they are a lot of fun to drive (if the police don't catch you). But, that is all they can really do.</p><p>Contrast them with trucks:</p><p>A truck is designed to haul cargo, and is meant to accomplish work. It gets progressively worse fuel mileage the harder it is worked.</p><p>Some people treat them as a car, and there are plenty on the road that never haul anything larger than an extra large package of paper towels. So here, they fall into the same class as a sports car (albeit an odd subclass). So yes, this is ego-boost, too.</p><p>But, that is not the intended purpose of a truck.</p><p>A truck, even though it might get quite a bit worse fuel mileage than your corvette, gets a free pass (or should, as long as it is used for its intended purpose), because it is actually useful, and practical (again - only if you have a need for it).</p><p>A truck is much more efficient than your corvette ever thought about being (for intended purpose), and, at the same time, it can still accomplish everything your corvette can (except top speed, and handling),. Sometimes, they can be just as fun to drive - just in a different way.</p><p>I think that sports cars should not be lumped in with trucks, too.</p><p>However, it's because trucks are more efficient, regardless of fuel efficiency, when the task at hand is considered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are you asking the parent to qualify his statement ?
I think it stands perfectly , as-is.I think he is advocating to the environmentalists that you , and people like you , have valid reasons for wanting this type of car .
And , that if they want their movement to succeed , that they need to keep people like you in mind when coming up with their eco-friendly solutions.In reality , your corvettes are a very good target for the environmentalists to bitch about .
From the environmentalist point of view , they represent all the wrong reasons to buy a car .
And , from a practical point of view , they are correct .
( I still think you can have one if you want one .
) Not meant as an insult , but , your corvette ( s ) pretty much have a single purpose - ego boost.Your corvette is useless for doing anything other than dragging a maximum of two people around ( with minimal luggage ) .
No argument that they are a lot of fun to drive ( if the police do n't catch you ) .
But , that is all they can really do.Contrast them with trucks : A truck is designed to haul cargo , and is meant to accomplish work .
It gets progressively worse fuel mileage the harder it is worked.Some people treat them as a car , and there are plenty on the road that never haul anything larger than an extra large package of paper towels .
So here , they fall into the same class as a sports car ( albeit an odd subclass ) .
So yes , this is ego-boost , too.But , that is not the intended purpose of a truck.A truck , even though it might get quite a bit worse fuel mileage than your corvette , gets a free pass ( or should , as long as it is used for its intended purpose ) , because it is actually useful , and practical ( again - only if you have a need for it ) .A truck is much more efficient than your corvette ever thought about being ( for intended purpose ) , and , at the same time , it can still accomplish everything your corvette can ( except top speed , and handling ) , .
Sometimes , they can be just as fun to drive - just in a different way.I think that sports cars should not be lumped in with trucks , too.However , it 's because trucks are more efficient , regardless of fuel efficiency , when the task at hand is considered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are you asking the parent to qualify his statement?
I think it stands perfectly, as-is.I think he is advocating to the environmentalists that you, and people like you, have valid reasons for wanting this type of car.
And, that if they want their movement to succeed, that they need to keep people like you in mind when coming up with their eco-friendly solutions.In reality, your corvettes are a very good target for the environmentalists to bitch about.
From the environmentalist point of view, they represent all the wrong reasons to buy a car.
And, from a practical point of view, they are correct.
(I still think you can have one if you want one.
)Not meant as an insult, but, your corvette(s) pretty much have a single purpose - ego boost.Your corvette is useless for doing anything other than dragging a maximum of two people around (with minimal luggage).
No argument that they are a lot of fun to drive (if the police don't catch you).
But, that is all they can really do.Contrast them with trucks:A truck is designed to haul cargo, and is meant to accomplish work.
It gets progressively worse fuel mileage the harder it is worked.Some people treat them as a car, and there are plenty on the road that never haul anything larger than an extra large package of paper towels.
So here, they fall into the same class as a sports car (albeit an odd subclass).
So yes, this is ego-boost, too.But, that is not the intended purpose of a truck.A truck, even though it might get quite a bit worse fuel mileage than your corvette, gets a free pass (or should, as long as it is used for its intended purpose), because it is actually useful, and practical (again - only if you have a need for it).A truck is much more efficient than your corvette ever thought about being (for intended purpose), and, at the same time, it can still accomplish everything your corvette can (except top speed, and handling),.
Sometimes, they can be just as fun to drive - just in a different way.I think that sports cars should not be lumped in with trucks, too.However, it's because trucks are more efficient, regardless of fuel efficiency, when the task at hand is considered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508927</id>
	<title>What I want to know</title>
	<author>baegucb</author>
	<datestamp>1246201440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"He experimented for years with various ways to use feathers and eventually wondered if they might store hydrogen."</p><p>Now did the professor just wake one one day and say "Aha! I know how to solve the energy crisis! Chicken feathers!"? It seems to be very original thinking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" He experimented for years with various ways to use feathers and eventually wondered if they might store hydrogen .
" Now did the professor just wake one one day and say " Aha !
I know how to solve the energy crisis !
Chicken feathers ! " ?
It seems to be very original thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He experimented for years with various ways to use feathers and eventually wondered if they might store hydrogen.
"Now did the professor just wake one one day and say "Aha!
I know how to solve the energy crisis!
Chicken feathers!"?
It seems to be very original thinking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512709</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246282620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If an Electric vehicle (EV) gets the equivalent of 50 mpg, an equivalent hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (HFCV) gets the equivalent of 30 mpg when the hydrogen is made from reformatted natural gas.  However, when the hydrogen is made by electrolysis, the equivalent MPG drops to 12.  That means I would have to have 4 times as many solar cells on my roof for an HFCV to go the same distance as an EV.</p><p>To me, there are too many technical issues with HFCVs that have be solved and hydrogen production is one of the biggest based on the above numbers but it is great to see advances being made on the storage front.  Molecular storage of hydrogen is one of the main issues as well as operational ability in cold weather that need to be solved.</p><p>Home Power magazine had an article where a solar hot water (SHW) system saved 3100 kwhr a year.  If you drive an EV 310 times a year, you could use 10 kwhrs of that saved electricity.  That would be enough to propel you 30 to 40 miles on that 10 kwhrs of electricity.  Electric rates in my area are around $0.10/kwhr or a $1.00 to go those 30 to 40 miles.  Gasoline is creeping up to $3.00/gallon.  It would take about a gallon and a half to go those 30 to 40 miles in an equivalent car or about $4.50.  The savings is $3.50 per drive or $1085/year.  The cost of a SHW system is around $8k to $10k according to the article.  It would take 8 to 10 years at current gasoline prices to pay off the SHW system.  After that your first 30 to 40 miles is essentially "free" with respect to your electric bill before the SHW system.</p><p>This also means that your lifestyle is contributing to whatever other electrical usage you use.  Time to add solar heat and photovoltaics to mitigate your other electrical usage.</p><p>The additional benefits of an EV/SHW combo are: a decrease in reliance on imported fossil fuels, less attribution to gasoline leakage into our ground water, no use of oil in a crankcase, not tail pipe emission but shifting of lesser emissions to a smoke stack, no emissions for ground level ozone formation, quieter and **cooler** operating temperatures which means less A/C in the summer due to nearby engines and tail pipe heat conduction and convection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If an Electric vehicle ( EV ) gets the equivalent of 50 mpg , an equivalent hydrogen fuel cell vehicle ( HFCV ) gets the equivalent of 30 mpg when the hydrogen is made from reformatted natural gas .
However , when the hydrogen is made by electrolysis , the equivalent MPG drops to 12 .
That means I would have to have 4 times as many solar cells on my roof for an HFCV to go the same distance as an EV.To me , there are too many technical issues with HFCVs that have be solved and hydrogen production is one of the biggest based on the above numbers but it is great to see advances being made on the storage front .
Molecular storage of hydrogen is one of the main issues as well as operational ability in cold weather that need to be solved.Home Power magazine had an article where a solar hot water ( SHW ) system saved 3100 kwhr a year .
If you drive an EV 310 times a year , you could use 10 kwhrs of that saved electricity .
That would be enough to propel you 30 to 40 miles on that 10 kwhrs of electricity .
Electric rates in my area are around $ 0.10/kwhr or a $ 1.00 to go those 30 to 40 miles .
Gasoline is creeping up to $ 3.00/gallon .
It would take about a gallon and a half to go those 30 to 40 miles in an equivalent car or about $ 4.50 .
The savings is $ 3.50 per drive or $ 1085/year .
The cost of a SHW system is around $ 8k to $ 10k according to the article .
It would take 8 to 10 years at current gasoline prices to pay off the SHW system .
After that your first 30 to 40 miles is essentially " free " with respect to your electric bill before the SHW system.This also means that your lifestyle is contributing to whatever other electrical usage you use .
Time to add solar heat and photovoltaics to mitigate your other electrical usage.The additional benefits of an EV/SHW combo are : a decrease in reliance on imported fossil fuels , less attribution to gasoline leakage into our ground water , no use of oil in a crankcase , not tail pipe emission but shifting of lesser emissions to a smoke stack , no emissions for ground level ozone formation , quieter and * * cooler * * operating temperatures which means less A/C in the summer due to nearby engines and tail pipe heat conduction and convection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If an Electric vehicle (EV) gets the equivalent of 50 mpg, an equivalent hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (HFCV) gets the equivalent of 30 mpg when the hydrogen is made from reformatted natural gas.
However, when the hydrogen is made by electrolysis, the equivalent MPG drops to 12.
That means I would have to have 4 times as many solar cells on my roof for an HFCV to go the same distance as an EV.To me, there are too many technical issues with HFCVs that have be solved and hydrogen production is one of the biggest based on the above numbers but it is great to see advances being made on the storage front.
Molecular storage of hydrogen is one of the main issues as well as operational ability in cold weather that need to be solved.Home Power magazine had an article where a solar hot water (SHW) system saved 3100 kwhr a year.
If you drive an EV 310 times a year, you could use 10 kwhrs of that saved electricity.
That would be enough to propel you 30 to 40 miles on that 10 kwhrs of electricity.
Electric rates in my area are around $0.10/kwhr or a $1.00 to go those 30 to 40 miles.
Gasoline is creeping up to $3.00/gallon.
It would take about a gallon and a half to go those 30 to 40 miles in an equivalent car or about $4.50.
The savings is $3.50 per drive or $1085/year.
The cost of a SHW system is around $8k to $10k according to the article.
It would take 8 to 10 years at current gasoline prices to pay off the SHW system.
After that your first 30 to 40 miles is essentially "free" with respect to your electric bill before the SHW system.This also means that your lifestyle is contributing to whatever other electrical usage you use.
Time to add solar heat and photovoltaics to mitigate your other electrical usage.The additional benefits of an EV/SHW combo are: a decrease in reliance on imported fossil fuels, less attribution to gasoline leakage into our ground water, no use of oil in a crankcase, not tail pipe emission but shifting of lesser emissions to a smoke stack, no emissions for ground level ozone formation, quieter and **cooler** operating temperatures which means less A/C in the summer due to nearby engines and tail pipe heat conduction and convection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510081</id>
	<title>Oh hell yes!</title>
	<author>Greg\_D</author>
	<datestamp>1246212600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We get to piss off the vegans, environmentalists, and anti-environmentalists, all at the same time!</p><p>This is fucking BRILLIANT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We get to piss off the vegans , environmentalists , and anti-environmentalists , all at the same time ! This is fucking BRILLIANT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We get to piss off the vegans, environmentalists, and anti-environmentalists, all at the same time!This is fucking BRILLIANT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510475</id>
	<title>Uh no. . .</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1246216320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is now, and has only ever been one problem with the hydrogen economy.<br><br>The cost and durability of fuel cells.<br><br>When was the last time you heard someone say that we need to solve some issues before we can use natural gas?  Hydrogen is not much less energy dense, nor is it much more difficult to work with.  Storing the hydrogen is a non-issue, we've been storing gasses under pressure for quite a while now.<br><br>If the the cost of fuel cells comes down another 10 fold, and we can supply all the need for PEMs, we will have a hydrogen power infrastructure.  Until then, hydrogen is nothing special.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is now , and has only ever been one problem with the hydrogen economy.The cost and durability of fuel cells.When was the last time you heard someone say that we need to solve some issues before we can use natural gas ?
Hydrogen is not much less energy dense , nor is it much more difficult to work with .
Storing the hydrogen is a non-issue , we 've been storing gasses under pressure for quite a while now.If the the cost of fuel cells comes down another 10 fold , and we can supply all the need for PEMs , we will have a hydrogen power infrastructure .
Until then , hydrogen is nothing special .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is now, and has only ever been one problem with the hydrogen economy.The cost and durability of fuel cells.When was the last time you heard someone say that we need to solve some issues before we can use natural gas?
Hydrogen is not much less energy dense, nor is it much more difficult to work with.
Storing the hydrogen is a non-issue, we've been storing gasses under pressure for quite a while now.If the the cost of fuel cells comes down another 10 fold, and we can supply all the need for PEMs, we will have a hydrogen power infrastructure.
Until then, hydrogen is nothing special.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507925</id>
	<title>Damn the pigs</title>
	<author>R0UTE</author>
	<datestamp>1246191720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only swine flu hadn't taken over from bird flu we'd have an abundant supply of the feathers as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only swine flu had n't taken over from bird flu we 'd have an abundant supply of the feathers as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only swine flu hadn't taken over from bird flu we'd have an abundant supply of the feathers as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512755</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1246282860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I fear that the modern environmentalism is pushing in the wrong direction by becoming ascetic -- by telling us that our wants and desires are bad because they are bad for the environment instead of focusing on way to satisfy those wants in an environmentally friendly way.</i></p><p>I see this as a legacy feature of 1970's political "environmentalism" that is dying rapidly in the modern environmental movement because the puritanical approach to political change is unsustainable.  People are never going to choose what the puritans want them too without coercive inducements, and coercive inducements are incredibly costly:  they involve massive deadweight losses, as the Soviets learned to their cost and the Chinese are about to find out about.</p><p>So anyone who really cares about the environment and isn't just about perfectly ignorant of economics will focus on market-based and technological solutions to environmental issues.  They will promote cap and trade schemes for pollutants and they will fight against subsidies for unsustainable energy sources like oil, coal and especially natural gas (which has a depressingly small world-wide supply relative to human needs.)</p><p>Market-based economics with aggressive capture of externalities is the tool that has proven to be by far the most effective at promoting the good of the environment, in part because it leaves the question of how to deal with those conditions up to individuals.  The focus on capturing externalities is also important because they are what we care about, whereas things like CAFE limits are anti-market forces that have nothing to do with the amount of pollutants produced.  Who cares how many cars are sold with what gas millage?  What matters is how much they pollute, which depends on all kinds of things like how well maintained they are, how much they are driven, and how much time they spend idling.</p><p>Only someone who didn't care two pins for the environment would focus on the irrelevant ("you can't buy a big car") when the relevant ("you must buy credits to emit pollutants") is staring them in the face.  The puritans have pretty much lost on this issue, although the dinosaurs of the Party in Washington are still not quite aware of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fear that the modern environmentalism is pushing in the wrong direction by becoming ascetic -- by telling us that our wants and desires are bad because they are bad for the environment instead of focusing on way to satisfy those wants in an environmentally friendly way.I see this as a legacy feature of 1970 's political " environmentalism " that is dying rapidly in the modern environmental movement because the puritanical approach to political change is unsustainable .
People are never going to choose what the puritans want them too without coercive inducements , and coercive inducements are incredibly costly : they involve massive deadweight losses , as the Soviets learned to their cost and the Chinese are about to find out about.So anyone who really cares about the environment and is n't just about perfectly ignorant of economics will focus on market-based and technological solutions to environmental issues .
They will promote cap and trade schemes for pollutants and they will fight against subsidies for unsustainable energy sources like oil , coal and especially natural gas ( which has a depressingly small world-wide supply relative to human needs .
) Market-based economics with aggressive capture of externalities is the tool that has proven to be by far the most effective at promoting the good of the environment , in part because it leaves the question of how to deal with those conditions up to individuals .
The focus on capturing externalities is also important because they are what we care about , whereas things like CAFE limits are anti-market forces that have nothing to do with the amount of pollutants produced .
Who cares how many cars are sold with what gas millage ?
What matters is how much they pollute , which depends on all kinds of things like how well maintained they are , how much they are driven , and how much time they spend idling.Only someone who did n't care two pins for the environment would focus on the irrelevant ( " you ca n't buy a big car " ) when the relevant ( " you must buy credits to emit pollutants " ) is staring them in the face .
The puritans have pretty much lost on this issue , although the dinosaurs of the Party in Washington are still not quite aware of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fear that the modern environmentalism is pushing in the wrong direction by becoming ascetic -- by telling us that our wants and desires are bad because they are bad for the environment instead of focusing on way to satisfy those wants in an environmentally friendly way.I see this as a legacy feature of 1970's political "environmentalism" that is dying rapidly in the modern environmental movement because the puritanical approach to political change is unsustainable.
People are never going to choose what the puritans want them too without coercive inducements, and coercive inducements are incredibly costly:  they involve massive deadweight losses, as the Soviets learned to their cost and the Chinese are about to find out about.So anyone who really cares about the environment and isn't just about perfectly ignorant of economics will focus on market-based and technological solutions to environmental issues.
They will promote cap and trade schemes for pollutants and they will fight against subsidies for unsustainable energy sources like oil, coal and especially natural gas (which has a depressingly small world-wide supply relative to human needs.
)Market-based economics with aggressive capture of externalities is the tool that has proven to be by far the most effective at promoting the good of the environment, in part because it leaves the question of how to deal with those conditions up to individuals.
The focus on capturing externalities is also important because they are what we care about, whereas things like CAFE limits are anti-market forces that have nothing to do with the amount of pollutants produced.
Who cares how many cars are sold with what gas millage?
What matters is how much they pollute, which depends on all kinds of things like how well maintained they are, how much they are driven, and how much time they spend idling.Only someone who didn't care two pins for the environment would focus on the irrelevant ("you can't buy a big car") when the relevant ("you must buy credits to emit pollutants") is staring them in the face.
The puritans have pretty much lost on this issue, although the dinosaurs of the Party in Washington are still not quite aware of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508703</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>lawnboy5-O</author>
	<datestamp>1246198860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You need to check out these guys...
<br>
<br>
The chief scientist has been at it for over 30 years - so yes it is difficult.  I remember his expo at teh U. of Tenn Worlds Fair in 1982 <br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.hypowerfuel.com/home.html" title="hypowerfuel.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.hypowerfuel.com/home.html</a> [hypowerfuel.com]
<br>
<br>
anyhow - major breakthroughs are abound, and Canada's Alberta Province has initiatives for the use of HyPower's hydrogen and bio fuel production processes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to check out these guys.. . The chief scientist has been at it for over 30 years - so yes it is difficult .
I remember his expo at teh U. of Tenn Worlds Fair in 1982 http : //www.hypowerfuel.com/home.html [ hypowerfuel.com ] anyhow - major breakthroughs are abound , and Canada 's Alberta Province has initiatives for the use of HyPower 's hydrogen and bio fuel production processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to check out these guys...


The chief scientist has been at it for over 30 years - so yes it is difficult.
I remember his expo at teh U. of Tenn Worlds Fair in 1982 

http://www.hypowerfuel.com/home.html [hypowerfuel.com]


anyhow - major breakthroughs are abound, and Canada's Alberta Province has initiatives for the use of HyPower's hydrogen and bio fuel production processes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507811</id>
	<title>From the Dept. of Hee-Haw Technology</title>
	<author>StCredZero</author>
	<datestamp>1246190640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Jenny-mae, I tole you not to let Billy-Bob alone with the chickens and the lighter fluid!</p><p>But Mary-Sue, Billy-Bob's up and solved the Hydrogen Nanostorage Problem!  He saved the world!  Solved global warming!  Ther gonna give him a NOBEL!</p><p>So?  I'm still makin myself scarce when Pa starts askin what happened to those Chickens!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jenny-mae , I tole you not to let Billy-Bob alone with the chickens and the lighter fluid ! But Mary-Sue , Billy-Bob 's up and solved the Hydrogen Nanostorage Problem !
He saved the world !
Solved global warming !
Ther gon na give him a NOBEL ! So ?
I 'm still makin myself scarce when Pa starts askin what happened to those Chickens !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Jenny-mae, I tole you not to let Billy-Bob alone with the chickens and the lighter fluid!But Mary-Sue, Billy-Bob's up and solved the Hydrogen Nanostorage Problem!
He saved the world!
Solved global warming!
Ther gonna give him a NOBEL!So?
I'm still makin myself scarce when Pa starts askin what happened to those Chickens!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509593</id>
	<title>Re:One big problem, not a zillion.</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1246208100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just burn the hydrogen in a dual-fueled ICE? Run it on hydrogen when available, gasoline, ethanol or methanol when it isn't</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just burn the hydrogen in a dual-fueled ICE ?
Run it on hydrogen when available , gasoline , ethanol or methanol when it is n't</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just burn the hydrogen in a dual-fueled ICE?
Run it on hydrogen when available, gasoline, ethanol or methanol when it isn't</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507983</id>
	<title>Re:Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246192200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>I remember hearing about an aircraft canopy design being tested against bird strike by having dead chickens fired at it via an air cannon.  It was the best emulation they could come up with. </i></p> </div><p>They couldn't find any volunteers. They were all chicken.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember hearing about an aircraft canopy design being tested against bird strike by having dead chickens fired at it via an air cannon .
It was the best emulation they could come up with .
They could n't find any volunteers .
They were all chicken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I remember hearing about an aircraft canopy design being tested against bird strike by having dead chickens fired at it via an air cannon.
It was the best emulation they could come up with.
They couldn't find any volunteers.
They were all chicken.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514423</id>
	<title>Re:Urban legend != actual facts!!!!</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1246292340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>After the revisit, they did prove that thawed chickens did not penetrate as far as frozen ones. </i></p><p>Which means nothing.  When they go through the first plate of glass, they are moving at a high rate of speed, which doesn't give the thawed chicken time to deform, and they both do the same amount of damage, and get slowed down a little.</p><p>Each plate of glass will slow the chickens down a little, eventually giving the thawed chicken time to deform and absorb some of the force. The fact that the thawed chicken couldn't break the last panes of glass while moving slowly has no bearing on the force it imparts when moving at a high rate of speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the revisit , they did prove that thawed chickens did not penetrate as far as frozen ones .
Which means nothing .
When they go through the first plate of glass , they are moving at a high rate of speed , which does n't give the thawed chicken time to deform , and they both do the same amount of damage , and get slowed down a little.Each plate of glass will slow the chickens down a little , eventually giving the thawed chicken time to deform and absorb some of the force .
The fact that the thawed chicken could n't break the last panes of glass while moving slowly has no bearing on the force it imparts when moving at a high rate of speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the revisit, they did prove that thawed chickens did not penetrate as far as frozen ones.
Which means nothing.
When they go through the first plate of glass, they are moving at a high rate of speed, which doesn't give the thawed chicken time to deform, and they both do the same amount of damage, and get slowed down a little.Each plate of glass will slow the chickens down a little, eventually giving the thawed chicken time to deform and absorb some of the force.
The fact that the thawed chicken couldn't break the last panes of glass while moving slowly has no bearing on the force it imparts when moving at a high rate of speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512097</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246276980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the majority of Americans (AFAICT) are not particularly receptive to the notion of self-deprivation for the greater good.</i> </p><p>But they are God fearing Christians.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Just pointing out the irony.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the majority of Americans ( AFAICT ) are not particularly receptive to the notion of self-deprivation for the greater good .
But they are God fearing Christians .
  Just pointing out the irony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the majority of Americans (AFAICT) are not particularly receptive to the notion of self-deprivation for the greater good.
But they are God fearing Christians.
  Just pointing out the irony.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510351</id>
	<title>facepalm</title>
	<author>RomulusNR</author>
	<datestamp>1246215180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee, that's great. I suppose we're going to need a shit ton more chickens, to be bred to have their feathers burnt.</p><p>I wonder, did they also evaluate human hearts? Who knows, could work ten times better than chicken feathers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , that 's great .
I suppose we 're going to need a shit ton more chickens , to be bred to have their feathers burnt.I wonder , did they also evaluate human hearts ?
Who knows , could work ten times better than chicken feathers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, that's great.
I suppose we're going to need a shit ton more chickens, to be bred to have their feathers burnt.I wonder, did they also evaluate human hearts?
Who knows, could work ten times better than chicken feathers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507727</id>
	<title>First Post?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246189740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First Post?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First Post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Post?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28515131</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1246295460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn't burning hydrogen by igniting it with a spark, as opposed to reuniting it with oxygen, produce hydro carbons?  If so, the "green factory" would be lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't burning hydrogen by igniting it with a spark , as opposed to reuniting it with oxygen , produce hydro carbons ?
If so , the " green factory " would be lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't burning hydrogen by igniting it with a spark, as opposed to reuniting it with oxygen, produce hydro carbons?
If so, the "green factory" would be lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28513471</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1246287480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much of your post is nonsense, but let me reply to your sentiment.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And honestly, your entire post screams: "since these taxes won't affect me, I am in favour of them, as that will force other people to subsidise my own, different life style choices". You don't want *people* to pay the "full cost" of anything. You want *other people* to pay more for purchases which *you* aren't going to make, under the twisted and erroneous logic that your costs will go down. A very selfish view, given that your main implication is that other people are being too selfish with their consumption.</p><p>I hope that clarifies things for you.</p></div><p>No, I don't want any special treatment for anyone. I rarely eat cattle meat because of the environmental impact. When I do, I try to eat cattle meat from a farm where they are grass fed, humanely treated, and not from a cow factory stuffing them with corn and antibiotics. And I drive a small car, but not tiny, since I'm 6'7. Trust me, I understand the want to drive a yacht with a dvd player in the dash. I actually don't fit well in American made SUVs since they are engineered for soccer moms, but I digress.</p><p>Regardless, I expect to pay a price that reflects the real costs of what I consume. The real benefit of market economics comes when the market provides transparency through accurate pricing all the way through the production of everything. This means, in my opinion, that a business has to have a manufacturing cycle that does no damage to the sustainability of life on the planet. If it cannot operate sustainably, its costs should be enormous, or we'll kill the planet, since killing the planet is the best option for the economy, but not for anything else. I don't think this is a controversial statement - you may argue with me on how damaging a certain process is to the environment, but it logically follows that making environmental destruction the most economical option has dire consequences. For reference, look at the environment in China.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Much of your post is nonsense , but let me reply to your sentiment.And honestly , your entire post screams : " since these taxes wo n't affect me , I am in favour of them , as that will force other people to subsidise my own , different life style choices " .
You do n't want * people * to pay the " full cost " of anything .
You want * other people * to pay more for purchases which * you * are n't going to make , under the twisted and erroneous logic that your costs will go down .
A very selfish view , given that your main implication is that other people are being too selfish with their consumption.I hope that clarifies things for you.No , I do n't want any special treatment for anyone .
I rarely eat cattle meat because of the environmental impact .
When I do , I try to eat cattle meat from a farm where they are grass fed , humanely treated , and not from a cow factory stuffing them with corn and antibiotics .
And I drive a small car , but not tiny , since I 'm 6'7 .
Trust me , I understand the want to drive a yacht with a dvd player in the dash .
I actually do n't fit well in American made SUVs since they are engineered for soccer moms , but I digress.Regardless , I expect to pay a price that reflects the real costs of what I consume .
The real benefit of market economics comes when the market provides transparency through accurate pricing all the way through the production of everything .
This means , in my opinion , that a business has to have a manufacturing cycle that does no damage to the sustainability of life on the planet .
If it can not operate sustainably , its costs should be enormous , or we 'll kill the planet , since killing the planet is the best option for the economy , but not for anything else .
I do n't think this is a controversial statement - you may argue with me on how damaging a certain process is to the environment , but it logically follows that making environmental destruction the most economical option has dire consequences .
For reference , look at the environment in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much of your post is nonsense, but let me reply to your sentiment.And honestly, your entire post screams: "since these taxes won't affect me, I am in favour of them, as that will force other people to subsidise my own, different life style choices".
You don't want *people* to pay the "full cost" of anything.
You want *other people* to pay more for purchases which *you* aren't going to make, under the twisted and erroneous logic that your costs will go down.
A very selfish view, given that your main implication is that other people are being too selfish with their consumption.I hope that clarifies things for you.No, I don't want any special treatment for anyone.
I rarely eat cattle meat because of the environmental impact.
When I do, I try to eat cattle meat from a farm where they are grass fed, humanely treated, and not from a cow factory stuffing them with corn and antibiotics.
And I drive a small car, but not tiny, since I'm 6'7.
Trust me, I understand the want to drive a yacht with a dvd player in the dash.
I actually don't fit well in American made SUVs since they are engineered for soccer moms, but I digress.Regardless, I expect to pay a price that reflects the real costs of what I consume.
The real benefit of market economics comes when the market provides transparency through accurate pricing all the way through the production of everything.
This means, in my opinion, that a business has to have a manufacturing cycle that does no damage to the sustainability of life on the planet.
If it cannot operate sustainably, its costs should be enormous, or we'll kill the planet, since killing the planet is the best option for the economy, but not for anything else.
I don't think this is a controversial statement - you may argue with me on how damaging a certain process is to the environment, but it logically follows that making environmental destruction the most economical option has dire consequences.
For reference, look at the environment in China.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508055</id>
	<title>Re:PETA won't hear of it</title>
	<author>d4nowar</author>
	<datestamp>1246192860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't anyone stop and think of the poor vegetables?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't anyone stop and think of the poor vegetables ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't anyone stop and think of the poor vegetables?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509069</id>
	<title>Unique properties of chicken feathers</title>
	<author>mbstone</author>
	<datestamp>1246202700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One good reason to have cars powered by chicken feathers is that chicken feathers are one of only two substances that may lawfully be littered upon the public streets and highways.  <i>Cal. Vehicle Code</i>  23114(a).  So once their fuel value is depleted, just dump 'em on the road.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One good reason to have cars powered by chicken feathers is that chicken feathers are one of only two substances that may lawfully be littered upon the public streets and highways .
Cal. Vehicle Code 23114 ( a ) .
So once their fuel value is depleted , just dump 'em on the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One good reason to have cars powered by chicken feathers is that chicken feathers are one of only two substances that may lawfully be littered upon the public streets and highways.
Cal. Vehicle Code  23114(a).
So once their fuel value is depleted, just dump 'em on the road.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509783</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1246209720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>| If the claims of TFA are accurate, then we may actually be on the verge of solving all three problems.</p><p>Especially if we can use cold fusion to raise more and bigger chickens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>| If the claims of TFA are accurate , then we may actually be on the verge of solving all three problems.Especially if we can use cold fusion to raise more and bigger chickens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>| If the claims of TFA are accurate, then we may actually be on the verge of solving all three problems.Especially if we can use cold fusion to raise more and bigger chickens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514095</id>
	<title>Re:PETA won't hear of it</title>
	<author>VIPERsssss</author>
	<datestamp>1246290660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>PETA can go fuck themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PETA can go fuck themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PETA can go fuck themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28517899</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Dogtanian</author>
	<datestamp>1246306200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not all sports cars get shitty mileage.</p></div><p>If I'm paying good money for a sports car, it damn well *better* get shitty mileage!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all sports cars get shitty mileage.If I 'm paying good money for a sports car , it damn well * better * get shitty mileage !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all sports cars get shitty mileage.If I'm paying good money for a sports car, it damn well *better* get shitty mileage!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508687</id>
	<title>Re:Urban legend != actual facts!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246198740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adam and Jamie revisited that one after they found that the windshield they used wasn't rated for bird strikes.  After the revisit, they did prove that thawed chickens did not penetrate as far as frozen ones.  See episode 14 from the 2004 season.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adam and Jamie revisited that one after they found that the windshield they used was n't rated for bird strikes .
After the revisit , they did prove that thawed chickens did not penetrate as far as frozen ones .
See episode 14 from the 2004 season .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adam and Jamie revisited that one after they found that the windshield they used wasn't rated for bird strikes.
After the revisit, they did prove that thawed chickens did not penetrate as far as frozen ones.
See episode 14 from the 2004 season.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508953</id>
	<title>Re:Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246201680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That, or about hydrogen tasting like chicken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That , or about hydrogen tasting like chicken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That, or about hydrogen tasting like chicken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507759</id>
	<title>We've done it!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246190160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can finally power our homes with chicken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can finally power our homes with chicken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can finally power our homes with chicken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508855</id>
	<title>Re:Crazier than Bat Shit</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1246200540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Burnt feathers vs bat poo?  Either way, this is going to stink like hell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Burnt feathers vs bat poo ?
Either way , this is going to stink like hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Burnt feathers vs bat poo?
Either way, this is going to stink like hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507795</id>
	<title>Full Circle again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246190520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you believe birds evolved "downward" from dinos, and as they used to say oil came from dinos, then we have come full circle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you believe birds evolved " downward " from dinos , and as they used to say oil came from dinos , then we have come full circle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you believe birds evolved "downward" from dinos, and as they used to say oil came from dinos, then we have come full circle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507749</id>
	<title>Crazier than Bat Shit</title>
	<author>DudeFromMars</author>
	<datestamp>1246189980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh!  Wait,
I wonder if bat droppings would work?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh !
Wait , I wonder if bat droppings would work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh!
Wait,
I wonder if bat droppings would work?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508063</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1246192980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How big of a solar array are you figuring there?</p><p>300 watts per square meter is probably a reasonably fair estimate of solar power, let's say for 8 hours a day. So that's 2.4 kilowatt hours per square meter per day. A gallon of gasoline is equivalent to roughly 33 kilowatt hours, so assuming 2 days of generation, you need almost 7 square meters for each gallon of gasoline that you would have consumed.</p><p>That's ignoring efficiency completely, but I doubt hydrogen powered ICEs are so much more efficient than gas that the gain overwhelms the losses from hydrolysis.</p><p>So someone who drives a reasonably fuel efficient vehicle 200 miles a week needs somewhere between 35 and 60 square meters of solar panels to get enough hydrogen in 2 days. Devote the panels to full time hydrolysis and you are still talking about 15-20 square meters (which is more reasonable).</p><p>If you decide that my 2.4 kilowatt hours per square meter per day is generous, the required surface area goes back up pretty quickly...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How big of a solar array are you figuring there ? 300 watts per square meter is probably a reasonably fair estimate of solar power , let 's say for 8 hours a day .
So that 's 2.4 kilowatt hours per square meter per day .
A gallon of gasoline is equivalent to roughly 33 kilowatt hours , so assuming 2 days of generation , you need almost 7 square meters for each gallon of gasoline that you would have consumed.That 's ignoring efficiency completely , but I doubt hydrogen powered ICEs are so much more efficient than gas that the gain overwhelms the losses from hydrolysis.So someone who drives a reasonably fuel efficient vehicle 200 miles a week needs somewhere between 35 and 60 square meters of solar panels to get enough hydrogen in 2 days .
Devote the panels to full time hydrolysis and you are still talking about 15-20 square meters ( which is more reasonable ) .If you decide that my 2.4 kilowatt hours per square meter per day is generous , the required surface area goes back up pretty quickly.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How big of a solar array are you figuring there?300 watts per square meter is probably a reasonably fair estimate of solar power, let's say for 8 hours a day.
So that's 2.4 kilowatt hours per square meter per day.
A gallon of gasoline is equivalent to roughly 33 kilowatt hours, so assuming 2 days of generation, you need almost 7 square meters for each gallon of gasoline that you would have consumed.That's ignoring efficiency completely, but I doubt hydrogen powered ICEs are so much more efficient than gas that the gain overwhelms the losses from hydrolysis.So someone who drives a reasonably fuel efficient vehicle 200 miles a week needs somewhere between 35 and 60 square meters of solar panels to get enough hydrogen in 2 days.
Devote the panels to full time hydrolysis and you are still talking about 15-20 square meters (which is more reasonable).If you decide that my 2.4 kilowatt hours per square meter per day is generous, the required surface area goes back up pretty quickly...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509277</id>
	<title>Re:Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>BluBrick</author>
	<datestamp>1246205340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Don't you dare interfere with my 2nd Amendment right to bear poultry!</p></div><p>Where is my right to bare poultry?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you dare interfere with my 2nd Amendment right to bear poultry ! Where is my right to bare poultry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you dare interfere with my 2nd Amendment right to bear poultry!Where is my right to bare poultry?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507899</id>
	<title>NPR Interview</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246191540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to an interview with a researcher or the lead researcher or something like that, it's not as much as carbon nanotubes or other existing solutions, but it's "enough" and it's vastly cheaper.  All existing solutions are impossibly expensive, that's the big deal here.  Something like 6 billion pounds of chicken feathers are produced as by products of the chicken industry every year with zero practical reuses.</p><p>The same interviewee goes on to explain that there are a number of other possible uses of chicken feathers as a high grade material component, in everything from car body pieces to wind mill blades for wind power.  I think it's an excellent effort and I hope it bears fruit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to an interview with a researcher or the lead researcher or something like that , it 's not as much as carbon nanotubes or other existing solutions , but it 's " enough " and it 's vastly cheaper .
All existing solutions are impossibly expensive , that 's the big deal here .
Something like 6 billion pounds of chicken feathers are produced as by products of the chicken industry every year with zero practical reuses.The same interviewee goes on to explain that there are a number of other possible uses of chicken feathers as a high grade material component , in everything from car body pieces to wind mill blades for wind power .
I think it 's an excellent effort and I hope it bears fruit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to an interview with a researcher or the lead researcher or something like that, it's not as much as carbon nanotubes or other existing solutions, but it's "enough" and it's vastly cheaper.
All existing solutions are impossibly expensive, that's the big deal here.
Something like 6 billion pounds of chicken feathers are produced as by products of the chicken industry every year with zero practical reuses.The same interviewee goes on to explain that there are a number of other possible uses of chicken feathers as a high grade material component, in everything from car body pieces to wind mill blades for wind power.
I think it's an excellent effort and I hope it bears fruit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508471</id>
	<title>Re:How much more energy</title>
	<author>electrostatic</author>
	<datestamp>1246196820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Carbonization is often exothermic, which means that it could in principle be made self-sustaining...
<a href="http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Carbonization" title="absoluteastronomy.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Carbonization</a> [absoluteastronomy.com]</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Feathers are carbohydrates, meaning they are carbon structures with hydrogen and a small portion of oxygen. The Carbonization process cooks off the hydrogen and oxygen, leaving the carbon structure. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form H20, which is certainly exothermic. My guess is that it produces more heat energy that was consumed to bring it up to carbonization temperature in the first place.<br> <br>
So little or no energy is wasted -- unlike as with solar cells that take 5-10 years to generate as much energy as was used to make them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carbonization is often exothermic , which means that it could in principle be made self-sustaining.. . http : //www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Carbonization [ absoluteastronomy.com ] Feathers are carbohydrates , meaning they are carbon structures with hydrogen and a small portion of oxygen .
The Carbonization process cooks off the hydrogen and oxygen , leaving the carbon structure .
The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form H20 , which is certainly exothermic .
My guess is that it produces more heat energy that was consumed to bring it up to carbonization temperature in the first place .
So little or no energy is wasted -- unlike as with solar cells that take 5-10 years to generate as much energy as was used to make them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carbonization is often exothermic, which means that it could in principle be made self-sustaining...
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Carbonization [absoluteastronomy.com] 
Feathers are carbohydrates, meaning they are carbon structures with hydrogen and a small portion of oxygen.
The Carbonization process cooks off the hydrogen and oxygen, leaving the carbon structure.
The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form H20, which is certainly exothermic.
My guess is that it produces more heat energy that was consumed to bring it up to carbonization temperature in the first place.
So little or no energy is wasted -- unlike as with solar cells that take 5-10 years to generate as much energy as was used to make them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261</id>
	<title>Urban legend != actual facts!!!!</title>
	<author>rts008</author>
	<datestamp>1246194960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adam and Jamie tackled this one on Mythbusters.</p><p>Using the same protocols as the 'official' testing, they found that thawed chickens busted windscreens as effectively as thawed chickens.(episode 9, IIRC...it's on youtube.com)</p><p>The same principles apply when using a steel cutting tool that cuts the steel with a stream of water. Yes, they use water, not ice to cut the steel.</p><p>Physics: learn it, use it, benefit from it. (hint: application of kinetic energy would be a starting point to understanding this)</p><p><i>[citation needed]</i><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water\_jet\_cutter" title="wikipedia.org">Water Jet Cutter</a> [wikipedia.org]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A water jet cutter is a tool capable of slicing into metal or other materials using a jet of water at high velocity and pressure,[...]Water jet cuts are not typically limited by the thickness of the material, and are capable of cutting materials over eighteen inches (45 cm) thick.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken\_cannon" title="wikipedia.org">NASA Chicken Gun</a> [wikipedia.org]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a longstanding urban legend about the gun being loaned to some other agency, who fired frozen chickens instead of thawed chickens.[1]</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.snopes.com/science/cannon.asp" title="snopes.com">Urban Legend</a> [snopes.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>In an issue of Meat &amp; Poultry magazine, editors quoted from "Feathers," the publication of the California Poultry Industry Federation, telling the following story:</p><p>The US Federal Aviation Administration has a unique device for testing the strength of windshields on airplanes. The device is a gun that launches a dead chicken at a plane's windshield at approximately the speed the plane flies.</p><p>The theory is that if the windshield doesn't crack from the carcass impact, it'll survive a real collision with a bird during flight.</p><p>It seems the British were very interested in this and wanted to test a windshield on a brand new, speedy locomotive they're developing.</p><p>They borrowed FAA's chicken launcher, loaded the chicken and fired.</p><p>The ballistic chicken shattered the windshield, broke the engineer's chair and embedded itself in the back wall of the engine's cab. The British were stunned and asked the FAA to recheck the test to see if everything was done correctly.</p><p>The FAA reviewed the test thoroughly and had one recommendation:</p><p>"Use a thawed chicken."</p></div></blockquote><p>Note:(from the NASA Chicken Gun wiki link above)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The 1970s test of the British High Speed Train windscreens used the Farnborough chicken gun and expertise, not NASA based expertise, busting the Mythbusters myth relating to NASA telling the British "defrost the chickens first".</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adam and Jamie tackled this one on Mythbusters.Using the same protocols as the 'official ' testing , they found that thawed chickens busted windscreens as effectively as thawed chickens .
( episode 9 , IIRC...it 's on youtube.com ) The same principles apply when using a steel cutting tool that cuts the steel with a stream of water .
Yes , they use water , not ice to cut the steel.Physics : learn it , use it , benefit from it .
( hint : application of kinetic energy would be a starting point to understanding this ) [ citation needed ] Water Jet Cutter [ wikipedia.org ] : A water jet cutter is a tool capable of slicing into metal or other materials using a jet of water at high velocity and pressure , [ ... ] Water jet cuts are not typically limited by the thickness of the material , and are capable of cutting materials over eighteen inches ( 45 cm ) thick .
NASA Chicken Gun [ wikipedia.org ] : There is a longstanding urban legend about the gun being loaned to some other agency , who fired frozen chickens instead of thawed chickens .
[ 1 ] Urban Legend [ snopes.com ] : In an issue of Meat &amp; Poultry magazine , editors quoted from " Feathers , " the publication of the California Poultry Industry Federation , telling the following story : The US Federal Aviation Administration has a unique device for testing the strength of windshields on airplanes .
The device is a gun that launches a dead chicken at a plane 's windshield at approximately the speed the plane flies.The theory is that if the windshield does n't crack from the carcass impact , it 'll survive a real collision with a bird during flight.It seems the British were very interested in this and wanted to test a windshield on a brand new , speedy locomotive they 're developing.They borrowed FAA 's chicken launcher , loaded the chicken and fired.The ballistic chicken shattered the windshield , broke the engineer 's chair and embedded itself in the back wall of the engine 's cab .
The British were stunned and asked the FAA to recheck the test to see if everything was done correctly.The FAA reviewed the test thoroughly and had one recommendation : " Use a thawed chicken .
" Note : ( from the NASA Chicken Gun wiki link above ) The 1970s test of the British High Speed Train windscreens used the Farnborough chicken gun and expertise , not NASA based expertise , busting the Mythbusters myth relating to NASA telling the British " defrost the chickens first " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adam and Jamie tackled this one on Mythbusters.Using the same protocols as the 'official' testing, they found that thawed chickens busted windscreens as effectively as thawed chickens.
(episode 9, IIRC...it's on youtube.com)The same principles apply when using a steel cutting tool that cuts the steel with a stream of water.
Yes, they use water, not ice to cut the steel.Physics: learn it, use it, benefit from it.
(hint: application of kinetic energy would be a starting point to understanding this)[citation needed]Water Jet Cutter [wikipedia.org]:A water jet cutter is a tool capable of slicing into metal or other materials using a jet of water at high velocity and pressure,[...]Water jet cuts are not typically limited by the thickness of the material, and are capable of cutting materials over eighteen inches (45 cm) thick.
NASA Chicken Gun [wikipedia.org]:There is a longstanding urban legend about the gun being loaned to some other agency, who fired frozen chickens instead of thawed chickens.
[1] Urban Legend [snopes.com]:In an issue of Meat &amp; Poultry magazine, editors quoted from "Feathers," the publication of the California Poultry Industry Federation, telling the following story:The US Federal Aviation Administration has a unique device for testing the strength of windshields on airplanes.
The device is a gun that launches a dead chicken at a plane's windshield at approximately the speed the plane flies.The theory is that if the windshield doesn't crack from the carcass impact, it'll survive a real collision with a bird during flight.It seems the British were very interested in this and wanted to test a windshield on a brand new, speedy locomotive they're developing.They borrowed FAA's chicken launcher, loaded the chicken and fired.The ballistic chicken shattered the windshield, broke the engineer's chair and embedded itself in the back wall of the engine's cab.
The British were stunned and asked the FAA to recheck the test to see if everything was done correctly.The FAA reviewed the test thoroughly and had one recommendation:"Use a thawed chicken.
"Note:(from the NASA Chicken Gun wiki link above)The 1970s test of the British High Speed Train windscreens used the Farnborough chicken gun and expertise, not NASA based expertise, busting the Mythbusters myth relating to NASA telling the British "defrost the chickens first".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>Wrath0fb0b</author>
	<datestamp>1246194720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Or, you can live with an underpowered vehicle.</p> </div><p>And I assure you sir, I cannot. Or, to put it another way, I will probably opt to spend additional funds to ensure that my vehicle is fun to drive.</p><p>On a broader note, I fear that the modern environmentalism is pushing in the wrong direction by becoming ascetic -- by telling us that our wants and desires are bad because they are bad for the environment instead of focusing on way to satisfy those wants in an environmentally friendly way. That philosophy has some appeal to a particular group of people but the majority of Americans (AFAICT) are not particularly receptive to the notion of self-deprivation for the greater good.</p><p>Moreover, it's does less practical good to convince people that drives a small car that get ~35MPG to switch to a car that gets 100MPG (a pie-in-the-sky number) than to get someone that drives a 15MPG truck to switch to a more efficient one that gets 25MPG. The former change reduces gas usage over a year (15k mi) by 270 gal, the latter by 400 (the real fault here is that we use the inverse scale, instead of reporting GPM). Doing so, however, requires a change in mindset -- it's not about how we can make an environmentally friendly vehicles, it's about how we can make <b>this vehicle</b> more environmentally friendly without compromising the characteristics that caused people to buy it in the first place.</p><p>Focusing on the efficiency of those larger cars &amp; trucks (and sports cars), however, requires ditching the philosophy of asceticism and accepting that many people do not want to drive tiny underpowered cars (and they don't want to stop eating red meat or running the AC either, damnit) and working with them to minimize the impact of the cars they do drive, the meat they do eat and the AC they do run. If we can't get to there from here, then environmentalism will always be something that a few people care very strongly about and the rest of the population cares not at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , you can live with an underpowered vehicle .
And I assure you sir , I can not .
Or , to put it another way , I will probably opt to spend additional funds to ensure that my vehicle is fun to drive.On a broader note , I fear that the modern environmentalism is pushing in the wrong direction by becoming ascetic -- by telling us that our wants and desires are bad because they are bad for the environment instead of focusing on way to satisfy those wants in an environmentally friendly way .
That philosophy has some appeal to a particular group of people but the majority of Americans ( AFAICT ) are not particularly receptive to the notion of self-deprivation for the greater good.Moreover , it 's does less practical good to convince people that drives a small car that get ~ 35MPG to switch to a car that gets 100MPG ( a pie-in-the-sky number ) than to get someone that drives a 15MPG truck to switch to a more efficient one that gets 25MPG .
The former change reduces gas usage over a year ( 15k mi ) by 270 gal , the latter by 400 ( the real fault here is that we use the inverse scale , instead of reporting GPM ) .
Doing so , however , requires a change in mindset -- it 's not about how we can make an environmentally friendly vehicles , it 's about how we can make this vehicle more environmentally friendly without compromising the characteristics that caused people to buy it in the first place.Focusing on the efficiency of those larger cars &amp; trucks ( and sports cars ) , however , requires ditching the philosophy of asceticism and accepting that many people do not want to drive tiny underpowered cars ( and they do n't want to stop eating red meat or running the AC either , damnit ) and working with them to minimize the impact of the cars they do drive , the meat they do eat and the AC they do run .
If we ca n't get to there from here , then environmentalism will always be something that a few people care very strongly about and the rest of the population cares not at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Or, you can live with an underpowered vehicle.
And I assure you sir, I cannot.
Or, to put it another way, I will probably opt to spend additional funds to ensure that my vehicle is fun to drive.On a broader note, I fear that the modern environmentalism is pushing in the wrong direction by becoming ascetic -- by telling us that our wants and desires are bad because they are bad for the environment instead of focusing on way to satisfy those wants in an environmentally friendly way.
That philosophy has some appeal to a particular group of people but the majority of Americans (AFAICT) are not particularly receptive to the notion of self-deprivation for the greater good.Moreover, it's does less practical good to convince people that drives a small car that get ~35MPG to switch to a car that gets 100MPG (a pie-in-the-sky number) than to get someone that drives a 15MPG truck to switch to a more efficient one that gets 25MPG.
The former change reduces gas usage over a year (15k mi) by 270 gal, the latter by 400 (the real fault here is that we use the inverse scale, instead of reporting GPM).
Doing so, however, requires a change in mindset -- it's not about how we can make an environmentally friendly vehicles, it's about how we can make this vehicle more environmentally friendly without compromising the characteristics that caused people to buy it in the first place.Focusing on the efficiency of those larger cars &amp; trucks (and sports cars), however, requires ditching the philosophy of asceticism and accepting that many people do not want to drive tiny underpowered cars (and they don't want to stop eating red meat or running the AC either, damnit) and working with them to minimize the impact of the cars they do drive, the meat they do eat and the AC they do run.
If we can't get to there from here, then environmentalism will always be something that a few people care very strongly about and the rest of the population cares not at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512571</id>
	<title>Re:Urban legend != actual facts!!!!</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246281360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure where that version of the story came from.  I briefly worked at DERA Farnborough and was told the story there when I visited the wind tunnel (at the time, the biggest in Europe).  The chicken was used to test jet engines against bird strike, not windscreens.  The freezing made a difference because each blade of the turbine hit and shredded the chicken a little in the defrosted version, but just deformed when it hit the ice.  I don't recall which company is reported to have tried with frozen chickens.  Rolls Royce was one of the two involved, but I can't remember whether they were the ones giving or receiving the advice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure where that version of the story came from .
I briefly worked at DERA Farnborough and was told the story there when I visited the wind tunnel ( at the time , the biggest in Europe ) .
The chicken was used to test jet engines against bird strike , not windscreens .
The freezing made a difference because each blade of the turbine hit and shredded the chicken a little in the defrosted version , but just deformed when it hit the ice .
I do n't recall which company is reported to have tried with frozen chickens .
Rolls Royce was one of the two involved , but I ca n't remember whether they were the ones giving or receiving the advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure where that version of the story came from.
I briefly worked at DERA Farnborough and was told the story there when I visited the wind tunnel (at the time, the biggest in Europe).
The chicken was used to test jet engines against bird strike, not windscreens.
The freezing made a difference because each blade of the turbine hit and shredded the chicken a little in the defrosted version, but just deformed when it hit the ice.
I don't recall which company is reported to have tried with frozen chickens.
Rolls Royce was one of the two involved, but I can't remember whether they were the ones giving or receiving the advice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507879</id>
	<title>FUCK LINUX!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246191240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you fucking queers all deserve aids. linux is for bottomfeeders and dick smokers. cunt whore bitch fag.<br> <br>i shit on linux!!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>you fucking queers all deserve aids .
linux is for bottomfeeders and dick smokers .
cunt whore bitch fag .
i shit on linux ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you fucking queers all deserve aids.
linux is for bottomfeeders and dick smokers.
cunt whore bitch fag.
i shit on linux!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508611</id>
	<title>Re:Urban legend != actual facts!!!!</title>
	<author>hazem</author>
	<datestamp>1246197960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Physics: learn it, use it, benefit from it. (hint: application of kinetic energy would be a starting point to understanding this)</i></p><p>I don't think it's as simple as that.</p><p>I'm no physicist but I would suspect that there is a great deal of difference between firing a frozen chicken and a thawed chicken at something.  With enough velocity, of course, the differences in outcome will not be very much.  But if you give the chickens progressively less velocity at impact, I think you'd find the frozen chickens still penetrate the glass at some levels of kinetic energy where the thawed chickens would not.</p><p>My reasoning for this has to do with differences in how the kinetic energy of the chicken is imparted to the windscreen, both through time as well as the area of impact.</p><p>The body of frozen chicken will "give" much less than the body of a thawed chicken, so the windscreen has a much shorter period of time to absorb kinetic energy of the chicken.  Also, due to that lack of give, the kinetic energy of the chicken's body will be spread over a larger area of the windscreen.</p><p>If I drop a 5 kg bag of laundry on my car's windshield from my roof, it will bounce off the windshield and leave it intact.  If I drop a 5 kg pipe wrench from the same height, it will most likely shatter the windshield.  It's the same idea.  With the bag of laundry, the windshield gets more time and more area to absorb the kinetic energy, with the wrench, not as much.  Though maybe if I dropped both from a 10 story building, the windshield might not survive it either way.</p><p>This isn't simply a matter of an application of equal amounts of kinetic energy.  There are a lot of things going on at the point and time of impact that can alter the outcomes... within a certain range of energies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Physics : learn it , use it , benefit from it .
( hint : application of kinetic energy would be a starting point to understanding this ) I do n't think it 's as simple as that.I 'm no physicist but I would suspect that there is a great deal of difference between firing a frozen chicken and a thawed chicken at something .
With enough velocity , of course , the differences in outcome will not be very much .
But if you give the chickens progressively less velocity at impact , I think you 'd find the frozen chickens still penetrate the glass at some levels of kinetic energy where the thawed chickens would not.My reasoning for this has to do with differences in how the kinetic energy of the chicken is imparted to the windscreen , both through time as well as the area of impact.The body of frozen chicken will " give " much less than the body of a thawed chicken , so the windscreen has a much shorter period of time to absorb kinetic energy of the chicken .
Also , due to that lack of give , the kinetic energy of the chicken 's body will be spread over a larger area of the windscreen.If I drop a 5 kg bag of laundry on my car 's windshield from my roof , it will bounce off the windshield and leave it intact .
If I drop a 5 kg pipe wrench from the same height , it will most likely shatter the windshield .
It 's the same idea .
With the bag of laundry , the windshield gets more time and more area to absorb the kinetic energy , with the wrench , not as much .
Though maybe if I dropped both from a 10 story building , the windshield might not survive it either way.This is n't simply a matter of an application of equal amounts of kinetic energy .
There are a lot of things going on at the point and time of impact that can alter the outcomes... within a certain range of energies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Physics: learn it, use it, benefit from it.
(hint: application of kinetic energy would be a starting point to understanding this)I don't think it's as simple as that.I'm no physicist but I would suspect that there is a great deal of difference between firing a frozen chicken and a thawed chicken at something.
With enough velocity, of course, the differences in outcome will not be very much.
But if you give the chickens progressively less velocity at impact, I think you'd find the frozen chickens still penetrate the glass at some levels of kinetic energy where the thawed chickens would not.My reasoning for this has to do with differences in how the kinetic energy of the chicken is imparted to the windscreen, both through time as well as the area of impact.The body of frozen chicken will "give" much less than the body of a thawed chicken, so the windscreen has a much shorter period of time to absorb kinetic energy of the chicken.
Also, due to that lack of give, the kinetic energy of the chicken's body will be spread over a larger area of the windscreen.If I drop a 5 kg bag of laundry on my car's windshield from my roof, it will bounce off the windshield and leave it intact.
If I drop a 5 kg pipe wrench from the same height, it will most likely shatter the windshield.
It's the same idea.
With the bag of laundry, the windshield gets more time and more area to absorb the kinetic energy, with the wrench, not as much.
Though maybe if I dropped both from a 10 story building, the windshield might not survive it either way.This isn't simply a matter of an application of equal amounts of kinetic energy.
There are a lot of things going on at the point and time of impact that can alter the outcomes... within a certain range of energies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509923</id>
	<title>When pigs fly</title>
	<author>twocs</author>
	<datestamp>1246211220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The true hydogen economy will take off literally when pig wings are carbonized at 711 degrees Fahrenheit. So, we only have to wait until pigs fly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The true hydogen economy will take off literally when pig wings are carbonized at 711 degrees Fahrenheit .
So , we only have to wait until pigs fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The true hydogen economy will take off literally when pig wings are carbonized at 711 degrees Fahrenheit.
So, we only have to wait until pigs fly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508363</id>
	<title>Re:New metric for H powered cars???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246195980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haw!  I say haw, son.  Now that's funny!  Humor, y'see?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Haw !
I say haw , son .
Now that 's funny !
Humor , y'see ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haw!
I say haw, son.
Now that's funny!
Humor, y'see?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514039</id>
	<title>More like</title>
	<author>xdor</author>
	<datestamp>1246290420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chicken carbonara</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chicken carbonara</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chicken carbonara</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507735</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514749</id>
	<title>Call the Colonel!....No, wait...</title>
	<author>motherpusbucket</author>
	<datestamp>1246293660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would suggest this could be a profit center for KFC, but everyone knows that they use featherless, beakless, tube-fed mutant chicken-like organisms for their supply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would suggest this could be a profit center for KFC , but everyone knows that they use featherless , beakless , tube-fed mutant chicken-like organisms for their supply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would suggest this could be a profit center for KFC, but everyone knows that they use featherless, beakless, tube-fed mutant chicken-like organisms for their supply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509627</id>
	<title>Re:Good news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246208340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really, the good news is that vegans are no longer going to be allowed to drive or use any other non-human powered transport.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really , the good news is that vegans are no longer going to be allowed to drive or use any other non-human powered transport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really, the good news is that vegans are no longer going to be allowed to drive or use any other non-human powered transport.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509487</id>
	<title>Re:One big problem, not a zillion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246207200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw fuel cells. Just burn H2 instead of gasoline in a regular internal combustion engine. You could even convert a gas engine to a hydrogen engine with a kit.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw fuel cells .
Just burn H2 instead of gasoline in a regular internal combustion engine .
You could even convert a gas engine to a hydrogen engine with a kit.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw fuel cells.
Just burn H2 instead of gasoline in a regular internal combustion engine.
You could even convert a gas engine to a hydrogen engine with a kit.dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514525</id>
	<title>Re:Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1246292760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't you know that people fire frozen chickens into airplane windows and engines ALL THE TIME.  This threat MUST be dealt with, or we could have another major terrorist attack on our hands!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you know that people fire frozen chickens into airplane windows and engines ALL THE TIME .
This threat MUST be dealt with , or we could have another major terrorist attack on our hands !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you know that people fire frozen chickens into airplane windows and engines ALL THE TIME.
This threat MUST be dealt with, or we could have another major terrorist attack on our hands!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509121</id>
	<title>Re:PETA won't hear of it</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1246203360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>PETA has only ever said one thing that I agree with: When they wanted Ben &amp; Jerry's to switch to human breast milk they said 'The breast is the best'. However, unlike PETA, I prefer the packaging to the contents...<br> <br>
This is the same PETA that complained about President Obama killing a fly! What kind of message would it send to Kim Il Jong and Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the worlds baddies if the President had to get his fly trap to humanely catch and release the fly instead of swatting the little bugger...</htmltext>
<tokenext>PETA has only ever said one thing that I agree with : When they wanted Ben &amp; Jerry 's to switch to human breast milk they said 'The breast is the best' .
However , unlike PETA , I prefer the packaging to the contents.. . This is the same PETA that complained about President Obama killing a fly !
What kind of message would it send to Kim Il Jong and Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the worlds baddies if the President had to get his fly trap to humanely catch and release the fly instead of swatting the little bugger.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PETA has only ever said one thing that I agree with: When they wanted Ben &amp; Jerry's to switch to human breast milk they said 'The breast is the best'.
However, unlike PETA, I prefer the packaging to the contents... 
This is the same PETA that complained about President Obama killing a fly!
What kind of message would it send to Kim Il Jong and Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the worlds baddies if the President had to get his fly trap to humanely catch and release the fly instead of swatting the little bugger...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514905</id>
	<title>Re:Carbonized chickens and hydrogen</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1246294380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Choking burnt chickens will make you go blind faster?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Choking burnt chickens will make you go blind faster ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Choking burnt chickens will make you go blind faster?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28543025</id>
	<title>Re:One big problem, not a zillion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246466040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Materials advances that make high temperature fuel cells more practical are a potential way to sidestep this problem.  Not that I claim to predict which advances will happen when, but it's not <i>exactly</i> as hopeless as finding more platinum.  (Other possibilities include more effective, e.g., nanostructured low temperature electrode catalysts.)

</p><p>In fact, since high temperature fuel cells / batteries are occasionally used at the utility scale for short-term smoothing, one could consider it a scaling-down problem to be solved for those fuel cell chemistries.  Again, not contradicting the point that there are hard problems to be solved to make fuel cells practical for mobile and residential applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Materials advances that make high temperature fuel cells more practical are a potential way to sidestep this problem .
Not that I claim to predict which advances will happen when , but it 's not exactly as hopeless as finding more platinum .
( Other possibilities include more effective , e.g. , nanostructured low temperature electrode catalysts .
) In fact , since high temperature fuel cells / batteries are occasionally used at the utility scale for short-term smoothing , one could consider it a scaling-down problem to be solved for those fuel cell chemistries .
Again , not contradicting the point that there are hard problems to be solved to make fuel cells practical for mobile and residential applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Materials advances that make high temperature fuel cells more practical are a potential way to sidestep this problem.
Not that I claim to predict which advances will happen when, but it's not exactly as hopeless as finding more platinum.
(Other possibilities include more effective, e.g., nanostructured low temperature electrode catalysts.
)

In fact, since high temperature fuel cells / batteries are occasionally used at the utility scale for short-term smoothing, one could consider it a scaling-down problem to be solved for those fuel cell chemistries.
Again, not contradicting the point that there are hard problems to be solved to make fuel cells practical for mobile and residential applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508017</id>
	<title>Re:New metric for H powered cars???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246192440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG Yes!  The "Leghorn" needs to be the next big unit of measurement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG Yes !
The " Leghorn " needs to be the next big unit of measurement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG Yes!
The "Leghorn" needs to be the next big unit of measurement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28518893</id>
	<title>Re:A theoretically practical solar-powered car</title>
	<author>boris111</author>
	<datestamp>1246266780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably not to the extend you desire, but it is already this way somewhat.  Diesel is taxed more in the US and most users of Diesel are tractor trailers (I know not fair to people with Diesel VW Jettas).   Also last month I bought a beater Ford F150 as a backup vehicle and trips to Home Depot and back.  I was surprised to find out the vehicle registration fee was double the price of my commuter car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not to the extend you desire , but it is already this way somewhat .
Diesel is taxed more in the US and most users of Diesel are tractor trailers ( I know not fair to people with Diesel VW Jettas ) .
Also last month I bought a beater Ford F150 as a backup vehicle and trips to Home Depot and back .
I was surprised to find out the vehicle registration fee was double the price of my commuter car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not to the extend you desire, but it is already this way somewhat.
Diesel is taxed more in the US and most users of Diesel are tractor trailers (I know not fair to people with Diesel VW Jettas).
Also last month I bought a beater Ford F150 as a backup vehicle and trips to Home Depot and back.
I was surprised to find out the vehicle registration fee was double the price of my commuter car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509521</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507993</id>
	<title>Who needs chicken feathers???</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1246192260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When we've got Atomic Rooster!!!!!!</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrVmBRqEp3s" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrVmBRqEp3s</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When we 've got Atomic Rooster ! ! ! ! !
! http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = BrVmBRqEp3s [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When we've got Atomic Rooster!!!!!
!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrVmBRqEp3s [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28521159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28515647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28517899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28517511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28518893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28513471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28523005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28543025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28518139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28516533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28513073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28515935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28513371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28515131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_2145220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28543025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28517511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28515935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28521159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28515131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509941
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28513371
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28516533
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511319
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509323
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28515647
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28517899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509521
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511043
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28511845
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28513471
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512659
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28518893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509807
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508689
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509277
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514495
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507851
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507983
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512435
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508261
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508683
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514167
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508611
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510405
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509831
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28518139
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28523005
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28512571
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508687
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514423
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508995
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28513073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28510475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28514039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_2145220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28507749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28509923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_2145220.28508855
</commentlist>
</conversation>
