<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_17_1213203</id>
	<title>New DVDs For 1,000-Year Digital Storage</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247835120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>anonymous cowpie sends word of a Utah startup that is about to introduce technology for <a href="http://heraldextra.com/news/local/article\_b25c9a30-7242-11de-9feb-001cc4c03286.html">writing DVDs that can be read for 1,000 years</a> after being stored at room temperature. (Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years, on average.) The company, Millenniata, is said to be in the final stages of negotiation with Phillips over patent licensing and plans to begin manufacture in September. 1,000-year "M-ARC Discs" are expected to retail for $25-$30 at first, with the price coming down with volume. <i>"Dubbed the Millennial Disk, it looks virtually identical to a regular DVD, but it's special. Layers of hard, 'persistent' materials (the exact composition is a trade secret) are laid down on a plastic carrier, and digital information is literally carved in with an enhanced laser using the company's Millennial Writer, a sort of beefed-up DVD burner. Once cut, the disk can be read by an ordinary DVD reader on your computer."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>anonymous cowpie sends word of a Utah startup that is about to introduce technology for writing DVDs that can be read for 1,000 years after being stored at room temperature .
( Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years , on average .
) The company , Millenniata , is said to be in the final stages of negotiation with Phillips over patent licensing and plans to begin manufacture in September .
1,000-year " M-ARC Discs " are expected to retail for $ 25- $ 30 at first , with the price coming down with volume .
" Dubbed the Millennial Disk , it looks virtually identical to a regular DVD , but it 's special .
Layers of hard , 'persistent ' materials ( the exact composition is a trade secret ) are laid down on a plastic carrier , and digital information is literally carved in with an enhanced laser using the company 's Millennial Writer , a sort of beefed-up DVD burner .
Once cut , the disk can be read by an ordinary DVD reader on your computer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anonymous cowpie sends word of a Utah startup that is about to introduce technology for writing DVDs that can be read for 1,000 years after being stored at room temperature.
(Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years, on average.
) The company, Millenniata, is said to be in the final stages of negotiation with Phillips over patent licensing and plans to begin manufacture in September.
1,000-year "M-ARC Discs" are expected to retail for $25-$30 at first, with the price coming down with volume.
"Dubbed the Millennial Disk, it looks virtually identical to a regular DVD, but it's special.
Layers of hard, 'persistent' materials (the exact composition is a trade secret) are laid down on a plastic carrier, and digital information is literally carved in with an enhanced laser using the company's Millennial Writer, a sort of beefed-up DVD burner.
Once cut, the disk can be read by an ordinary DVD reader on your computer.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732815</id>
	<title>Re:Larger Disks</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247858100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, Vinyl records don't degrade..wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , Vinyl records do n't degrade..wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, Vinyl records don't degrade..wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728781</id>
	<title>Cryo</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1247841120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?</p></div></blockquote><p>They also offer a cryostasis program.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we KNOW that they 'll REALLY last 1,000 years ? They also offer a cryostasis program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?They also offer a cryostasis program.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732787</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247857980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They also told us to bury more porn."</p><p>That is so fucking funny.<br>Nice one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They also told us to bury more porn .
" That is so fucking funny.Nice one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They also told us to bury more porn.
"That is so fucking funny.Nice one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728795</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Locklin</author>
	<datestamp>1247841180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a psychological trick. No one will take their word for it that their disks last 1000 years. Instead, people will assume they are exaggerating, but anchor their estimate of the "real" lifetime of the disks to the 1000 year number (even though it's obviously fictitious). Half, a third, even a tenth of the advertised lifetime is still longer than a human lifetime -so people will buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a psychological trick .
No one will take their word for it that their disks last 1000 years .
Instead , people will assume they are exaggerating , but anchor their estimate of the " real " lifetime of the disks to the 1000 year number ( even though it 's obviously fictitious ) .
Half , a third , even a tenth of the advertised lifetime is still longer than a human lifetime -so people will buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a psychological trick.
No one will take their word for it that their disks last 1000 years.
Instead, people will assume they are exaggerating, but anchor their estimate of the "real" lifetime of the disks to the 1000 year number (even though it's obviously fictitious).
Half, a third, even a tenth of the advertised lifetime is still longer than a human lifetime -so people will buy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729185</id>
	<title>Good to know</title>
	<author>shervinemami</author>
	<datestamp>1247842800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure when the world gets taken over by futuristic super-intelligent tree-climbing octopii, they'll find it useful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure when the world gets taken over by futuristic super-intelligent tree-climbing octopii , they 'll find it useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure when the world gets taken over by futuristic super-intelligent tree-climbing octopii, they'll find it useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728421</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1247839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lifetime estimation study would be done.<br>
Extended incubation tests, at ~ 80&#194;C, 85\%RH ect.<br>
Accelerated ageing should give the user some idea, not that many of us will get to ask for a 'return' for faulty goods.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lifetime estimation study would be done .
Extended incubation tests , at ~ 80   C , 85 \ % RH ect .
Accelerated ageing should give the user some idea , not that many of us will get to ask for a 'return ' for faulty goods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lifetime estimation study would be done.
Extended incubation tests, at ~ 80ÂC, 85\%RH ect.
Accelerated ageing should give the user some idea, not that many of us will get to ask for a 'return' for faulty goods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728525</id>
	<title>Should there be date stamps on movie DVDs?</title>
	<author>slo5oh</author>
	<datestamp>1247839800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this is true then shouldn't new movies come with a date stamp on the case so you know you're buying a "fresh" copy?
Sounds strange to me.  I've got data and music CD's I made over 10 years ago that still work.  Can't say I've been burning DVDs that long though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is true then should n't new movies come with a date stamp on the case so you know you 're buying a " fresh " copy ?
Sounds strange to me .
I 've got data and music CD 's I made over 10 years ago that still work .
Ca n't say I 've been burning DVDs that long though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is true then shouldn't new movies come with a date stamp on the case so you know you're buying a "fresh" copy?
Sounds strange to me.
I've got data and music CD's I made over 10 years ago that still work.
Can't say I've been burning DVDs that long though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729307</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247843280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same way we know that at Ford, quality is job 1, Pontiac builds excitement, Chevy is like a rock, Microsoft gives you a world without walls, and at McDonald's "we do it all for you" (except cleaning your table?)</p><p>We don't. The assertation is meaningless. They might last longer than standard DVDs, but anyone who needs digital data to last 1000 years better have plenty of backed up copies, and back up those copies at least once per decade and make sure that the backed up copies have no flaws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same way we know that at Ford , quality is job 1 , Pontiac builds excitement , Chevy is like a rock , Microsoft gives you a world without walls , and at McDonald 's " we do it all for you " ( except cleaning your table ?
) We do n't .
The assertation is meaningless .
They might last longer than standard DVDs , but anyone who needs digital data to last 1000 years better have plenty of backed up copies , and back up those copies at least once per decade and make sure that the backed up copies have no flaws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same way we know that at Ford, quality is job 1, Pontiac builds excitement, Chevy is like a rock, Microsoft gives you a world without walls, and at McDonald's "we do it all for you" (except cleaning your table?
)We don't.
The assertation is meaningless.
They might last longer than standard DVDs, but anyone who needs digital data to last 1000 years better have plenty of backed up copies, and back up those copies at least once per decade and make sure that the backed up copies have no flaws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728757</id>
	<title>literally carved?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"digital information is literally carved in with an enhanced laser"</p><p>Surely an enhanced chisel would be more appropriate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" digital information is literally carved in with an enhanced laser " Surely an enhanced chisel would be more appropriate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"digital information is literally carved in with an enhanced laser"Surely an enhanced chisel would be more appropriate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731073</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?</p></div><p>its going to be left in a room temperature for 1000 years for testing purposes, so will only be released after that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we KNOW that they 'll REALLY last 1,000 years ? its going to be left in a room temperature for 1000 years for testing purposes , so will only be released after that : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?its going to be left in a room temperature for 1000 years for testing purposes, so will only be released after that :D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730109</id>
	<title>Half a solution</title>
	<author>Timberwolf0122</author>
	<datestamp>1247846760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They need to build a dvd player that will also last 1,000 years and prey that DRM in the future will let them play it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to build a dvd player that will also last 1,000 years and prey that DRM in the future will let them play it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need to build a dvd player that will also last 1,000 years and prey that DRM in the future will let them play it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729381</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1247843640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>9. a civilization/culture left</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>9. a civilization/culture left</tokentext>
<sentencetext>9. a civilization/culture left</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28738375</id>
	<title>Re:players?</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1247853240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You only really need to know the data structure.  The rest is trivial with the right optics set-up.  Perhaps a retinal scanner will suffice?</p><p>I think the docs on the DVD format will persevere far longer than whatever data you have on your super DVDs.  I can't say the same about Blu-ray.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You only really need to know the data structure .
The rest is trivial with the right optics set-up .
Perhaps a retinal scanner will suffice ? I think the docs on the DVD format will persevere far longer than whatever data you have on your super DVDs .
I ca n't say the same about Blu-ray .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You only really need to know the data structure.
The rest is trivial with the right optics set-up.
Perhaps a retinal scanner will suffice?I think the docs on the DVD format will persevere far longer than whatever data you have on your super DVDs.
I can't say the same about Blu-ray.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728687</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They tested it. Duh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They tested it .
Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They tested it.
Duh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728499</id>
	<title>Here's why it will fail:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...are laid down on a PLASTIC carrier,..."</p><p>Keyword for failure: plastic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...are laid down on a PLASTIC carrier,... " Keyword for failure : plastic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...are laid down on a PLASTIC carrier,..."Keyword for failure: plastic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728611</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1247840280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ask Philip J. Fry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask Philip J. Fry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask Philip J. Fry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729339</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>false1</author>
	<datestamp>1247843400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now THAT'S funny!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now THAT 'S funny !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now THAT'S funny!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728729</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and if you're wrong and we don't archive stuff for them?</p><p>No real harm in doing it. Just sayin'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and if you 're wrong and we do n't archive stuff for them ? No real harm in doing it .
Just sayin ' .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and if you're wrong and we don't archive stuff for them?No real harm in doing it.
Just sayin' ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28738303</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247852040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> doing the same for a vinyl disc would be a stretch at present, but probably not ten years from now</p> </div><p>This has already been done: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~springer/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>doing the same for a vinyl disc would be a stretch at present , but probably not ten years from now This has already been done : http : //www.cs.huji.ac.il/ ~ springer/</tokentext>
<sentencetext> doing the same for a vinyl disc would be a stretch at present, but probably not ten years from now This has already been done: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~springer/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728705</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>A. B3ttik</author>
	<datestamp>1247840700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you always this depressed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you always this depressed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you always this depressed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732011</id>
	<title>Re:TFA is light on technical details.</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1247854680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't matter if the company folds; they're negotiating with Philips, who will presumably be the manufacturer. Philips is pretty strong financially and if the technology is good Philips will be able to keep it going as long as it's profitable. And Philips is not a stupid organization; they're going to make sure the tech is as claimed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter if the company folds ; they 're negotiating with Philips , who will presumably be the manufacturer .
Philips is pretty strong financially and if the technology is good Philips will be able to keep it going as long as it 's profitable .
And Philips is not a stupid organization ; they 're going to make sure the tech is as claimed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter if the company folds; they're negotiating with Philips, who will presumably be the manufacturer.
Philips is pretty strong financially and if the technology is good Philips will be able to keep it going as long as it's profitable.
And Philips is not a stupid organization; they're going to make sure the tech is as claimed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728741</id>
	<title>Re:Only 7-12 years</title>
	<author>digitalaudiorock</author>
	<datestamp>1247840880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have DVD's in my collection now older than 12 years old and they work fine. Maybe they mean recordable discs?</p></div><p>Even if they do, I'd expect recordable disks to last longer than that if my experience with CDRs is any indication.  I don't recall ever having one of them fail with age.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have DVD 's in my collection now older than 12 years old and they work fine .
Maybe they mean recordable discs ? Even if they do , I 'd expect recordable disks to last longer than that if my experience with CDRs is any indication .
I do n't recall ever having one of them fail with age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have DVD's in my collection now older than 12 years old and they work fine.
Maybe they mean recordable discs?Even if they do, I'd expect recordable disks to last longer than that if my experience with CDRs is any indication.
I don't recall ever having one of them fail with age.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730563</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247848500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guys, you're totally miss the point of the 1000 year rating.  It applies like the 8 hour battery rating on laptops or 500,000 hours MBTF on hard drives.   It's a useless figure except in comparison to other items of the same type bearing a rating.  Now we just have to figure out the conversion factor to real numbers.  Laptop batteries usually last half, MBTF for hdds is usually 1/10th.  I'm guessing that this 1000 year DVD will probably last a good 20-30 years, which means it's actually likely to be around as long  as people keep something that plays silvery round discs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys , you 're totally miss the point of the 1000 year rating .
It applies like the 8 hour battery rating on laptops or 500,000 hours MBTF on hard drives .
It 's a useless figure except in comparison to other items of the same type bearing a rating .
Now we just have to figure out the conversion factor to real numbers .
Laptop batteries usually last half , MBTF for hdds is usually 1/10th .
I 'm guessing that this 1000 year DVD will probably last a good 20-30 years , which means it 's actually likely to be around as long as people keep something that plays silvery round discs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys, you're totally miss the point of the 1000 year rating.
It applies like the 8 hour battery rating on laptops or 500,000 hours MBTF on hard drives.
It's a useless figure except in comparison to other items of the same type bearing a rating.
Now we just have to figure out the conversion factor to real numbers.
Laptop batteries usually last half, MBTF for hdds is usually 1/10th.
I'm guessing that this 1000 year DVD will probably last a good 20-30 years, which means it's actually likely to be around as long  as people keep something that plays silvery round discs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728709</id>
	<title>Simple really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we can compare with CDROMs that were rated to last for 50 years and to have excellent new-fangled error correction properties.  Experience shows that an average pristine CDROM, when taken out of its lovely packaging, is, within say, around 5 minutes, royally fucked by virtue of a single hairline scrape.</p><p>So, concluding the obvious --- that a long 50-year rating is actually hazardous to the lifetime of a medium --- we can clearly see that a 1,000-year medium will, in fact, be a powerful tool.  With it, we can erase from history events that have already happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we can compare with CDROMs that were rated to last for 50 years and to have excellent new-fangled error correction properties .
Experience shows that an average pristine CDROM , when taken out of its lovely packaging , is , within say , around 5 minutes , royally fucked by virtue of a single hairline scrape.So , concluding the obvious --- that a long 50-year rating is actually hazardous to the lifetime of a medium --- we can clearly see that a 1,000-year medium will , in fact , be a powerful tool .
With it , we can erase from history events that have already happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we can compare with CDROMs that were rated to last for 50 years and to have excellent new-fangled error correction properties.
Experience shows that an average pristine CDROM, when taken out of its lovely packaging, is, within say, around 5 minutes, royally fucked by virtue of a single hairline scrape.So, concluding the obvious --- that a long 50-year rating is actually hazardous to the lifetime of a medium --- we can clearly see that a 1,000-year medium will, in fact, be a powerful tool.
With it, we can erase from history events that have already happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728731</id>
	<title>is it really useful?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what's the point, exactly? even today 5GB is not much for archival, and we know the pace at which storage size availability grows in time. For example, we already have tape systems of greater size and whose durability is proven.</p><p>The only (dubious) advantage would be: you'll be able to record a DVD which you'll be able to readily plug in your reader somewhere in the far future... provided that a DVD reader will still available, which I doubt.</p><p>I mean, would you care if someone in the 80's had created 1000-year-proof eight-inch floppy disks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's the point , exactly ?
even today 5GB is not much for archival , and we know the pace at which storage size availability grows in time .
For example , we already have tape systems of greater size and whose durability is proven.The only ( dubious ) advantage would be : you 'll be able to record a DVD which you 'll be able to readily plug in your reader somewhere in the far future... provided that a DVD reader will still available , which I doubt.I mean , would you care if someone in the 80 's had created 1000-year-proof eight-inch floppy disks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's the point, exactly?
even today 5GB is not much for archival, and we know the pace at which storage size availability grows in time.
For example, we already have tape systems of greater size and whose durability is proven.The only (dubious) advantage would be: you'll be able to record a DVD which you'll be able to readily plug in your reader somewhere in the far future... provided that a DVD reader will still available, which I doubt.I mean, would you care if someone in the 80's had created 1000-year-proof eight-inch floppy disks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728581</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1247840100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and will there be any DVD readers 1,000 years from now?</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>4Gb of storage is already getting quite small. By the time this gets to market it will be too late to be useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and will there be any DVD readers 1,000 years from now ?
  4Gb of storage is already getting quite small .
By the time this gets to market it will be too late to be useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and will there be any DVD readers 1,000 years from now?
  4Gb of storage is already getting quite small.
By the time this gets to market it will be too late to be useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</id>
	<title>Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>And this assumes that in 1000 years there will be:
<p>
1. a player to play the damn thing<br>
2. the resources to build a player to play the damn thing.<br>
3. a screen to view it on<br>
4. the resources to build a screen to view it on<br>
5. the cultural interest in such behaviour (sitting and watching a screen)<br>
6. the cultural capacity to decode and understand what the hell they're watching even if they do decide to watch it, assuming they have the ability to do so. For an extreme example, there is a non-zero probability that in 1000 years, the notion of "fiction" may well not exist, in which case an episode of "Friends" or "Seinfeld" become biographical portraits of stupid foolish people, as one needs to have the fictive distance to decode what is happening.<br>
7. that anyone will give a rat's ass about us in a 1000 years. They may well be pissing on our graves for having ruined the planet, and these disks may simply be destroyed as examples of the evil Evil EVIL petroleum age.<br>
8. Reverse engineering NTSC (SD or HD - just getting 29.97fps with rectangular pixels is fucked up enough) from a disc filled with microscopic pits strikes me as impossible and or pointless.
</p><p>
I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time, those are just a few off the top of my head.
</p><p>
Frankly, I think we are the civilisation that in 1000 years will be a great and tantalizing mystery. Their world will be filled with our garbage, telling them how we lived (like wasteful pigs at the trough) but they won't really know that much about what we think (because it was all digital and the technology disappeared in the die-off).
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And this assumes that in 1000 years there will be : 1. a player to play the damn thing 2. the resources to build a player to play the damn thing .
3. a screen to view it on 4. the resources to build a screen to view it on 5. the cultural interest in such behaviour ( sitting and watching a screen ) 6. the cultural capacity to decode and understand what the hell they 're watching even if they do decide to watch it , assuming they have the ability to do so .
For an extreme example , there is a non-zero probability that in 1000 years , the notion of " fiction " may well not exist , in which case an episode of " Friends " or " Seinfeld " become biographical portraits of stupid foolish people , as one needs to have the fictive distance to decode what is happening .
7. that anyone will give a rat 's ass about us in a 1000 years .
They may well be pissing on our graves for having ruined the planet , and these disks may simply be destroyed as examples of the evil Evil EVIL petroleum age .
8. Reverse engineering NTSC ( SD or HD - just getting 29.97fps with rectangular pixels is fucked up enough ) from a disc filled with microscopic pits strikes me as impossible and or pointless .
I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time , those are just a few off the top of my head .
Frankly , I think we are the civilisation that in 1000 years will be a great and tantalizing mystery .
Their world will be filled with our garbage , telling them how we lived ( like wasteful pigs at the trough ) but they wo n't really know that much about what we think ( because it was all digital and the technology disappeared in the die-off ) .
RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this assumes that in 1000 years there will be:

1. a player to play the damn thing
2. the resources to build a player to play the damn thing.
3. a screen to view it on
4. the resources to build a screen to view it on
5. the cultural interest in such behaviour (sitting and watching a screen)
6. the cultural capacity to decode and understand what the hell they're watching even if they do decide to watch it, assuming they have the ability to do so.
For an extreme example, there is a non-zero probability that in 1000 years, the notion of "fiction" may well not exist, in which case an episode of "Friends" or "Seinfeld" become biographical portraits of stupid foolish people, as one needs to have the fictive distance to decode what is happening.
7. that anyone will give a rat's ass about us in a 1000 years.
They may well be pissing on our graves for having ruined the planet, and these disks may simply be destroyed as examples of the evil Evil EVIL petroleum age.
8. Reverse engineering NTSC (SD or HD - just getting 29.97fps with rectangular pixels is fucked up enough) from a disc filled with microscopic pits strikes me as impossible and or pointless.
I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time, those are just a few off the top of my head.
Frankly, I think we are the civilisation that in 1000 years will be a great and tantalizing mystery.
Their world will be filled with our garbage, telling them how we lived (like wasteful pigs at the trough) but they won't really know that much about what we think (because it was all digital and the technology disappeared in the die-off).
RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729007</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1247842020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>8. Reverse engineering NTSC (SD or HD - just getting 29.97fps with rectangular pixels is fucked up enough) from a disc filled with microscopic pits strikes me as <b>impossible</b> and or pointless.
</p></div><p>If Things Fall Apart, it'll be impossible <i>and</i> pointless, because people probably won't even be able to discern that there are pits.  A DVD will just be another piece of godtrash, desirable because it makes pretty rainbows, but with only legends about its function.</p><p>If This Goes On, it'll be <i>trivial</i>, whether or not players still exist.  I'm pretty sure that with a consumer digicam, ImageJ, a simple audio package and some ambition, I could recover an Edison cylinder recording without any sort of physical "player"; doing the same for a vinyl disc would be a stretch at present, but probably not ten years from now.  A physical artifact with gross topographic features (as opposed to subtle patterns of charge or spin) just won't be able to retain that much mystery.  The <i>software</i> it represents can be a bit more mysterious, but I don't think the ability to analyze a digital video stream is likely to be lost unless we lose most everything else.</p><p>Of course, if the RIAA and its minions come up with <i>truly</i> strong encryption and DRM, information could be lost irretrievably.  But gods have always had demons to contend with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>8 .
Reverse engineering NTSC ( SD or HD - just getting 29.97fps with rectangular pixels is fucked up enough ) from a disc filled with microscopic pits strikes me as impossible and or pointless .
If Things Fall Apart , it 'll be impossible and pointless , because people probably wo n't even be able to discern that there are pits .
A DVD will just be another piece of godtrash , desirable because it makes pretty rainbows , but with only legends about its function.If This Goes On , it 'll be trivial , whether or not players still exist .
I 'm pretty sure that with a consumer digicam , ImageJ , a simple audio package and some ambition , I could recover an Edison cylinder recording without any sort of physical " player " ; doing the same for a vinyl disc would be a stretch at present , but probably not ten years from now .
A physical artifact with gross topographic features ( as opposed to subtle patterns of charge or spin ) just wo n't be able to retain that much mystery .
The software it represents can be a bit more mysterious , but I do n't think the ability to analyze a digital video stream is likely to be lost unless we lose most everything else.Of course , if the RIAA and its minions come up with truly strong encryption and DRM , information could be lost irretrievably .
But gods have always had demons to contend with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8.
Reverse engineering NTSC (SD or HD - just getting 29.97fps with rectangular pixels is fucked up enough) from a disc filled with microscopic pits strikes me as impossible and or pointless.
If Things Fall Apart, it'll be impossible and pointless, because people probably won't even be able to discern that there are pits.
A DVD will just be another piece of godtrash, desirable because it makes pretty rainbows, but with only legends about its function.If This Goes On, it'll be trivial, whether or not players still exist.
I'm pretty sure that with a consumer digicam, ImageJ, a simple audio package and some ambition, I could recover an Edison cylinder recording without any sort of physical "player"; doing the same for a vinyl disc would be a stretch at present, but probably not ten years from now.
A physical artifact with gross topographic features (as opposed to subtle patterns of charge or spin) just won't be able to retain that much mystery.
The software it represents can be a bit more mysterious, but I don't think the ability to analyze a digital video stream is likely to be lost unless we lose most everything else.Of course, if the RIAA and its minions come up with truly strong encryption and DRM, information could be lost irretrievably.
But gods have always had demons to contend with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729157</id>
	<title>Re:players?</title>
	<author>Zackbass</author>
	<datestamp>1247842680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm always confused as to why people get hung on this point so often. Why would someone in 1000 years (barring some apocalyptic situation), or even 20 years need a specific player to read a DVD, floppy disk, hard disk, or anything? All of these can be examined with more generic laboratory inspection equipment now, why is it unrealistic that 10 years from now you might have an optical disk scanner that reads just about anything? Even the encoding that the disks use isn't very complicated, we crack much more difficult codes all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always confused as to why people get hung on this point so often .
Why would someone in 1000 years ( barring some apocalyptic situation ) , or even 20 years need a specific player to read a DVD , floppy disk , hard disk , or anything ?
All of these can be examined with more generic laboratory inspection equipment now , why is it unrealistic that 10 years from now you might have an optical disk scanner that reads just about anything ?
Even the encoding that the disks use is n't very complicated , we crack much more difficult codes all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always confused as to why people get hung on this point so often.
Why would someone in 1000 years (barring some apocalyptic situation), or even 20 years need a specific player to read a DVD, floppy disk, hard disk, or anything?
All of these can be examined with more generic laboratory inspection equipment now, why is it unrealistic that 10 years from now you might have an optical disk scanner that reads just about anything?
Even the encoding that the disks use isn't very complicated, we crack much more difficult codes all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</id>
	<title>How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247838840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we KNOW that they 'll REALLY last 1,000 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731591</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>xycadium</author>
	<datestamp>1247853000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time, those are just a few off the top of my head.</p> </div><p>Yea, but, if it sells, it's not a waste of time, is it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time , those are just a few off the top of my head .
Yea , but , if it sells , it 's not a waste of time , is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time, those are just a few off the top of my head.
Yea, but, if it sells, it's not a waste of time, is it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728789</id>
	<title>Re:Only 7-12 years</title>
	<author>jgardner100</author>
	<datestamp>1247841180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have 13 year old recordable cd's in my collection (I can date them based on the birth of my daughter) and dvds that aren't that much younger. The article doesn't specify where is got that time scale from so I have to put it down to they made it up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have 13 year old recordable cd 's in my collection ( I can date them based on the birth of my daughter ) and dvds that are n't that much younger .
The article does n't specify where is got that time scale from so I have to put it down to they made it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have 13 year old recordable cd's in my collection (I can date them based on the birth of my daughter) and dvds that aren't that much younger.
The article doesn't specify where is got that time scale from so I have to put it down to they made it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729833</id>
	<title>Forecast: 1000 years of clouds</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1247845500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun Computers: "The Network is the Computer"</p><p>Me: "The Network is the Hard Drive"</p><p>Don't bother saving stuff on a dvd. Just encrypt it and gmail it<br>to yourself, and you're good.</p><p>Oh, don't forget to pass your password down to the grand-kids<br>before your memory goes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun Computers : " The Network is the Computer " Me : " The Network is the Hard Drive " Do n't bother saving stuff on a dvd .
Just encrypt it and gmail itto yourself , and you 're good.Oh , do n't forget to pass your password down to the grand-kidsbefore your memory goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun Computers: "The Network is the Computer"Me: "The Network is the Hard Drive"Don't bother saving stuff on a dvd.
Just encrypt it and gmail itto yourself, and you're good.Oh, don't forget to pass your password down to the grand-kidsbefore your memory goes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730291</id>
	<title>Historical Value</title>
	<author>Ohio Calvinist</author>
	<datestamp>1247847480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm reading a lot of comments about these discs being "frisbees" and trash in the future, which goes to show me that as versed as many on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. are in technology, quite a few don't know anything about archaeology. Discovering a 1000 year old artifact that is physically in good-enough shape to be read (even if it can't be interpereted) would be priceless to some in the field. Nobody said the discoveries in egypt were "as good as gravel" because they were in glyphs that weren't readily readable.<br> <br>
Even from a technological standpoint, reverse engineering a 1000 year old video or data file sounds absolutely fascinating to me... even if the DVD was a 1000 year old rick-roll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm reading a lot of comments about these discs being " frisbees " and trash in the future , which goes to show me that as versed as many on / .
are in technology , quite a few do n't know anything about archaeology .
Discovering a 1000 year old artifact that is physically in good-enough shape to be read ( even if it ca n't be interpereted ) would be priceless to some in the field .
Nobody said the discoveries in egypt were " as good as gravel " because they were in glyphs that were n't readily readable .
Even from a technological standpoint , reverse engineering a 1000 year old video or data file sounds absolutely fascinating to me... even if the DVD was a 1000 year old rick-roll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm reading a lot of comments about these discs being "frisbees" and trash in the future, which goes to show me that as versed as many on /.
are in technology, quite a few don't know anything about archaeology.
Discovering a 1000 year old artifact that is physically in good-enough shape to be read (even if it can't be interpereted) would be priceless to some in the field.
Nobody said the discoveries in egypt were "as good as gravel" because they were in glyphs that weren't readily readable.
Even from a technological standpoint, reverse engineering a 1000 year old video or data file sounds absolutely fascinating to me... even if the DVD was a 1000 year old rick-roll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728765</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time</p></div><p>I think you are missing the point.</p><p>Let's say you are an engineer working for DiskCorp, and your boss tells you to develop a compound that will last for 100 years to sell to people worried about archival. In the persuit of 100-year life, you happen to come up with something that lasts 1000 years.</p><p>Do you: (a) decide that you failed and go back to the drawing board, or (b) tell marketing they can run with the 1000-year life?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of timeI think you are missing the point.Let 's say you are an engineer working for DiskCorp , and your boss tells you to develop a compound that will last for 100 years to sell to people worried about archival .
In the persuit of 100-year life , you happen to come up with something that lasts 1000 years.Do you : ( a ) decide that you failed and go back to the drawing board , or ( b ) tell marketing they can run with the 1000-year life ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of timeI think you are missing the point.Let's say you are an engineer working for DiskCorp, and your boss tells you to develop a compound that will last for 100 years to sell to people worried about archival.
In the persuit of 100-year life, you happen to come up with something that lasts 1000 years.Do you: (a) decide that you failed and go back to the drawing board, or (b) tell marketing they can run with the 1000-year life?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28734265</id>
	<title>Who would read it after 100 years?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247821800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who cares reading the DVD after 100 years, let alone 1000 years? If history is any indication, the content of the DVD would be copied into some other media yet to be invented, which probably will have 1000x capacity. If it's not copied, nobody would know how to read it anyway, and most likely it would be ending up in a dumping site. So making a DVD that last 1000 years is pointless, buying it is a waste of money, and using it hoping somebody would read it after 1000 years is just naive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares reading the DVD after 100 years , let alone 1000 years ?
If history is any indication , the content of the DVD would be copied into some other media yet to be invented , which probably will have 1000x capacity .
If it 's not copied , nobody would know how to read it anyway , and most likely it would be ending up in a dumping site .
So making a DVD that last 1000 years is pointless , buying it is a waste of money , and using it hoping somebody would read it after 1000 years is just naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares reading the DVD after 100 years, let alone 1000 years?
If history is any indication, the content of the DVD would be copied into some other media yet to be invented, which probably will have 1000x capacity.
If it's not copied, nobody would know how to read it anyway, and most likely it would be ending up in a dumping site.
So making a DVD that last 1000 years is pointless, buying it is a waste of money, and using it hoping somebody would read it after 1000 years is just naive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731511</id>
	<title>Re:Simple really</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247852640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dub thee hammerhands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dub thee hammerhands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dub thee hammerhands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732057</id>
	<title>Re:Disc Lifespan</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1247854920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just hasn't been my experience with CDs and DVDs (even the burnable ones) at all.</p><p>I still have games for Windows 3.1 where the physical disc works just fine.  It's a very good Monopoly game (with 3D video animations) written for Windows 3.1/95 in 1994.  I just installed it on a computer again the other day.  That's already 15 years old and it's perfect in every way.  No signs of degradation.</p><p>I have some of the first music CDs that came out in the 80s.  Much of it is irreplaceable.  But I can still play discs as old as 1983 with no problems at all.  That's already 26 years with no signs of wearing out at all.</p><p>I have CD-Rs from that same era that I made for my car CD player in say, 1992 or so.  I had one of the first Ricoh 1X CD burners at work.  Nobody had ever heard of such a thing and the discs were $1 each back then.  I found one the other day and it still played just fine.  I was able to rip everything off it just fine (it was one I had made from a tape and was very convenient for making MP3s of a tape-only album.)  That's 18 years already.</p><p>I wouldn't doubt that current discs will last 100 years or more based on my experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just has n't been my experience with CDs and DVDs ( even the burnable ones ) at all.I still have games for Windows 3.1 where the physical disc works just fine .
It 's a very good Monopoly game ( with 3D video animations ) written for Windows 3.1/95 in 1994 .
I just installed it on a computer again the other day .
That 's already 15 years old and it 's perfect in every way .
No signs of degradation.I have some of the first music CDs that came out in the 80s .
Much of it is irreplaceable .
But I can still play discs as old as 1983 with no problems at all .
That 's already 26 years with no signs of wearing out at all.I have CD-Rs from that same era that I made for my car CD player in say , 1992 or so .
I had one of the first Ricoh 1X CD burners at work .
Nobody had ever heard of such a thing and the discs were $ 1 each back then .
I found one the other day and it still played just fine .
I was able to rip everything off it just fine ( it was one I had made from a tape and was very convenient for making MP3s of a tape-only album .
) That 's 18 years already.I would n't doubt that current discs will last 100 years or more based on my experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just hasn't been my experience with CDs and DVDs (even the burnable ones) at all.I still have games for Windows 3.1 where the physical disc works just fine.
It's a very good Monopoly game (with 3D video animations) written for Windows 3.1/95 in 1994.
I just installed it on a computer again the other day.
That's already 15 years old and it's perfect in every way.
No signs of degradation.I have some of the first music CDs that came out in the 80s.
Much of it is irreplaceable.
But I can still play discs as old as 1983 with no problems at all.
That's already 26 years with no signs of wearing out at all.I have CD-Rs from that same era that I made for my car CD player in say, 1992 or so.
I had one of the first Ricoh 1X CD burners at work.
Nobody had ever heard of such a thing and the discs were $1 each back then.
I found one the other day and it still played just fine.
I was able to rip everything off it just fine (it was one I had made from a tape and was very convenient for making MP3s of a tape-only album.
)  That's 18 years already.I wouldn't doubt that current discs will last 100 years or more based on my experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728623</id>
	<title>At last! Long term thinking!</title>
	<author>jabjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1247840340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now, if everyone understands DRM and closed formats are hopelessly short sighted, maybe we can avoid the current day being the future's digital dark age. We can leave a legacy of storage media still readable in formats whose workings are widely known.
Some would leave their descendants a tangled mess of data hidden with secrets on media not designed to last longer than a decade. Which is not really seeing the bigger picture.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , if everyone understands DRM and closed formats are hopelessly short sighted , maybe we can avoid the current day being the future 's digital dark age .
We can leave a legacy of storage media still readable in formats whose workings are widely known .
Some would leave their descendants a tangled mess of data hidden with secrets on media not designed to last longer than a decade .
Which is not really seeing the bigger picture.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, if everyone understands DRM and closed formats are hopelessly short sighted, maybe we can avoid the current day being the future's digital dark age.
We can leave a legacy of storage media still readable in formats whose workings are widely known.
Some would leave their descendants a tangled mess of data hidden with secrets on media not designed to last longer than a decade.
Which is not really seeing the bigger picture.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730003</id>
	<title>Re:Larger Disks</title>
	<author>tgatliff</author>
	<datestamp>1247846280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least the vinyl was analog "encoded" to make it easy for future people to figure out.  With our zero lead electronics of today, you might get 20 years from the device and then they are left trying to figure it the encoding pattern.... I would hope it would not be an issue, but if Al Gore's world happens I am guessing we will be an idiocracy based world by then...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least the vinyl was analog " encoded " to make it easy for future people to figure out .
With our zero lead electronics of today , you might get 20 years from the device and then they are left trying to figure it the encoding pattern.... I would hope it would not be an issue , but if Al Gore 's world happens I am guessing we will be an idiocracy based world by then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least the vinyl was analog "encoded" to make it easy for future people to figure out.
With our zero lead electronics of today, you might get 20 years from the device and then they are left trying to figure it the encoding pattern.... I would hope it would not be an issue, but if Al Gore's world happens I am guessing we will be an idiocracy based world by then...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729425</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247843760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the cultural interest in such behaviour (sitting and watching a screen)</p></div><p><i>We're</i> not watching it.  The overmind demands more data, at the penalty of our lives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the cultural interest in such behaviour ( sitting and watching a screen ) We 're not watching it .
The overmind demands more data , at the penalty of our lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the cultural interest in such behaviour (sitting and watching a screen)We're not watching it.
The overmind demands more data, at the penalty of our lives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728487</id>
	<title>Disc Lifespan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years, on average.)</p></div><p>For those of you really concerned about optical media in your possession, check out <a href="http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.05/docs/CDandDVDCareandHandlingGuide.pdf" title="nist.gov" rel="nofollow">NIST's "Care and Handling of CDs and DVDs - A Guide for Librarians and Archivists"</a> [nist.gov] [1.24 MB PDF warning]. That guide is extremely thorough.  <br> <br>

While it is a longer span for pressed DVDs, I'm sure the RIAA/MPAA know that the media we purchase songs and movies on has a limited lifespan that may very well be shorter than the consumer's remaining years.  And it kind of upsets me that creating backups for your own personal use of DVDs or CDs is illegal (although not typically prosecuted unless copyright infringement ensues).  Personally, I rip all my CDs and some DVDs upon purchase and simply never use the disc again.  It goes into storage and I create digital backups and hard copy backups of the discs.  It's a bit pricier and not as instant as other ways of purchasing media but it ensures I'll always have it.  When I purchased the latest Cloud Cult album, I bought the CDs and was able to download unencrypted MP3s immediately after purchase.  When I purchased the vinyl record of She &amp; Him, I was e-mailed a voucher to download the MP3s.  I wish the big distributors would follow what the little guys are doing and offer you the whole package up front.  Saves me a lot of work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years , on average .
) For those of you really concerned about optical media in your possession , check out NIST 's " Care and Handling of CDs and DVDs - A Guide for Librarians and Archivists " [ nist.gov ] [ 1.24 MB PDF warning ] .
That guide is extremely thorough .
While it is a longer span for pressed DVDs , I 'm sure the RIAA/MPAA know that the media we purchase songs and movies on has a limited lifespan that may very well be shorter than the consumer 's remaining years .
And it kind of upsets me that creating backups for your own personal use of DVDs or CDs is illegal ( although not typically prosecuted unless copyright infringement ensues ) .
Personally , I rip all my CDs and some DVDs upon purchase and simply never use the disc again .
It goes into storage and I create digital backups and hard copy backups of the discs .
It 's a bit pricier and not as instant as other ways of purchasing media but it ensures I 'll always have it .
When I purchased the latest Cloud Cult album , I bought the CDs and was able to download unencrypted MP3s immediately after purchase .
When I purchased the vinyl record of She &amp; Him , I was e-mailed a voucher to download the MP3s .
I wish the big distributors would follow what the little guys are doing and offer you the whole package up front .
Saves me a lot of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years, on average.
)For those of you really concerned about optical media in your possession, check out NIST's "Care and Handling of CDs and DVDs - A Guide for Librarians and Archivists" [nist.gov] [1.24 MB PDF warning].
That guide is extremely thorough.
While it is a longer span for pressed DVDs, I'm sure the RIAA/MPAA know that the media we purchase songs and movies on has a limited lifespan that may very well be shorter than the consumer's remaining years.
And it kind of upsets me that creating backups for your own personal use of DVDs or CDs is illegal (although not typically prosecuted unless copyright infringement ensues).
Personally, I rip all my CDs and some DVDs upon purchase and simply never use the disc again.
It goes into storage and I create digital backups and hard copy backups of the discs.
It's a bit pricier and not as instant as other ways of purchasing media but it ensures I'll always have it.
When I purchased the latest Cloud Cult album, I bought the CDs and was able to download unencrypted MP3s immediately after purchase.
When I purchased the vinyl record of She &amp; Him, I was e-mailed a voucher to download the MP3s.
I wish the big distributors would follow what the little guys are doing and offer you the whole package up front.
Saves me a lot of work.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730535</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1247848440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time, those are just a few off the top of my head.</p></div><p>Except that you've only actually listed a couple of reasons there. Reasons 1-4 plus reason 8 are all the same thing, whether our descendants have the knowledge to build the requisite technology. Good question.</p><p>Reasons 5-7 all concern whether they will have any desire to do so. All civilised societies have an interest in history, so I fail to see why our descendants should lack an interest in viewing a primary source from a millennia in the past, unless they have regressed into a fairly primitive state.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time , those are just a few off the top of my head.Except that you 've only actually listed a couple of reasons there .
Reasons 1-4 plus reason 8 are all the same thing , whether our descendants have the knowledge to build the requisite technology .
Good question.Reasons 5-7 all concern whether they will have any desire to do so .
All civilised societies have an interest in history , so I fail to see why our descendants should lack an interest in viewing a primary source from a millennia in the past , unless they have regressed into a fairly primitive state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can list many more reasons why a 1000 year disk is a waste of time, those are just a few off the top of my head.Except that you've only actually listed a couple of reasons there.
Reasons 1-4 plus reason 8 are all the same thing, whether our descendants have the knowledge to build the requisite technology.
Good question.Reasons 5-7 all concern whether they will have any desire to do so.
All civilised societies have an interest in history, so I fail to see why our descendants should lack an interest in viewing a primary source from a millennia in the past, unless they have regressed into a fairly primitive state.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730025</id>
	<title>Re:Not 1000 years, but...</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1247846400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are there USB turntables that turn in both directions, are fully variable in speed up to 100rpm, including the ability to deal with constant linear velocity, take discs up to half a metre across, with two arms for seperately tracked grooves?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there USB turntables that turn in both directions , are fully variable in speed up to 100rpm , including the ability to deal with constant linear velocity , take discs up to half a metre across , with two arms for seperately tracked grooves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there USB turntables that turn in both directions, are fully variable in speed up to 100rpm, including the ability to deal with constant linear velocity, take discs up to half a metre across, with two arms for seperately tracked grooves?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729911</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1247845920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're thinking that someone will just store these away and hope for the best.  The point isn't to preserve stuff for later.  The point is, in my opinion, that current storage doesn't last long.  This storage option lasts longer.  If you want to preserve things for 1k years and have a plan for it, great.  Think more like 50 years - or 100, a person's lifetime.  Current burnable DVD/CD tech doesn't do that.  I'd like to count on my media lasting more than 3 years, so I'm all for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're thinking that someone will just store these away and hope for the best .
The point is n't to preserve stuff for later .
The point is , in my opinion , that current storage does n't last long .
This storage option lasts longer .
If you want to preserve things for 1k years and have a plan for it , great .
Think more like 50 years - or 100 , a person 's lifetime .
Current burnable DVD/CD tech does n't do that .
I 'd like to count on my media lasting more than 3 years , so I 'm all for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're thinking that someone will just store these away and hope for the best.
The point isn't to preserve stuff for later.
The point is, in my opinion, that current storage doesn't last long.
This storage option lasts longer.
If you want to preserve things for 1k years and have a plan for it, great.
Think more like 50 years - or 100, a person's lifetime.
Current burnable DVD/CD tech doesn't do that.
I'd like to count on my media lasting more than 3 years, so I'm all for this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728559</id>
	<title>I'm much less interested in 1,000-year DVDs...</title>
	<author>bwintx</author>
	<datestamp>1247839980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...than I am in seeing the cool time machine they must have employed to test them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...than I am in seeing the cool time machine they must have employed to test them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...than I am in seeing the cool time machine they must have employed to test them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28747631</id>
	<title>Re:players?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1248017820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?</p></div><p>As if we'll be around in a thousand years.  They'll be too many people for our fresh water supplies in 50 years but the roaches will be using the DVD's for shelter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years ? As if we 'll be around in a thousand years .
They 'll be too many people for our fresh water supplies in 50 years but the roaches will be using the DVD 's for shelter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?As if we'll be around in a thousand years.
They'll be too many people for our fresh water supplies in 50 years but the roaches will be using the DVD's for shelter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728753</id>
	<title>Re:players?</title>
	<author>jabjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1247841000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We can't predict how they will read them, only try and help them do so.<br>
If the shit hits the fan, they might have to rebuild a primitive dvd reader to read our old data to help them rebuild more of our technology.
Or maybe in their towers of crystal they'll use some kind of insanely powerful, multispectrum digital camera and extract the data from the image.
Or maybe their genetically enhanced eyes and minds do it all for them in their subconscious, so they don't even see the disc, just the data.
We can't know, but we should try and make it as easy as possible for the data to be retrieved as long into the future as we can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't predict how they will read them , only try and help them do so .
If the shit hits the fan , they might have to rebuild a primitive dvd reader to read our old data to help them rebuild more of our technology .
Or maybe in their towers of crystal they 'll use some kind of insanely powerful , multispectrum digital camera and extract the data from the image .
Or maybe their genetically enhanced eyes and minds do it all for them in their subconscious , so they do n't even see the disc , just the data .
We ca n't know , but we should try and make it as easy as possible for the data to be retrieved as long into the future as we can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't predict how they will read them, only try and help them do so.
If the shit hits the fan, they might have to rebuild a primitive dvd reader to read our old data to help them rebuild more of our technology.
Or maybe in their towers of crystal they'll use some kind of insanely powerful, multispectrum digital camera and extract the data from the image.
Or maybe their genetically enhanced eyes and minds do it all for them in their subconscious, so they don't even see the disc, just the data.
We can't know, but we should try and make it as easy as possible for the data to be retrieved as long into the future as we can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728657</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>AdmiralXyz</author>
	<datestamp>1247840520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the unlikely event that you RTFA, you'll notice there is an entire section devoted to that exact question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the unlikely event that you RTFA , you 'll notice there is an entire section devoted to that exact question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the unlikely event that you RTFA, you'll notice there is an entire section devoted to that exact question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728393</id>
	<title>why no after all...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was writting a flamming "how can they prove the 1000 year thingy" when I realized thad a mere century was more than enough at this price... I wonder what are the tests though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was writting a flamming " how can they prove the 1000 year thingy " when I realized thad a mere century was more than enough at this price... I wonder what are the tests though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was writting a flamming "how can they prove the 1000 year thingy" when I realized thad a mere century was more than enough at this price... I wonder what are the tests though...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729925</id>
	<title>Re:1000-year frisbee</title>
	<author>Anne Thwacks</author>
	<datestamp>1247845920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have 8 floppy drives on my desk if you want to make a long term investment!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have 8 floppy drives on my desk if you want to make a long term investment !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have 8 floppy drives on my desk if you want to make a long term investment!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728929</id>
	<title>Re:Only 7-12 years</title>
	<author>Rashkae</author>
	<datestamp>1247841780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Common misconception,,, the 3 to 10 years is is the expected lifespan of RW media.  R media, barring defects, should last over 25 years under normal storage.  (Should definitely outlast our ability to find readers for them, in any case.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Common misconception,, , the 3 to 10 years is is the expected lifespan of RW media .
R media , barring defects , should last over 25 years under normal storage .
( Should definitely outlast our ability to find readers for them , in any case .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Common misconception,,, the 3 to 10 years is is the expected lifespan of RW media.
R media, barring defects, should last over 25 years under normal storage.
(Should definitely outlast our ability to find readers for them, in any case.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571</id>
	<title>Only 7-12 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have DVD's in my collection now older than 12 years old and they work fine. Maybe they mean recordable discs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have DVD 's in my collection now older than 12 years old and they work fine .
Maybe they mean recordable discs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have DVD's in my collection now older than 12 years old and they work fine.
Maybe they mean recordable discs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729569</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>machine321</author>
	<datestamp>1247844540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's say you are a marketer working for DiskCorp, and your boss tells the engineers to develop a compound that will last for 100 years to sell to people worried about archival. In the pursuit of 100-year life, they happen to come up with something that lasts 20 years.</p><p>Do you: (a) decide that the engineers failed and go back to the drawing board, or (b) tell marketing they can run with the 1000-year life?</p></div><p>Fixed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say you are a marketer working for DiskCorp , and your boss tells the engineers to develop a compound that will last for 100 years to sell to people worried about archival .
In the pursuit of 100-year life , they happen to come up with something that lasts 20 years.Do you : ( a ) decide that the engineers failed and go back to the drawing board , or ( b ) tell marketing they can run with the 1000-year life ? Fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say you are a marketer working for DiskCorp, and your boss tells the engineers to develop a compound that will last for 100 years to sell to people worried about archival.
In the pursuit of 100-year life, they happen to come up with something that lasts 20 years.Do you: (a) decide that the engineers failed and go back to the drawing board, or (b) tell marketing they can run with the 1000-year life?Fixed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729019</id>
	<title>3-12 years?</title>
	<author>Usually Unlucky </author>
	<datestamp>1247842080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That seems a little low to me. I have some DVDs which are at least 10 years old and some CDs which are older than I am,(25 years), and they all still play fine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems a little low to me .
I have some DVDs which are at least 10 years old and some CDs which are older than I am , ( 25 years ) , and they all still play fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems a little low to me.
I have some DVDs which are at least 10 years old and some CDs which are older than I am,(25 years), and they all still play fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729159</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>HertzaHaeon</author>
	<datestamp>1247842740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have archeologists who dig up the most mundane objects from more than 1000 years ago and make a big deal out of it. I'm sure the guy who wrote his diary on stone tablets back in the day didn't worry about us being interested in his day, or having a way to read it. And yet we do.</p><p>As for your other predictions of the future, I'm sure they have about the same level of accuracy as that of a man living 1000 years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have archeologists who dig up the most mundane objects from more than 1000 years ago and make a big deal out of it .
I 'm sure the guy who wrote his diary on stone tablets back in the day did n't worry about us being interested in his day , or having a way to read it .
And yet we do.As for your other predictions of the future , I 'm sure they have about the same level of accuracy as that of a man living 1000 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have archeologists who dig up the most mundane objects from more than 1000 years ago and make a big deal out of it.
I'm sure the guy who wrote his diary on stone tablets back in the day didn't worry about us being interested in his day, or having a way to read it.
And yet we do.As for your other predictions of the future, I'm sure they have about the same level of accuracy as that of a man living 1000 years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728763</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>truesaer</author>
	<datestamp>1247841000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, 1000 years from now the discs may not be terribly useful.  But if there was some fantastic info on them my guess is that some creative person would be willing to build a system to read them.</p><p>But really, lets put aside 1000 years.  Lets just think of 100 years, or 200.  DVDs now can't be relied upon to last 100 years, but I'm confident that if someone wanted to maintain an archive of info 100 years from now they would find a way to read the discs and put them on the latest generation archival material.  And this seems reasonable, we still occasionally find old films from the early 20th century and we have the equipment necessary to read, restore, and digitize the info.  I suspect this trend will continue.  And there are lots of people interested in maintaining huge archives of information...like google, who would love to digitize every book and other scrap of human knowledge they can get their hands on.</p><p>To me, archival isn't the question anymore.  No one needs to throw obscure information into a vault to be rediscovered 100 years from now, you can digitize it and have it available forever.  The real risk is what happens if Google ever goes south?  It would be a shame for a disaster or a bankruptcy or something to have them just shut down and throw away their data.  Seems unlikely for a bankruptcy, storage is cheap enough to justify buying almost any digitized info.  But it would only take 1 extremely disruptive natural disaster, or war, or cultural revolution, etc to lose a lot of info now that it is so concentrated into a few hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , 1000 years from now the discs may not be terribly useful .
But if there was some fantastic info on them my guess is that some creative person would be willing to build a system to read them.But really , lets put aside 1000 years .
Lets just think of 100 years , or 200 .
DVDs now ca n't be relied upon to last 100 years , but I 'm confident that if someone wanted to maintain an archive of info 100 years from now they would find a way to read the discs and put them on the latest generation archival material .
And this seems reasonable , we still occasionally find old films from the early 20th century and we have the equipment necessary to read , restore , and digitize the info .
I suspect this trend will continue .
And there are lots of people interested in maintaining huge archives of information...like google , who would love to digitize every book and other scrap of human knowledge they can get their hands on.To me , archival is n't the question anymore .
No one needs to throw obscure information into a vault to be rediscovered 100 years from now , you can digitize it and have it available forever .
The real risk is what happens if Google ever goes south ?
It would be a shame for a disaster or a bankruptcy or something to have them just shut down and throw away their data .
Seems unlikely for a bankruptcy , storage is cheap enough to justify buying almost any digitized info .
But it would only take 1 extremely disruptive natural disaster , or war , or cultural revolution , etc to lose a lot of info now that it is so concentrated into a few hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, 1000 years from now the discs may not be terribly useful.
But if there was some fantastic info on them my guess is that some creative person would be willing to build a system to read them.But really, lets put aside 1000 years.
Lets just think of 100 years, or 200.
DVDs now can't be relied upon to last 100 years, but I'm confident that if someone wanted to maintain an archive of info 100 years from now they would find a way to read the discs and put them on the latest generation archival material.
And this seems reasonable, we still occasionally find old films from the early 20th century and we have the equipment necessary to read, restore, and digitize the info.
I suspect this trend will continue.
And there are lots of people interested in maintaining huge archives of information...like google, who would love to digitize every book and other scrap of human knowledge they can get their hands on.To me, archival isn't the question anymore.
No one needs to throw obscure information into a vault to be rediscovered 100 years from now, you can digitize it and have it available forever.
The real risk is what happens if Google ever goes south?
It would be a shame for a disaster or a bankruptcy or something to have them just shut down and throw away their data.
Seems unlikely for a bankruptcy, storage is cheap enough to justify buying almost any digitized info.
But it would only take 1 extremely disruptive natural disaster, or war, or cultural revolution, etc to lose a lot of info now that it is so concentrated into a few hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729995</id>
	<title>How does this work?</title>
	<author>genghisjahn</author>
	<datestamp>1247846220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"...it looks virtually identical to a regular DVD, but it's special."

Oh...it's a *special* disc. Man, that's cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...it looks virtually identical to a regular DVD , but it 's special .
" Oh...it 's a * special * disc .
Man , that 's cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...it looks virtually identical to a regular DVD, but it's special.
"

Oh...it's a *special* disc.
Man, that's cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731365</id>
	<title>Re:players?</title>
	<author>mdarksbane</author>
	<datestamp>1247851980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you need 100 plates when you can fit the algorithm on a t-shirt?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you need 100 plates when you can fit the algorithm on a t-shirt ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you need 100 plates when you can fit the algorithm on a t-shirt?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732251</id>
	<title>Fad of the month club.</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1247855760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>digital information is literally carved in...<br>Once cut, the disk can be read by an ordinary DVD reader on your computer</p></div><p>Sounds like pressing-on-demand.. with lasers.  Even pressed discs can rot.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years, on average.)</p></div><p>This made me LOL.  There's not a single disc manufacturer that claims less than 30 years, and they used to just round up to 75 or 100. "We use BLUE dye!"  Those aging chambers literally speed up time, y'know.</p><p>Even more lolworthy is that Ask<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. commenters felt the same way just 4 short years ago.  <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/05/03/30/1819245/How-Long-Do-You-Want-Digital-Media-To-Last" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Optical media from 2005 will outlast microfiche, eh?</a> [slashdot.org]  Then I guess this Millenniata company is blowing smoke.</p><p>New != Best.  A difficult sell on a tech site.  Data migration will always be necessary. Always.  Which hardware manufacturer will commit to making drives compatible with DVD+R for the next thousand years?  Until the next crowd of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. commenters call the format antiquated, and are willing to pay $25-$30 for the next shiny thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>digital information is literally carved in...Once cut , the disk can be read by an ordinary DVD reader on your computerSounds like pressing-on-demand.. with lasers .
Even pressed discs can rot .
( Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years , on average .
) This made me LOL .
There 's not a single disc manufacturer that claims less than 30 years , and they used to just round up to 75 or 100 .
" We use BLUE dye !
" Those aging chambers literally speed up time , y'know.Even more lolworthy is that Ask / .
commenters felt the same way just 4 short years ago .
Optical media from 2005 will outlast microfiche , eh ?
[ slashdot.org ] Then I guess this Millenniata company is blowing smoke.New ! = Best .
A difficult sell on a tech site .
Data migration will always be necessary .
Always. Which hardware manufacturer will commit to making drives compatible with DVD + R for the next thousand years ?
Until the next crowd of / .
commenters call the format antiquated , and are willing to pay $ 25- $ 30 for the next shiny thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>digital information is literally carved in...Once cut, the disk can be read by an ordinary DVD reader on your computerSounds like pressing-on-demand.. with lasers.
Even pressed discs can rot.
(Ordinary DVDs last anywhere from 3 to 12 years, on average.
)This made me LOL.
There's not a single disc manufacturer that claims less than 30 years, and they used to just round up to 75 or 100.
"We use BLUE dye!
"  Those aging chambers literally speed up time, y'know.Even more lolworthy is that Ask /.
commenters felt the same way just 4 short years ago.
Optical media from 2005 will outlast microfiche, eh?
[slashdot.org]  Then I guess this Millenniata company is blowing smoke.New != Best.
A difficult sell on a tech site.
Data migration will always be necessary.
Always.  Which hardware manufacturer will commit to making drives compatible with DVD+R for the next thousand years?
Until the next crowd of /.
commenters call the format antiquated, and are willing to pay $25-$30 for the next shiny thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729521</id>
	<title>Blu-Ray</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1247844240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call me when they have a cheap 1,000 year blue ray and blue ray burner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me when they have a cheap 1,000 year blue ray and blue ray burner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me when they have a cheap 1,000 year blue ray and blue ray burner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728749</id>
	<title>Not 1000 years, but...</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1247841000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is actually useful to those of us looking for a decent data archiving system.  While I'm not aiming for a 1000 years of recovery, 20-30 would be decent.</p><p>To answer the next question; if enough people think the same way, yes there will be a player for them in 30 years.  And many of us are thinking the same way.  For reference; there are turntables with USB interfaces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually useful to those of us looking for a decent data archiving system .
While I 'm not aiming for a 1000 years of recovery , 20-30 would be decent.To answer the next question ; if enough people think the same way , yes there will be a player for them in 30 years .
And many of us are thinking the same way .
For reference ; there are turntables with USB interfaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually useful to those of us looking for a decent data archiving system.
While I'm not aiming for a 1000 years of recovery, 20-30 would be decent.To answer the next question; if enough people think the same way, yes there will be a player for them in 30 years.
And many of us are thinking the same way.
For reference; there are turntables with USB interfaces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728851</id>
	<title>Re:Disc Lifespan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep in mind that at some point your original disc will degrade.  The point of making a backup would be to get a fresh disc that will extend the time to degradation.</p><p>Difficult to calculate though since any disc you back up to is likely going to be a lesser quality than the pressed disc (ie. shorter life span).  So you have to guess at when your original disc is about to go bad and then make a fresh copy on a new disc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind that at some point your original disc will degrade .
The point of making a backup would be to get a fresh disc that will extend the time to degradation.Difficult to calculate though since any disc you back up to is likely going to be a lesser quality than the pressed disc ( ie .
shorter life span ) .
So you have to guess at when your original disc is about to go bad and then make a fresh copy on a new disc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind that at some point your original disc will degrade.
The point of making a backup would be to get a fresh disc that will extend the time to degradation.Difficult to calculate though since any disc you back up to is likely going to be a lesser quality than the pressed disc (ie.
shorter life span).
So you have to guess at when your original disc is about to go bad and then make a fresh copy on a new disc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728403</id>
	<title>1000-year frisbee</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad trying to find a DVD player 1,000 years from now will be like trying to find a floppy drive 9,980 years from now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad trying to find a DVD player 1,000 years from now will be like trying to find a floppy drive 9,980 years from now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad trying to find a DVD player 1,000 years from now will be like trying to find a floppy drive 9,980 years from now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28744087</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247918040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are standards for "accelerated testing" I think from NIST.  I am not positive on the method, but its basically exposing the media to harsher conditions than it should have normally under controlled conditions.  For example, if you wanted to test how many years a sock would last, you could wait, or put it on and off a 1000 times till it ripped. Then figure normally 1 change per day, 1000 days...  Something like that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are standards for " accelerated testing " I think from NIST .
I am not positive on the method , but its basically exposing the media to harsher conditions than it should have normally under controlled conditions .
For example , if you wanted to test how many years a sock would last , you could wait , or put it on and off a 1000 times till it ripped .
Then figure normally 1 change per day , 1000 days... Something like that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are standards for "accelerated testing" I think from NIST.
I am not positive on the method, but its basically exposing the media to harsher conditions than it should have normally under controlled conditions.
For example, if you wanted to test how many years a sock would last, you could wait, or put it on and off a 1000 times till it ripped.
Then figure normally 1 change per day, 1000 days...  Something like that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731147</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1247850960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More like the lifetime of the author + 999 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More like the lifetime of the author + 999 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like the lifetime of the author + 999 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729423</id>
	<title>One of my professors from BYU</title>
	<author>pmaccabe</author>
	<datestamp>1247843760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>is behind this technology, I remember hearing and talking a little to him about the research he was doing. It has been a few years since I graduated now. It is pretty cool to see something coming to fruition. The Information Technology program at BYU was the perfect place for a person like me and largely because of the amazing professors who were putting it together when I was there.

Of course this technology may not last 1000 years but if it doesn't it will be able to do so because something better came along, not because the media went bad. I haven't read up on the details of their recent developments yet but I can't think of anyone more likely to figure a tricky problem like this out than this professor. He was one of the toughest and sharpest minds I had the pleasure to learn from at BYU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is behind this technology , I remember hearing and talking a little to him about the research he was doing .
It has been a few years since I graduated now .
It is pretty cool to see something coming to fruition .
The Information Technology program at BYU was the perfect place for a person like me and largely because of the amazing professors who were putting it together when I was there .
Of course this technology may not last 1000 years but if it does n't it will be able to do so because something better came along , not because the media went bad .
I have n't read up on the details of their recent developments yet but I ca n't think of anyone more likely to figure a tricky problem like this out than this professor .
He was one of the toughest and sharpest minds I had the pleasure to learn from at BYU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is behind this technology, I remember hearing and talking a little to him about the research he was doing.
It has been a few years since I graduated now.
It is pretty cool to see something coming to fruition.
The Information Technology program at BYU was the perfect place for a person like me and largely because of the amazing professors who were putting it together when I was there.
Of course this technology may not last 1000 years but if it doesn't it will be able to do so because something better came along, not because the media went bad.
I haven't read up on the details of their recent developments yet but I can't think of anyone more likely to figure a tricky problem like this out than this professor.
He was one of the toughest and sharpest minds I had the pleasure to learn from at BYU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728485</id>
	<title>Trust</title>
	<author>rhsanborn</author>
	<datestamp>1247839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't this sound a lot like, "We have this super special material and this really cool laser, but we can't tell you what they are. But it lasts 1000 years...really...trust us."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't this sound a lot like , " We have this super special material and this really cool laser , but we ca n't tell you what they are .
But it lasts 1000 years...really...trust us .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't this sound a lot like, "We have this super special material and this really cool laser, but we can't tell you what they are.
But it lasts 1000 years...really...trust us.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730137</id>
	<title>Ridiculous cynicism - this is easily testable.</title>
	<author>rift321</author>
	<datestamp>1247846880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The comments regarding the inability to test such claims are unfounded and not well thought out.  Third parties could easily monitor the molecular breakdown of the data over the course of a shorter period of time, and project that over many years.  And that's just what I conjured up with just a rudimentary knowledge of material science and chemistry.</p><p>Archival-quality digital storage was seriously lacking in the marketplace.  Is it completely unfathomable that someone could engineer materials that don't degrade in such a short period of time?  The claims made by Millenniata are easily testable, and it doesn't make any sense for such a small company to make a completely testable, yet reputation-damaging claim such as this.</p><p>Skepticism is good when well-founded.  Otherwise, you're just being needlessly cynical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The comments regarding the inability to test such claims are unfounded and not well thought out .
Third parties could easily monitor the molecular breakdown of the data over the course of a shorter period of time , and project that over many years .
And that 's just what I conjured up with just a rudimentary knowledge of material science and chemistry.Archival-quality digital storage was seriously lacking in the marketplace .
Is it completely unfathomable that someone could engineer materials that do n't degrade in such a short period of time ?
The claims made by Millenniata are easily testable , and it does n't make any sense for such a small company to make a completely testable , yet reputation-damaging claim such as this.Skepticism is good when well-founded .
Otherwise , you 're just being needlessly cynical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The comments regarding the inability to test such claims are unfounded and not well thought out.
Third parties could easily monitor the molecular breakdown of the data over the course of a shorter period of time, and project that over many years.
And that's just what I conjured up with just a rudimentary knowledge of material science and chemistry.Archival-quality digital storage was seriously lacking in the marketplace.
Is it completely unfathomable that someone could engineer materials that don't degrade in such a short period of time?
The claims made by Millenniata are easily testable, and it doesn't make any sense for such a small company to make a completely testable, yet reputation-damaging claim such as this.Skepticism is good when well-founded.
Otherwise, you're just being needlessly cynical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730333</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1247847600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1.  This is destroyed by your point 2.
<p>2.  Human History has shown a consistent increase in resources every century for all of recorded histroy.  About the only way this would not happen would be a huge devastaion.   Refusing to do something becuase of the paranoid fear of huge devastaion is as much an argument not to save a single penny as it is not to save data.
</p><p>3.   Who needs a screen - in 1,000 years we use holographic projectors.   Also, not everything put on DVD is video.  I use it to store financial records.
</p><p>4.  Same point as 2, with just as little logic.
</p><p>5.  People still listen to poetry, read, watch plays, listen to music, all of which are a lot older than 1,000 years.   Again, non-video data (say census and historical information of immense interest to our decendents) will also be put on DVD.
</p><p>6.  Good Culture always lasts.  We still enjoy Beowulf.  We still read the bible.  We still read Gilgamesh.  Your arguement again presupposes that instead of advancing, as we have for every century in the past 5,000, we will instead have a huge devastation.  Paranoid stupidity.
</p><p>7.   Same exact arguement as 2 and 6.  Again, bad arguments do not get better merely because you repeat them.
</p><p>8.  Actually once again you are making the same idiot "we are all doomed" argument.  In 1,000 years, assuming 1/20 as much advanacement in technology as we have had over the past 20 years (i.e. if every 20 years we advance technology as much as we did in the last year), then reverse engineering NTSC will be an incrediablly easy task.  Just tell an AI to shine a laser at the item, measure the areas and decrypt it into video and it should be able to do it in less than a hour.
</p><p>At heart your entire argumetn revolves around the paranoid belief that we are all doomed.  If instead you assume that in the next 1,000 years we do nothing more than the average of what we have done in the past 10,000, then your beliefs are a joke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
This is destroyed by your point 2 .
2. Human History has shown a consistent increase in resources every century for all of recorded histroy .
About the only way this would not happen would be a huge devastaion .
Refusing to do something becuase of the paranoid fear of huge devastaion is as much an argument not to save a single penny as it is not to save data .
3. Who needs a screen - in 1,000 years we use holographic projectors .
Also , not everything put on DVD is video .
I use it to store financial records .
4. Same point as 2 , with just as little logic .
5. People still listen to poetry , read , watch plays , listen to music , all of which are a lot older than 1,000 years .
Again , non-video data ( say census and historical information of immense interest to our decendents ) will also be put on DVD .
6. Good Culture always lasts .
We still enjoy Beowulf .
We still read the bible .
We still read Gilgamesh .
Your arguement again presupposes that instead of advancing , as we have for every century in the past 5,000 , we will instead have a huge devastation .
Paranoid stupidity .
7. Same exact arguement as 2 and 6 .
Again , bad arguments do not get better merely because you repeat them .
8. Actually once again you are making the same idiot " we are all doomed " argument .
In 1,000 years , assuming 1/20 as much advanacement in technology as we have had over the past 20 years ( i.e .
if every 20 years we advance technology as much as we did in the last year ) , then reverse engineering NTSC will be an incrediablly easy task .
Just tell an AI to shine a laser at the item , measure the areas and decrypt it into video and it should be able to do it in less than a hour .
At heart your entire argumetn revolves around the paranoid belief that we are all doomed .
If instead you assume that in the next 1,000 years we do nothing more than the average of what we have done in the past 10,000 , then your beliefs are a joke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
This is destroyed by your point 2.
2.  Human History has shown a consistent increase in resources every century for all of recorded histroy.
About the only way this would not happen would be a huge devastaion.
Refusing to do something becuase of the paranoid fear of huge devastaion is as much an argument not to save a single penny as it is not to save data.
3.   Who needs a screen - in 1,000 years we use holographic projectors.
Also, not everything put on DVD is video.
I use it to store financial records.
4.  Same point as 2, with just as little logic.
5.  People still listen to poetry, read, watch plays, listen to music, all of which are a lot older than 1,000 years.
Again, non-video data (say census and historical information of immense interest to our decendents) will also be put on DVD.
6.  Good Culture always lasts.
We still enjoy Beowulf.
We still read the bible.
We still read Gilgamesh.
Your arguement again presupposes that instead of advancing, as we have for every century in the past 5,000, we will instead have a huge devastation.
Paranoid stupidity.
7.   Same exact arguement as 2 and 6.
Again, bad arguments do not get better merely because you repeat them.
8.  Actually once again you are making the same idiot "we are all doomed" argument.
In 1,000 years, assuming 1/20 as much advanacement in technology as we have had over the past 20 years (i.e.
if every 20 years we advance technology as much as we did in the last year), then reverse engineering NTSC will be an incrediablly easy task.
Just tell an AI to shine a laser at the item, measure the areas and decrypt it into video and it should be able to do it in less than a hour.
At heart your entire argumetn revolves around the paranoid belief that we are all doomed.
If instead you assume that in the next 1,000 years we do nothing more than the average of what we have done in the past 10,000, then your beliefs are a joke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728819</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What else would you store on a DVD that expensive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What else would you store on a DVD that expensive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What else would you store on a DVD that expensive?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728701</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And finally and most importantly, Congress would *never* consider extending the copyright term to 1000 years</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And finally and most importantly , Congress would * never * consider extending the copyright term to 1000 years</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And finally and most importantly, Congress would *never* consider extending the copyright term to 1000 years</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730347</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1247847660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know I bet the Greeks, Romans, Chinese had the same concerns.  If it is good stuff, it will survive. For example, your porn collection would likly make it. The email from your mother, most likly not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know I bet the Greeks , Romans , Chinese had the same concerns .
If it is good stuff , it will survive .
For example , your porn collection would likly make it .
The email from your mother , most likly not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know I bet the Greeks, Romans, Chinese had the same concerns.
If it is good stuff, it will survive.
For example, your porn collection would likly make it.
The email from your mother, most likly not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729741</id>
	<title>Hopefully they are not planning - Voyager 3</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247845200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US sent a golden disk (record) on Voyager 2 Spacecraft. With picture instructions on the side of the craft as how to build a record player (victrola). They did not send a record player.</p><p>Traveling at its' current speed (35000 mph) it would take almost 2,771,354,142 years to reach the closest star (33 light years away), which is the target. However in that 2.7 billion years the star system would have moved.</p><p>The not perfect vacumn of space will eventually slow the craft before it arrives. Oops.<br>The minor constant radiation of space will 'melt' the craft before it reaches that distance. Opps.<br>The half life of certain materials to build the craft is 1,000,000 years.</p><p>If Voyager 2 survives that gauntlet the chance it will actually pass within the detectable distance of a habited planet with detection technology is even more minute.</p><p>If anyone (loose term) finds the record it is probably because it CRASH LANDED on their planet. The US is sure their packaging will protect it. I am sure a gold record would survive the impact (sarcasm). Not to mention the pictograms on the outside of the craft (oh, i guess I did mention it).</p><p>But our government thought it was worth the risks to try because they thought the recorded sounds of animals and human voices would keep them (loose term again) up nights thinking about the possibility of GOD.</p><p>If our government is willing to do all that then 1000 year DVDs sound reasonable.</p><p>But before they send these DVDs into outerspace with a Sony BluRay I would remind them of the Deltan Ilia with the glowing throat lozenge and the creepy V'ger spacecraft fetish, and the hots for the dad from 7th Heaven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US sent a golden disk ( record ) on Voyager 2 Spacecraft .
With picture instructions on the side of the craft as how to build a record player ( victrola ) .
They did not send a record player.Traveling at its ' current speed ( 35000 mph ) it would take almost 2,771,354,142 years to reach the closest star ( 33 light years away ) , which is the target .
However in that 2.7 billion years the star system would have moved.The not perfect vacumn of space will eventually slow the craft before it arrives .
Oops.The minor constant radiation of space will 'melt ' the craft before it reaches that distance .
Opps.The half life of certain materials to build the craft is 1,000,000 years.If Voyager 2 survives that gauntlet the chance it will actually pass within the detectable distance of a habited planet with detection technology is even more minute.If anyone ( loose term ) finds the record it is probably because it CRASH LANDED on their planet .
The US is sure their packaging will protect it .
I am sure a gold record would survive the impact ( sarcasm ) .
Not to mention the pictograms on the outside of the craft ( oh , i guess I did mention it ) .But our government thought it was worth the risks to try because they thought the recorded sounds of animals and human voices would keep them ( loose term again ) up nights thinking about the possibility of GOD.If our government is willing to do all that then 1000 year DVDs sound reasonable.But before they send these DVDs into outerspace with a Sony BluRay I would remind them of the Deltan Ilia with the glowing throat lozenge and the creepy V'ger spacecraft fetish , and the hots for the dad from 7th Heaven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US sent a golden disk (record) on Voyager 2 Spacecraft.
With picture instructions on the side of the craft as how to build a record player (victrola).
They did not send a record player.Traveling at its' current speed (35000 mph) it would take almost 2,771,354,142 years to reach the closest star (33 light years away), which is the target.
However in that 2.7 billion years the star system would have moved.The not perfect vacumn of space will eventually slow the craft before it arrives.
Oops.The minor constant radiation of space will 'melt' the craft before it reaches that distance.
Opps.The half life of certain materials to build the craft is 1,000,000 years.If Voyager 2 survives that gauntlet the chance it will actually pass within the detectable distance of a habited planet with detection technology is even more minute.If anyone (loose term) finds the record it is probably because it CRASH LANDED on their planet.
The US is sure their packaging will protect it.
I am sure a gold record would survive the impact (sarcasm).
Not to mention the pictograms on the outside of the craft (oh, i guess I did mention it).But our government thought it was worth the risks to try because they thought the recorded sounds of animals and human voices would keep them (loose term again) up nights thinking about the possibility of GOD.If our government is willing to do all that then 1000 year DVDs sound reasonable.But before they send these DVDs into outerspace with a Sony BluRay I would remind them of the Deltan Ilia with the glowing throat lozenge and the creepy V'ger spacecraft fetish, and the hots for the dad from 7th Heaven.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730383</id>
	<title>Re:At least make some sense!</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1247847780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forgetting that they didn't have carmeras... If someone popped up with a bunch of photos from little Octavius's birthday party from the height of the Roman Empire, TONS of people would be interested in seeing it.  From the way they were dressed, to the kinds of gifts they gave, to the way they had their home decorated.  Many people really are intersted in the past, and the past is often lost because only extrodinary situation get recorded for the ages.  Day to day life is much harder to get a view of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgetting that they did n't have carmeras... If someone popped up with a bunch of photos from little Octavius 's birthday party from the height of the Roman Empire , TONS of people would be interested in seeing it .
From the way they were dressed , to the kinds of gifts they gave , to the way they had their home decorated .
Many people really are intersted in the past , and the past is often lost because only extrodinary situation get recorded for the ages .
Day to day life is much harder to get a view of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgetting that they didn't have carmeras... If someone popped up with a bunch of photos from little Octavius's birthday party from the height of the Roman Empire, TONS of people would be interested in seeing it.
From the way they were dressed, to the kinds of gifts they gave, to the way they had their home decorated.
Many people really are intersted in the past, and the past is often lost because only extrodinary situation get recorded for the ages.
Day to day life is much harder to get a view of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728369</id>
	<title>Recall Kodak</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1247839020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kodak 100 year data lifetime on its CD-R Ultima media?<br>
Sounds like someone put some effort into dvds too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kodak 100 year data lifetime on its CD-R Ultima media ?
Sounds like someone put some effort into dvds too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kodak 100 year data lifetime on its CD-R Ultima media?
Sounds like someone put some effort into dvds too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729301</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247843280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with the technical criticisms, I cant agree with the attitude of "future people will be so rational and alien to us they wont understand fiction or care about history." Humanity has always cared about stories, its where we learn things as children and as children we demand stories.  We have also always have cared deeply about our roots and our understanding of history.</p><p>Even in some uber-technological future the tools that make us smart in engineering are the same tools that make us curious. Curious and smart go hand in hand, and we will always be curious about the past.</p><p>Just because the future is unpredictable doesnt mean we should care about preserving the culture and history of the present.</p><p>&gt;&gt;They may well be pissing on our graves for having ruined the planet, and these disks may simply be destroyed as examples of the evil Evil EVIL petroleum age</p><p>Wow, angsty much? Are modern people sitting and seething in anger over the dodo bird and other species hunted to extinction? No, we're interested in the motivations and history of the period.</p><p>&gt;&gt;the cultural interest in such behaviour (sitting and watching a screen)</p><p>How old is the collection of christian myths?  People are still interested in reading it and usually in the form of a book!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with the technical criticisms , I cant agree with the attitude of " future people will be so rational and alien to us they wont understand fiction or care about history .
" Humanity has always cared about stories , its where we learn things as children and as children we demand stories .
We have also always have cared deeply about our roots and our understanding of history.Even in some uber-technological future the tools that make us smart in engineering are the same tools that make us curious .
Curious and smart go hand in hand , and we will always be curious about the past.Just because the future is unpredictable doesnt mean we should care about preserving the culture and history of the present. &gt; &gt; They may well be pissing on our graves for having ruined the planet , and these disks may simply be destroyed as examples of the evil Evil EVIL petroleum ageWow , angsty much ?
Are modern people sitting and seething in anger over the dodo bird and other species hunted to extinction ?
No , we 're interested in the motivations and history of the period. &gt; &gt; the cultural interest in such behaviour ( sitting and watching a screen ) How old is the collection of christian myths ?
People are still interested in reading it and usually in the form of a book !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with the technical criticisms, I cant agree with the attitude of "future people will be so rational and alien to us they wont understand fiction or care about history.
" Humanity has always cared about stories, its where we learn things as children and as children we demand stories.
We have also always have cared deeply about our roots and our understanding of history.Even in some uber-technological future the tools that make us smart in engineering are the same tools that make us curious.
Curious and smart go hand in hand, and we will always be curious about the past.Just because the future is unpredictable doesnt mean we should care about preserving the culture and history of the present.&gt;&gt;They may well be pissing on our graves for having ruined the planet, and these disks may simply be destroyed as examples of the evil Evil EVIL petroleum ageWow, angsty much?
Are modern people sitting and seething in anger over the dodo bird and other species hunted to extinction?
No, we're interested in the motivations and history of the period.&gt;&gt;the cultural interest in such behaviour (sitting and watching a screen)How old is the collection of christian myths?
People are still interested in reading it and usually in the form of a book!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728981</id>
	<title>Re:players?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No problem. Store them in a vault with 10 plates of instructions for building a DVD player and 100 plates showing how to crack the various layers of annoying DRM that have been added by the Hollywood studios.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No problem .
Store them in a vault with 10 plates of instructions for building a DVD player and 100 plates showing how to crack the various layers of annoying DRM that have been added by the Hollywood studios .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No problem.
Store them in a vault with 10 plates of instructions for building a DVD player and 100 plates showing how to crack the various layers of annoying DRM that have been added by the Hollywood studios.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729363</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>xigxag</author>
	<datestamp>1247843520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of a "thousand year DVD" is not to archive something for literally one thousand years.  Very few if any companies would have any possible business need for such a thing.  The point is that if you have a 'large enough' number of DVDs with a 50 year MTTF, some of them will fail well within the time frame that they might be called into use, whereas a 1,000 year DVD is much less likely to have a catastrophic failure within its useful lifespan.  Theoretically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of a " thousand year DVD " is not to archive something for literally one thousand years .
Very few if any companies would have any possible business need for such a thing .
The point is that if you have a 'large enough ' number of DVDs with a 50 year MTTF , some of them will fail well within the time frame that they might be called into use , whereas a 1,000 year DVD is much less likely to have a catastrophic failure within its useful lifespan .
Theoretically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of a "thousand year DVD" is not to archive something for literally one thousand years.
Very few if any companies would have any possible business need for such a thing.
The point is that if you have a 'large enough' number of DVDs with a 50 year MTTF, some of them will fail well within the time frame that they might be called into use, whereas a 1,000 year DVD is much less likely to have a catastrophic failure within its useful lifespan.
Theoretically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730463</id>
	<title>My DVDs are going to break?</title>
	<author>Jump into the Void</author>
	<datestamp>1247848140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All my DVD from 1997 are going to break on me now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>All my DVD from 1997 are going to break on me now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All my DVD from 1997 are going to break on me now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730303</id>
	<title>Re:Simple really</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1247847480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they're using some kind of half-life type of calculations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they 're using some kind of half-life type of calculations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they're using some kind of half-life type of calculations?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729059</id>
	<title>1000 years in the future</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1247842320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So long after I'm dead, my pr0n collection can be uncovered in the great garbage avalanche of 2505.</p><p>Excellent!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So long after I 'm dead , my pr0n collection can be uncovered in the great garbage avalanche of 2505.Excellent !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long after I'm dead, my pr0n collection can be uncovered in the great garbage avalanche of 2505.Excellent!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730753</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1247849400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This company also came up with a time machine. They can't tell you what materials it's made out of, though, because that's a trade secret.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This company also came up with a time machine .
They ca n't tell you what materials it 's made out of , though , because that 's a trade secret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This company also came up with a time machine.
They can't tell you what materials it's made out of, though, because that's a trade secret.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729203</id>
	<title>Made of clay</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1247842860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are larger, made of clay, and pinkish-orange.</p><p>They also come in other shapes and sizes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are larger , made of clay , and pinkish-orange.They also come in other shapes and sizes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are larger, made of clay, and pinkish-orange.They also come in other shapes and sizes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730677</id>
	<title>Re:players?</title>
	<author>batquux</author>
	<datestamp>1247849040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just put a DVD player in the vault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just put a DVD player in the vault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just put a DVD player in the vault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728335</id>
	<title>Posting....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247838840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Posting to prevent accidental mod.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting to prevent accidental mod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting to prevent accidental mod.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728449</id>
	<title>Carved in</title>
	<author>The\_mad\_linguist</author>
	<datestamp>1247839440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks to the fact the data is literally "carved in", these discs are playable by a wide range of easily obtainable readers.  Not only can you put them in a DVD player - in fact, it's possible simply to put a needle in the grooves of the disc, which gives detailed instructions on how to make a DVD player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks to the fact the data is literally " carved in " , these discs are playable by a wide range of easily obtainable readers .
Not only can you put them in a DVD player - in fact , it 's possible simply to put a needle in the grooves of the disc , which gives detailed instructions on how to make a DVD player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks to the fact the data is literally "carved in", these discs are playable by a wide range of easily obtainable readers.
Not only can you put them in a DVD player - in fact, it's possible simply to put a needle in the grooves of the disc, which gives detailed instructions on how to make a DVD player.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729189</id>
	<title>Data not Movies</title>
	<author>Liquidretro</author>
	<datestamp>1247842860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These disks were not developed to store compressed copies of Hollywood's favorite movies they were designed for archival of data.

I can see lots of applications for this especially in photography.  Think about all the photos that you have from your great great great grandparents.  They were printed on paper and kept in a shoebox on a shelf for years.  They have withstood 100 years easily.  With the advent of digital photography people dont print their images as often now and the ones they do tend to fade. Instead they burn them to CD and DVD (If your lucky)  These archives only last 10-15 years.  This new disk will last so much longer.

The problem I see with the new disk is that you need a special burner to burn them.  My only hope is that this will become a standard feature almost like litescribe and be included in most premium drives.

For now I will stick with good quality archival disks like MAM-A gold.  They are a normal DVD and will last 100 years.  At that time most of the photos will have no value to future generations and they can then be converted over to the current storage mediums and formats.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These disks were not developed to store compressed copies of Hollywood 's favorite movies they were designed for archival of data .
I can see lots of applications for this especially in photography .
Think about all the photos that you have from your great great great grandparents .
They were printed on paper and kept in a shoebox on a shelf for years .
They have withstood 100 years easily .
With the advent of digital photography people dont print their images as often now and the ones they do tend to fade .
Instead they burn them to CD and DVD ( If your lucky ) These archives only last 10-15 years .
This new disk will last so much longer .
The problem I see with the new disk is that you need a special burner to burn them .
My only hope is that this will become a standard feature almost like litescribe and be included in most premium drives .
For now I will stick with good quality archival disks like MAM-A gold .
They are a normal DVD and will last 100 years .
At that time most of the photos will have no value to future generations and they can then be converted over to the current storage mediums and formats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These disks were not developed to store compressed copies of Hollywood's favorite movies they were designed for archival of data.
I can see lots of applications for this especially in photography.
Think about all the photos that you have from your great great great grandparents.
They were printed on paper and kept in a shoebox on a shelf for years.
They have withstood 100 years easily.
With the advent of digital photography people dont print their images as often now and the ones they do tend to fade.
Instead they burn them to CD and DVD (If your lucky)  These archives only last 10-15 years.
This new disk will last so much longer.
The problem I see with the new disk is that you need a special burner to burn them.
My only hope is that this will become a standard feature almost like litescribe and be included in most premium drives.
For now I will stick with good quality archival disks like MAM-A gold.
They are a normal DVD and will last 100 years.
At that time most of the photos will have no value to future generations and they can then be converted over to the current storage mediums and formats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728493</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're making a black hole with LHC so they can test it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're making a black hole with LHC so they can test it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're making a black hole with LHC so they can test it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729815</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>lazyforker</author>
	<datestamp>1247845440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These were my thoughts exactly.  Assuming there really is something worth preserving on DVD for 1000 years, how do we ensure that the archaeologists, anthropologists, librarians, archivists, backup operators and alien visitors of the future will be able to read the damn things.  Even assuming that some future person is able to extract the binary data how do we ensure that they are able to decode it?  Assuming they can decode it - can they make sense of the file format?  Assuming the file format is readable, can it be presented in a meaningful way?  Just having a digital medium that can last 1000 years (if that's true) is not the issue.  We need a medium and a Rosetta Stone equivalent that'll allow future generations to understand what they're looking at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These were my thoughts exactly .
Assuming there really is something worth preserving on DVD for 1000 years , how do we ensure that the archaeologists , anthropologists , librarians , archivists , backup operators and alien visitors of the future will be able to read the damn things .
Even assuming that some future person is able to extract the binary data how do we ensure that they are able to decode it ?
Assuming they can decode it - can they make sense of the file format ?
Assuming the file format is readable , can it be presented in a meaningful way ?
Just having a digital medium that can last 1000 years ( if that 's true ) is not the issue .
We need a medium and a Rosetta Stone equivalent that 'll allow future generations to understand what they 're looking at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These were my thoughts exactly.
Assuming there really is something worth preserving on DVD for 1000 years, how do we ensure that the archaeologists, anthropologists, librarians, archivists, backup operators and alien visitors of the future will be able to read the damn things.
Even assuming that some future person is able to extract the binary data how do we ensure that they are able to decode it?
Assuming they can decode it - can they make sense of the file format?
Assuming the file format is readable, can it be presented in a meaningful way?
Just having a digital medium that can last 1000 years (if that's true) is not the issue.
We need a medium and a Rosetta Stone equivalent that'll allow future generations to understand what they're looking at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728813</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Mr. Suck</author>
	<datestamp>1247841240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A wast of time from your perspective but historians and archeologists have invested generously and patiently understanding dead languages and stone carvings from thousands of years ago. If they found a shiny disc from 1000 years ago, I think they'd be all over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A wast of time from your perspective but historians and archeologists have invested generously and patiently understanding dead languages and stone carvings from thousands of years ago .
If they found a shiny disc from 1000 years ago , I think they 'd be all over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A wast of time from your perspective but historians and archeologists have invested generously and patiently understanding dead languages and stone carvings from thousands of years ago.
If they found a shiny disc from 1000 years ago, I think they'd be all over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732445</id>
	<title>Re:players?</title>
	<author>SethJohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1247856540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even the encoding that the disks use isn't very complicated, we crack much more difficult codes all the time.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Sorry for being such a nit-wit.... but I think your comment would carry more weight if you could explain how to get the <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061129-ancient-greece.html" title="nationalgeographic.com">Antikythera mechanism</a> [nationalgeographic.com] to reveal its function.<br> <br>
Other posters are suggesting that a working DVD player be bundled with the archival discs. Given a thousand years, I believe the electrical components would degrade too much to function. The player would also need to be accompanied by a display device, which would also likely deteriorate over time.

Seth</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the encoding that the disks use is n't very complicated , we crack much more difficult codes all the time .
Sorry for being such a nit-wit.... but I think your comment would carry more weight if you could explain how to get the Antikythera mechanism [ nationalgeographic.com ] to reveal its function .
Other posters are suggesting that a working DVD player be bundled with the archival discs .
Given a thousand years , I believe the electrical components would degrade too much to function .
The player would also need to be accompanied by a display device , which would also likely deteriorate over time .
Seth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even the encoding that the disks use isn't very complicated, we crack much more difficult codes all the time.
Sorry for being such a nit-wit.... but I think your comment would carry more weight if you could explain how to get the Antikythera mechanism [nationalgeographic.com] to reveal its function.
Other posters are suggesting that a working DVD player be bundled with the archival discs.
Given a thousand years, I believe the electrical components would degrade too much to function.
The player would also need to be accompanied by a display device, which would also likely deteriorate over time.
Seth
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28733871</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>davester666</author>
	<datestamp>1247863200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?</p><p>The disks won't degrade.  But the read/write mechanisms will only be available for the next 10 years or so...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How do we KNOW that they 'll REALLY last 1,000 years ? The disks wo n't degrade .
But the read/write mechanisms will only be available for the next 10 years or so.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?The disks won't degrade.
But the read/write mechanisms will only be available for the next 10 years or so...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731635</id>
	<title>Re:Posting....</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1247853180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are no "accidental" mods, morons just get mod points sometime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no " accidental " mods , morons just get mod points sometime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no "accidental" mods, morons just get mod points sometime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730091</id>
	<title>Re:Only 7-12 years</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247846700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do. But with 7-12 years they still sound better than th 2-4 years a cheap CD-R gives you.</p><p>Oh, and DVD-RAMs usually live 3 times as long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do .
But with 7-12 years they still sound better than th 2-4 years a cheap CD-R gives you.Oh , and DVD-RAMs usually live 3 times as long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do.
But with 7-12 years they still sound better than th 2-4 years a cheap CD-R gives you.Oh, and DVD-RAMs usually live 3 times as long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730555</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1247848500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Congress would *never* consider <b>limiting</b> the copyright term to 1000 years</p></div><p>Fixed that for ya.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress would * never * consider limiting the copyright term to 1000 yearsFixed that for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress would *never* consider limiting the copyright term to 1000 yearsFixed that for ya.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728701</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728887</id>
	<title>So the MPAA is planning for their...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247841600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1000 year Reich?</p><p>I *KNEW* it!</p><p>By the way: Why would anyone put a date on when their empire will die? I mean imagine the Nazis sitting together after winning. 1000 years went by. And someone goes: "Now what?"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Also: Instant Godwin'd! ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1000 year Reich ? I * KNEW * it ! By the way : Why would anyone put a date on when their empire will die ?
I mean imagine the Nazis sitting together after winning .
1000 years went by .
And someone goes : " Now what ?
" ; ) Also : Instant Godwin 'd !
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1000 year Reich?I *KNEW* it!By the way: Why would anyone put a date on when their empire will die?
I mean imagine the Nazis sitting together after winning.
1000 years went by.
And someone goes: "Now what?
" ;)Also: Instant Godwin'd!
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729763</id>
	<title>Re:players?</title>
	<author>kbrannen</author>
	<datestamp>1247845260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?</p></div><p>If there is money to be made, then yes, someone will make the players, even if it is a very small number for the archivists. Governments could fund it for the short term while they move their data. When higher capacities come along, the process will be just like it was with floppies-&gt;CDs.</p><p>It was only 2 years ago that I threw out my last 5.25" floppy drive. The last thing I did with it was transfer ~45 floppies of data to my archive HD and then I burned 2 CDs of that data. I may never use the data, but I have it. Large archives will do the same, transferring data from old media to new media as needed. This is not rocket science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years ? If there is money to be made , then yes , someone will make the players , even if it is a very small number for the archivists .
Governments could fund it for the short term while they move their data .
When higher capacities come along , the process will be just like it was with floppies- &gt; CDs.It was only 2 years ago that I threw out my last 5.25 " floppy drive .
The last thing I did with it was transfer ~ 45 floppies of data to my archive HD and then I burned 2 CDs of that data .
I may never use the data , but I have it .
Large archives will do the same , transferring data from old media to new media as needed .
This is not rocket science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?If there is money to be made, then yes, someone will make the players, even if it is a very small number for the archivists.
Governments could fund it for the short term while they move their data.
When higher capacities come along, the process will be just like it was with floppies-&gt;CDs.It was only 2 years ago that I threw out my last 5.25" floppy drive.
The last thing I did with it was transfer ~45 floppies of data to my archive HD and then I burned 2 CDs of that data.
I may never use the data, but I have it.
Large archives will do the same, transferring data from old media to new media as needed.
This is not rocket science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728519</id>
	<title>I guess...</title>
	<author>rodrigoandrade</author>
	<datestamp>1247839800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Millenniata, is said to be in the final stages of negotiation with Phillips over patent licensing and plans to begin manufacture in September.<br><br>I guess Phillips felt sorry for some old lady who fell for a Nigerian government scam and decided to hire her...<br><br>Anyone who buys this is an idiot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Millenniata , is said to be in the final stages of negotiation with Phillips over patent licensing and plans to begin manufacture in September.I guess Phillips felt sorry for some old lady who fell for a Nigerian government scam and decided to hire her...Anyone who buys this is an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Millenniata, is said to be in the final stages of negotiation with Phillips over patent licensing and plans to begin manufacture in September.I guess Phillips felt sorry for some old lady who fell for a Nigerian government scam and decided to hire her...Anyone who buys this is an idiot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729849</id>
	<title>...last anywhere from 3 to 12 years, on average</title>
	<author>bagofbeans</author>
	<datestamp>1247845620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose that I'm the only one who sighed when reading a number range being described as an average. Come on, other nerds, be a LITTLE bit critical. It's ?. and Friday! (In the Bay Area, it's Fry'sDay, 'cos that's when the San Jose Mercury News has the multi page ad section).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose that I 'm the only one who sighed when reading a number range being described as an average .
Come on , other nerds , be a LITTLE bit critical .
It 's ? .
and Friday !
( In the Bay Area , it 's Fry'sDay , 'cos that 's when the San Jose Mercury News has the multi page ad section ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose that I'm the only one who sighed when reading a number range being described as an average.
Come on, other nerds, be a LITTLE bit critical.
It's ?.
and Friday!
(In the Bay Area, it's Fry'sDay, 'cos that's when the San Jose Mercury News has the multi page ad section).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728943</id>
	<title>Nonsense.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm from the future and these things started to fail after the invasion the P'tarr which brought Ma'arev plastic rot.<br>And holy muhummumud-iebuz-krizhn'aah, why do you bury all these DVD with acrobatics of naked people ? It's always the same, not very interesting and confuses our archeologists.<br>I heard a second-subsided Co-Proproffezor from the 3rd Uranian Institute for Frombetics and Timeline research claim they have something to do with procreation, a special cult or so. Which I find wacky - people come from the cloning factory, why do acrobatics or culting about it ? What's next ? Babies growing in the womb or what ?<br>You are a strange timeline.<br>And what's about these acrobatics from 2016 and the Mars bars ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm from the future and these things started to fail after the invasion the P'tarr which brought Ma'arev plastic rot.And holy muhummumud-iebuz-krizhn'aah , why do you bury all these DVD with acrobatics of naked people ?
It 's always the same , not very interesting and confuses our archeologists.I heard a second-subsided Co-Proproffezor from the 3rd Uranian Institute for Frombetics and Timeline research claim they have something to do with procreation , a special cult or so .
Which I find wacky - people come from the cloning factory , why do acrobatics or culting about it ?
What 's next ?
Babies growing in the womb or what ? You are a strange timeline.And what 's about these acrobatics from 2016 and the Mars bars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm from the future and these things started to fail after the invasion the P'tarr which brought Ma'arev plastic rot.And holy muhummumud-iebuz-krizhn'aah, why do you bury all these DVD with acrobatics of naked people ?
It's always the same, not very interesting and confuses our archeologists.I heard a second-subsided Co-Proproffezor from the 3rd Uranian Institute for Frombetics and Timeline research claim they have something to do with procreation, a special cult or so.
Which I find wacky - people come from the cloning factory, why do acrobatics or culting about it ?
What's next ?
Babies growing in the womb or what ?You are a strange timeline.And what's about these acrobatics from 2016 and the Mars bars ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728653</id>
	<title>from the same consensus</title>
	<author>Shivetya</author>
	<datestamp>1247840460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that tells us global warming will doom us in one hundred years.</p><p>So, in the meantime, thank you for funding my lavish lifestyle and be happy to know your saving your data (world)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that tells us global warming will doom us in one hundred years.So , in the meantime , thank you for funding my lavish lifestyle and be happy to know your saving your data ( world )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that tells us global warming will doom us in one hundred years.So, in the meantime, thank you for funding my lavish lifestyle and be happy to know your saving your data (world)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28739781</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247921220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well if the plan is to archive some disks for 1000 years (time vault style), why is it that freaking hard to stash a player along with them? You think putting it in appropriate packaging in a vacuum sealed bag would make it workable in 1000 years (barring that it gets destroyed during the interrim). And if you're worried about powering that, then just include a Baylis style electro-mechanical power supply, so whoever finds it can wind it up to power and play it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if the plan is to archive some disks for 1000 years ( time vault style ) , why is it that freaking hard to stash a player along with them ?
You think putting it in appropriate packaging in a vacuum sealed bag would make it workable in 1000 years ( barring that it gets destroyed during the interrim ) .
And if you 're worried about powering that , then just include a Baylis style electro-mechanical power supply , so whoever finds it can wind it up to power and play it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if the plan is to archive some disks for 1000 years (time vault style), why is it that freaking hard to stash a player along with them?
You think putting it in appropriate packaging in a vacuum sealed bag would make it workable in 1000 years (barring that it gets destroyed during the interrim).
And if you're worried about powering that, then just include a Baylis style electro-mechanical power supply, so whoever finds it can wind it up to power and play it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728343</id>
	<title>Larger Disks</title>
	<author>A. B3ttik</author>
	<datestamp>1247838900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dubbed the Millennial Disk, it looks virtually identical to a regular DVD, but it's special.</p></div><p>These new non-degradable disks are larger, black, and made out of vinyl.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dubbed the Millennial Disk , it looks virtually identical to a regular DVD , but it 's special.These new non-degradable disks are larger , black , and made out of vinyl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dubbed the Millennial Disk, it looks virtually identical to a regular DVD, but it's special.These new non-degradable disks are larger, black, and made out of vinyl.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728667</id>
	<title>It's the format</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the medium that has a short lifespan, it is the format. When the DVD came out, I was working for a medical IT company. In medical IT, there is an obligation to keep the data for 15 years or so. But no one could tell whether it would be +RW or -RW that would still be known 15 years later. What use is a 100 year disk if you cannot even know that the format is still supported 5 years from now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the medium that has a short lifespan , it is the format .
When the DVD came out , I was working for a medical IT company .
In medical IT , there is an obligation to keep the data for 15 years or so .
But no one could tell whether it would be + RW or -RW that would still be known 15 years later .
What use is a 100 year disk if you can not even know that the format is still supported 5 years from now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the medium that has a short lifespan, it is the format.
When the DVD came out, I was working for a medical IT company.
In medical IT, there is an obligation to keep the data for 15 years or so.
But no one could tell whether it would be +RW or -RW that would still be known 15 years later.
What use is a 100 year disk if you cannot even know that the format is still supported 5 years from now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729365</id>
	<title>Re:At least make some sense!</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1247843520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(And exactly what are you going to be archiving that you think will still be relevant or usable in a thousand years?)</p></div><p>We still read classic books, watch classic movies, view the originals of artwork.  We still reference old records, particularly census and immigration and other genealogical information.  We build whole societies around books that are hundreds, or thousands, of years old.  <br> <br>True, anything in constant contemporaneous use will be moved to updated media on an ongoing basis (like those books); but it's always good to check with the originals for authenticity.  Imagine if we could see what various famous authors ACTUALLY WROTE instead of what succeeding generations chose to copy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( And exactly what are you going to be archiving that you think will still be relevant or usable in a thousand years ?
) We still read classic books , watch classic movies , view the originals of artwork .
We still reference old records , particularly census and immigration and other genealogical information .
We build whole societies around books that are hundreds , or thousands , of years old .
True , anything in constant contemporaneous use will be moved to updated media on an ongoing basis ( like those books ) ; but it 's always good to check with the originals for authenticity .
Imagine if we could see what various famous authors ACTUALLY WROTE instead of what succeeding generations chose to copy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(And exactly what are you going to be archiving that you think will still be relevant or usable in a thousand years?
)We still read classic books, watch classic movies, view the originals of artwork.
We still reference old records, particularly census and immigration and other genealogical information.
We build whole societies around books that are hundreds, or thousands, of years old.
True, anything in constant contemporaneous use will be moved to updated media on an ongoing basis (like those books); but it's always good to check with the originals for authenticity.
Imagine if we could see what various famous authors ACTUALLY WROTE instead of what succeeding generations chose to copy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729875</id>
	<title>Re:players?</title>
	<author>Anne Thwacks</author>
	<datestamp>1247845680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you got a video disk player?<p>
Can you play 78RPM records? Any vinyl records at all?</p><p>
I have several home movies on Super-8</p><p>
And My Dad's memoires are all on Amstrad's 3" floppies (not 3.5")</p><p>
Our last Philips Cassette player died last year - even they are very hard to find!</p><p>
20 years is not very long in family history terms. Stuff the requiremnts for corporate records and health-and-safety info on where the dangerous chemicals leaked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you got a video disk player ?
Can you play 78RPM records ?
Any vinyl records at all ?
I have several home movies on Super-8 And My Dad 's memoires are all on Amstrad 's 3 " floppies ( not 3.5 " ) Our last Philips Cassette player died last year - even they are very hard to find !
20 years is not very long in family history terms .
Stuff the requiremnts for corporate records and health-and-safety info on where the dangerous chemicals leaked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you got a video disk player?
Can you play 78RPM records?
Any vinyl records at all?
I have several home movies on Super-8
And My Dad's memoires are all on Amstrad's 3" floppies (not 3.5")
Our last Philips Cassette player died last year - even they are very hard to find!
20 years is not very long in family history terms.
Stuff the requiremnts for corporate records and health-and-safety info on where the dangerous chemicals leaked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728615</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>ReiVaX18</author>
	<datestamp>1247840280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably the same way they knew cdrs were gonna last for hundreds of years when they came out</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably the same way they knew cdrs were gon na last for hundreds of years when they came out</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably the same way they knew cdrs were gonna last for hundreds of years when they came out</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729619</id>
	<title>Re:Only 7-12 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247844720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes. They mean burned DVD's, not pressed DVDs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
They mean burned DVD 's , not pressed DVDs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
They mean burned DVD's, not pressed DVDs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728479</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously the product was first marketed on the 17th of July, 1009.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the product was first marketed on the 17th of July , 1009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the product was first marketed on the 17th of July, 1009.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728915</id>
	<title>Re:players?</title>
	<author>RDW</author>
	<datestamp>1247841720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?'</p><p>Or even 20 years:</p><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning" title="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p><p>The situation won't be as extreme as it was with this proprietary system, of course (the number of number of DVD readers in circulation is very large, and the software that interacts with them is well documented), but in the long run the only thing that really makes sense is to make multiple copies that are shifted to new storage media as they become available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years ?
'Or even 20 years : http : //www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning [ guardian.co.uk ] The situation wo n't be as extreme as it was with this proprietary system , of course ( the number of number of DVD readers in circulation is very large , and the software that interacts with them is well documented ) , but in the long run the only thing that really makes sense is to make multiple copies that are shifted to new storage media as they become available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?
'Or even 20 years:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/mar/03/research.elearning [guardian.co.uk]The situation won't be as extreme as it was with this proprietary system, of course (the number of number of DVD readers in circulation is very large, and the software that interacts with them is well documented), but in the long run the only thing that really makes sense is to make multiple copies that are shifted to new storage media as they become available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732853</id>
	<title>Re:players?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247858220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So? As long as we continue, people will always know how to amke them, should the need arise.<br>Could be interesting to pop about 1000 of these, long with a dvd play and smaller computer in a air tight seal for 500 years. Hell, bury 10 of them and dig one up every 50 years.<br>Add 'printed' schematics for good measure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So ?
As long as we continue , people will always know how to amke them , should the need arise.Could be interesting to pop about 1000 of these , long with a dvd play and smaller computer in a air tight seal for 500 years .
Hell , bury 10 of them and dig one up every 50 years.Add 'printed ' schematics for good measure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So?
As long as we continue, people will always know how to amke them, should the need arise.Could be interesting to pop about 1000 of these, long with a dvd play and smaller computer in a air tight seal for 500 years.
Hell, bury 10 of them and dig one up every 50 years.Add 'printed' schematics for good measure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728859</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>stms</author>
	<datestamp>1247841480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not to mention the fact that DVD readers will probably not at the very minimum extremely hard to find.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the fact that DVD readers will probably not at the very minimum extremely hard to find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the fact that DVD readers will probably not at the very minimum extremely hard to find.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730009</id>
	<title>I hat to kill the party, but:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247846280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The plastic itself will not survive the 1000 years. ^^</p><p>Also, I doubt that you will find a working reader.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The plastic itself will not survive the 1000 years .
^ ^ Also , I doubt that you will find a working reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plastic itself will not survive the 1000 years.
^^Also, I doubt that you will find a working reader.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729319</id>
	<title>irony</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1247843340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it would take 1000 years to see if this works, and usually most people don't make it that long...!<br>Is this for a regular 5 gb dvd, or a more volumed 50gb blue ray dvd?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it would take 1000 years to see if this works , and usually most people do n't make it that long... ! Is this for a regular 5 gb dvd , or a more volumed 50gb blue ray dvd ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it would take 1000 years to see if this works, and usually most people don't make it that long...!Is this for a regular 5 gb dvd, or a more volumed 50gb blue ray dvd?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28736949</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247837580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there are no more WHITE people left in 1,000 years time, you can be sure as hell that nobody will be able to build a DVD player.</p><p>I mean, it's not as if you could drop a DVD disc in AFRICA and expect any of the hundreds of millions of BLACKS there to EVER come up with a DVD player,  is it...</p><p>Yet somehow you think that if blacks walk onto a different LAND MASS they will magically become more intelligent.</p><p>Do you think your children will thank you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there are no more WHITE people left in 1,000 years time , you can be sure as hell that nobody will be able to build a DVD player.I mean , it 's not as if you could drop a DVD disc in AFRICA and expect any of the hundreds of millions of BLACKS there to EVER come up with a DVD player , is it...Yet somehow you think that if blacks walk onto a different LAND MASS they will magically become more intelligent.Do you think your children will thank you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there are no more WHITE people left in 1,000 years time, you can be sure as hell that nobody will be able to build a DVD player.I mean, it's not as if you could drop a DVD disc in AFRICA and expect any of the hundreds of millions of BLACKS there to EVER come up with a DVD player,  is it...Yet somehow you think that if blacks walk onto a different LAND MASS they will magically become more intelligent.Do you think your children will thank you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728803</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>zarmanto</author>
	<datestamp>1247841180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?</p></div><p>I dunno, but I hear they have rock-solid proof... something to do with a borrowed Delorean, if I'm not mistaken.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we KNOW that they 'll REALLY last 1,000 years ? I dunno , but I hear they have rock-solid proof... something to do with a borrowed Delorean , if I 'm not mistaken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?I dunno, but I hear they have rock-solid proof... something to do with a borrowed Delorean, if I'm not mistaken.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28733225</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1247860080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So leave a description of DVD format, carved in titanium near your discs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So leave a description of DVD format , carved in titanium near your discs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So leave a description of DVD format, carved in titanium near your discs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728849</id>
	<title>Re:Only 7-12 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think so. professional dvd's are made in bulk, so they are stamped media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think so .
professional dvd 's are made in bulk , so they are stamped media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think so.
professional dvd's are made in bulk, so they are stamped media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728989</id>
	<title>At least make some sense!</title>
	<author>John Pfeiffer</author>
	<datestamp>1247842020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Impossible-to-substantiate claims of long-term data integrity aside, it's an absurd concept.</p><p>A 'DVD that can be read for 1,000 years'?  It will be nothing short of incredible if you can even read it in a HUNDRED years.  I'm not saying their uber material and process won't etch rather more permanent 1s and 0s into the disc.  I'm saying that even if each one comes WITH a DVD drive to archive with it (And at that price, they could.) the chances are still pretty slim that anyone could access the data in any meaningful way down the road.  (And exactly what are you going to be archiving that you think will still be relevant or usable in a thousand years?)</p><p>In FIFTY years, you're going to have future geeks taking these quaint 12cm discs, doing a 3D scan of the material's structure, extracting the binary data, and sticking it in an antique computer emulation to view the content.  The data will likely hold very little meaning whatsoever.  They'll do it because it's clever and geeky, and then they'll post a writeup about it to their blog/the cybernetic hivemind/whatever, shortly before forgetting all about the discs and never accessing them again.</p><p>In a thousand years, you'll be lucky if someone thinks they'd make a good wind chime or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Impossible-to-substantiate claims of long-term data integrity aside , it 's an absurd concept.A 'DVD that can be read for 1,000 years ' ?
It will be nothing short of incredible if you can even read it in a HUNDRED years .
I 'm not saying their uber material and process wo n't etch rather more permanent 1s and 0s into the disc .
I 'm saying that even if each one comes WITH a DVD drive to archive with it ( And at that price , they could .
) the chances are still pretty slim that anyone could access the data in any meaningful way down the road .
( And exactly what are you going to be archiving that you think will still be relevant or usable in a thousand years ?
) In FIFTY years , you 're going to have future geeks taking these quaint 12cm discs , doing a 3D scan of the material 's structure , extracting the binary data , and sticking it in an antique computer emulation to view the content .
The data will likely hold very little meaning whatsoever .
They 'll do it because it 's clever and geeky , and then they 'll post a writeup about it to their blog/the cybernetic hivemind/whatever , shortly before forgetting all about the discs and never accessing them again.In a thousand years , you 'll be lucky if someone thinks they 'd make a good wind chime or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Impossible-to-substantiate claims of long-term data integrity aside, it's an absurd concept.A 'DVD that can be read for 1,000 years'?
It will be nothing short of incredible if you can even read it in a HUNDRED years.
I'm not saying their uber material and process won't etch rather more permanent 1s and 0s into the disc.
I'm saying that even if each one comes WITH a DVD drive to archive with it (And at that price, they could.
) the chances are still pretty slim that anyone could access the data in any meaningful way down the road.
(And exactly what are you going to be archiving that you think will still be relevant or usable in a thousand years?
)In FIFTY years, you're going to have future geeks taking these quaint 12cm discs, doing a 3D scan of the material's structure, extracting the binary data, and sticking it in an antique computer emulation to view the content.
The data will likely hold very little meaning whatsoever.
They'll do it because it's clever and geeky, and then they'll post a writeup about it to their blog/the cybernetic hivemind/whatever, shortly before forgetting all about the discs and never accessing them again.In a thousand years, you'll be lucky if someone thinks they'd make a good wind chime or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728503</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1247839740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>John Titor told us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>John Titor told us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Titor told us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729515</id>
	<title>Recreating the wheel</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1247844240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why recreate the wheel if using paint on cave walls has always worked in the past?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why recreate the wheel if using paint on cave walls has always worked in the past ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why recreate the wheel if using paint on cave walls has always worked in the past?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728675</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247840520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't know they will.  But rest assured that a thousand years from now, your distant descendants can file a suit in small claims court for false advertising if your home movies won't play.</p><p>The legal system works!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't know they will .
But rest assured that a thousand years from now , your distant descendants can file a suit in small claims court for false advertising if your home movies wo n't play.The legal system works !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't know they will.
But rest assured that a thousand years from now, your distant descendants can file a suit in small claims court for false advertising if your home movies won't play.The legal system works!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728553</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?</p></div><p>People from the future told us. They also told us to bury more porn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do we KNOW that they 'll REALLY last 1,000 years ? People from the future told us .
They also told us to bury more porn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do we KNOW that they'll REALLY last 1,000 years?People from the future told us.
They also told us to bury more porn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365</id>
	<title>players?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if DVD players will be around for 1000 years?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729041</id>
	<title>Why mod Troll?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247842200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a perfectly legitimate question.<br>They used to say writable CD-Rs would last 50 years, then next thing we knew, we discovered "disc rot" (or whatever it's called) in CD-Rs that were barely a couple years old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a perfectly legitimate question.They used to say writable CD-Rs would last 50 years , then next thing we knew , we discovered " disc rot " ( or whatever it 's called ) in CD-Rs that were barely a couple years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a perfectly legitimate question.They used to say writable CD-Rs would last 50 years, then next thing we knew, we discovered "disc rot" (or whatever it's called) in CD-Rs that were barely a couple years old.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728805</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1247841180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1. a player to play the damn thing</i> </p><p>Just stick it in the molecular scanner. This is 1000 years into the future, isn't it?</p><p><i>2. the resources to build a player to play the damn thing.</i></p><p><i>3. a screen to view it on<br>4. the resources to build a screen to view it on<br></i> </p><p>Oh, you want to full old-school experience? I'm sure you can replicate a player, then. Or incorporate the molecular scan from 1. in a holodeck program that simulates a player and a screen.</p><p><i>5. the cultural interest in such behaviour (sitting and watching a screen)</i> </p><p>Maybe you're interested in ancient history? Or maybe that's several orders of magnitude more exciting than what people usually do in their spare time 1000 years from now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. a player to play the damn thing Just stick it in the molecular scanner .
This is 1000 years into the future , is n't it ? 2 .
the resources to build a player to play the damn thing.3 .
a screen to view it on4 .
the resources to build a screen to view it on Oh , you want to full old-school experience ?
I 'm sure you can replicate a player , then .
Or incorporate the molecular scan from 1. in a holodeck program that simulates a player and a screen.5 .
the cultural interest in such behaviour ( sitting and watching a screen ) Maybe you 're interested in ancient history ?
Or maybe that 's several orders of magnitude more exciting than what people usually do in their spare time 1000 years from now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. a player to play the damn thing Just stick it in the molecular scanner.
This is 1000 years into the future, isn't it?2.
the resources to build a player to play the damn thing.3.
a screen to view it on4.
the resources to build a screen to view it on Oh, you want to full old-school experience?
I'm sure you can replicate a player, then.
Or incorporate the molecular scan from 1. in a holodeck program that simulates a player and a screen.5.
the cultural interest in such behaviour (sitting and watching a screen) Maybe you're interested in ancient history?
Or maybe that's several orders of magnitude more exciting than what people usually do in their spare time 1000 years from now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28736591</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>polymeris</author>
	<datestamp>1247835120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading books about the technology involved, of course. Reading the documents that describe the fileformats. Paper books can last that long. If they can still read, that is. But I they can't I am sure they'll find out. 1000 years in not that much in the future in terms of age of civilization, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading books about the technology involved , of course .
Reading the documents that describe the fileformats .
Paper books can last that long .
If they can still read , that is .
But I they ca n't I am sure they 'll find out .
1000 years in not that much in the future in terms of age of civilization , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading books about the technology involved, of course.
Reading the documents that describe the fileformats.
Paper books can last that long.
If they can still read, that is.
But I they can't I am sure they'll find out.
1000 years in not that much in the future in terms of age of civilization, after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728419</id>
	<title>TFA is light on technical details.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For example, how does this laser "carve" into the substrate?  Is a laser strong enough to "carve" into this subtstrate even legal to sell to consumers?   If this is different from an ordinary DVD writer and discs, then how ?  How do we <em>know</em> that these discs are any better than ordinary DVDs?  After all, this company could fold in 10 years, just as it's "M-ARC" discs are failing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , how does this laser " carve " into the substrate ?
Is a laser strong enough to " carve " into this subtstrate even legal to sell to consumers ?
If this is different from an ordinary DVD writer and discs , then how ?
How do we know that these discs are any better than ordinary DVDs ?
After all , this company could fold in 10 years , just as it 's " M-ARC " discs are failing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, how does this laser "carve" into the substrate?
Is a laser strong enough to "carve" into this subtstrate even legal to sell to consumers?
If this is different from an ordinary DVD writer and discs, then how ?
How do we know that these discs are any better than ordinary DVDs?
After all, this company could fold in 10 years, just as it's "M-ARC" discs are failing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728955</id>
	<title>Re:How do we KNOW that..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247841900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Money back guaranteed!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...good luck finding their toll free number in July 3009!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Money back guaranteed !
...good luck finding their toll free number in July 3009 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Money back guaranteed!
...good luck finding their toll free number in July 3009!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730697</id>
	<title>how do they test this?</title>
	<author>vandit2k6</author>
	<datestamp>1247849160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't help but wonder if this company can prove that really the data will be available after 1,000. How is this test being performed? Also will there be DVD readers a 1,000 years from now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help but wonder if this company can prove that really the data will be available after 1,000 .
How is this test being performed ?
Also will there be DVD readers a 1,000 years from now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help but wonder if this company can prove that really the data will be available after 1,000.
How is this test being performed?
Also will there be DVD readers a 1,000 years from now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730713</id>
	<title>Re:Sure. 1000 years.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247849220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey !  The world is supposed to end in 2012, so not a problem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey !
The world is supposed to end in 2012 , so not a problem .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey !
The world is supposed to end in 2012, so not a problem ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728991</id>
	<title>Re:1000-year frisbee</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1247842020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What size floppy drive? 8", 5.25", 3.5"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What size floppy drive ?
8 " , 5.25 " , 3.5 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What size floppy drive?
8", 5.25", 3.5"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728403</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28734265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28733225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28733871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28736591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28738375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28747631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28739781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28744087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28738303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28736949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1213203_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729925
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28733871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28744087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28736949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28738303
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28733225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28739781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28736591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28734265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732445
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28732853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28747631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28731365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28738375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1213203.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28729619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28728849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1213203.28730091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
