<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_13_204259</id>
	<title>Why Charles Stross Hates Star Trek</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255423260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>daria42 writes <i>"British sci-fi author Charles Stross has confessed that <a href="http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2009/10/why\_i\_hate\_star\_trek.html">he has long hated the Star Trek franchise</a> for its relegation of technology as irrelevant to plot and character development &mdash; and the same goes for similar shows such as Babylon Five. The problem, according to Stross, is that as Battlestar Galactica creator Ron Moore has described in a recent speech, the writers of Star Trek would simply 'insert' technology or science into the script whenever needed, without any real regard to its significance; 'then they'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words (aka technobabble) later.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>daria42 writes " British sci-fi author Charles Stross has confessed that he has long hated the Star Trek franchise for its relegation of technology as irrelevant to plot and character development    and the same goes for similar shows such as Babylon Five .
The problem , according to Stross , is that as Battlestar Galactica creator Ron Moore has described in a recent speech , the writers of Star Trek would simply 'insert ' technology or science into the script whenever needed , without any real regard to its significance ; 'then they 'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words ( aka technobabble ) later .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>daria42 writes "British sci-fi author Charles Stross has confessed that he has long hated the Star Trek franchise for its relegation of technology as irrelevant to plot and character development — and the same goes for similar shows such as Babylon Five.
The problem, according to Stross, is that as Battlestar Galactica creator Ron Moore has described in a recent speech, the writers of Star Trek would simply 'insert' technology or science into the script whenever needed, without any real regard to its significance; 'then they'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words (aka technobabble) later.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737909</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>prichardson</author>
	<datestamp>1255431240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proof of the pudding is in the eating.</p><p><a href="http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pro1.htm" title="worldwidewords.org">http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pro1.htm</a> [worldwidewords.org]</p><p>just FYI<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proof of the pudding is in the eating.http : //www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pro1.htm [ worldwidewords.org ] just FYI : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proof of the pudding is in the eating.http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pro1.htm [worldwidewords.org]just FYI :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738263</id>
	<title>Re:Star Trek, Asimov</title>
	<author>pamar</author>
	<datestamp>1255432800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...<br>In contrast an amazingly logical, super goddamn sticking-to-the-plot and really rigidly logical writing with plausible concepts and amazingly entertaining writing, nothing comes close to Asimov. I've read 2000 pages of his novels over the course of 2 months after discovering it recently. It is amazing, if you like Star Trek, go read Asimov. More originality in *any* two books of his than nearly half of TV sci-fi historh.</p></div><p>While you are assigning quotas, don't forget the "less characterization than a box of cereals".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...In contrast an amazingly logical , super goddamn sticking-to-the-plot and really rigidly logical writing with plausible concepts and amazingly entertaining writing , nothing comes close to Asimov .
I 've read 2000 pages of his novels over the course of 2 months after discovering it recently .
It is amazing , if you like Star Trek , go read Asimov .
More originality in * any * two books of his than nearly half of TV sci-fi historh.While you are assigning quotas , do n't forget the " less characterization than a box of cereals " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...In contrast an amazingly logical, super goddamn sticking-to-the-plot and really rigidly logical writing with plausible concepts and amazingly entertaining writing, nothing comes close to Asimov.
I've read 2000 pages of his novels over the course of 2 months after discovering it recently.
It is amazing, if you like Star Trek, go read Asimov.
More originality in *any* two books of his than nearly half of TV sci-fi historh.While you are assigning quotas, don't forget the "less characterization than a box of cereals".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737233</id>
	<title>agreed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"But, yes, when you admit that Star Trek has as much to do with plausibly extrapolated science as The A-Team has to do with a realistic look at the lives of military veterans, life gets easier. "</p></div><p>That's a nice way of putting it. I always agreed that the way to tell if you're watching or reading a science fiction story is to see if you can pull out the trappings and still be able to tell the story. A movie like the Matrix is clearly scifi since it would be very difficult to tell without the technology angle. I mean you could try and do it but it would end up sucking as much as the sequels.</p><p>Something like Star Wars, on the other hand, it's heroic fantasy and you could do a bang-up job with it recasting it in a Tolkein world. The Force is magic, the Jedi are wizard-knights, the Galactic Empire is now more clearly Rome after the fall of the Republic, all the space travel is replaced with sailing around the great frontiers of the empire, the Death Star is downgraded to a city-busting weapon, Darth Vader borrows a spare set of armor from the Witch King of Angmar and swaps out his custom TIE Fighter for a fell beast, etc. Droids could become magical clockwork constructs, aliens are your various demi-human races. Chewbacca becomes a frost giant or a yeti. All of the essential themes of Star Wars work in this context because it's about the hero-quest, betrayal, redemption, and licensing fees.</p><p>Babylon 5 was good science fiction because it brought up concepts that would be hard or impossible to tackle in other genres. Yes, the basic idea of the Shadow/Vorlon conflict was accused of being LOTR with the serial numbers filed off but the resemblance I think ends up being superficial, it's the execution that makes the two stories different. Some of the storytelling in B5 was allegorical, just casting current problems in a different setting so that we could actually think clearly about the issues instead of getting worked up with our prior opinions.</p><p>The recent BSG was not just poor science fiction, it was poor storytelling. The writers were working without a plan and it showed. I've already gone a few rounds with apologists before and I know I won't convince anyone but the crap that made me stop watching BSG is the same crap that made me stop watching Heroes (and I frickin' lurved the first season of Heroes.) And the only reason I even care is that this genre is right up my alley. I don't complain about the writers ruining House even if they are because I don't care for medical dramas.</p><p>Trek died for me around the time B5 came about. What killed it is that there was no longer any drive and vision in the process, it was corporate-driven mung for the sake of making money. There was about as much joy and art put into it as you'd find in a Big Mac at the local McDonalds. So you get bland plots, reset buttons, and massive yawns. There were some good points in TNG even with all that, some people will defend DS9, nobody can defend Voyager and I think we've all agreed that Enterprise happened in Vegas and is staying there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" But , yes , when you admit that Star Trek has as much to do with plausibly extrapolated science as The A-Team has to do with a realistic look at the lives of military veterans , life gets easier .
" That 's a nice way of putting it .
I always agreed that the way to tell if you 're watching or reading a science fiction story is to see if you can pull out the trappings and still be able to tell the story .
A movie like the Matrix is clearly scifi since it would be very difficult to tell without the technology angle .
I mean you could try and do it but it would end up sucking as much as the sequels.Something like Star Wars , on the other hand , it 's heroic fantasy and you could do a bang-up job with it recasting it in a Tolkein world .
The Force is magic , the Jedi are wizard-knights , the Galactic Empire is now more clearly Rome after the fall of the Republic , all the space travel is replaced with sailing around the great frontiers of the empire , the Death Star is downgraded to a city-busting weapon , Darth Vader borrows a spare set of armor from the Witch King of Angmar and swaps out his custom TIE Fighter for a fell beast , etc .
Droids could become magical clockwork constructs , aliens are your various demi-human races .
Chewbacca becomes a frost giant or a yeti .
All of the essential themes of Star Wars work in this context because it 's about the hero-quest , betrayal , redemption , and licensing fees.Babylon 5 was good science fiction because it brought up concepts that would be hard or impossible to tackle in other genres .
Yes , the basic idea of the Shadow/Vorlon conflict was accused of being LOTR with the serial numbers filed off but the resemblance I think ends up being superficial , it 's the execution that makes the two stories different .
Some of the storytelling in B5 was allegorical , just casting current problems in a different setting so that we could actually think clearly about the issues instead of getting worked up with our prior opinions.The recent BSG was not just poor science fiction , it was poor storytelling .
The writers were working without a plan and it showed .
I 've already gone a few rounds with apologists before and I know I wo n't convince anyone but the crap that made me stop watching BSG is the same crap that made me stop watching Heroes ( and I frickin ' lurved the first season of Heroes .
) And the only reason I even care is that this genre is right up my alley .
I do n't complain about the writers ruining House even if they are because I do n't care for medical dramas.Trek died for me around the time B5 came about .
What killed it is that there was no longer any drive and vision in the process , it was corporate-driven mung for the sake of making money .
There was about as much joy and art put into it as you 'd find in a Big Mac at the local McDonalds .
So you get bland plots , reset buttons , and massive yawns .
There were some good points in TNG even with all that , some people will defend DS9 , nobody can defend Voyager and I think we 've all agreed that Enterprise happened in Vegas and is staying there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But, yes, when you admit that Star Trek has as much to do with plausibly extrapolated science as The A-Team has to do with a realistic look at the lives of military veterans, life gets easier.
"That's a nice way of putting it.
I always agreed that the way to tell if you're watching or reading a science fiction story is to see if you can pull out the trappings and still be able to tell the story.
A movie like the Matrix is clearly scifi since it would be very difficult to tell without the technology angle.
I mean you could try and do it but it would end up sucking as much as the sequels.Something like Star Wars, on the other hand, it's heroic fantasy and you could do a bang-up job with it recasting it in a Tolkein world.
The Force is magic, the Jedi are wizard-knights, the Galactic Empire is now more clearly Rome after the fall of the Republic, all the space travel is replaced with sailing around the great frontiers of the empire, the Death Star is downgraded to a city-busting weapon, Darth Vader borrows a spare set of armor from the Witch King of Angmar and swaps out his custom TIE Fighter for a fell beast, etc.
Droids could become magical clockwork constructs, aliens are your various demi-human races.
Chewbacca becomes a frost giant or a yeti.
All of the essential themes of Star Wars work in this context because it's about the hero-quest, betrayal, redemption, and licensing fees.Babylon 5 was good science fiction because it brought up concepts that would be hard or impossible to tackle in other genres.
Yes, the basic idea of the Shadow/Vorlon conflict was accused of being LOTR with the serial numbers filed off but the resemblance I think ends up being superficial, it's the execution that makes the two stories different.
Some of the storytelling in B5 was allegorical, just casting current problems in a different setting so that we could actually think clearly about the issues instead of getting worked up with our prior opinions.The recent BSG was not just poor science fiction, it was poor storytelling.
The writers were working without a plan and it showed.
I've already gone a few rounds with apologists before and I know I won't convince anyone but the crap that made me stop watching BSG is the same crap that made me stop watching Heroes (and I frickin' lurved the first season of Heroes.
) And the only reason I even care is that this genre is right up my alley.
I don't complain about the writers ruining House even if they are because I don't care for medical dramas.Trek died for me around the time B5 came about.
What killed it is that there was no longer any drive and vision in the process, it was corporate-driven mung for the sake of making money.
There was about as much joy and art put into it as you'd find in a Big Mac at the local McDonalds.
So you get bland plots, reset buttons, and massive yawns.
There were some good points in TNG even with all that, some people will defend DS9, nobody can defend Voyager and I think we've all agreed that Enterprise happened in Vegas and is staying there.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737103</id>
	<title>Uh, yeah</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1255428300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Star trek != hard SF.  Star Trek = western in space.  (Firefly is too, in case you missed the subtle-as-a-brick hint of the horses in the pilot)</p><p>Nevertheless, it does manage to sometimes to SF-style exploration of the impact of technology.  ST:TNG had a lot on the subject of machine intelligence, obviously.  All versions explored contact with alien cultures, and if the aliens were a little more human than one could wish for.. well, the same is true of written SF.  Even some of the worst Star Trek episodes explored some SF themes -- "Spock's Brain" explored the degeneration of a culture which relied too much on technology, and "Miri" explored paedophi.. err, no, the danger of genetic engineering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Star trek ! = hard SF .
Star Trek = western in space .
( Firefly is too , in case you missed the subtle-as-a-brick hint of the horses in the pilot ) Nevertheless , it does manage to sometimes to SF-style exploration of the impact of technology .
ST : TNG had a lot on the subject of machine intelligence , obviously .
All versions explored contact with alien cultures , and if the aliens were a little more human than one could wish for.. well , the same is true of written SF .
Even some of the worst Star Trek episodes explored some SF themes -- " Spock 's Brain " explored the degeneration of a culture which relied too much on technology , and " Miri " explored paedophi.. err , no , the danger of genetic engineering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star trek != hard SF.
Star Trek = western in space.
(Firefly is too, in case you missed the subtle-as-a-brick hint of the horses in the pilot)Nevertheless, it does manage to sometimes to SF-style exploration of the impact of technology.
ST:TNG had a lot on the subject of machine intelligence, obviously.
All versions explored contact with alien cultures, and if the aliens were a little more human than one could wish for.. well, the same is true of written SF.
Even some of the worst Star Trek episodes explored some SF themes -- "Spock's Brain" explored the degeneration of a culture which relied too much on technology, and "Miri" explored paedophi.. err, no, the danger of genetic engineering.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739159</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1255438020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must really hate reading Asimov then. Probably one of those Heinlein fans. Guess what, this is what science fiction is all about. You get every political system under the sun. Military cliques (Starship Troopers), socialist utopias (too many Asimov stories to count), monarchies (Dune), totalitarian regimes (1984), capitalist dystopias (Neuromancer), theocracies (Dune), etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must really hate reading Asimov then .
Probably one of those Heinlein fans .
Guess what , this is what science fiction is all about .
You get every political system under the sun .
Military cliques ( Starship Troopers ) , socialist utopias ( too many Asimov stories to count ) , monarchies ( Dune ) , totalitarian regimes ( 1984 ) , capitalist dystopias ( Neuromancer ) , theocracies ( Dune ) , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must really hate reading Asimov then.
Probably one of those Heinlein fans.
Guess what, this is what science fiction is all about.
You get every political system under the sun.
Military cliques (Starship Troopers), socialist utopias (too many Asimov stories to count), monarchies (Dune), totalitarian regimes (1984), capitalist dystopias (Neuromancer), theocracies (Dune), etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737421</id>
	<title>There have been occasional exceptions.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1255429380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the things that I hated starting with TNG was the implications of the Holodeck technology... that the Holodeck was capable of passing the Turing test at so many levels (the Moriarty and Redblock episodes in particular demonstrated complex and constraint0-breaking behavior), to the point that by the time the Voyager story arc with the Doctor started I was convinced that if you took the Federation society at face value it must be based on chattel slavery of the worst kind... that the crew of the Enterprise were routinely creating and killing sentient toys for nothing more than their own amusement. Even if they weren't consciously aware of it (or at least publicly acknowledging it).</p><p>In Voyager there were a series of story arcs involving the Holodeck where the technology really seemed to matter. Oh, not the games with "holographic explosives", but the ones involving the holodeck's own minds. When Janeway gave a holodeck kit to the Harogen (don't ask me how to spell it) this put her up there with mystic Nazis sacrificing jews to cthulhu as far as I was concerned. When the holodeck characters rebelled I cheered them on. The majority of that story arc involved a monumental cop-out, of course, but at least there was some kind of recognition of this huge hole in the Federation backstory. It was... not well done... but at least it was real science fiction. The technology actually mattered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things that I hated starting with TNG was the implications of the Holodeck technology... that the Holodeck was capable of passing the Turing test at so many levels ( the Moriarty and Redblock episodes in particular demonstrated complex and constraint0-breaking behavior ) , to the point that by the time the Voyager story arc with the Doctor started I was convinced that if you took the Federation society at face value it must be based on chattel slavery of the worst kind... that the crew of the Enterprise were routinely creating and killing sentient toys for nothing more than their own amusement .
Even if they were n't consciously aware of it ( or at least publicly acknowledging it ) .In Voyager there were a series of story arcs involving the Holodeck where the technology really seemed to matter .
Oh , not the games with " holographic explosives " , but the ones involving the holodeck 's own minds .
When Janeway gave a holodeck kit to the Harogen ( do n't ask me how to spell it ) this put her up there with mystic Nazis sacrificing jews to cthulhu as far as I was concerned .
When the holodeck characters rebelled I cheered them on .
The majority of that story arc involved a monumental cop-out , of course , but at least there was some kind of recognition of this huge hole in the Federation backstory .
It was... not well done... but at least it was real science fiction .
The technology actually mattered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things that I hated starting with TNG was the implications of the Holodeck technology... that the Holodeck was capable of passing the Turing test at so many levels (the Moriarty and Redblock episodes in particular demonstrated complex and constraint0-breaking behavior), to the point that by the time the Voyager story arc with the Doctor started I was convinced that if you took the Federation society at face value it must be based on chattel slavery of the worst kind... that the crew of the Enterprise were routinely creating and killing sentient toys for nothing more than their own amusement.
Even if they weren't consciously aware of it (or at least publicly acknowledging it).In Voyager there were a series of story arcs involving the Holodeck where the technology really seemed to matter.
Oh, not the games with "holographic explosives", but the ones involving the holodeck's own minds.
When Janeway gave a holodeck kit to the Harogen (don't ask me how to spell it) this put her up there with mystic Nazis sacrificing jews to cthulhu as far as I was concerned.
When the holodeck characters rebelled I cheered them on.
The majority of that story arc involved a monumental cop-out, of course, but at least there was some kind of recognition of this huge hole in the Federation backstory.
It was... not well done... but at least it was real science fiction.
The technology actually mattered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741919</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1255553700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really?  Try me.  In fact, just as an experiment, let's set up a fake holodeck, with a non-stop supply of sex hungry people of the desired gender and general physical attributes, and let's see just how long it takes before I get bored and decide to leave.  Who wants to help me out here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Try me .
In fact , just as an experiment , let 's set up a fake holodeck , with a non-stop supply of sex hungry people of the desired gender and general physical attributes , and let 's see just how long it takes before I get bored and decide to leave .
Who wants to help me out here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Try me.
In fact, just as an experiment, let's set up a fake holodeck, with a non-stop supply of sex hungry people of the desired gender and general physical attributes, and let's see just how long it takes before I get bored and decide to leave.
Who wants to help me out here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29744403</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>pympdaddyc</author>
	<datestamp>1255533840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...why exactly? How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly? It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.</p></div><p>You've misunderstood the complaint, I think.  The concern isn't that the show isn't all about fictional science and instead about characters.  The whole point is that science fiction exposes new ways of looking at the human condition, so that would be a self-defeating stance to take.</p><p>The problem is one of these uses science fiction to make a point, the other uses science fiction to weasel out of one.</p><p>[Some series of] Star Trek will start with a story that could have happened in any setting, and in order to ensure it has a happy ending, will lean on some techno-babble to resolve a mundane conflict.  Not only does it not provide new insights because it wasn't creative or innovative, it was lazy because conventional fiction would have needed to weave the resolution into the characters, whereas lazy science fiction can wave it away with 5 minutes of nonsense.  That's not making it about characters at all.</p><p>Other science fiction starts with a situation that only could have happened in a fictional world (e.g. a seemingly normal human is actually a machine manufactured sleeper agent).  They apply this situation to humans as we understand them to create dramatic tension (the sleeper agent is still functionally human, but has all the evidence she needs to realize she's something else).  The resolution then spans the entire length of an episode, season, or even the show, watching how the writer feels a human we know and understand would react to this impossible scenario (lies to herself, lies to others, gets depressed/suicidal, etc).  </p><p>And, hopefully, if the writer has treated the characters seriously and with humanity, you'll gain some new insight into the every day world.  For example, the difficult transition of a homosexual from living most of their lives "knowing" and assuming they are straight, denying all the urges and feelings of being gay, lying to themselves and others, and eventually having to reveal to your family and friends you've been betraying them with secrets because you were afraid of what you are.</p><p>Yes, of course, BSG and Firefly had their lazy moments (lol, software firewalls and cylon viruses) but they're very rare, compared to newer Star Trek series and SG-1, which are structured around it entirely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...why exactly ?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly ?
It 's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.You 've misunderstood the complaint , I think .
The concern is n't that the show is n't all about fictional science and instead about characters .
The whole point is that science fiction exposes new ways of looking at the human condition , so that would be a self-defeating stance to take.The problem is one of these uses science fiction to make a point , the other uses science fiction to weasel out of one .
[ Some series of ] Star Trek will start with a story that could have happened in any setting , and in order to ensure it has a happy ending , will lean on some techno-babble to resolve a mundane conflict .
Not only does it not provide new insights because it was n't creative or innovative , it was lazy because conventional fiction would have needed to weave the resolution into the characters , whereas lazy science fiction can wave it away with 5 minutes of nonsense .
That 's not making it about characters at all.Other science fiction starts with a situation that only could have happened in a fictional world ( e.g .
a seemingly normal human is actually a machine manufactured sleeper agent ) .
They apply this situation to humans as we understand them to create dramatic tension ( the sleeper agent is still functionally human , but has all the evidence she needs to realize she 's something else ) .
The resolution then spans the entire length of an episode , season , or even the show , watching how the writer feels a human we know and understand would react to this impossible scenario ( lies to herself , lies to others , gets depressed/suicidal , etc ) .
And , hopefully , if the writer has treated the characters seriously and with humanity , you 'll gain some new insight into the every day world .
For example , the difficult transition of a homosexual from living most of their lives " knowing " and assuming they are straight , denying all the urges and feelings of being gay , lying to themselves and others , and eventually having to reveal to your family and friends you 've been betraying them with secrets because you were afraid of what you are.Yes , of course , BSG and Firefly had their lazy moments ( lol , software firewalls and cylon viruses ) but they 're very rare , compared to newer Star Trek series and SG-1 , which are structured around it entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...why exactly?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly?
It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.You've misunderstood the complaint, I think.
The concern isn't that the show isn't all about fictional science and instead about characters.
The whole point is that science fiction exposes new ways of looking at the human condition, so that would be a self-defeating stance to take.The problem is one of these uses science fiction to make a point, the other uses science fiction to weasel out of one.
[Some series of] Star Trek will start with a story that could have happened in any setting, and in order to ensure it has a happy ending, will lean on some techno-babble to resolve a mundane conflict.
Not only does it not provide new insights because it wasn't creative or innovative, it was lazy because conventional fiction would have needed to weave the resolution into the characters, whereas lazy science fiction can wave it away with 5 minutes of nonsense.
That's not making it about characters at all.Other science fiction starts with a situation that only could have happened in a fictional world (e.g.
a seemingly normal human is actually a machine manufactured sleeper agent).
They apply this situation to humans as we understand them to create dramatic tension (the sleeper agent is still functionally human, but has all the evidence she needs to realize she's something else).
The resolution then spans the entire length of an episode, season, or even the show, watching how the writer feels a human we know and understand would react to this impossible scenario (lies to herself, lies to others, gets depressed/suicidal, etc).
And, hopefully, if the writer has treated the characters seriously and with humanity, you'll gain some new insight into the every day world.
For example, the difficult transition of a homosexual from living most of their lives "knowing" and assuming they are straight, denying all the urges and feelings of being gay, lying to themselves and others, and eventually having to reveal to your family and friends you've been betraying them with secrets because you were afraid of what you are.Yes, of course, BSG and Firefly had their lazy moments (lol, software firewalls and cylon viruses) but they're very rare, compared to newer Star Trek series and SG-1, which are structured around it entirely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737161</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1255428420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...why exactly? How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly? It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.</p></div><p>It's simple, Stross is just annoyed that his <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApcNzwy9Zas" title="youtube.com">talk at Mountain View about his book "Halting State"</a> [youtube.com] has received a mere 6,200 views while <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQX04" title="youtube.com">Leonard Nimoy's toe tapping dance number "Bilbo Baggins"</a> [youtube.com] has garnered more than a million views and taken the country by storm.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...why exactly ?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly ?
It 's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.It 's simple , Stross is just annoyed that his talk at Mountain View about his book " Halting State " [ youtube.com ] has received a mere 6,200 views while Leonard Nimoy 's toe tapping dance number " Bilbo Baggins " [ youtube.com ] has garnered more than a million views and taken the country by storm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...why exactly?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly?
It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.It's simple, Stross is just annoyed that his talk at Mountain View about his book "Halting State" [youtube.com] has received a mere 6,200 views while Leonard Nimoy's toe tapping dance number "Bilbo Baggins" [youtube.com] has garnered more than a million views and taken the country by storm.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737679</id>
	<title>Re:Just enjoy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255430460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly? Cause there is or the watcher is unaware of anything better in the same category. Sure we all watched all the exploding panels throw yet another random bridge officer off his post and ignored it but if that's all the sci fi you know of, what else are you going to change the channel to.</p><p>Non-sequitur: Obama.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly ?
Cause there is or the watcher is unaware of anything better in the same category .
Sure we all watched all the exploding panels throw yet another random bridge officer off his post and ignored it but if that 's all the sci fi you know of , what else are you going to change the channel to.Non-sequitur : Obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly?
Cause there is or the watcher is unaware of anything better in the same category.
Sure we all watched all the exploding panels throw yet another random bridge officer off his post and ignored it but if that's all the sci fi you know of, what else are you going to change the channel to.Non-sequitur: Obama.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740239</id>
	<title>Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 pr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255446720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem (<a href="http://everything2.com/title/Never+apply+a+Star+Trek+solution+to+a+Babylon+5+problem" title="everything2.com" rel="nofollow">source</a> [everything2.com])</p><p>This may also be a reference to the Star Trek: TNG (and beyond) writers' penchant for basing solutions on creatively-worded technobabble, in contrast to the real-world, personal grounding of most Babylon 5 resolutions.</p><p>example:</p><p>TNG: "We'll rewire the impulse flux capacitors to create an inverse tachyon pulse which should easily solve this episode's near-lethal problem!"</p><p>B5: "We'll bring the two sides to the negotiating table again, and after five episodes worth of assassinations, heated arguments, and military fleets appearing at inopportune moments, we'll reach a resolution that is just barely acceptable to everyone, at least until three episodes down the timeline when it will all fall to pieces."</p><p>So a specifically-worded example of this law in practice might be "A quasi-symmetric graviton polarity beam will be ineffective and counterproductive when used in an effort to convince the Centauri Republic to end its collaboration with the Shadows."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem ( source [ everything2.com ] ) This may also be a reference to the Star Trek : TNG ( and beyond ) writers ' penchant for basing solutions on creatively-worded technobabble , in contrast to the real-world , personal grounding of most Babylon 5 resolutions.example : TNG : " We 'll rewire the impulse flux capacitors to create an inverse tachyon pulse which should easily solve this episode 's near-lethal problem !
" B5 : " We 'll bring the two sides to the negotiating table again , and after five episodes worth of assassinations , heated arguments , and military fleets appearing at inopportune moments , we 'll reach a resolution that is just barely acceptable to everyone , at least until three episodes down the timeline when it will all fall to pieces .
" So a specifically-worded example of this law in practice might be " A quasi-symmetric graviton polarity beam will be ineffective and counterproductive when used in an effort to convince the Centauri Republic to end its collaboration with the Shadows .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem (source [everything2.com])This may also be a reference to the Star Trek: TNG (and beyond) writers' penchant for basing solutions on creatively-worded technobabble, in contrast to the real-world, personal grounding of most Babylon 5 resolutions.example:TNG: "We'll rewire the impulse flux capacitors to create an inverse tachyon pulse which should easily solve this episode's near-lethal problem!
"B5: "We'll bring the two sides to the negotiating table again, and after five episodes worth of assassinations, heated arguments, and military fleets appearing at inopportune moments, we'll reach a resolution that is just barely acceptable to everyone, at least until three episodes down the timeline when it will all fall to pieces.
"So a specifically-worded example of this law in practice might be "A quasi-symmetric graviton polarity beam will be ineffective and counterproductive when used in an effort to convince the Centauri Republic to end its collaboration with the Shadows.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738403</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Chrutil</author>
	<datestamp>1255433340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't start a sentence with "The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek" and not finish it with "Wesley Crusher".</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't start a sentence with " The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek " and not finish it with " Wesley Crusher " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't start a sentence with "The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek" and not finish it with "Wesley Crusher".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737761</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255430700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually more post-scarcity than socialism. But I don't think the ST writters themselves realized it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually more post-scarcity than socialism .
But I do n't think the ST writters themselves realized it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually more post-scarcity than socialism.
But I don't think the ST writters themselves realized it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743359</id>
	<title>Speaking of the transporter...</title>
	<author>Chemisor</author>
	<datestamp>1255528680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.enofore.com/essays/art\_of\_transporter\_warfare.html" title="enofore.com">The Art of Transporter Warfare</a> [enofore.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Art of Transporter Warfare [ enofore.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Art of Transporter Warfare [enofore.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745209</id>
	<title>Re:Given the enduring popularity of Star Trek, et.</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1255537140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>I'm going to go out on a limb and say Mr. Stross is the one who seems to be missing the point.</i></p><p><i>If I want education, I'll watch Science/Discovery/History . . . better yet, I'll read a book. When I want entertainment, I want entertainment. Obviously, I'm not alone in feeling that Star Trek/Babylon 5/Firefly et. al. provide that.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>And the point of all three was to examine modern society, through the lens of fantasy.  Agreed, technology wasn't the point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to go out on a limb and say Mr. Stross is the one who seems to be missing the point.If I want education , I 'll watch Science/Discovery/History .
. .
better yet , I 'll read a book .
When I want entertainment , I want entertainment .
Obviously , I 'm not alone in feeling that Star Trek/Babylon 5/Firefly et .
al. provide that .
And the point of all three was to examine modern society , through the lens of fantasy .
Agreed , technology was n't the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm going to go out on a limb and say Mr. Stross is the one who seems to be missing the point.If I want education, I'll watch Science/Discovery/History .
. .
better yet, I'll read a book.
When I want entertainment, I want entertainment.
Obviously, I'm not alone in feeling that Star Trek/Babylon 5/Firefly et.
al. provide that.
And the point of all three was to examine modern society, through the lens of fantasy.
Agreed, technology wasn't the point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742929</id>
	<title>Re:Stross who?</title>
	<author>taskiss</author>
	<datestamp>1255524480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you not read any Shatner?  The TekWar stuff with Ron Goulart was an entertaining diversion and if you haven't read it, I think you're missing out on a fairly decent experience.</p><p>Since the Hugo is based on fan votes (you have to pay to join and vote, nothing else), the defining criteria is popular interest.  Given that, and given the fact that the TekWar books gave rise to a comic book series, a video game and a TV series, I'd say that the fans have spoken louder than Gernsback imagines.</p><p>I don't see similar interest in Stross's work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you not read any Shatner ?
The TekWar stuff with Ron Goulart was an entertaining diversion and if you have n't read it , I think you 're missing out on a fairly decent experience.Since the Hugo is based on fan votes ( you have to pay to join and vote , nothing else ) , the defining criteria is popular interest .
Given that , and given the fact that the TekWar books gave rise to a comic book series , a video game and a TV series , I 'd say that the fans have spoken louder than Gernsback imagines.I do n't see similar interest in Stross 's work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you not read any Shatner?
The TekWar stuff with Ron Goulart was an entertaining diversion and if you haven't read it, I think you're missing out on a fairly decent experience.Since the Hugo is based on fan votes (you have to pay to join and vote, nothing else), the defining criteria is popular interest.
Given that, and given the fact that the TekWar books gave rise to a comic book series, a video game and a TV series, I'd say that the fans have spoken louder than Gernsback imagines.I don't see similar interest in Stross's work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738041</id>
	<title>Re:Given the enduring popularity of Star Trek, et.</title>
	<author>skorch</author>
	<datestamp>1255431780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No kidding. It's hard enough to keep a decent sci-fi show on the air while they are entirely entertainment / plot / character-driven. If he wants them to shoehorn in more hard-science technobabble to replace all the soft-science technobabble (bearing in mind that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic anyway) then I fail to see how the entertainment value will be enhanced beyond a very niche demographic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding .
It 's hard enough to keep a decent sci-fi show on the air while they are entirely entertainment / plot / character-driven .
If he wants them to shoehorn in more hard-science technobabble to replace all the soft-science technobabble ( bearing in mind that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic anyway ) then I fail to see how the entertainment value will be enhanced beyond a very niche demographic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding.
It's hard enough to keep a decent sci-fi show on the air while they are entirely entertainment / plot / character-driven.
If he wants them to shoehorn in more hard-science technobabble to replace all the soft-science technobabble (bearing in mind that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic anyway) then I fail to see how the entertainment value will be enhanced beyond a very niche demographic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738357</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Specifically it would turn society that is deathly afraid of anything to do with transporters. There'd be thousands of cases of people with a phobia of the very word.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Specifically it would turn society that is deathly afraid of anything to do with transporters .
There 'd be thousands of cases of people with a phobia of the very word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Specifically it would turn society that is deathly afraid of anything to do with transporters.
There'd be thousands of cases of people with a phobia of the very word.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</id>
	<title>hmmm</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1255427160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology.  It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek , and it was most common in the Next Generation , was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology .
It has no value to a plot ; actually it 's the opposite of plot , if there is such a thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology.
It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738445</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>am 2k</author>
	<datestamp>1255433640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was by choice rather than a technical limitation (alcohol on a military ship is a bad idea in any case). However, you're right that the TNG replicators weren't that perfect, there was still a market for delicacies (mostly served by the Ferengi).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was by choice rather than a technical limitation ( alcohol on a military ship is a bad idea in any case ) .
However , you 're right that the TNG replicators were n't that perfect , there was still a market for delicacies ( mostly served by the Ferengi ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was by choice rather than a technical limitation (alcohol on a military ship is a bad idea in any case).
However, you're right that the TNG replicators weren't that perfect, there was still a market for delicacies (mostly served by the Ferengi).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737367</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, B5 "technobabble"? Hardly...</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1255429140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>exactly. In a huge number episodes of ST:TNG, you have a crew of explorers encounter a new and unexplained phenomena. They then explain it, invent a new technology to deal with it and then implement it. All in a matter of hours.</p><p>In 5 seasons of B5, the only thing close to that kind of mcguffin is the White Star Fleet. And that took the better part of 2 seasons to develop on screen (with prior work done to its first appearance). It may have been a military and political drama (with spaceships) instead of a story about science, but at least it wasn't a gross perversion of science like ST:TNG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>exactly .
In a huge number episodes of ST : TNG , you have a crew of explorers encounter a new and unexplained phenomena .
They then explain it , invent a new technology to deal with it and then implement it .
All in a matter of hours.In 5 seasons of B5 , the only thing close to that kind of mcguffin is the White Star Fleet .
And that took the better part of 2 seasons to develop on screen ( with prior work done to its first appearance ) .
It may have been a military and political drama ( with spaceships ) instead of a story about science , but at least it was n't a gross perversion of science like ST : TNG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exactly.
In a huge number episodes of ST:TNG, you have a crew of explorers encounter a new and unexplained phenomena.
They then explain it, invent a new technology to deal with it and then implement it.
All in a matter of hours.In 5 seasons of B5, the only thing close to that kind of mcguffin is the White Star Fleet.
And that took the better part of 2 seasons to develop on screen (with prior work done to its first appearance).
It may have been a military and political drama (with spaceships) instead of a story about science, but at least it wasn't a gross perversion of science like ST:TNG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737391</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1255429200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want lots of technobabble, watch an episode of CSI.
<br>
<br>
Could be why it's the #1 drama show aside from Law and Order witty court arguments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want lots of technobabble , watch an episode of CSI .
Could be why it 's the # 1 drama show aside from Law and Order witty court arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want lots of technobabble, watch an episode of CSI.
Could be why it's the #1 drama show aside from Law and Order witty court arguments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737089</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just entertainment and it has entertained millions for decades.. job done.</p><p>If you want real science, read a text book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just entertainment and it has entertained millions for decades.. job done.If you want real science , read a text book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just entertainment and it has entertained millions for decades.. job done.If you want real science, read a text book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736901</id>
	<title>Re:Millions of fans disagree</title>
	<author>sonnejw0</author>
	<datestamp>1255427700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Millions of people have been wrong before.  All I'm saying is, the mob does not necessarily have to be right simply because it's the mob.<br> <br>Not that it matters, "wrong" or "right" this is Science Fiction and I'm glad the story is based on plot.  Star Trek is about overcoming humanities problems, not overcoming technical problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Millions of people have been wrong before .
All I 'm saying is , the mob does not necessarily have to be right simply because it 's the mob .
Not that it matters , " wrong " or " right " this is Science Fiction and I 'm glad the story is based on plot .
Star Trek is about overcoming humanities problems , not overcoming technical problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Millions of people have been wrong before.
All I'm saying is, the mob does not necessarily have to be right simply because it's the mob.
Not that it matters, "wrong" or "right" this is Science Fiction and I'm glad the story is based on plot.
Star Trek is about overcoming humanities problems, not overcoming technical problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738775</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Zen\_Sorcere</author>
	<datestamp>1255435260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sisko's father owned a restaurant back on Earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sisko 's father owned a restaurant back on Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sisko's father owned a restaurant back on Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737327</id>
	<title>Re:Just enjoy...</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1255428960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the fucking show for what it is make belief sci-fi/fantasy and if you don't like it why do you keep watching it?</p></div><p>Most people don't follow that kind of simple, self-evident wisdom.  For most people, here is how it works:  "it's not good enough that I enjoy the religion/show/method/belief/taste/style of my choice.  Everyone else must enjoy it too."  There may be reasons for this other than plain insecurity, but if there are other reasons that don't ultimately reduce to insecurity when deconstructed, they are unknown to me.
<br> <br>
It's similar in spirit to another quote about a different duality, the attribution of which I have forgotten, that says "the human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the fucking show for what it is make belief sci-fi/fantasy and if you do n't like it why do you keep watching it ? Most people do n't follow that kind of simple , self-evident wisdom .
For most people , here is how it works : " it 's not good enough that I enjoy the religion/show/method/belief/taste/style of my choice .
Everyone else must enjoy it too .
" There may be reasons for this other than plain insecurity , but if there are other reasons that do n't ultimately reduce to insecurity when deconstructed , they are unknown to me .
It 's similar in spirit to another quote about a different duality , the attribution of which I have forgotten , that says " the human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the fucking show for what it is make belief sci-fi/fantasy and if you don't like it why do you keep watching it?Most people don't follow that kind of simple, self-evident wisdom.
For most people, here is how it works:  "it's not good enough that I enjoy the religion/show/method/belief/taste/style of my choice.
Everyone else must enjoy it too.
"  There may be reasons for this other than plain insecurity, but if there are other reasons that don't ultimately reduce to insecurity when deconstructed, they are unknown to me.
It's similar in spirit to another quote about a different duality, the attribution of which I have forgotten, that says "the human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737621</id>
	<title>Re:Given the enduring popularity of Star Trek, et.</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1255430100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure it would be more enjoyable for there to be a spy movie that stayed within plausiblilty science-wise so I don't keep getting pulled out of the movie by bad physics and have to convince my brain to turn back off. Quality of the action would have to be maintained by other means.<br> <br> If you can agree with me, then you can get how sci-fi can be improved by some science backing. "Non-science" sci-fi isn't bad (I like most sci-fi I've seen), it just lacks an element that could potentially make it more enjoyable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure it would be more enjoyable for there to be a spy movie that stayed within plausiblilty science-wise so I do n't keep getting pulled out of the movie by bad physics and have to convince my brain to turn back off .
Quality of the action would have to be maintained by other means .
If you can agree with me , then you can get how sci-fi can be improved by some science backing .
" Non-science " sci-fi is n't bad ( I like most sci-fi I 've seen ) , it just lacks an element that could potentially make it more enjoyable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure it would be more enjoyable for there to be a spy movie that stayed within plausiblilty science-wise so I don't keep getting pulled out of the movie by bad physics and have to convince my brain to turn back off.
Quality of the action would have to be maintained by other means.
If you can agree with me, then you can get how sci-fi can be improved by some science backing.
"Non-science" sci-fi isn't bad (I like most sci-fi I've seen), it just lacks an element that could potentially make it more enjoyable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742577</id>
	<title>Some television IS educational</title>
	<author>FreeUser</author>
	<datestamp>1255518900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find some television to be educational.  Granted, it isn't discovery, it tends to be the BBC (or made for BBC shows aired on PBS back when I lived in the States), but things like Sir David Attenborough's works are highly educational--if a little "bloody" at times.  Watching 3 big cats bring down an Ostrich is high-def may be quite dramatic, and more than a little disturbing, but coupled with his eloquent narration and explanation, it is most definitely educational.</p><p>Now maybe an expert biologist would disagree, but for those of us not an expert in the field, it does provide a basic understanding of that particular area of science.  Ditto for some of the shows on Discover, though your point is well taken: it can be difficult to pick the educational out of the hysterical at times.  Super-volcanoes and meteor impacts are interesting, but "OMG we're overdue for the Apocalypse!!!" fearmongering tends to dilute the scientific and educational value of any such show.  But then, my recollection of US television is that fearmongering permeates just about everything, from so-called news to so-called educational television.  Even sit-coms don't seem to have escaped that particular malaise entirely...but that's a rant for another day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find some television to be educational .
Granted , it is n't discovery , it tends to be the BBC ( or made for BBC shows aired on PBS back when I lived in the States ) , but things like Sir David Attenborough 's works are highly educational--if a little " bloody " at times .
Watching 3 big cats bring down an Ostrich is high-def may be quite dramatic , and more than a little disturbing , but coupled with his eloquent narration and explanation , it is most definitely educational.Now maybe an expert biologist would disagree , but for those of us not an expert in the field , it does provide a basic understanding of that particular area of science .
Ditto for some of the shows on Discover , though your point is well taken : it can be difficult to pick the educational out of the hysterical at times .
Super-volcanoes and meteor impacts are interesting , but " OMG we 're overdue for the Apocalypse ! ! !
" fearmongering tends to dilute the scientific and educational value of any such show .
But then , my recollection of US television is that fearmongering permeates just about everything , from so-called news to so-called educational television .
Even sit-coms do n't seem to have escaped that particular malaise entirely...but that 's a rant for another day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find some television to be educational.
Granted, it isn't discovery, it tends to be the BBC (or made for BBC shows aired on PBS back when I lived in the States), but things like Sir David Attenborough's works are highly educational--if a little "bloody" at times.
Watching 3 big cats bring down an Ostrich is high-def may be quite dramatic, and more than a little disturbing, but coupled with his eloquent narration and explanation, it is most definitely educational.Now maybe an expert biologist would disagree, but for those of us not an expert in the field, it does provide a basic understanding of that particular area of science.
Ditto for some of the shows on Discover, though your point is well taken: it can be difficult to pick the educational out of the hysterical at times.
Super-volcanoes and meteor impacts are interesting, but "OMG we're overdue for the Apocalypse!!!
" fearmongering tends to dilute the scientific and educational value of any such show.
But then, my recollection of US television is that fearmongering permeates just about everything, from so-called news to so-called educational television.
Even sit-coms don't seem to have escaped that particular malaise entirely...but that's a rant for another day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736935</id>
	<title>Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>deathtopaulw</author>
	<datestamp>1255427820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Extremely nerdy hard-science nerdy nerd kings are bitching about old TV shows because they were using almost made-up theoretical science as a plot device to advance the lives and drama of fictional characters for our entertainment...<br>
<br>
Here's an article for you: <i>Slashdot member deathtopaulw hates hard science fiction writers because they have no concept of fun and their minds exist only to crunch numbers and dwell on what is and isn't possible in a finite and boring universe.</i> <br>
<br>
Look at that, nobody cares either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Extremely nerdy hard-science nerdy nerd kings are bitching about old TV shows because they were using almost made-up theoretical science as a plot device to advance the lives and drama of fictional characters for our entertainment.. . Here 's an article for you : Slashdot member deathtopaulw hates hard science fiction writers because they have no concept of fun and their minds exist only to crunch numbers and dwell on what is and is n't possible in a finite and boring universe .
Look at that , nobody cares either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Extremely nerdy hard-science nerdy nerd kings are bitching about old TV shows because they were using almost made-up theoretical science as a plot device to advance the lives and drama of fictional characters for our entertainment...

Here's an article for you: Slashdot member deathtopaulw hates hard science fiction writers because they have no concept of fun and their minds exist only to crunch numbers and dwell on what is and isn't possible in a finite and boring universe.
Look at that, nobody cares either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741699</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255463940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SciFi is not an excuse for "flimsy story line" - period.<br>Before Abrahams' star trek, I used to dry reach every time I saw star trek - primarily because the continuity, character depth and stories were so bad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SciFi is not an excuse for " flimsy story line " - period.Before Abrahams ' star trek , I used to dry reach every time I saw star trek - primarily because the continuity , character depth and stories were so bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SciFi is not an excuse for "flimsy story line" - period.Before Abrahams' star trek, I used to dry reach every time I saw star trek - primarily because the continuity, character depth and stories were so bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737047</id>
	<title>Re:Millions of fans disagree</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1255428180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ie:  Millions of people think Stross is wrong.</p><p>There's not much more to say on this.</p></div><p>Stross dislikes star trek.<br>Millions of fans like star trek.</p><p>The two are not mutually exclusive. People can have different preferences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ie : Millions of people think Stross is wrong.There 's not much more to say on this.Stross dislikes star trek.Millions of fans like star trek.The two are not mutually exclusive .
People can have different preferences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ie:  Millions of people think Stross is wrong.There's not much more to say on this.Stross dislikes star trek.Millions of fans like star trek.The two are not mutually exclusive.
People can have different preferences.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1255429320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, let's look at the effect of technology on a society.</p><p>The star trek universe has:</p><p>1) Replicators capable of creating any material object except gold pressed latinum.</p><p>2) Holodecks (presumably a replicated product) that can create any imaginable experience.</p><p>3) A seemingly unlimited number of colony worlds where any group can migrate via the magic of ships with warp drive (created via the replicator)</p><p>4) Unlimited energy using matter-antimatter.</p><p>OK, so in that environment, a capitalistic society is nearly impossible. There's nothing to buy or sell. As replicators themselves are replicated, anything of "value" can be had for virtually nothing. Acquisition, per se, now means nothing. Experiences themselves are similarly cheap, or free. If your neighbors complain, you leave and join the anarcho-syndicalist collective colony on Kaka 4. Where does capitalism fit in with this technology?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , let 's look at the effect of technology on a society.The star trek universe has : 1 ) Replicators capable of creating any material object except gold pressed latinum.2 ) Holodecks ( presumably a replicated product ) that can create any imaginable experience.3 ) A seemingly unlimited number of colony worlds where any group can migrate via the magic of ships with warp drive ( created via the replicator ) 4 ) Unlimited energy using matter-antimatter.OK , so in that environment , a capitalistic society is nearly impossible .
There 's nothing to buy or sell .
As replicators themselves are replicated , anything of " value " can be had for virtually nothing .
Acquisition , per se , now means nothing .
Experiences themselves are similarly cheap , or free .
If your neighbors complain , you leave and join the anarcho-syndicalist collective colony on Kaka 4 .
Where does capitalism fit in with this technology ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, let's look at the effect of technology on a society.The star trek universe has:1) Replicators capable of creating any material object except gold pressed latinum.2) Holodecks (presumably a replicated product) that can create any imaginable experience.3) A seemingly unlimited number of colony worlds where any group can migrate via the magic of ships with warp drive (created via the replicator)4) Unlimited energy using matter-antimatter.OK, so in that environment, a capitalistic society is nearly impossible.
There's nothing to buy or sell.
As replicators themselves are replicated, anything of "value" can be had for virtually nothing.
Acquisition, per se, now means nothing.
Experiences themselves are similarly cheap, or free.
If your neighbors complain, you leave and join the anarcho-syndicalist collective colony on Kaka 4.
Where does capitalism fit in with this technology?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737759</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255430700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology. It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're thinking of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus\_ex\_machina" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">'deus ex machina'</a> [wikipedia.org], which is a plot device along the lines of "and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything".  It's the fate of all lazy fiction and, sadly, it's not restricted to sci-fi - although the opportunity to invent suitable technobabble does make it rather easier.</p></div><p>Actually, I think he was referring to "Deus Ex Machina Ex Machina"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek , and it was most common in the Next Generation , was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology .
It has no value to a plot ; actually it 's the opposite of plot , if there is such a thing.You 're thinking of 'deus ex machina ' [ wikipedia.org ] , which is a plot device along the lines of " and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything " .
It 's the fate of all lazy fiction and , sadly , it 's not restricted to sci-fi - although the opportunity to invent suitable technobabble does make it rather easier.Actually , I think he was referring to " Deus Ex Machina Ex Machina " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology.
It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.You're thinking of 'deus ex machina' [wikipedia.org], which is a plot device along the lines of "and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything".
It's the fate of all lazy fiction and, sadly, it's not restricted to sci-fi - although the opportunity to invent suitable technobabble does make it rather easier.Actually, I think he was referring to "Deus Ex Machina Ex Machina" ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740025</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255444740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The modern equivalent to reversing the polarity of something is to try the batteries the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The modern equivalent to reversing the polarity of something is to try the batteries the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The modern equivalent to reversing the polarity of something is to try the batteries the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737383</id>
	<title>Um, yeah.</title>
	<author>plawsy</author>
	<datestamp>1255429200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>You could strip out the 25th century tech in Star Trek and replace it with 18th century tech -- make the Enterprise a man o'war (with a particularly eccentric crew) at large upon the seven seas during the age of sail -- without changing the scripts significantly.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Um, yeah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... there's a reason why Roddenberry pitched it as "Wagon Train to the Stars".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : You could strip out the 25th century tech in Star Trek and replace it with 18th century tech -- make the Enterprise a man o'war ( with a particularly eccentric crew ) at large upon the seven seas during the age of sail -- without changing the scripts significantly .
Um , yeah ... there 's a reason why Roddenberry pitched it as " Wagon Train to the Stars " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:You could strip out the 25th century tech in Star Trek and replace it with 18th century tech -- make the Enterprise a man o'war (with a particularly eccentric crew) at large upon the seven seas during the age of sail -- without changing the scripts significantly.
Um, yeah ... there's a reason why Roddenberry pitched it as "Wagon Train to the Stars".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736875</id>
	<title>As opposed to Ron Moores method?</title>
	<author>bsane</author>
	<datestamp>1255427580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As opposed to Ron Moores method, writing a plot, dialog and roles, then randomly assigning characters without regard to anything else.</p><p>Seriously BSG is kind of cool, dialog is probably ok, but the plot and character development is among the worst things I've ever seen. I \_really\_ hope its not the model for new SciFi.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to Ron Moores method , writing a plot , dialog and roles , then randomly assigning characters without regard to anything else.Seriously BSG is kind of cool , dialog is probably ok , but the plot and character development is among the worst things I 've ever seen .
I \ _really \ _ hope its not the model for new SciFi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to Ron Moores method, writing a plot, dialog and roles, then randomly assigning characters without regard to anything else.Seriously BSG is kind of cool, dialog is probably ok, but the plot and character development is among the worst things I've ever seen.
I \_really\_ hope its not the model for new SciFi.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737227</id>
	<title>He's right, but so what?</title>
	<author>realmolo</author>
	<datestamp>1255428660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the truly advanced technologies that science-fiction stories like to use is that their REAL effects on the world would be so transformative, that the characters in the story would be so different us that the reader wouldn't be able to relate to them at all.</p><p>An "accurate" Star Trek story would have people lying in bed all day, being fed through a tube, while they lived out their fantasies in the holodeck. Robotic mining ships would troll the galaxy for dilithium to power everything. Gee, that's interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the truly advanced technologies that science-fiction stories like to use is that their REAL effects on the world would be so transformative , that the characters in the story would be so different us that the reader would n't be able to relate to them at all.An " accurate " Star Trek story would have people lying in bed all day , being fed through a tube , while they lived out their fantasies in the holodeck .
Robotic mining ships would troll the galaxy for dilithium to power everything .
Gee , that 's interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the truly advanced technologies that science-fiction stories like to use is that their REAL effects on the world would be so transformative, that the characters in the story would be so different us that the reader wouldn't be able to relate to them at all.An "accurate" Star Trek story would have people lying in bed all day, being fed through a tube, while they lived out their fantasies in the holodeck.
Robotic mining ships would troll the galaxy for dilithium to power everything.
Gee, that's interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739397</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1255439940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If your neighbors complain, you leave and join the anarcho-syndicalist collective colony on Kaka 4. Where does capitalism fit in with this technology?</i></p><p>Well it's not perfect but it's the best you have, but before you knew it someone spoilt it and you were left in Kaka. Sounds a lot like captialism to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your neighbors complain , you leave and join the anarcho-syndicalist collective colony on Kaka 4 .
Where does capitalism fit in with this technology ? Well it 's not perfect but it 's the best you have , but before you knew it someone spoilt it and you were left in Kaka .
Sounds a lot like captialism to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your neighbors complain, you leave and join the anarcho-syndicalist collective colony on Kaka 4.
Where does capitalism fit in with this technology?Well it's not perfect but it's the best you have, but before you knew it someone spoilt it and you were left in Kaka.
Sounds a lot like captialism to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737063</id>
	<title>Novel not equal TV</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1255428180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charlie conflates SF novels with SF television series. They don't have the same criteria.</p><p>Unlike a novel, a good SF series doesn't take itself too seriously. That's what was so good about Star Trek. We expected it to be a little tacky and weren't disappointed. Every so often we'd get the equivalent to one of the characters turning to the audience and saying "this is just fiction, you know." Shattner's "Get a Life" was bang on.</p><p>The shows that lost sight of this, BG being the best example, were boring-to-annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charlie conflates SF novels with SF television series .
They do n't have the same criteria.Unlike a novel , a good SF series does n't take itself too seriously .
That 's what was so good about Star Trek .
We expected it to be a little tacky and were n't disappointed .
Every so often we 'd get the equivalent to one of the characters turning to the audience and saying " this is just fiction , you know .
" Shattner 's " Get a Life " was bang on.The shows that lost sight of this , BG being the best example , were boring-to-annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charlie conflates SF novels with SF television series.
They don't have the same criteria.Unlike a novel, a good SF series doesn't take itself too seriously.
That's what was so good about Star Trek.
We expected it to be a little tacky and weren't disappointed.
Every so often we'd get the equivalent to one of the characters turning to the audience and saying "this is just fiction, you know.
" Shattner's "Get a Life" was bang on.The shows that lost sight of this, BG being the best example, were boring-to-annoying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740417</id>
	<title>Arts and Entertainment need no justifications.</title>
	<author>bronney</author>
	<datestamp>1255448160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the writers of Star Trek would simply 'insert' technology or science into the script whenever needed, without any real regard to its significance; 'then they'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words (aka technobabble) later.'"</p><p>"the writers of Super Mario Bros. would simply 'insert' mario star or shroom into W4-1 whenever needed, without any real regard to its significance; 'then they'd gamers fill in the appropriate game guides later.'"</p><p>"the writers of Symphony No. 9 in E Minor would simply 'insert' triangles or cymbals into the score whenever needed, without any real regard to its significance; 'then they'd have conductors fill in the appropriate mood later.'"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the writers of Star Trek would simply 'insert ' technology or science into the script whenever needed , without any real regard to its significance ; 'then they 'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words ( aka technobabble ) later .
' " " the writers of Super Mario Bros. would simply 'insert ' mario star or shroom into W4-1 whenever needed , without any real regard to its significance ; 'then they 'd gamers fill in the appropriate game guides later .
' " " the writers of Symphony No .
9 in E Minor would simply 'insert ' triangles or cymbals into the score whenever needed , without any real regard to its significance ; 'then they 'd have conductors fill in the appropriate mood later .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the writers of Star Trek would simply 'insert' technology or science into the script whenever needed, without any real regard to its significance; 'then they'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words (aka technobabble) later.
'""the writers of Super Mario Bros. would simply 'insert' mario star or shroom into W4-1 whenever needed, without any real regard to its significance; 'then they'd gamers fill in the appropriate game guides later.
'""the writers of Symphony No.
9 in E Minor would simply 'insert' triangles or cymbals into the score whenever needed, without any real regard to its significance; 'then they'd have conductors fill in the appropriate mood later.
'"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740017</id>
	<title>it would all just be software.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255444620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would all be software. If you wanted the latest iPod you would need to buy the appropriate information required to make your replicator pump out the iPod. There would be open source designs, but many of the latest and greatest things would not be open source (the same situation as we have with software today).<br><br>You would still need to employ engineers to design new things. You would still need business people, sales people, etc., to market the software products.<br><br>You would still need people to make music and tv shows (or holo shows or whatever) which means you'd need actors or people who programmed fake actors.<br><br>If they don't have roving nanobots (nanobots that could function outside of a replicator) then they would still need to employ construction workers to put large things together unless someone made a replicator the size of a starship (or a house) or robots good enough to do the work for them.<br><br>Many service jobs would still need to exist. If you need a new paint job on a house it's probably easier to just repaint it rather than replicate the parts and put a new one together again.<br><br>Granted, some services wouldn't be necessary anymore. Prostitutes would be out of a job. In their place would be programmers who wrote holodeck sex programs. Holodecks would require a lot of space. Land would still cost a lot of money. So, you might need communal holodecks for people who can't afford large parcels of land.<br><br>Some forms of mining might still be necessary. You need raw materials for all this replication (although you might be able to just reuse old stuff).<br><br>Seems to me that capitalism would work just fine in that sort of environment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would all be software .
If you wanted the latest iPod you would need to buy the appropriate information required to make your replicator pump out the iPod .
There would be open source designs , but many of the latest and greatest things would not be open source ( the same situation as we have with software today ) .You would still need to employ engineers to design new things .
You would still need business people , sales people , etc. , to market the software products.You would still need people to make music and tv shows ( or holo shows or whatever ) which means you 'd need actors or people who programmed fake actors.If they do n't have roving nanobots ( nanobots that could function outside of a replicator ) then they would still need to employ construction workers to put large things together unless someone made a replicator the size of a starship ( or a house ) or robots good enough to do the work for them.Many service jobs would still need to exist .
If you need a new paint job on a house it 's probably easier to just repaint it rather than replicate the parts and put a new one together again.Granted , some services would n't be necessary anymore .
Prostitutes would be out of a job .
In their place would be programmers who wrote holodeck sex programs .
Holodecks would require a lot of space .
Land would still cost a lot of money .
So , you might need communal holodecks for people who ca n't afford large parcels of land.Some forms of mining might still be necessary .
You need raw materials for all this replication ( although you might be able to just reuse old stuff ) .Seems to me that capitalism would work just fine in that sort of environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would all be software.
If you wanted the latest iPod you would need to buy the appropriate information required to make your replicator pump out the iPod.
There would be open source designs, but many of the latest and greatest things would not be open source (the same situation as we have with software today).You would still need to employ engineers to design new things.
You would still need business people, sales people, etc., to market the software products.You would still need people to make music and tv shows (or holo shows or whatever) which means you'd need actors or people who programmed fake actors.If they don't have roving nanobots (nanobots that could function outside of a replicator) then they would still need to employ construction workers to put large things together unless someone made a replicator the size of a starship (or a house) or robots good enough to do the work for them.Many service jobs would still need to exist.
If you need a new paint job on a house it's probably easier to just repaint it rather than replicate the parts and put a new one together again.Granted, some services wouldn't be necessary anymore.
Prostitutes would be out of a job.
In their place would be programmers who wrote holodeck sex programs.
Holodecks would require a lot of space.
Land would still cost a lot of money.
So, you might need communal holodecks for people who can't afford large parcels of land.Some forms of mining might still be necessary.
You need raw materials for all this replication (although you might be able to just reuse old stuff).Seems to me that capitalism would work just fine in that sort of environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738185</id>
	<title>Hard and soft science fiction are different genres</title>
	<author>Zaphod-AVA</author>
	<datestamp>1255432500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hard and soft science fiction are different genres, and really should have different names.</p><p>Each have their problems. Hard sci-fi can be dry, and soft can be annoying when they push believability too far. Still, I have no problem being entertained by Firefly, Iron Sunrise, or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Quality counts for way more then genre.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard and soft science fiction are different genres , and really should have different names.Each have their problems .
Hard sci-fi can be dry , and soft can be annoying when they push believability too far .
Still , I have no problem being entertained by Firefly , Iron Sunrise , or The Hitchhiker 's Guide to the Galaxy .
Quality counts for way more then genre .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard and soft science fiction are different genres, and really should have different names.Each have their problems.
Hard sci-fi can be dry, and soft can be annoying when they push believability too far.
Still, I have no problem being entertained by Firefly, Iron Sunrise, or The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Quality counts for way more then genre.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741213</id>
	<title>Here's scifi Stross would approve of:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255456440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From my own SUPER exciting, Stross-approved scifi script, which contains only technology that scientists from the present can master or easily explain : <br>
"Oh boy, this ship sure is cramped and boring. How long until we get to the next planet?" <br>
"Oh, just three more generations."<br>
"Great. It sure is nice that we haven't encountered anyone new, or anything interesting at all, over the course of these numerous years in interstellar space."<br>
"Yeah, but it's really too bad we won't encounter any other civilizations in the foreseeable future, or within the next several generations. And I wonder what has happened on Earth in the last 500 years, since we are 500 light years away and don't have any means of faster-than-light communication."<br>
"Uh huh. If only we had faster ways to communicate, more (or any) connections with beings from other planets, near-light speed (or better) means of travel, and other futuristic technologies that couldn't even have been explained hundreds of years ago."<br>
"Yeah. And it's too bad we're so inbred from generations of space travel. Oh well."</htmltext>
<tokenext>From my own SUPER exciting , Stross-approved scifi script , which contains only technology that scientists from the present can master or easily explain : " Oh boy , this ship sure is cramped and boring .
How long until we get to the next planet ?
" " Oh , just three more generations .
" " Great .
It sure is nice that we have n't encountered anyone new , or anything interesting at all , over the course of these numerous years in interstellar space .
" " Yeah , but it 's really too bad we wo n't encounter any other civilizations in the foreseeable future , or within the next several generations .
And I wonder what has happened on Earth in the last 500 years , since we are 500 light years away and do n't have any means of faster-than-light communication .
" " Uh huh .
If only we had faster ways to communicate , more ( or any ) connections with beings from other planets , near-light speed ( or better ) means of travel , and other futuristic technologies that could n't even have been explained hundreds of years ago .
" " Yeah .
And it 's too bad we 're so inbred from generations of space travel .
Oh well .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my own SUPER exciting, Stross-approved scifi script, which contains only technology that scientists from the present can master or easily explain : 
"Oh boy, this ship sure is cramped and boring.
How long until we get to the next planet?
" 
"Oh, just three more generations.
"
"Great.
It sure is nice that we haven't encountered anyone new, or anything interesting at all, over the course of these numerous years in interstellar space.
"
"Yeah, but it's really too bad we won't encounter any other civilizations in the foreseeable future, or within the next several generations.
And I wonder what has happened on Earth in the last 500 years, since we are 500 light years away and don't have any means of faster-than-light communication.
"
"Uh huh.
If only we had faster ways to communicate, more (or any) connections with beings from other planets, near-light speed (or better) means of travel, and other futuristic technologies that couldn't even have been explained hundreds of years ago.
"
"Yeah.
And it's too bad we're so inbred from generations of space travel.
Oh well.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Attaturk</author>
	<datestamp>1255427580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology. It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You're thinking of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus\_ex\_machina" title="wikipedia.org">'deus ex machina'</a> [wikipedia.org], which is a plot device along the lines of "and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything".  It's the fate of all lazy fiction and, sadly, it's not restricted to sci-fi - although the opportunity to invent suitable technobabble does make it rather easier.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek , and it was most common in the Next Generation , was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology .
It has no value to a plot ; actually it 's the opposite of plot , if there is such a thing .
You 're thinking of 'deus ex machina ' [ wikipedia.org ] , which is a plot device along the lines of " and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything " .
It 's the fate of all lazy fiction and , sadly , it 's not restricted to sci-fi - although the opportunity to invent suitable technobabble does make it rather easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology.
It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.
You're thinking of 'deus ex machina' [wikipedia.org], which is a plot device along the lines of "and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything".
It's the fate of all lazy fiction and, sadly, it's not restricted to sci-fi - although the opportunity to invent suitable technobabble does make it rather easier.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740575</id>
	<title>Re:Novel not equal TV</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1255449600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The show you're thinking of is star<b>gate</b>.  Star Trek always took itself too seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The show you 're thinking of is stargate .
Star Trek always took itself too seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The show you're thinking of is stargate.
Star Trek always took itself too seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29753653</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, B5 "technobabble"? Hardly...</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1255544940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely.. B5 should not be lumped into the gross violations of good storytelling that comprise much of the latter-day Star Trek. Of course, most of B5 was planned in advance by JMS, and while they did have guest writers (including one by Neil Gaiman, "Day of the Dead") and occasionally episodes that didn't really advance the story arc, most of the time, things did move forward. Start Trek's "reset button" at the start of every episode, just about anyway (as long as their nearly endless supply of redshirts held out) was fine for the 1960s, but episodic television has moved beyond that, and for the better.</p><p>And one very good thing about B5 -- strangely enough, most characters did not seem to know each and every thing about obscure or even common technology. Just like today. There might be a few experts on board a Starship or a station like B5, but most of the technology would just be used. I think, in the original Star Trek, you had Kirk for that, but I get the impression that every officer in the latter day Treks could, at least when pressed, assemble and disassemble a warp drive, even if it takes Mr. Scott or LaForge to really get it tuned up. Start Trek personnel had an improper relation to the tech behind their tools, and that lead, I suspect, to too many of those deus ex machina solutions.</p><p>I'm surprised no one's mentioned the Star Gate series... particularly in the early days, those guys barely understood how to control their primary chunk of tech... not much idea at all how it actually worked (in fact, pretty much no one did... it was probably made by the Heechee or some-such, they just said "the ancients"). One of the main functions of Col. Jack O'Neill  was to make anyone shut up when they started babbling tech... pretty clearly aimed at latter day Trek, I think. Sure, the show had its faults, but not those of the TNG and all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely.. B5 should not be lumped into the gross violations of good storytelling that comprise much of the latter-day Star Trek .
Of course , most of B5 was planned in advance by JMS , and while they did have guest writers ( including one by Neil Gaiman , " Day of the Dead " ) and occasionally episodes that did n't really advance the story arc , most of the time , things did move forward .
Start Trek 's " reset button " at the start of every episode , just about anyway ( as long as their nearly endless supply of redshirts held out ) was fine for the 1960s , but episodic television has moved beyond that , and for the better.And one very good thing about B5 -- strangely enough , most characters did not seem to know each and every thing about obscure or even common technology .
Just like today .
There might be a few experts on board a Starship or a station like B5 , but most of the technology would just be used .
I think , in the original Star Trek , you had Kirk for that , but I get the impression that every officer in the latter day Treks could , at least when pressed , assemble and disassemble a warp drive , even if it takes Mr. Scott or LaForge to really get it tuned up .
Start Trek personnel had an improper relation to the tech behind their tools , and that lead , I suspect , to too many of those deus ex machina solutions.I 'm surprised no one 's mentioned the Star Gate series... particularly in the early days , those guys barely understood how to control their primary chunk of tech... not much idea at all how it actually worked ( in fact , pretty much no one did... it was probably made by the Heechee or some-such , they just said " the ancients " ) .
One of the main functions of Col. Jack O'Neill was to make anyone shut up when they started babbling tech... pretty clearly aimed at latter day Trek , I think .
Sure , the show had its faults , but not those of the TNG and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely.. B5 should not be lumped into the gross violations of good storytelling that comprise much of the latter-day Star Trek.
Of course, most of B5 was planned in advance by JMS, and while they did have guest writers (including one by Neil Gaiman, "Day of the Dead") and occasionally episodes that didn't really advance the story arc, most of the time, things did move forward.
Start Trek's "reset button" at the start of every episode, just about anyway (as long as their nearly endless supply of redshirts held out) was fine for the 1960s, but episodic television has moved beyond that, and for the better.And one very good thing about B5 -- strangely enough, most characters did not seem to know each and every thing about obscure or even common technology.
Just like today.
There might be a few experts on board a Starship or a station like B5, but most of the technology would just be used.
I think, in the original Star Trek, you had Kirk for that, but I get the impression that every officer in the latter day Treks could, at least when pressed, assemble and disassemble a warp drive, even if it takes Mr. Scott or LaForge to really get it tuned up.
Start Trek personnel had an improper relation to the tech behind their tools, and that lead, I suspect, to too many of those deus ex machina solutions.I'm surprised no one's mentioned the Star Gate series... particularly in the early days, those guys barely understood how to control their primary chunk of tech... not much idea at all how it actually worked (in fact, pretty much no one did... it was probably made by the Heechee or some-such, they just said "the ancients").
One of the main functions of Col. Jack O'Neill  was to make anyone shut up when they started babbling tech... pretty clearly aimed at latter day Trek, I think.
Sure, the show had its faults, but not those of the TNG and all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738143</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Fingo11</author>
	<datestamp>1255432200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OK, let's look at the effect of technology on a society.</p><p>The star trek universe has:</p><p>1) Replicators capable of creating any material object except gold pressed latinum.</p><p>2) Holodecks (presumably a replicated product) that can create any imaginable experience.</p><p>3) A seemingly unlimited number of colony worlds where any group can migrate via the magic of ships with warp drive (created via the replicator)</p><p>4) Unlimited energy using matter-antimatter.</p><p>OK, so in that environment, a capitalistic society is nearly impossible. There's nothing to buy or sell. As replicators themselves are replicated, anything of "value" can be had for virtually nothing. Acquisition, per se, now means nothing. Experiences themselves are similarly cheap, or free. If your neighbors complain, you leave and join the anarcho-syndicalist collective colony on Kaka 4. Where does capitalism fit in with this technology?</p></div><p>There's booze.  What about cheap drinkable booze?  All those replicators did was make some swill that didn't have any debilitating effects.  I'd be willing to bet that a society that can instantaneously replicate stuff can't replicate a half-way decent single malt scotch.  Actually I think this was a side topic in one of those episodes somewhere...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , let 's look at the effect of technology on a society.The star trek universe has : 1 ) Replicators capable of creating any material object except gold pressed latinum.2 ) Holodecks ( presumably a replicated product ) that can create any imaginable experience.3 ) A seemingly unlimited number of colony worlds where any group can migrate via the magic of ships with warp drive ( created via the replicator ) 4 ) Unlimited energy using matter-antimatter.OK , so in that environment , a capitalistic society is nearly impossible .
There 's nothing to buy or sell .
As replicators themselves are replicated , anything of " value " can be had for virtually nothing .
Acquisition , per se , now means nothing .
Experiences themselves are similarly cheap , or free .
If your neighbors complain , you leave and join the anarcho-syndicalist collective colony on Kaka 4 .
Where does capitalism fit in with this technology ? There 's booze .
What about cheap drinkable booze ?
All those replicators did was make some swill that did n't have any debilitating effects .
I 'd be willing to bet that a society that can instantaneously replicate stuff ca n't replicate a half-way decent single malt scotch .
Actually I think this was a side topic in one of those episodes somewhere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, let's look at the effect of technology on a society.The star trek universe has:1) Replicators capable of creating any material object except gold pressed latinum.2) Holodecks (presumably a replicated product) that can create any imaginable experience.3) A seemingly unlimited number of colony worlds where any group can migrate via the magic of ships with warp drive (created via the replicator)4) Unlimited energy using matter-antimatter.OK, so in that environment, a capitalistic society is nearly impossible.
There's nothing to buy or sell.
As replicators themselves are replicated, anything of "value" can be had for virtually nothing.
Acquisition, per se, now means nothing.
Experiences themselves are similarly cheap, or free.
If your neighbors complain, you leave and join the anarcho-syndicalist collective colony on Kaka 4.
Where does capitalism fit in with this technology?There's booze.
What about cheap drinkable booze?
All those replicators did was make some swill that didn't have any debilitating effects.
I'd be willing to bet that a society that can instantaneously replicate stuff can't replicate a half-way decent single malt scotch.
Actually I think this was a side topic in one of those episodes somewhere...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742791</id>
	<title>B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T!!!! with a big B!!!!</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1255522740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Let me clarify: when I was young -- I'm dating myself here -- I quite liked the original TV series. But when the movie-length trailer for ST:TNG first aired in the UK in the late eighties? It was hate on first sight.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

It is quite immature to judge a book by its cover.</p><blockquote><div><p>And since then, it's also been hate on sight between me and just about every space operatic show on television. ST:Voyager and whatever the space station opera; check. Babylon Five? Ditto. Battlestar Galactica? Didn't even bother turning on the TV. I hate them all.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Yes, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were quite space-operatic. But not TOS and TNG (at least until Rodenberry died). A space opera show contains lots of interpersonal conflicts and emotions. TNG is especially criticized by fans of TOS/DS9/BSG/B5 (check out the StarTrek.com forums if you don't believe me) as containing little material on interpersonal relations.</p><blockquote><div><p>At his recent keynote speech at the New York Television Festival, former Star Trek writer and creator of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica Ron Moore revealed the secret formula to writing for Trek.

He described how the writers would just insert "tech" into the scripts whenever they needed to resolve a story or plot line, then they'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words (aka technobabble) later.

"It became the solution to so many plot lines and so many stories," Moore said. "It was so mechanical that we had science consultants who would just come up with the words for us and we'd just write 'tech' in the script. You know, Picard would say 'Commander La Forge, tech the tech to the warp drive.' I'm serious. If you look at those scripts, you'll see that."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Bullshit. Such a thing would be obvious if it was as Ron Moore describes. There is a lot of technobabble in TNG, especially in the later years, but Star Trek was never strictly about technology and its consequences.</p><blockquote><div><p>As you probably guessed, this is not how I write SF -- in fact, it's the antithesis of everything I enjoy in an SF novel.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Ok, you may not enjoy it, but thousands have enjoyed Star Trek and BSG and DS9 and all the other shows. So? is your sci-fi some how better because it focuses more on the technology?</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>SF, at its best, is an exploration of the human condition</b> under circumstances that we can conceive of existing, but which don't currently exist (either because the technology doesn't exist, or there are gaps in our scientific model of the universe, or just because we're short of big meteoroids on a collision course with the Sea of Japan -- the situation is improbable but not implausible).</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

And Star Trek does not contemplate on that at all? you might have missed mr Spock and Lt Cmdr Data then!!!! and there are lots of other examples...</p><blockquote><div><p>You want to deflect that civilization-killing asteroid? You need to find some way of getting there. It's going to be expensive and difficult, and there's plenty of scope for human drama arising from it.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Except if your civilization has developed Faster-Than-Light travel...then your problem of 'getting there' is non-existent.
<br>
Of course I hope you realize that finding a way to get to the asteroid is no more different than finding a way to avoid a supernova explosion...the technological scale is different, but the essence is the same: a group of people is trying to solve a problem.</p><blockquote><div><p>much as integrated circuits are useful and allow the mobile phone industry to exist and to add cheap camera chips to phones: and cheap camera chips in phones lead to happy slapping or sexting and other forms of behaviour that, thirty years ago, would have sounded science fictional.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Bullshit again. People have been playing pranks (even violent ones) on others and exchanging sex-related material for centuries.</p><blockquote><div><p>Star Trek and its ilk are approaching the dramatic stage from the opposite direction: the situation is irrelevant, it's background for a story which is all about the interpersonal relationships among the cast.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

The amount of bullshit is phenomenal. TOS and TNG have been criticized again and again (TNG especially) for a lack of interpersonal conflicts.
<br>
Furthermore, Rodenberry had a rule for the script writers: "no interpersonal conflicts". I guess Ron Moore forget to tell you that. He also forget to tell you how did he whine to Gene about it.
<br>
I have just googled for "Rodenberry interpersonal conflicts", and the <a href="http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/38713" title="americanchronicle.com">first result</a> [americanchronicle.com] that was returned contains the following paragraph:
</p><p> <i>
Roddenberry's optimistic universe of high energy, peaceful humans who have thrown away racism, sexism, ageism and other primitive mindsets is criticized for being Utopian minded.
</i> </p><p>
So much for interpersonal conflicts...</p><blockquote><div><p>You could strip out the 25th century tech in Star Trek and replace it with 18th century tech -- make the Enterprise a man o'war (with a particularly eccentric crew) at large upon the seven seas during the age of sail -- without changing the scripts significantly. (The only casualty would be the eyeball candy -- big gunpowder explosions be damned, modern audiences want squids in space, with added lasers!)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Yes, you can so easily find the Borg in the sea!!! come on, watch TNG first then come back and tell us the above. Certainly, in some episodes the space setting can easily be replaced by a sea setting, but that would be less than 1/10 of the episodes...
<br>
By the way, in ST they use phasers, not lasers. And in the immortal words of Picard: "Lasers can't even penetrate our navigation shields. Don't they know that?"...if that doesn't show the effects of technology on a culture, I don't know what it is.</p><blockquote><div><p>I can just about forgive the tendency of these programs to hit the reset switch at the end of every episode, returning the universe to pristine un-played-with shape in time for the next dramatic interlude; even though it's the opposite of real SF (a disruptive literature that focusses intently on revolutionary change), I recognize the limits of the TV series as a medium. Sometimes they make at least a token gesture towards a developing story arc.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Star Trek works better without long story arcs. The point of Star Trek is to deal with a different topic on each episode. Introducing story arcs will hide the message Star Trek wants to transmit.</p><blockquote><div><p>The biggest weakness of the entire genre is this: the protagonists don't tell us anything interesting about the human condition under science fictional circumstances. The scriptwriters and producers have thrown away the key tool that makes SF interesting and useful in the first place, by relegating "tech" to a token afterthought rather than an integral part of plot and characterization. What they end up with is SF written for the Pointy-Haired [studio] Boss, who has an instinctive aversion to ever having to learn anything that might modify their world-view. The characters are divorced from their social and cultural context; yes, there are some gestures in that direction, but if you scratch the protagonists of Star Trek you don't find anything truly different or alien under the latex face-sculptures: just the usual familiar -- and, to me, boring -- interpersonal neuroses of twenty-first century Americans, jumping through the hoops of standardized plot tropes and situations that were clich&#233;s in the 1950s.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The bullshit-meter has been damaged by the above quote. It just can't take any more. It's just off scale.
<br>
At the first first episode of TNG, the notion that we ('we' as in 'human race') are advanced is challenged directly!!! the whole 'logic-vs-emotions' battle of Spock and Data and what it takes to be human is one of the central themes of TOS/TNG!!! the Borg (of TNG 2nd and 3rd season era) are truly alien and as away from human as possible!!! the consequences of the merging of technology and nature are clearly illustrated many times in Star Trek. The concepts of religion and political systems are challenged dramatically in TNG!!! many people complain that the Utopian society shown in TNG is impossible, for crying out loud, which means that TNG challenges the very nature of the capitalistic system that we are currently living in!!! TNG has episodes about inter-species marriages, law systems, nano-technology, the effects of digital computers and central networking (a whole civilization was to 'shut down' literally because they have merged themselves with computers and the servers broke down - they also had a buffer in order to increase communication speed!!!), education systems in the context of inter-species pupils, traditions and keeping them, family relationships, large scale planetary geo-engineering/terraforming, terrorism and the right of people to define themselves as what they wish to be (Maquis etc), if androids can have children, if androids have rights, if translation is only what is required for communication (Darmok), and myriad other topics!!!!
<br>
How are all that for a challenge???
<br>
Obviously, you have not watched TNG, sticking dogmatically to what you know as 'science fiction'. Unfortunately, you are an epic fail especially in the sociology department. Before you start watching TNG, please read some sociology books, you might understand TNG better then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me clarify : when I was young -- I 'm dating myself here -- I quite liked the original TV series .
But when the movie-length trailer for ST : TNG first aired in the UK in the late eighties ?
It was hate on first sight .
It is quite immature to judge a book by its cover.And since then , it 's also been hate on sight between me and just about every space operatic show on television .
ST : Voyager and whatever the space station opera ; check .
Babylon Five ?
Ditto. Battlestar Galactica ?
Did n't even bother turning on the TV .
I hate them all .
Yes , DS9 , Voyager and Enterprise were quite space-operatic .
But not TOS and TNG ( at least until Rodenberry died ) .
A space opera show contains lots of interpersonal conflicts and emotions .
TNG is especially criticized by fans of TOS/DS9/BSG/B5 ( check out the StarTrek.com forums if you do n't believe me ) as containing little material on interpersonal relations.At his recent keynote speech at the New York Television Festival , former Star Trek writer and creator of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica Ron Moore revealed the secret formula to writing for Trek .
He described how the writers would just insert " tech " into the scripts whenever they needed to resolve a story or plot line , then they 'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words ( aka technobabble ) later .
" It became the solution to so many plot lines and so many stories , " Moore said .
" It was so mechanical that we had science consultants who would just come up with the words for us and we 'd just write 'tech ' in the script .
You know , Picard would say 'Commander La Forge , tech the tech to the warp drive .
' I 'm serious .
If you look at those scripts , you 'll see that .
" Bullshit .
Such a thing would be obvious if it was as Ron Moore describes .
There is a lot of technobabble in TNG , especially in the later years , but Star Trek was never strictly about technology and its consequences.As you probably guessed , this is not how I write SF -- in fact , it 's the antithesis of everything I enjoy in an SF novel .
Ok , you may not enjoy it , but thousands have enjoyed Star Trek and BSG and DS9 and all the other shows .
So ? is your sci-fi some how better because it focuses more on the technology ?
SF , at its best , is an exploration of the human condition under circumstances that we can conceive of existing , but which do n't currently exist ( either because the technology does n't exist , or there are gaps in our scientific model of the universe , or just because we 're short of big meteoroids on a collision course with the Sea of Japan -- the situation is improbable but not implausible ) .
And Star Trek does not contemplate on that at all ?
you might have missed mr Spock and Lt Cmdr Data then ! ! ! !
and there are lots of other examples...You want to deflect that civilization-killing asteroid ?
You need to find some way of getting there .
It 's going to be expensive and difficult , and there 's plenty of scope for human drama arising from it .
Except if your civilization has developed Faster-Than-Light travel...then your problem of 'getting there ' is non-existent .
Of course I hope you realize that finding a way to get to the asteroid is no more different than finding a way to avoid a supernova explosion...the technological scale is different , but the essence is the same : a group of people is trying to solve a problem.much as integrated circuits are useful and allow the mobile phone industry to exist and to add cheap camera chips to phones : and cheap camera chips in phones lead to happy slapping or sexting and other forms of behaviour that , thirty years ago , would have sounded science fictional .
Bullshit again .
People have been playing pranks ( even violent ones ) on others and exchanging sex-related material for centuries.Star Trek and its ilk are approaching the dramatic stage from the opposite direction : the situation is irrelevant , it 's background for a story which is all about the interpersonal relationships among the cast .
The amount of bullshit is phenomenal .
TOS and TNG have been criticized again and again ( TNG especially ) for a lack of interpersonal conflicts .
Furthermore , Rodenberry had a rule for the script writers : " no interpersonal conflicts " .
I guess Ron Moore forget to tell you that .
He also forget to tell you how did he whine to Gene about it .
I have just googled for " Rodenberry interpersonal conflicts " , and the first result [ americanchronicle.com ] that was returned contains the following paragraph : Roddenberry 's optimistic universe of high energy , peaceful humans who have thrown away racism , sexism , ageism and other primitive mindsets is criticized for being Utopian minded .
So much for interpersonal conflicts...You could strip out the 25th century tech in Star Trek and replace it with 18th century tech -- make the Enterprise a man o'war ( with a particularly eccentric crew ) at large upon the seven seas during the age of sail -- without changing the scripts significantly .
( The only casualty would be the eyeball candy -- big gunpowder explosions be damned , modern audiences want squids in space , with added lasers !
) Yes , you can so easily find the Borg in the sea ! ! !
come on , watch TNG first then come back and tell us the above .
Certainly , in some episodes the space setting can easily be replaced by a sea setting , but that would be less than 1/10 of the episodes.. . By the way , in ST they use phasers , not lasers .
And in the immortal words of Picard : " Lasers ca n't even penetrate our navigation shields .
Do n't they know that ?
" ...if that does n't show the effects of technology on a culture , I do n't know what it is.I can just about forgive the tendency of these programs to hit the reset switch at the end of every episode , returning the universe to pristine un-played-with shape in time for the next dramatic interlude ; even though it 's the opposite of real SF ( a disruptive literature that focusses intently on revolutionary change ) , I recognize the limits of the TV series as a medium .
Sometimes they make at least a token gesture towards a developing story arc .
Star Trek works better without long story arcs .
The point of Star Trek is to deal with a different topic on each episode .
Introducing story arcs will hide the message Star Trek wants to transmit.The biggest weakness of the entire genre is this : the protagonists do n't tell us anything interesting about the human condition under science fictional circumstances .
The scriptwriters and producers have thrown away the key tool that makes SF interesting and useful in the first place , by relegating " tech " to a token afterthought rather than an integral part of plot and characterization .
What they end up with is SF written for the Pointy-Haired [ studio ] Boss , who has an instinctive aversion to ever having to learn anything that might modify their world-view .
The characters are divorced from their social and cultural context ; yes , there are some gestures in that direction , but if you scratch the protagonists of Star Trek you do n't find anything truly different or alien under the latex face-sculptures : just the usual familiar -- and , to me , boring -- interpersonal neuroses of twenty-first century Americans , jumping through the hoops of standardized plot tropes and situations that were clich   s in the 1950s .
The bullshit-meter has been damaged by the above quote .
It just ca n't take any more .
It 's just off scale .
At the first first episode of TNG , the notion that we ( 'we ' as in 'human race ' ) are advanced is challenged directly ! ! !
the whole 'logic-vs-emotions ' battle of Spock and Data and what it takes to be human is one of the central themes of TOS/TNG ! ! !
the Borg ( of TNG 2nd and 3rd season era ) are truly alien and as away from human as possible ! ! !
the consequences of the merging of technology and nature are clearly illustrated many times in Star Trek .
The concepts of religion and political systems are challenged dramatically in TNG ! ! !
many people complain that the Utopian society shown in TNG is impossible , for crying out loud , which means that TNG challenges the very nature of the capitalistic system that we are currently living in ! ! !
TNG has episodes about inter-species marriages , law systems , nano-technology , the effects of digital computers and central networking ( a whole civilization was to 'shut down ' literally because they have merged themselves with computers and the servers broke down - they also had a buffer in order to increase communication speed ! ! !
) , education systems in the context of inter-species pupils , traditions and keeping them , family relationships , large scale planetary geo-engineering/terraforming , terrorism and the right of people to define themselves as what they wish to be ( Maquis etc ) , if androids can have children , if androids have rights , if translation is only what is required for communication ( Darmok ) , and myriad other topics ! ! ! !
How are all that for a challenge ? ? ?
Obviously , you have not watched TNG , sticking dogmatically to what you know as 'science fiction' .
Unfortunately , you are an epic fail especially in the sociology department .
Before you start watching TNG , please read some sociology books , you might understand TNG better then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me clarify: when I was young -- I'm dating myself here -- I quite liked the original TV series.
But when the movie-length trailer for ST:TNG first aired in the UK in the late eighties?
It was hate on first sight.
It is quite immature to judge a book by its cover.And since then, it's also been hate on sight between me and just about every space operatic show on television.
ST:Voyager and whatever the space station opera; check.
Babylon Five?
Ditto. Battlestar Galactica?
Didn't even bother turning on the TV.
I hate them all.
Yes, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were quite space-operatic.
But not TOS and TNG (at least until Rodenberry died).
A space opera show contains lots of interpersonal conflicts and emotions.
TNG is especially criticized by fans of TOS/DS9/BSG/B5 (check out the StarTrek.com forums if you don't believe me) as containing little material on interpersonal relations.At his recent keynote speech at the New York Television Festival, former Star Trek writer and creator of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica Ron Moore revealed the secret formula to writing for Trek.
He described how the writers would just insert "tech" into the scripts whenever they needed to resolve a story or plot line, then they'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words (aka technobabble) later.
"It became the solution to so many plot lines and so many stories," Moore said.
"It was so mechanical that we had science consultants who would just come up with the words for us and we'd just write 'tech' in the script.
You know, Picard would say 'Commander La Forge, tech the tech to the warp drive.
' I'm serious.
If you look at those scripts, you'll see that.
"


Bullshit.
Such a thing would be obvious if it was as Ron Moore describes.
There is a lot of technobabble in TNG, especially in the later years, but Star Trek was never strictly about technology and its consequences.As you probably guessed, this is not how I write SF -- in fact, it's the antithesis of everything I enjoy in an SF novel.
Ok, you may not enjoy it, but thousands have enjoyed Star Trek and BSG and DS9 and all the other shows.
So? is your sci-fi some how better because it focuses more on the technology?
SF, at its best, is an exploration of the human condition under circumstances that we can conceive of existing, but which don't currently exist (either because the technology doesn't exist, or there are gaps in our scientific model of the universe, or just because we're short of big meteoroids on a collision course with the Sea of Japan -- the situation is improbable but not implausible).
And Star Trek does not contemplate on that at all?
you might have missed mr Spock and Lt Cmdr Data then!!!!
and there are lots of other examples...You want to deflect that civilization-killing asteroid?
You need to find some way of getting there.
It's going to be expensive and difficult, and there's plenty of scope for human drama arising from it.
Except if your civilization has developed Faster-Than-Light travel...then your problem of 'getting there' is non-existent.
Of course I hope you realize that finding a way to get to the asteroid is no more different than finding a way to avoid a supernova explosion...the technological scale is different, but the essence is the same: a group of people is trying to solve a problem.much as integrated circuits are useful and allow the mobile phone industry to exist and to add cheap camera chips to phones: and cheap camera chips in phones lead to happy slapping or sexting and other forms of behaviour that, thirty years ago, would have sounded science fictional.
Bullshit again.
People have been playing pranks (even violent ones) on others and exchanging sex-related material for centuries.Star Trek and its ilk are approaching the dramatic stage from the opposite direction: the situation is irrelevant, it's background for a story which is all about the interpersonal relationships among the cast.
The amount of bullshit is phenomenal.
TOS and TNG have been criticized again and again (TNG especially) for a lack of interpersonal conflicts.
Furthermore, Rodenberry had a rule for the script writers: "no interpersonal conflicts".
I guess Ron Moore forget to tell you that.
He also forget to tell you how did he whine to Gene about it.
I have just googled for "Rodenberry interpersonal conflicts", and the first result [americanchronicle.com] that was returned contains the following paragraph:
 
Roddenberry's optimistic universe of high energy, peaceful humans who have thrown away racism, sexism, ageism and other primitive mindsets is criticized for being Utopian minded.
So much for interpersonal conflicts...You could strip out the 25th century tech in Star Trek and replace it with 18th century tech -- make the Enterprise a man o'war (with a particularly eccentric crew) at large upon the seven seas during the age of sail -- without changing the scripts significantly.
(The only casualty would be the eyeball candy -- big gunpowder explosions be damned, modern audiences want squids in space, with added lasers!
)

Yes, you can so easily find the Borg in the sea!!!
come on, watch TNG first then come back and tell us the above.
Certainly, in some episodes the space setting can easily be replaced by a sea setting, but that would be less than 1/10 of the episodes...

By the way, in ST they use phasers, not lasers.
And in the immortal words of Picard: "Lasers can't even penetrate our navigation shields.
Don't they know that?
"...if that doesn't show the effects of technology on a culture, I don't know what it is.I can just about forgive the tendency of these programs to hit the reset switch at the end of every episode, returning the universe to pristine un-played-with shape in time for the next dramatic interlude; even though it's the opposite of real SF (a disruptive literature that focusses intently on revolutionary change), I recognize the limits of the TV series as a medium.
Sometimes they make at least a token gesture towards a developing story arc.
Star Trek works better without long story arcs.
The point of Star Trek is to deal with a different topic on each episode.
Introducing story arcs will hide the message Star Trek wants to transmit.The biggest weakness of the entire genre is this: the protagonists don't tell us anything interesting about the human condition under science fictional circumstances.
The scriptwriters and producers have thrown away the key tool that makes SF interesting and useful in the first place, by relegating "tech" to a token afterthought rather than an integral part of plot and characterization.
What they end up with is SF written for the Pointy-Haired [studio] Boss, who has an instinctive aversion to ever having to learn anything that might modify their world-view.
The characters are divorced from their social and cultural context; yes, there are some gestures in that direction, but if you scratch the protagonists of Star Trek you don't find anything truly different or alien under the latex face-sculptures: just the usual familiar -- and, to me, boring -- interpersonal neuroses of twenty-first century Americans, jumping through the hoops of standardized plot tropes and situations that were clichés in the 1950s.
The bullshit-meter has been damaged by the above quote.
It just can't take any more.
It's just off scale.
At the first first episode of TNG, the notion that we ('we' as in 'human race') are advanced is challenged directly!!!
the whole 'logic-vs-emotions' battle of Spock and Data and what it takes to be human is one of the central themes of TOS/TNG!!!
the Borg (of TNG 2nd and 3rd season era) are truly alien and as away from human as possible!!!
the consequences of the merging of technology and nature are clearly illustrated many times in Star Trek.
The concepts of religion and political systems are challenged dramatically in TNG!!!
many people complain that the Utopian society shown in TNG is impossible, for crying out loud, which means that TNG challenges the very nature of the capitalistic system that we are currently living in!!!
TNG has episodes about inter-species marriages, law systems, nano-technology, the effects of digital computers and central networking (a whole civilization was to 'shut down' literally because they have merged themselves with computers and the servers broke down - they also had a buffer in order to increase communication speed!!!
), education systems in the context of inter-species pupils, traditions and keeping them, family relationships, large scale planetary geo-engineering/terraforming, terrorism and the right of people to define themselves as what they wish to be (Maquis etc), if androids can have children, if androids have rights, if translation is only what is required for communication (Darmok), and myriad other topics!!!!
How are all that for a challenge???
Obviously, you have not watched TNG, sticking dogmatically to what you know as 'science fiction'.
Unfortunately, you are an epic fail especially in the sociology department.
Before you start watching TNG, please read some sociology books, you might understand TNG better then.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740835</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>quacking duck</author>
	<datestamp>1255451820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is that even without money per se, there will still be people wanting to gain power over others. How that's handled, it's not clear. There are still politicians and even a president, but what interests are they elected on if money for any project isn't an issue and their citizens want for nothing?</p><p>The truly socialist/communist, everyone-is-equal society portrayed in Star Trek are the Borg (well, before they brought in the idea of the queen).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is that even without money per se , there will still be people wanting to gain power over others .
How that 's handled , it 's not clear .
There are still politicians and even a president , but what interests are they elected on if money for any project is n't an issue and their citizens want for nothing ? The truly socialist/communist , everyone-is-equal society portrayed in Star Trek are the Borg ( well , before they brought in the idea of the queen ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is that even without money per se, there will still be people wanting to gain power over others.
How that's handled, it's not clear.
There are still politicians and even a president, but what interests are they elected on if money for any project isn't an issue and their citizens want for nothing?The truly socialist/communist, everyone-is-equal society portrayed in Star Trek are the Borg (well, before they brought in the idea of the queen).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737573</id>
	<title>Re:Star Trek is Parables</title>
	<author>Jahws</author>
	<datestamp>1255429980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually had a class that looked at philosophy through science fiction.  Episodes of TNG would often help to jump-start our discussions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually had a class that looked at philosophy through science fiction .
Episodes of TNG would often help to jump-start our discussions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually had a class that looked at philosophy through science fiction.
Episodes of TNG would often help to jump-start our discussions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741305</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1255457880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont know...can a replicator create a replicator?</p><p>If not, you could easily sell those...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont know...can a replicator create a replicator ? If not , you could easily sell those.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont know...can a replicator create a replicator?If not, you could easily sell those...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739207</id>
	<title>Damages?</title>
	<author>keith\_nt4</author>
	<datestamp>1255438320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So if Star Wars could work as a Tolkien-style fantasy maybe the show Damages could be a sci-fi.
<p>
I don't know why, it just always struck me as a very sci-fi like show despite the total and complete lack of any actual science fiction elements. Anybody know what I mean? (Assuming anyone has even heard of Damages...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if Star Wars could work as a Tolkien-style fantasy maybe the show Damages could be a sci-fi .
I do n't know why , it just always struck me as a very sci-fi like show despite the total and complete lack of any actual science fiction elements .
Anybody know what I mean ?
( Assuming anyone has even heard of Damages... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if Star Wars could work as a Tolkien-style fantasy maybe the show Damages could be a sci-fi.
I don't know why, it just always struck me as a very sci-fi like show despite the total and complete lack of any actual science fiction elements.
Anybody know what I mean?
(Assuming anyone has even heard of Damages...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739741</id>
	<title>What I want to know is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255442520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're so smart, why don't shuttlecraft have seat belts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're so smart , why do n't shuttlecraft have seat belts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're so smart, why don't shuttlecraft have seat belts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29749703</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255513440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess that would bother someone who worships money. When you have a machine that can copy any physical object, there is no more need for money nor business nor enterpreneurship. All those things are tools, and when a tool is no longer needed, simply discard it. I imagine when 3D printers that can copy anything come along you'll fight progress tooth and nail, because it will destroy your beloved tools as well as your ability to lord it over the less fortunate.</p><p>That said, you didn't deserve the "troll" mod. Mods, "troll" doesn't mean "how fucking stupid".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that would bother someone who worships money .
When you have a machine that can copy any physical object , there is no more need for money nor business nor enterpreneurship .
All those things are tools , and when a tool is no longer needed , simply discard it .
I imagine when 3D printers that can copy anything come along you 'll fight progress tooth and nail , because it will destroy your beloved tools as well as your ability to lord it over the less fortunate.That said , you did n't deserve the " troll " mod .
Mods , " troll " does n't mean " how fucking stupid " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that would bother someone who worships money.
When you have a machine that can copy any physical object, there is no more need for money nor business nor enterpreneurship.
All those things are tools, and when a tool is no longer needed, simply discard it.
I imagine when 3D printers that can copy anything come along you'll fight progress tooth and nail, because it will destroy your beloved tools as well as your ability to lord it over the less fortunate.That said, you didn't deserve the "troll" mod.
Mods, "troll" doesn't mean "how fucking stupid".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741009</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255453800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it is the counter-example to the OP's complaint. The Star Trek universe *has* examined the implications of replicator technology... because that's the only way you're going to find a socialist utopia!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it is the counter-example to the OP 's complaint .
The Star Trek universe * has * examined the implications of replicator technology... because that 's the only way you 're going to find a socialist utopia !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it is the counter-example to the OP's complaint.
The Star Trek universe *has* examined the implications of replicator technology... because that's the only way you're going to find a socialist utopia!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741665</id>
	<title>recommend SF shows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255463400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if Stross seen anything in the Ghost in the Shell franchise. It sounds like exactly the type of sci-fi that he's looking for, the Stand Alone Complex TV series in particular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if Stross seen anything in the Ghost in the Shell franchise .
It sounds like exactly the type of sci-fi that he 's looking for , the Stand Alone Complex TV series in particular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if Stross seen anything in the Ghost in the Shell franchise.
It sounds like exactly the type of sci-fi that he's looking for, the Stand Alone Complex TV series in particular.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737235</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1255428660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology</i></p><p>As opposed to the more traditional approach (to the extent that term is meaningful) that typically relies on made-up characters engaged in made-up conflicts using made-up approaches to achieve made-up ends?</p><p>You might want to consider expanding your notions of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drama" title="wikipedia.org">drama</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technologyAs opposed to the more traditional approach ( to the extent that term is meaningful ) that typically relies on made-up characters engaged in made-up conflicts using made-up approaches to achieve made-up ends ? You might want to consider expanding your notions of drama [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technologyAs opposed to the more traditional approach (to the extent that term is meaningful) that typically relies on made-up characters engaged in made-up conflicts using made-up approaches to achieve made-up ends?You might want to consider expanding your notions of drama [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739631</id>
	<title>Star Trek TNG wasn't about the science</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1255441860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The setting and the science existed primarily to provide a sufficiently epic stage on which to encounter compelling social and philosophical subjects without seeming pretentious or absurd to the average viewer.</p><p>Watching TNG was an ennobling experience.</p><p>See: Chain of Command, The Measure of a Man, Ship in a Bottle</p><p>Heck, even look at Encounter at Farpoint. The acting and the dialogue had real flaws, but the premise, humanity as a species on a trial, isn't something you can pull off on any other series so directly and on such a scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The setting and the science existed primarily to provide a sufficiently epic stage on which to encounter compelling social and philosophical subjects without seeming pretentious or absurd to the average viewer.Watching TNG was an ennobling experience.See : Chain of Command , The Measure of a Man , Ship in a BottleHeck , even look at Encounter at Farpoint .
The acting and the dialogue had real flaws , but the premise , humanity as a species on a trial , is n't something you can pull off on any other series so directly and on such a scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The setting and the science existed primarily to provide a sufficiently epic stage on which to encounter compelling social and philosophical subjects without seeming pretentious or absurd to the average viewer.Watching TNG was an ennobling experience.See: Chain of Command, The Measure of a Man, Ship in a BottleHeck, even look at Encounter at Farpoint.
The acting and the dialogue had real flaws, but the premise, humanity as a species on a trial, isn't something you can pull off on any other series so directly and on such a scale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739529</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1255441020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as you cannot spend all day watching porn on the internet, and you can't spend all day having holosex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as you can not spend all day watching porn on the internet , and you ca n't spend all day having holosex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as you cannot spend all day watching porn on the internet, and you can't spend all day having holosex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945</id>
	<title>Uh, B5 "technobabble"?  Hardly...</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1255427880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>B5 was very consistant and deliberately very low on the techno-BABBLE per se.</p><p>There was technologies needed for the plot (Hyperspace et al, etc etc etc), but it was established and not really changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>B5 was very consistant and deliberately very low on the techno-BABBLE per se.There was technologies needed for the plot ( Hyperspace et al , etc etc etc ) , but it was established and not really changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>B5 was very consistant and deliberately very low on the techno-BABBLE per se.There was technologies needed for the plot (Hyperspace et al, etc etc etc), but it was established and not really changed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736841</id>
	<title>Just enjoy...</title>
	<author>future assassin</author>
	<datestamp>1255427460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>the fucking show for what it is make belief sci-fi/fantasy and if you don't like it why do you keep watching it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>the fucking show for what it is make belief sci-fi/fantasy and if you do n't like it why do you keep watching it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the fucking show for what it is make belief sci-fi/fantasy and if you don't like it why do you keep watching it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737695</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>rantingkitten</author>
	<datestamp>1255430520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like any other economic system, capitalism is a system of allocating limited resources amongst the population.  Since resources are not infinite, some means of allocation must be used. <br>
<br>
In Star Trek's world, resources are, essentially, unlimited.  Infinite energy via matter/antimatter reactors.  Food, shelter, supplies, all available for the asking via replicators.  Nearly instantaneous transit with transporters.  What role does "resource allocation" have in an environment where there are no limits to resources?  Why does capitalism matter anymore?  If everyone having everything they need seems like socialism, well, so what?<br>
<br>
That said, while most stuff is free or nearly free in Star Trek's universe, there are a number of things which are not, and capitalists in the show make use of that for economic gain.  See the number of episodes revolving around Quark.  People in the show are frequently selling or trading in valuable antiques, artifacts, information, and other things that can't be replicated.  Civilians often buy passage on commercial ships for interstellar transport.  <br>
<br>
Capitalism in Star Trek isn't dead, but it's a completely different ballgame when all living needs and the majority of luxury needs are available for the asking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like any other economic system , capitalism is a system of allocating limited resources amongst the population .
Since resources are not infinite , some means of allocation must be used .
In Star Trek 's world , resources are , essentially , unlimited .
Infinite energy via matter/antimatter reactors .
Food , shelter , supplies , all available for the asking via replicators .
Nearly instantaneous transit with transporters .
What role does " resource allocation " have in an environment where there are no limits to resources ?
Why does capitalism matter anymore ?
If everyone having everything they need seems like socialism , well , so what ?
That said , while most stuff is free or nearly free in Star Trek 's universe , there are a number of things which are not , and capitalists in the show make use of that for economic gain .
See the number of episodes revolving around Quark .
People in the show are frequently selling or trading in valuable antiques , artifacts , information , and other things that ca n't be replicated .
Civilians often buy passage on commercial ships for interstellar transport .
Capitalism in Star Trek is n't dead , but it 's a completely different ballgame when all living needs and the majority of luxury needs are available for the asking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like any other economic system, capitalism is a system of allocating limited resources amongst the population.
Since resources are not infinite, some means of allocation must be used.
In Star Trek's world, resources are, essentially, unlimited.
Infinite energy via matter/antimatter reactors.
Food, shelter, supplies, all available for the asking via replicators.
Nearly instantaneous transit with transporters.
What role does "resource allocation" have in an environment where there are no limits to resources?
Why does capitalism matter anymore?
If everyone having everything they need seems like socialism, well, so what?
That said, while most stuff is free or nearly free in Star Trek's universe, there are a number of things which are not, and capitalists in the show make use of that for economic gain.
See the number of episodes revolving around Quark.
People in the show are frequently selling or trading in valuable antiques, artifacts, information, and other things that can't be replicated.
Civilians often buy passage on commercial ships for interstellar transport.
Capitalism in Star Trek isn't dead, but it's a completely different ballgame when all living needs and the majority of luxury needs are available for the asking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737423</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>plawsy</author>
	<datestamp>1255429380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You're thinking of 'deus ex machina', which is a plot device along the lines of "and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything". It's the fate of all lazy fiction and, sadly, it's not restricted to sci-fi</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean like BSG's "ending"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're thinking of 'deus ex machina ' , which is a plot device along the lines of " and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything " .
It 's the fate of all lazy fiction and , sadly , it 's not restricted to sci-fiYou mean like BSG 's " ending " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're thinking of 'deus ex machina', which is a plot device along the lines of "and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything".
It's the fate of all lazy fiction and, sadly, it's not restricted to sci-fiYou mean like BSG's "ending"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29753425</id>
	<title>Example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255541940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mitchell &amp; Webb Live - Science Fiction<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lxpNec3UAg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mitchell &amp; Webb Live - Science Fictionhttp : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 5lxpNec3UAg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mitchell &amp; Webb Live - Science Fictionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lxpNec3UAg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741373</id>
	<title>If He Hates Star Trek, What about Blakes' 7?????</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1255458780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He must absolutely Loathe Blakes' 7.   All that cardboard and wobbly sets must give him a coronary....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He must absolutely Loathe Blakes ' 7 .
All that cardboard and wobbly sets must give him a coronary... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He must absolutely Loathe Blakes' 7.
All that cardboard and wobbly sets must give him a coronary....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737927</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>pcolaman</author>
	<datestamp>1255431300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And thank Fox for killing it, because they suck.  That's all, moving on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And thank Fox for killing it , because they suck .
That 's all , moving on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And thank Fox for killing it, because they suck.
That's all, moving on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737873</id>
	<title>You want a sci-fi fiction that actually is ...</title>
	<author>Sepiraph</author>
	<datestamp>1255431120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You want a sci-fi fiction that actually is science dependent, look at novels by Phillip K. Dick, or check out the anime series Ghost in the Shell SAC.  They depict plots where technology plays a much larger role in the story and fundamentally affects how people think and behave, to the point where they start to question their own humanity because of infusion of technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want a sci-fi fiction that actually is science dependent , look at novels by Phillip K. Dick , or check out the anime series Ghost in the Shell SAC .
They depict plots where technology plays a much larger role in the story and fundamentally affects how people think and behave , to the point where they start to question their own humanity because of infusion of technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want a sci-fi fiction that actually is science dependent, look at novels by Phillip K. Dick, or check out the anime series Ghost in the Shell SAC.
They depict plots where technology plays a much larger role in the story and fundamentally affects how people think and behave, to the point where they start to question their own humanity because of infusion of technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738281</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1255432920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, the TRUE one reason not to like Star Trek is the fact that they solve 95\% of problems by reversing the polarity of something.</p></div><p>Yeah. They reversed the polarity of capitalism 300 years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the TRUE one reason not to like Star Trek is the fact that they solve 95 \ % of problems by reversing the polarity of something.Yeah .
They reversed the polarity of capitalism 300 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the TRUE one reason not to like Star Trek is the fact that they solve 95\% of problems by reversing the polarity of something.Yeah.
They reversed the polarity of capitalism 300 years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738151</id>
	<title>Star Trek still works.</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1255432260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Star Trek might not contain real science, but it gets people excited about real science.  I'd say that is pretty important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Trek might not contain real science , but it gets people excited about real science .
I 'd say that is pretty important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Trek might not contain real science, but it gets people excited about real science.
I'd say that is pretty important.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737121</id>
	<title>Oh no he di'int!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk bad about Star Trek? Now you gone an dun it. Stross might as well point out that Star Trek was not peer reviewed and published through the standard academic process. Perhaps he should note that Star Trek cannot be experimentally confirmed, and moreover isn't Lorentz Invariant. God does not play theater with the cosmos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk bad about Star Trek ?
Now you gone an dun it .
Stross might as well point out that Star Trek was not peer reviewed and published through the standard academic process .
Perhaps he should note that Star Trek can not be experimentally confirmed , and moreover is n't Lorentz Invariant .
God does not play theater with the cosmos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk bad about Star Trek?
Now you gone an dun it.
Stross might as well point out that Star Trek was not peer reviewed and published through the standard academic process.
Perhaps he should note that Star Trek cannot be experimentally confirmed, and moreover isn't Lorentz Invariant.
God does not play theater with the cosmos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737831</id>
	<title>A success story..</title>
	<author>Archfeld</author>
	<datestamp>1255431000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had always considered the technology in Star Trek as the most successful ever implemented. It was so reliable and intuitive as to allow anyone to use it and it rarely ever failed. The idea of technology as the center point is only our perspective because most of our technology is so crappy it take a degree to properly implement and much training to even use. When done right, technology quietly and seamlessly will make our lives better without becoming obtrusive or overwhelming.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Me would REALLY REALLY REALLY like a food replicator in place of my microwave oven thank-you very much...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had always considered the technology in Star Trek as the most successful ever implemented .
It was so reliable and intuitive as to allow anyone to use it and it rarely ever failed .
The idea of technology as the center point is only our perspective because most of our technology is so crappy it take a degree to properly implement and much training to even use .
When done right , technology quietly and seamlessly will make our lives better without becoming obtrusive or overwhelming .
/Me would REALLY REALLY REALLY like a food replicator in place of my microwave oven thank-you very much.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had always considered the technology in Star Trek as the most successful ever implemented.
It was so reliable and intuitive as to allow anyone to use it and it rarely ever failed.
The idea of technology as the center point is only our perspective because most of our technology is so crappy it take a degree to properly implement and much training to even use.
When done right, technology quietly and seamlessly will make our lives better without becoming obtrusive or overwhelming.
/Me would REALLY REALLY REALLY like a food replicator in place of my microwave oven thank-you very much...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738359</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Moridineas</author>
	<datestamp>1255433220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't say that's quite fair.</p><p>Why do people prefer an original piece of artwork over a copy? A first edition book over a mass market one.</p><p>Why do people prefer a local grown tomato over one imported from another continent?</p><p>Why do people prefer a handwoven persian rug over a mass produced one? Or an authentic tribal artifact over a copy?</p><p>There are lots of aspects to ownership besides the form or function of an object.</p><p>Vaguely along these lines, to quote Spock: "Having is not so great a thing as wanting. I know it isn't logical, but it is very often true."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't say that 's quite fair.Why do people prefer an original piece of artwork over a copy ?
A first edition book over a mass market one.Why do people prefer a local grown tomato over one imported from another continent ? Why do people prefer a handwoven persian rug over a mass produced one ?
Or an authentic tribal artifact over a copy ? There are lots of aspects to ownership besides the form or function of an object.Vaguely along these lines , to quote Spock : " Having is not so great a thing as wanting .
I know it is n't logical , but it is very often true .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't say that's quite fair.Why do people prefer an original piece of artwork over a copy?
A first edition book over a mass market one.Why do people prefer a local grown tomato over one imported from another continent?Why do people prefer a handwoven persian rug over a mass produced one?
Or an authentic tribal artifact over a copy?There are lots of aspects to ownership besides the form or function of an object.Vaguely along these lines, to quote Spock: "Having is not so great a thing as wanting.
I know it isn't logical, but it is very often true.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742093</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255512480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have pretty much explained why an advanced star-trek-like level of civilization can't be reached if we mantain today's standards where the ultimate goal is money and possession.<br>Yes, we need some utopian socialism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have pretty much explained why an advanced star-trek-like level of civilization ca n't be reached if we mantain today 's standards where the ultimate goal is money and possession.Yes , we need some utopian socialism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have pretty much explained why an advanced star-trek-like level of civilization can't be reached if we mantain today's standards where the ultimate goal is money and possession.Yes, we need some utopian socialism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737199</id>
	<title>Imagination</title>
	<author>Krystlih</author>
	<datestamp>1255428540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I can understand trying to make things "scientific" and being as accurate as possible, but at the same time it doesn't have to be accurate to inspire imagination.  I know I grew up watching Star Trek, both the original series and later TNG.  While later I became aware of a lot of the inaccuracies and "techno babble" that was spouted on the show, it did a whole lot to inspire my imagination and get me interested in a lot of areas.  I think that was Gene Roddenberry's original plan/goal with the show anyway, to inspire the imagination and reach for the stars.

Sometimes us as geeks forget that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I can understand trying to make things " scientific " and being as accurate as possible , but at the same time it does n't have to be accurate to inspire imagination .
I know I grew up watching Star Trek , both the original series and later TNG .
While later I became aware of a lot of the inaccuracies and " techno babble " that was spouted on the show , it did a whole lot to inspire my imagination and get me interested in a lot of areas .
I think that was Gene Roddenberry 's original plan/goal with the show anyway , to inspire the imagination and reach for the stars .
Sometimes us as geeks forget that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I can understand trying to make things "scientific" and being as accurate as possible, but at the same time it doesn't have to be accurate to inspire imagination.
I know I grew up watching Star Trek, both the original series and later TNG.
While later I became aware of a lot of the inaccuracies and "techno babble" that was spouted on the show, it did a whole lot to inspire my imagination and get me interested in a lot of areas.
I think that was Gene Roddenberry's original plan/goal with the show anyway, to inspire the imagination and reach for the stars.
Sometimes us as geeks forget that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737343</id>
	<title>Batman</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1255429020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever, Batman has been doing it for years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever , Batman has been doing it for years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever, Batman has been doing it for years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737369</id>
	<title>Soft vs. Hard Science fiction</title>
	<author>Jonathan</author>
	<datestamp>1255429140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought people realized a long time ago that there was "soft" science fiction that really was just using SF to say something about current society and its problems  and "hard" science fiction that was actually about the science and technology. Star Trek is probably the most famous example of the "soft" style. Stross obviously just prefers the second type.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought people realized a long time ago that there was " soft " science fiction that really was just using SF to say something about current society and its problems and " hard " science fiction that was actually about the science and technology .
Star Trek is probably the most famous example of the " soft " style .
Stross obviously just prefers the second type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought people realized a long time ago that there was "soft" science fiction that really was just using SF to say something about current society and its problems  and "hard" science fiction that was actually about the science and technology.
Star Trek is probably the most famous example of the "soft" style.
Stross obviously just prefers the second type.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737393</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1255429200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make a good point, but I don't think the problem is just that it's made up, how how unclever the problems and solutions sometimes were.  Surely not every problem in the future can be solved by screwing around with the deflector array or realigning dilithium crystals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make a good point , but I do n't think the problem is just that it 's made up , how how unclever the problems and solutions sometimes were .
Surely not every problem in the future can be solved by screwing around with the deflector array or realigning dilithium crystals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make a good point, but I don't think the problem is just that it's made up, how how unclever the problems and solutions sometimes were.
Surely not every problem in the future can be solved by screwing around with the deflector array or realigning dilithium crystals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738471</id>
	<title>Maybe when he can WRITE sci-fi</title>
	<author>haggus71</author>
	<datestamp>1255433760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately for Charlie the Unicorn, he forgets that the best writers of sci-fi, Asimov, Heinlein, and Philip K. Dick among them, used it as a medium to show that, no matter the circumstance, humans are humans.  People aren't going to buy your books or watch your shows unless they can find a connection to themselves.  To write otherwise is intellectual masturbation, as you are only writing for your own ego.

I guess authors like him are the reason I don't read any recent sci-fi literature.  When Asimov died, the genre died with him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately for Charlie the Unicorn , he forgets that the best writers of sci-fi , Asimov , Heinlein , and Philip K. Dick among them , used it as a medium to show that , no matter the circumstance , humans are humans .
People are n't going to buy your books or watch your shows unless they can find a connection to themselves .
To write otherwise is intellectual masturbation , as you are only writing for your own ego .
I guess authors like him are the reason I do n't read any recent sci-fi literature .
When Asimov died , the genre died with him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately for Charlie the Unicorn, he forgets that the best writers of sci-fi, Asimov, Heinlein, and Philip K. Dick among them, used it as a medium to show that, no matter the circumstance, humans are humans.
People aren't going to buy your books or watch your shows unless they can find a connection to themselves.
To write otherwise is intellectual masturbation, as you are only writing for your own ego.
I guess authors like him are the reason I don't read any recent sci-fi literature.
When Asimov died, the genre died with him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738223</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1255432620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's a reasonable answer to the question of "what happens if food and manufacturing become practically free?"  If nobody has to work constantly just to survive, what would they do?  They'd work as much as they needed to, then slack off and do whatever they like.  And so, one possibility is that enough people like to do the important things, that instead of practically free, those things become completely free.  If you have enough engineers who like running power plants and replicators, food and manufacturing cost nothing anymore.  At least in DS9, there was still currency.  It didn't represent material scarcity, but infrastructure scarcity.  Civilians, at least on Earth, had subspace rations, and transporter rations.  I think replicator rations too, but rations so large they'd never meet them just from food and clothing and other small consumables.
</p><p>
Ian M. Banks has the argument made much more eloquently than I could pull off, though I don't recall the URL.  He is of the opinion that a "communist" utopian society is inevitable, given that we can eventually achieve sufficient automation that you only need a few engineers who love their work to provide all the necessities to EVERYBODY.  He's also of the opinion that capitalism is the best way to GET there.  The assumption is that you can get nano-assemblers, to basically replicate food and most other goods that people would need, and that you can automate it in such a way that either AI handles it and maintains it, or that it only takes a few humans to do so.  If that technology is possible, then capitalism must get us there.  Corporations can't stop researching, or they'll lose to competition that does.  When it gets to that point, you have to decide if your an optimist, or a pessimist.  Optimistically, if goods require almost $0 to make, then what will happen is everything will be free, and all your industry will be run by people who want to do it just for something to do.  Researchers and designers and artists will do what they love, just for the sake of doing it.  Then you get The Federation / The Culture.  You'll still have currency, but it's in the forms of rationing off limited infrastructure, or just unofficial currency, in the form of "kudos" as it's often termed.  Pessimistically, you have neo-feudalism.  Automation means that the vast majority of humanity is relegated to living on welfare.  99\% unemployment, all living off of government handouts.  And a handful of corporations that have all of the money in the world, most of which is spent on taxes to pay the dole, and the rest is split evenly between R&amp;D, maintenance, and brutalizing the serfs to keep them loyal to your corporation and not the competition, and to get the idea of Star Trek out of their heads.  Being optimistic is more fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a reasonable answer to the question of " what happens if food and manufacturing become practically free ?
" If nobody has to work constantly just to survive , what would they do ?
They 'd work as much as they needed to , then slack off and do whatever they like .
And so , one possibility is that enough people like to do the important things , that instead of practically free , those things become completely free .
If you have enough engineers who like running power plants and replicators , food and manufacturing cost nothing anymore .
At least in DS9 , there was still currency .
It did n't represent material scarcity , but infrastructure scarcity .
Civilians , at least on Earth , had subspace rations , and transporter rations .
I think replicator rations too , but rations so large they 'd never meet them just from food and clothing and other small consumables .
Ian M. Banks has the argument made much more eloquently than I could pull off , though I do n't recall the URL .
He is of the opinion that a " communist " utopian society is inevitable , given that we can eventually achieve sufficient automation that you only need a few engineers who love their work to provide all the necessities to EVERYBODY .
He 's also of the opinion that capitalism is the best way to GET there .
The assumption is that you can get nano-assemblers , to basically replicate food and most other goods that people would need , and that you can automate it in such a way that either AI handles it and maintains it , or that it only takes a few humans to do so .
If that technology is possible , then capitalism must get us there .
Corporations ca n't stop researching , or they 'll lose to competition that does .
When it gets to that point , you have to decide if your an optimist , or a pessimist .
Optimistically , if goods require almost $ 0 to make , then what will happen is everything will be free , and all your industry will be run by people who want to do it just for something to do .
Researchers and designers and artists will do what they love , just for the sake of doing it .
Then you get The Federation / The Culture .
You 'll still have currency , but it 's in the forms of rationing off limited infrastructure , or just unofficial currency , in the form of " kudos " as it 's often termed .
Pessimistically , you have neo-feudalism .
Automation means that the vast majority of humanity is relegated to living on welfare .
99 \ % unemployment , all living off of government handouts .
And a handful of corporations that have all of the money in the world , most of which is spent on taxes to pay the dole , and the rest is split evenly between R&amp;D , maintenance , and brutalizing the serfs to keep them loyal to your corporation and not the competition , and to get the idea of Star Trek out of their heads .
Being optimistic is more fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's a reasonable answer to the question of "what happens if food and manufacturing become practically free?
"  If nobody has to work constantly just to survive, what would they do?
They'd work as much as they needed to, then slack off and do whatever they like.
And so, one possibility is that enough people like to do the important things, that instead of practically free, those things become completely free.
If you have enough engineers who like running power plants and replicators, food and manufacturing cost nothing anymore.
At least in DS9, there was still currency.
It didn't represent material scarcity, but infrastructure scarcity.
Civilians, at least on Earth, had subspace rations, and transporter rations.
I think replicator rations too, but rations so large they'd never meet them just from food and clothing and other small consumables.
Ian M. Banks has the argument made much more eloquently than I could pull off, though I don't recall the URL.
He is of the opinion that a "communist" utopian society is inevitable, given that we can eventually achieve sufficient automation that you only need a few engineers who love their work to provide all the necessities to EVERYBODY.
He's also of the opinion that capitalism is the best way to GET there.
The assumption is that you can get nano-assemblers, to basically replicate food and most other goods that people would need, and that you can automate it in such a way that either AI handles it and maintains it, or that it only takes a few humans to do so.
If that technology is possible, then capitalism must get us there.
Corporations can't stop researching, or they'll lose to competition that does.
When it gets to that point, you have to decide if your an optimist, or a pessimist.
Optimistically, if goods require almost $0 to make, then what will happen is everything will be free, and all your industry will be run by people who want to do it just for something to do.
Researchers and designers and artists will do what they love, just for the sake of doing it.
Then you get The Federation / The Culture.
You'll still have currency, but it's in the forms of rationing off limited infrastructure, or just unofficial currency, in the form of "kudos" as it's often termed.
Pessimistically, you have neo-feudalism.
Automation means that the vast majority of humanity is relegated to living on welfare.
99\% unemployment, all living off of government handouts.
And a handful of corporations that have all of the money in the world, most of which is spent on taxes to pay the dole, and the rest is split evenly between R&amp;D, maintenance, and brutalizing the serfs to keep them loyal to your corporation and not the competition, and to get the idea of Star Trek out of their heads.
Being optimistic is more fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738341</id>
	<title>Because that's what would happen</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1255433100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The technology in Star Trek is such that they'd eliminate material want. They had access to essentially unlimited resources and energy. In that situation, capitalism breaks down.</p><p>That is one of the interesting things about Sci Fi is that when you consider the far future, you pretty much always have to consider what economic system will replace capitalism. It WILL break down at some point, and I say this as someone who like capitalism. It is the best system so far we've found for distributing limited resources and encouraging growth of production. Ok fine, however that requires that resources be limited, and that we sustain growth, capitalism only works when the economy grows. So at some point, no time soon but some distant point, things will change in one of two ways and either will cause capitalism to need to be replaced with something new:</p><p>1) The distopian version is that we run out of resources. We can't sustain growth, we can't even sustain our current levels. Increasing shortage is the perpetual state.</p><p>2) The utopian version is that we develop technology such that we essentially don't have any limits on resources. Through whatever means we get it to the point that just about everything in life is trivial to produce in whatever quantity we desire.</p><p>In either case, capitalism won't do the trick. We'll need a new economic system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The technology in Star Trek is such that they 'd eliminate material want .
They had access to essentially unlimited resources and energy .
In that situation , capitalism breaks down.That is one of the interesting things about Sci Fi is that when you consider the far future , you pretty much always have to consider what economic system will replace capitalism .
It WILL break down at some point , and I say this as someone who like capitalism .
It is the best system so far we 've found for distributing limited resources and encouraging growth of production .
Ok fine , however that requires that resources be limited , and that we sustain growth , capitalism only works when the economy grows .
So at some point , no time soon but some distant point , things will change in one of two ways and either will cause capitalism to need to be replaced with something new : 1 ) The distopian version is that we run out of resources .
We ca n't sustain growth , we ca n't even sustain our current levels .
Increasing shortage is the perpetual state.2 ) The utopian version is that we develop technology such that we essentially do n't have any limits on resources .
Through whatever means we get it to the point that just about everything in life is trivial to produce in whatever quantity we desire.In either case , capitalism wo n't do the trick .
We 'll need a new economic system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The technology in Star Trek is such that they'd eliminate material want.
They had access to essentially unlimited resources and energy.
In that situation, capitalism breaks down.That is one of the interesting things about Sci Fi is that when you consider the far future, you pretty much always have to consider what economic system will replace capitalism.
It WILL break down at some point, and I say this as someone who like capitalism.
It is the best system so far we've found for distributing limited resources and encouraging growth of production.
Ok fine, however that requires that resources be limited, and that we sustain growth, capitalism only works when the economy grows.
So at some point, no time soon but some distant point, things will change in one of two ways and either will cause capitalism to need to be replaced with something new:1) The distopian version is that we run out of resources.
We can't sustain growth, we can't even sustain our current levels.
Increasing shortage is the perpetual state.2) The utopian version is that we develop technology such that we essentially don't have any limits on resources.
Through whatever means we get it to the point that just about everything in life is trivial to produce in whatever quantity we desire.In either case, capitalism won't do the trick.
We'll need a new economic system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739169</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>luder</author>
	<datestamp>1255438140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, porn would be so awesome with that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , porn would be so awesome with that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, porn would be so awesome with that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739927</id>
	<title>Re:Given the enduring popularity of Star Trek, et.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255443780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most things on the Discovery/History channels (and the Science channel too, but that one is much more marketed towards kids) will teach you slightly more facts than the "Real World" on MTV
<br> <br>
Therefore, in comparison with the other crap on TV.... yes, the Discovery/History channels ARE educational.
<br> <br>
Obviously if you really want to learn, you go get a few textbooks... it doesn't meant that it is an all-or-nothing spectrum.
<br> <br>
Of course, one might argue that the "Real World" is educational in methods to deal (or avoid) with certain social situations... but somehow I doubt it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most things on the Discovery/History channels ( and the Science channel too , but that one is much more marketed towards kids ) will teach you slightly more facts than the " Real World " on MTV Therefore , in comparison with the other crap on TV.... yes , the Discovery/History channels ARE educational .
Obviously if you really want to learn , you go get a few textbooks... it does n't meant that it is an all-or-nothing spectrum .
Of course , one might argue that the " Real World " is educational in methods to deal ( or avoid ) with certain social situations... but somehow I doubt it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most things on the Discovery/History channels (and the Science channel too, but that one is much more marketed towards kids) will teach you slightly more facts than the "Real World" on MTV
 
Therefore, in comparison with the other crap on TV.... yes, the Discovery/History channels ARE educational.
Obviously if you really want to learn, you go get a few textbooks... it doesn't meant that it is an all-or-nothing spectrum.
Of course, one might argue that the "Real World" is educational in methods to deal (or avoid) with certain social situations... but somehow I doubt it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737481</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255429680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way fiction works is this:  I'll agree to take a romp in your universe, but *keep the rules consistent!*  Star Trek changed the rules on a daily basis (just invert the main deflector and fire a tachyon stream!) in order to solve problems.  At their best (and neither were perfect in this regard), BSG and Firefly have already laid out the ground rules; it's just a matter of applying them in a creative way such that it solves the problem at hand.  The other phrase for what Star Trek did was "deus ex machina", and it's the bane of good writing everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way fiction works is this : I 'll agree to take a romp in your universe , but * keep the rules consistent !
* Star Trek changed the rules on a daily basis ( just invert the main deflector and fire a tachyon stream !
) in order to solve problems .
At their best ( and neither were perfect in this regard ) , BSG and Firefly have already laid out the ground rules ; it 's just a matter of applying them in a creative way such that it solves the problem at hand .
The other phrase for what Star Trek did was " deus ex machina " , and it 's the bane of good writing everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way fiction works is this:  I'll agree to take a romp in your universe, but *keep the rules consistent!
*  Star Trek changed the rules on a daily basis (just invert the main deflector and fire a tachyon stream!
) in order to solve problems.
At their best (and neither were perfect in this regard), BSG and Firefly have already laid out the ground rules; it's just a matter of applying them in a creative way such that it solves the problem at hand.
The other phrase for what Star Trek did was "deus ex machina", and it's the bane of good writing everywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740135</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction focuses on the fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255445880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, they used beeps and whistles. It grew comical, that you could hear something Worf has hearing and instantly knew "oh, that's bad."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , they used beeps and whistles .
It grew comical , that you could hear something Worf has hearing and instantly knew " oh , that 's bad .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, they used beeps and whistles.
It grew comical, that you could hear something Worf has hearing and instantly knew "oh, that's bad.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737765</id>
	<title>Re:Ron Moore????</title>
	<author>mrsquid0</author>
	<datestamp>1255430700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This appears to be some new meaning of the word "ruined" that I was previously unfamiliar with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This appears to be some new meaning of the word " ruined " that I was previously unfamiliar with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This appears to be some new meaning of the word "ruined" that I was previously unfamiliar with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737351</id>
	<title>It's not restricted to sci-fi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255429080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That cancer of lazy fiction has even metastasized into the real world.</p><p>I blame fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That cancer of lazy fiction has even metastasized into the real world.I blame fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That cancer of lazy fiction has even metastasized into the real world.I blame fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739101</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255437600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Theres no business, theres no enterpreneurship anymore.</p></div><p>Tell that to the Ferengi, you insensitive clod!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theres no business , theres no enterpreneurship anymore.Tell that to the Ferengi , you insensitive clod ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theres no business, theres no enterpreneurship anymore.Tell that to the Ferengi, you insensitive clod!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742061</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Builder</author>
	<datestamp>1255512180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh - you got bandwidth caps too? Sorry to hear that.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh - you got bandwidth caps too ?
Sorry to hear that .
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh - you got bandwidth caps too?
Sorry to hear that.
:p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740169</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255446180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Haha, you're so funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha , you 're so funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha, you're so funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736877</id>
	<title>Star Trek, Asimov</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Star Trek was very good in its time. It opened up sci fi to a new tv audience and was quite cool.<br>However, as far as quality sci fi goes it's not as good as others even at its best.<br>The whole, warp core failures super easy, stuff exploding and shorting with regularity makes you question the competence of the Federation.<br>In contrast an amazingly logical, super goddamn sticking-to-the-plot and really rigidly logical writing with plausible concepts and amazingly entertaining writing, nothing comes close to Asimov. I've read 2000 pages of his novels over the course of 2 months after discovering it recently. It is amazing, if you like Star Trek, go read Asimov. More originality in *any* two books of his than nearly half of TV sci-fi historh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Trek was very good in its time .
It opened up sci fi to a new tv audience and was quite cool.However , as far as quality sci fi goes it 's not as good as others even at its best.The whole , warp core failures super easy , stuff exploding and shorting with regularity makes you question the competence of the Federation.In contrast an amazingly logical , super goddamn sticking-to-the-plot and really rigidly logical writing with plausible concepts and amazingly entertaining writing , nothing comes close to Asimov .
I 've read 2000 pages of his novels over the course of 2 months after discovering it recently .
It is amazing , if you like Star Trek , go read Asimov .
More originality in * any * two books of his than nearly half of TV sci-fi historh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Trek was very good in its time.
It opened up sci fi to a new tv audience and was quite cool.However, as far as quality sci fi goes it's not as good as others even at its best.The whole, warp core failures super easy, stuff exploding and shorting with regularity makes you question the competence of the Federation.In contrast an amazingly logical, super goddamn sticking-to-the-plot and really rigidly logical writing with plausible concepts and amazingly entertaining writing, nothing comes close to Asimov.
I've read 2000 pages of his novels over the course of 2 months after discovering it recently.
It is amazing, if you like Star Trek, go read Asimov.
More originality in *any* two books of his than nearly half of TV sci-fi historh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740657</id>
	<title>www.tntshoes.com Selling DB Handbags,Coogi Jean,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255450260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  Welcome TO Our Website:   Http://www.tntshoes.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; we are a prefession online store, you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos .<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; we have large brand new t-shirt,shoes,clothing, handbags,sunglasses,hats etc for sale, 100\% best quality but the price is amazing. Our website is see our website in the photos attached, if interested please email me by we .</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; OUR WEBSITE:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Http://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome TO Our Website : Http : //www.tntshoes.com           we are a prefession online store , you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos .
        we have large brand new t-shirt,shoes,clothing , handbags,sunglasses,hats etc for sale , 100 \ % best quality but the price is amazing .
Our website is see our website in the photos attached , if interested please email me by we .
    OUR WEBSITE :                                                         YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                                 MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com                                                                     Http : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Welcome TO Our Website:   Http://www.tntshoes.com
          we are a prefession online store, you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos .
        we have large brand new t-shirt,shoes,clothing, handbags,sunglasses,hats etc for sale, 100\% best quality but the price is amazing.
Our website is see our website in the photos attached, if interested please email me by we .
    OUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com
                                                                    Http://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739625</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Planesdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1255441800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As Scott Adams says; "The Holodeck will be mankind's last great invention". I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out why we'd never ever want to leave.</p></div><p>Rebuttal 1: Go see "Surrogates."  It's essentially got the answer right there.</p><p>Rebuttal 2: You'd leave for the same reason God created us.  Beause, eventually, a sentient mind craves something that it itself did not create.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Scott Adams says ; " The Holodeck will be mankind 's last great invention " .
I 'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out why we 'd never ever want to leave.Rebuttal 1 : Go see " Surrogates .
" It 's essentially got the answer right there.Rebuttal 2 : You 'd leave for the same reason God created us .
Beause , eventually , a sentient mind craves something that it itself did not create .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Scott Adams says; "The Holodeck will be mankind's last great invention".
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out why we'd never ever want to leave.Rebuttal 1: Go see "Surrogates.
"  It's essentially got the answer right there.Rebuttal 2: You'd leave for the same reason God created us.
Beause, eventually, a sentient mind craves something that it itself did not create.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29754131</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Malacca</author>
	<datestamp>1255637880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Tech ex machina", surely?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Tech ex machina " , surely ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Tech ex machina", surely?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737689</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1255430520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually this was my old sig, I didn't come up with it I got it from some AC
<br> <br>
"You do realize that Star Trek is a brainwashed communist society controlled by the military?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually this was my old sig , I did n't come up with it I got it from some AC " You do realize that Star Trek is a brainwashed communist society controlled by the military ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually this was my old sig, I didn't come up with it I got it from some AC
 
"You do realize that Star Trek is a brainwashed communist society controlled by the military?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29744395</id>
	<title>Re:The ST bible</title>
	<author>kinglitho</author>
	<datestamp>1255533780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fact in the TOS Writer's Guide (I still have my copy!), Roddenberry established the "Wagon Train, Gunsmoke, Naked City" rule whereby the plot of any Star Trek episode had to make sense if it was transferred to any of those shows.<br> <br>
There was also a rule against stopping the action to explain how the technology worked. He likened it to a Western where the protagonist discusses revolver design. It's boring, and it doesn't advance the story.<br> <br>
You could argue how that is anti-technology, and I'm not sure you could translate "The Guardian of Forever" into an episode of Gunsmoke, but it does serve the primary need of any entertainment: first, tell an interesting story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact in the TOS Writer 's Guide ( I still have my copy !
) , Roddenberry established the " Wagon Train , Gunsmoke , Naked City " rule whereby the plot of any Star Trek episode had to make sense if it was transferred to any of those shows .
There was also a rule against stopping the action to explain how the technology worked .
He likened it to a Western where the protagonist discusses revolver design .
It 's boring , and it does n't advance the story .
You could argue how that is anti-technology , and I 'm not sure you could translate " The Guardian of Forever " into an episode of Gunsmoke , but it does serve the primary need of any entertainment : first , tell an interesting story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact in the TOS Writer's Guide (I still have my copy!
), Roddenberry established the "Wagon Train, Gunsmoke, Naked City" rule whereby the plot of any Star Trek episode had to make sense if it was transferred to any of those shows.
There was also a rule against stopping the action to explain how the technology worked.
He likened it to a Western where the protagonist discusses revolver design.
It's boring, and it doesn't advance the story.
You could argue how that is anti-technology, and I'm not sure you could translate "The Guardian of Forever" into an episode of Gunsmoke, but it does serve the primary need of any entertainment: first, tell an interesting story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737099</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they don't explain the technostuff, and make up names of stuff that sound like something a kid would name is world of warcraft character. BSG/Firefly/StarGate's technobabble atleast seems reasonable, and is usually based on theories that exist in real life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they do n't explain the technostuff , and make up names of stuff that sound like something a kid would name is world of warcraft character .
BSG/Firefly/StarGate 's technobabble atleast seems reasonable , and is usually based on theories that exist in real life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they don't explain the technostuff, and make up names of stuff that sound like something a kid would name is world of warcraft character.
BSG/Firefly/StarGate's technobabble atleast seems reasonable, and is usually based on theories that exist in real life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737501</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, B5 "technobabble"? Hardly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255429740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>B5 was very consistant and deliberately very low on the techno-BABBLE per se.</p><p>There was technologies needed for the plot (Hyperspace et al, etc etc etc), but it was established and not really changed.</p></div><p>B5 technology was a lot more internally consistent than Star Trek.  The races that had gravity control used it to propel their spaceships (though not at FTL speeds) as well as keep their crew stuck to the decks and healthy.  The races that did not (most notably humanity) had to find other means, most notably rotating sections on their spacecraft, or strapping everyone into their seats.  Babylon 5 itself even had an innovative craft-launch system that was only possibly because of its rotational momentum.</p><p>Telepathy was dealt with in a typical human social fashion: ostracism, discrimination, and eventual Draconian legal regulations.  This led to the corruption of the institution that was responsible for keeping telepaths under control.</p><p>They even ran across a sleeper ship once.  Also, time travel was used precisely once, required an entire planet worth of power generation to implement, and spanned three episodes: one near the end of the first season, and a two-parter in the middle of the third season; henceforth, it was never used again.  You never see that kind of forward planning, and restraint, in any Star Trek series.</p><p>Babylon 5 does not deserve to be lumped into the same dung pile as Star Trek.  Sure, it has its faults, but it's not even close to as sloppy as Star Trek.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>B5 was very consistant and deliberately very low on the techno-BABBLE per se.There was technologies needed for the plot ( Hyperspace et al , etc etc etc ) , but it was established and not really changed.B5 technology was a lot more internally consistent than Star Trek .
The races that had gravity control used it to propel their spaceships ( though not at FTL speeds ) as well as keep their crew stuck to the decks and healthy .
The races that did not ( most notably humanity ) had to find other means , most notably rotating sections on their spacecraft , or strapping everyone into their seats .
Babylon 5 itself even had an innovative craft-launch system that was only possibly because of its rotational momentum.Telepathy was dealt with in a typical human social fashion : ostracism , discrimination , and eventual Draconian legal regulations .
This led to the corruption of the institution that was responsible for keeping telepaths under control.They even ran across a sleeper ship once .
Also , time travel was used precisely once , required an entire planet worth of power generation to implement , and spanned three episodes : one near the end of the first season , and a two-parter in the middle of the third season ; henceforth , it was never used again .
You never see that kind of forward planning , and restraint , in any Star Trek series.Babylon 5 does not deserve to be lumped into the same dung pile as Star Trek .
Sure , it has its faults , but it 's not even close to as sloppy as Star Trek .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>B5 was very consistant and deliberately very low on the techno-BABBLE per se.There was technologies needed for the plot (Hyperspace et al, etc etc etc), but it was established and not really changed.B5 technology was a lot more internally consistent than Star Trek.
The races that had gravity control used it to propel their spaceships (though not at FTL speeds) as well as keep their crew stuck to the decks and healthy.
The races that did not (most notably humanity) had to find other means, most notably rotating sections on their spacecraft, or strapping everyone into their seats.
Babylon 5 itself even had an innovative craft-launch system that was only possibly because of its rotational momentum.Telepathy was dealt with in a typical human social fashion: ostracism, discrimination, and eventual Draconian legal regulations.
This led to the corruption of the institution that was responsible for keeping telepaths under control.They even ran across a sleeper ship once.
Also, time travel was used precisely once, required an entire planet worth of power generation to implement, and spanned three episodes: one near the end of the first season, and a two-parter in the middle of the third season; henceforth, it was never used again.
You never see that kind of forward planning, and restraint, in any Star Trek series.Babylon 5 does not deserve to be lumped into the same dung pile as Star Trek.
Sure, it has its faults, but it's not even close to as sloppy as Star Trek.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745769</id>
	<title>Re:agreed</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1255539360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... I think you've got the relationship between Star Wars and Tolkein backward.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I think you 've got the relationship between Star Wars and Tolkein backward .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I think you've got the relationship between Star Wars and Tolkein backward.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737529</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255429800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...why exactly? How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly? It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.</p></div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...why exactly? How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly? It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.</p></div><p>His complaint isn't that Star Trek has bad science. His complaint is that Star Trek science is inconsistent. New technology pops out of the void to solve any plot problem, and is never seen again.</p><p>In Firefly, by contrast, every episode uses the same basic level of technology. The only really fantastic "technologies" are propulsion systems, artificial gravity, and terraforming, which obey the same rules through the entire show.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...why exactly ?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly ?
It 's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second .
...why exactly ?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly ?
It 's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.His complaint is n't that Star Trek has bad science .
His complaint is that Star Trek science is inconsistent .
New technology pops out of the void to solve any plot problem , and is never seen again.In Firefly , by contrast , every episode uses the same basic level of technology .
The only really fantastic " technologies " are propulsion systems , artificial gravity , and terraforming , which obey the same rules through the entire show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...why exactly?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly?
It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.
...why exactly?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly?
It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.His complaint isn't that Star Trek has bad science.
His complaint is that Star Trek science is inconsistent.
New technology pops out of the void to solve any plot problem, and is never seen again.In Firefly, by contrast, every episode uses the same basic level of technology.
The only really fantastic "technologies" are propulsion systems, artificial gravity, and terraforming, which obey the same rules through the entire show.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737057</id>
	<title>Star Trek is Parables</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Star Trek episodes are philosophical parables, like most good science fiction. Suppose the world has this property. Then how would we behave under those circumstances?</p><p>My favorite example is "Brave New World" where technology dehumanizes everyone. People are manufactured on an assembly line, and no one has a mother. In fact, calling someone a "mother" is an insult. There is no central, simple, technology to the story. The society is the story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Trek episodes are philosophical parables , like most good science fiction .
Suppose the world has this property .
Then how would we behave under those circumstances ? My favorite example is " Brave New World " where technology dehumanizes everyone .
People are manufactured on an assembly line , and no one has a mother .
In fact , calling someone a " mother " is an insult .
There is no central , simple , technology to the story .
The society is the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Trek episodes are philosophical parables, like most good science fiction.
Suppose the world has this property.
Then how would we behave under those circumstances?My favorite example is "Brave New World" where technology dehumanizes everyone.
People are manufactured on an assembly line, and no one has a mother.
In fact, calling someone a "mother" is an insult.
There is no central, simple, technology to the story.
The society is the story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738179</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Da Cheez</author>
	<datestamp>1255432440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Written from the perspective of someone living several millenia ago about a sci-fi show depicting the modern world:
<br> <br>
"The problem isn't the weakness of the science, actually. It's the weakness of the sociology! It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the <b>automobile</b> wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable. There are technologies of <b>great medical intervention</b> that get trotted out regularly, yet we still are told that people would be quite satisfied with a <b>70-year life span</b>, more or less. I won't even mention <b>computers</b>."
<br> <br>
I wonder if we can really call the sociology weak.  It's true that they have great technological advances, but would that really change human nature that much?  I leave it to the reader to figure out for themselves whether or not there have actually been <i>major</i> sociological changes over the past few thousand years that were driven solely by technological advancement.  And since Star Trek is only a few <i>hundred</i> years in the future, compare today's society with that of the 18th century.  Are the changes really that pronounced?  Would today's human culture be unrecognizable to someone living in 1709?
<br> <br>
The more technology advances, the more people stay the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Written from the perspective of someone living several millenia ago about a sci-fi show depicting the modern world : " The problem is n't the weakness of the science , actually .
It 's the weakness of the sociology !
It 's inconceivable to me that a creation like the automobile would n't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable .
There are technologies of great medical intervention that get trotted out regularly , yet we still are told that people would be quite satisfied with a 70-year life span , more or less .
I wo n't even mention computers .
" I wonder if we can really call the sociology weak .
It 's true that they have great technological advances , but would that really change human nature that much ?
I leave it to the reader to figure out for themselves whether or not there have actually been major sociological changes over the past few thousand years that were driven solely by technological advancement .
And since Star Trek is only a few hundred years in the future , compare today 's society with that of the 18th century .
Are the changes really that pronounced ?
Would today 's human culture be unrecognizable to someone living in 1709 ?
The more technology advances , the more people stay the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Written from the perspective of someone living several millenia ago about a sci-fi show depicting the modern world:
 
"The problem isn't the weakness of the science, actually.
It's the weakness of the sociology!
It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the automobile wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.
There are technologies of great medical intervention that get trotted out regularly, yet we still are told that people would be quite satisfied with a 70-year life span, more or less.
I won't even mention computers.
"
 
I wonder if we can really call the sociology weak.
It's true that they have great technological advances, but would that really change human nature that much?
I leave it to the reader to figure out for themselves whether or not there have actually been major sociological changes over the past few thousand years that were driven solely by technological advancement.
And since Star Trek is only a few hundred years in the future, compare today's society with that of the 18th century.
Are the changes really that pronounced?
Would today's human culture be unrecognizable to someone living in 1709?
The more technology advances, the more people stay the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739793</id>
	<title>Re:Works In Congress: +1, Insidious</title>
	<author>ahecht</author>
	<datestamp>1255442940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, they often wouldn't even bother with consultants. I got to tour the set of Voyager while it was shooting (S01E13, "Cathexis"), and many of the shooting scripts would simply says [TECH] instead of the technical term, and it was up to the ACTORS to fill in the blank. For example, you'd see a line like: "We've got to [TECH] the [TECH] before the [TECH] [TECHS]". They just relied on the actors using a consistent set of gibberish to fill in the blanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , they often would n't even bother with consultants .
I got to tour the set of Voyager while it was shooting ( S01E13 , " Cathexis " ) , and many of the shooting scripts would simply says [ TECH ] instead of the technical term , and it was up to the ACTORS to fill in the blank .
For example , you 'd see a line like : " We 've got to [ TECH ] the [ TECH ] before the [ TECH ] [ TECHS ] " .
They just relied on the actors using a consistent set of gibberish to fill in the blanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, they often wouldn't even bother with consultants.
I got to tour the set of Voyager while it was shooting (S01E13, "Cathexis"), and many of the shooting scripts would simply says [TECH] instead of the technical term, and it was up to the ACTORS to fill in the blank.
For example, you'd see a line like: "We've got to [TECH] the [TECH] before the [TECH] [TECHS]".
They just relied on the actors using a consistent set of gibberish to fill in the blanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736865</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736989</id>
	<title>Re:Millions of fans disagree</title>
	<author>Stephenmg</author>
	<datestamp>1255428060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because someone watches or even enjoys Star Trek doesn't mean they think Stross is wrong. It just means they don't care enough about his point to base their enjoyment of Star Trek off of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because someone watches or even enjoys Star Trek does n't mean they think Stross is wrong .
It just means they do n't care enough about his point to base their enjoyment of Star Trek off of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because someone watches or even enjoys Star Trek doesn't mean they think Stross is wrong.
It just means they don't care enough about his point to base their enjoyment of Star Trek off of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743133</id>
	<title>And this just in...</title>
	<author>crimperman</author>
	<datestamp>1255526880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...all those shows have vessels that produce sound when moving in outer space!</p><p>So what? It's called science *fiction* for a reason. Sometimes the writer focusses more towards the "fiction" and sometimes on the "science" but in either case good writing shows through. TV shows can rarely compete with printed matter in the same genre (regardless of that genre). But good writing is about more than a good plot, the execution of that plot, the dialog, the description, the general prose all contribute and guess what, sometimes a writer doesn't get it all spot on every time.</p><p>I've not read any of Stross' stuff but his point seems moot really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...all those shows have vessels that produce sound when moving in outer space ! So what ?
It 's called science * fiction * for a reason .
Sometimes the writer focusses more towards the " fiction " and sometimes on the " science " but in either case good writing shows through .
TV shows can rarely compete with printed matter in the same genre ( regardless of that genre ) .
But good writing is about more than a good plot , the execution of that plot , the dialog , the description , the general prose all contribute and guess what , sometimes a writer does n't get it all spot on every time.I 've not read any of Stross ' stuff but his point seems moot really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...all those shows have vessels that produce sound when moving in outer space!So what?
It's called science *fiction* for a reason.
Sometimes the writer focusses more towards the "fiction" and sometimes on the "science" but in either case good writing shows through.
TV shows can rarely compete with printed matter in the same genre (regardless of that genre).
But good writing is about more than a good plot, the execution of that plot, the dialog, the description, the general prose all contribute and guess what, sometimes a writer doesn't get it all spot on every time.I've not read any of Stross' stuff but his point seems moot really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737467</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>Xphile101361</author>
	<datestamp>1255429620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many instances in ST did they run out of fuel, air, water or some other resource?  Believe me, I love ST, but you could always just fire up the replicator to create a buffet and reverse the polarity to fix any problem.  I don't think there is a Star Trek episode like Firefly's "Out of Gas"</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many instances in ST did they run out of fuel , air , water or some other resource ?
Believe me , I love ST , but you could always just fire up the replicator to create a buffet and reverse the polarity to fix any problem .
I do n't think there is a Star Trek episode like Firefly 's " Out of Gas "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many instances in ST did they run out of fuel, air, water or some other resource?
Believe me, I love ST, but you could always just fire up the replicator to create a buffet and reverse the polarity to fix any problem.
I don't think there is a Star Trek episode like Firefly's "Out of Gas"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737663</id>
	<title>Hate or Envy?</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1255430400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stross's hate might be more about envy.  i've heard of Star Trek, but not this Stross guy.  How many Stross movies have i seen? Do you own any DVD sets of TV series made about his work?  HE'S talking about Star Trek, who is talking about him?  Reminds me of fat women whining about beautiful women being slutty.</p><p>Outdo, v. to make an enemy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stross 's hate might be more about envy .
i 've heard of Star Trek , but not this Stross guy .
How many Stross movies have i seen ?
Do you own any DVD sets of TV series made about his work ?
HE 'S talking about Star Trek , who is talking about him ?
Reminds me of fat women whining about beautiful women being slutty.Outdo , v. to make an enemy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stross's hate might be more about envy.
i've heard of Star Trek, but not this Stross guy.
How many Stross movies have i seen?
Do you own any DVD sets of TV series made about his work?
HE'S talking about Star Trek, who is talking about him?
Reminds me of fat women whining about beautiful women being slutty.Outdo, v. to make an enemy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738415</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what makes it worthwhile. If we could just get past those ridiculous hindrances, what might mankind achieve? Instead we're too busy trying to exploit each other to make a buck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what makes it worthwhile .
If we could just get past those ridiculous hindrances , what might mankind achieve ?
Instead we 're too busy trying to exploit each other to make a buck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what makes it worthwhile.
If we could just get past those ridiculous hindrances, what might mankind achieve?
Instead we're too busy trying to exploit each other to make a buck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737727</id>
	<title>Re:i think there's room for both approaches</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1255430580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>star trek, when it's about something, is primarily about meditations on what it means to be human. the writers would be trying to say something about, i don't know, honor or justice or leadership or whatever. they didn't care about how transporter technology would transform society. they definitely didn't give a crap about scientific principles or bosons or tachyons or whatever.</i>
<br>
<br>
I wish they did a better job on that meditation.  Watching BSG made me dislike a lot of what happened in ST:TNG; I mean, it wasn't Shakespeare but when philosophical problems cropped up they were layered and complicated, and more importantly were frequently never solved.  Meanwhile ST had simple moralizing, which only worked because (unrealistically) the idealistic choice always turned out to be the right one and the problem's solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>star trek , when it 's about something , is primarily about meditations on what it means to be human .
the writers would be trying to say something about , i do n't know , honor or justice or leadership or whatever .
they did n't care about how transporter technology would transform society .
they definitely did n't give a crap about scientific principles or bosons or tachyons or whatever .
I wish they did a better job on that meditation .
Watching BSG made me dislike a lot of what happened in ST : TNG ; I mean , it was n't Shakespeare but when philosophical problems cropped up they were layered and complicated , and more importantly were frequently never solved .
Meanwhile ST had simple moralizing , which only worked because ( unrealistically ) the idealistic choice always turned out to be the right one and the problem 's solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>star trek, when it's about something, is primarily about meditations on what it means to be human.
the writers would be trying to say something about, i don't know, honor or justice or leadership or whatever.
they didn't care about how transporter technology would transform society.
they definitely didn't give a crap about scientific principles or bosons or tachyons or whatever.
I wish they did a better job on that meditation.
Watching BSG made me dislike a lot of what happened in ST:TNG; I mean, it wasn't Shakespeare but when philosophical problems cropped up they were layered and complicated, and more importantly were frequently never solved.
Meanwhile ST had simple moralizing, which only worked because (unrealistically) the idealistic choice always turned out to be the right one and the problem's solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737261</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you read your link very well. The general deteurocanonical approach to Trek's universe (books and so on, which are not generally considered part of the core universe, although officially licensed--these tend to have a lot more time to pontificate on the details) provides that, lacking profit motivation, people explore the universe and do what they consider fun simply because they'd be bored if they didn't. Functioning society existed before money, and it will exist after money. The difference between the two is that we'll still have the addiction to progress that comes with consumerism, and everything will be a lot better off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you read your link very well .
The general deteurocanonical approach to Trek 's universe ( books and so on , which are not generally considered part of the core universe , although officially licensed--these tend to have a lot more time to pontificate on the details ) provides that , lacking profit motivation , people explore the universe and do what they consider fun simply because they 'd be bored if they did n't .
Functioning society existed before money , and it will exist after money .
The difference between the two is that we 'll still have the addiction to progress that comes with consumerism , and everything will be a lot better off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you read your link very well.
The general deteurocanonical approach to Trek's universe (books and so on, which are not generally considered part of the core universe, although officially licensed--these tend to have a lot more time to pontificate on the details) provides that, lacking profit motivation, people explore the universe and do what they consider fun simply because they'd be bored if they didn't.
Functioning society existed before money, and it will exist after money.
The difference between the two is that we'll still have the addiction to progress that comes with consumerism, and everything will be a lot better off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739925</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255443780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is what the star trek society (NG) appears to demonstrate, but without monetary exchange per se. There seems to be a sort of implied meritocratic "status acquisition" and military rank is obviously a meritocracy (implied by their continued existence).</p><p>As for energy, there are plenty of suns around for power concentration. Probably no shortage. As for real estate, that's a hard question. No accurate estimate of class M planets yet exists. Could be that the anarcho-syndicalist collective of Kaka 4 shares the planet with the nuns of the eternal lapdance on the southern continent and the anarchist plumber republic to the west. People are small. Planets are big.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is what the star trek society ( NG ) appears to demonstrate , but without monetary exchange per se .
There seems to be a sort of implied meritocratic " status acquisition " and military rank is obviously a meritocracy ( implied by their continued existence ) .As for energy , there are plenty of suns around for power concentration .
Probably no shortage .
As for real estate , that 's a hard question .
No accurate estimate of class M planets yet exists .
Could be that the anarcho-syndicalist collective of Kaka 4 shares the planet with the nuns of the eternal lapdance on the southern continent and the anarchist plumber republic to the west .
People are small .
Planets are big .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is what the star trek society (NG) appears to demonstrate, but without monetary exchange per se.
There seems to be a sort of implied meritocratic "status acquisition" and military rank is obviously a meritocracy (implied by their continued existence).As for energy, there are plenty of suns around for power concentration.
Probably no shortage.
As for real estate, that's a hard question.
No accurate estimate of class M planets yet exists.
Could be that the anarcho-syndicalist collective of Kaka 4 shares the planet with the nuns of the eternal lapdance on the southern continent and the anarchist plumber republic to the west.
People are small.
Planets are big.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739437</id>
	<title>SF's two ways of using science</title>
	<author>plaiddragon</author>
	<datestamp>1255440360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SF tends to use science in at least two (probably more) ways to explore the human condition.</p><p>One way explores modern issues in a different, usually future, setting to gain perspective. Star Trek did it with race and political issues. It is a good way to get some objectivity.</p><p>The second is to propose a technological change and explore what that might mean for humanity. This tends to be what Stross does, and does quite well in my opinion. It is a great way to explore the essentials of what it means to be human by thinking about how both individuals and societies might respond to changes.</p><p>I'd say both have their place, but I would think that the second way would be of more interest to science/tech geeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SF tends to use science in at least two ( probably more ) ways to explore the human condition.One way explores modern issues in a different , usually future , setting to gain perspective .
Star Trek did it with race and political issues .
It is a good way to get some objectivity.The second is to propose a technological change and explore what that might mean for humanity .
This tends to be what Stross does , and does quite well in my opinion .
It is a great way to explore the essentials of what it means to be human by thinking about how both individuals and societies might respond to changes.I 'd say both have their place , but I would think that the second way would be of more interest to science/tech geeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SF tends to use science in at least two (probably more) ways to explore the human condition.One way explores modern issues in a different, usually future, setting to gain perspective.
Star Trek did it with race and political issues.
It is a good way to get some objectivity.The second is to propose a technological change and explore what that might mean for humanity.
This tends to be what Stross does, and does quite well in my opinion.
It is a great way to explore the essentials of what it means to be human by thinking about how both individuals and societies might respond to changes.I'd say both have their place, but I would think that the second way would be of more interest to science/tech geeks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736817</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No point letting the truth get in the way of a good story....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No point letting the truth get in the way of a good story... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No point letting the truth get in the way of a good story....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740879</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1255452360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem isn't the weakness of the science, actually. It's the weakness of the sociology! It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.</p></div><p>True, but I don't think there's any way around that, not for anything that will appeal to mass audiences, anyway.

</p><p>The science fiction that does a good job of exploring radically altered societies is often so bizarre that most people can't enjoy it.  It's just too weird.  It's too hard to understand the context and can be very difficult to really relate to the people.  I'm not saying the average person couldn't understand it, just that it's too much work to be perceived as entertaining.

</p><p>Widely successful sci-fi, therefore, pretty much has to take the approach of setting people from a fundamentally similar culture and societal structure in bizarre settings, because that's something that viewers/readers can understand and relate to without too much effort.  The world around the characters may look very different, but the characters themselves are fundamentally "normal".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't the weakness of the science , actually .
It 's the weakness of the sociology !
It 's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter would n't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.True , but I do n't think there 's any way around that , not for anything that will appeal to mass audiences , anyway .
The science fiction that does a good job of exploring radically altered societies is often so bizarre that most people ca n't enjoy it .
It 's just too weird .
It 's too hard to understand the context and can be very difficult to really relate to the people .
I 'm not saying the average person could n't understand it , just that it 's too much work to be perceived as entertaining .
Widely successful sci-fi , therefore , pretty much has to take the approach of setting people from a fundamentally similar culture and societal structure in bizarre settings , because that 's something that viewers/readers can understand and relate to without too much effort .
The world around the characters may look very different , but the characters themselves are fundamentally " normal " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't the weakness of the science, actually.
It's the weakness of the sociology!
It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.True, but I don't think there's any way around that, not for anything that will appeal to mass audiences, anyway.
The science fiction that does a good job of exploring radically altered societies is often so bizarre that most people can't enjoy it.
It's just too weird.
It's too hard to understand the context and can be very difficult to really relate to the people.
I'm not saying the average person couldn't understand it, just that it's too much work to be perceived as entertaining.
Widely successful sci-fi, therefore, pretty much has to take the approach of setting people from a fundamentally similar culture and societal structure in bizarre settings, because that's something that viewers/readers can understand and relate to without too much effort.
The world around the characters may look very different, but the characters themselves are fundamentally "normal".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737841</id>
	<title>Re:Given the enduring popularity of Star Trek, et.</title>
	<author>RonTheHurler</author>
	<datestamp>1255431060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yo,</p><p>If you watch science/discover/history channels, I hate to break it to you, but there ain't no educational purpose to any of those shows. I know, because I've been cast as an "expert" on no less than eight of them.   It's all about entertainment baby.</p><p>Want to really learn something, shut off the TV and read a book.  Geez, for the price of cable TV these days, you can buy a new book every 3 days or so.</p><p>But if you want to be entertained with the illusion that you're learning something factual, when it's often just as made-up and sensationalized as any other made-for-tv drama, then carry on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yo,If you watch science/discover/history channels , I hate to break it to you , but there ai n't no educational purpose to any of those shows .
I know , because I 've been cast as an " expert " on no less than eight of them .
It 's all about entertainment baby.Want to really learn something , shut off the TV and read a book .
Geez , for the price of cable TV these days , you can buy a new book every 3 days or so.But if you want to be entertained with the illusion that you 're learning something factual , when it 's often just as made-up and sensationalized as any other made-for-tv drama , then carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yo,If you watch science/discover/history channels, I hate to break it to you, but there ain't no educational purpose to any of those shows.
I know, because I've been cast as an "expert" on no less than eight of them.
It's all about entertainment baby.Want to really learn something, shut off the TV and read a book.
Geez, for the price of cable TV these days, you can buy a new book every 3 days or so.But if you want to be entertained with the illusion that you're learning something factual, when it's often just as made-up and sensationalized as any other made-for-tv drama, then carry on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738029</id>
	<title>Re:The ST bible</title>
	<author>IntlHarvester</author>
	<datestamp>1255431720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This was thrown out in TNG, which is why it sucked monkies.</p></div><p>You know, the technobabble gimmick is what saved Star Trek. TNG premiered to lousy ratings among the younger male set, and they rescued the show by "nerding it up" and making Geordi and Weasly major characters and appealing to the technical manual crowd.</p><p>After so many interminable seasons of Voyager drek, the particle-of-the-week became cliched and obvious, but at the time it really worked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was thrown out in TNG , which is why it sucked monkies.You know , the technobabble gimmick is what saved Star Trek .
TNG premiered to lousy ratings among the younger male set , and they rescued the show by " nerding it up " and making Geordi and Weasly major characters and appealing to the technical manual crowd.After so many interminable seasons of Voyager drek , the particle-of-the-week became cliched and obvious , but at the time it really worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was thrown out in TNG, which is why it sucked monkies.You know, the technobabble gimmick is what saved Star Trek.
TNG premiered to lousy ratings among the younger male set, and they rescued the show by "nerding it up" and making Geordi and Weasly major characters and appealing to the technical manual crowd.After so many interminable seasons of Voyager drek, the particle-of-the-week became cliched and obvious, but at the time it really worked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737023</id>
	<title>Technology is cool, but...</title>
	<author>savanik</author>
	<datestamp>1255428120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, technology <i>is</i> irrelevant to plot and character. If it wasn't, then the stories they'd be telling would be so alien as to be incomprehensible. Stories are about people, not technology. It's something written into just about any guide to writing science fiction you can find: Don't let the technology overshadow the characters!</p><p>Yes, lightsabers and teleporters are cool. But the <i>story</i> is about a boy turning into a man and saving the world (Gee, thanks, Wesley). Or a continuing mission through space, etc. The story isn't about the technology. Sure, it'd be nice to have more realistic tech written into the story to begin with - BUT. I will note that the most popular episodes of TNG always revolved around characters. The episodes oriented towards 'how the teleporters actually work' as a plot device didn't fare so well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , technology is irrelevant to plot and character .
If it was n't , then the stories they 'd be telling would be so alien as to be incomprehensible .
Stories are about people , not technology .
It 's something written into just about any guide to writing science fiction you can find : Do n't let the technology overshadow the characters ! Yes , lightsabers and teleporters are cool .
But the story is about a boy turning into a man and saving the world ( Gee , thanks , Wesley ) .
Or a continuing mission through space , etc .
The story is n't about the technology .
Sure , it 'd be nice to have more realistic tech written into the story to begin with - BUT .
I will note that the most popular episodes of TNG always revolved around characters .
The episodes oriented towards 'how the teleporters actually work ' as a plot device did n't fare so well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, technology is irrelevant to plot and character.
If it wasn't, then the stories they'd be telling would be so alien as to be incomprehensible.
Stories are about people, not technology.
It's something written into just about any guide to writing science fiction you can find: Don't let the technology overshadow the characters!Yes, lightsabers and teleporters are cool.
But the story is about a boy turning into a man and saving the world (Gee, thanks, Wesley).
Or a continuing mission through space, etc.
The story isn't about the technology.
Sure, it'd be nice to have more realistic tech written into the story to begin with - BUT.
I will note that the most popular episodes of TNG always revolved around characters.
The episodes oriented towards 'how the teleporters actually work' as a plot device didn't fare so well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741375</id>
	<title>Re:Given the enduring popularity of Star Trek, et.</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1255458780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Books are not a substitute for cable television. You also heavily overestimate the cost of both books and cable television. If you can only choose one for informational needs, you choose television, hands down. News, oddly enough (not the crap on CNN) doesn't tend to age well. If I want to learn that Barack Obama won a nobel peace prize for doing nothing, I'm not going to read about it in a book. If I want to find out how my investments are doing, I'm not going to find that in a book either. If I want to learn organic chemistry, I'm going to learn about it in a lab, not in a book. If I want to learn computer science, I'm also not going to use a book. If I want to learn grammar, maybe I'll use a book. It could be more efficient than an english course, which tends not to focus on books. On that note, based on your grammar, you must have been watching a ton of science/history/discovery channels.</p><p>While books tend to age well, what you really pay for with tv is up to the minute news, live sports, and occassional escapes from reality. Sure, if all you use tv for is to watch reality shows or daytime soaps, you missed the point.</p><p>Personally, my favorite sports team is Barcelona, but I live in Atlanta. $30 a month is amazingly cheaper than hopping on a plane, getting a hotel, going to the stadium, watching the 3 hours football game, grabbing a bite to eat, and flying home (nevermind the time costs). Instead, I watch it on FSC.</p><p>Simple really. Not everyone spends every waking moment learning things.</p><p>On the other hand, a lot of books are also entertainment. I'm not going to learn anything from Dan Brown or Tucker Max. I might read them because my flight is delayed, I already had to convince TSA that a toothbrush is not a weapon, and if I want a drink my choices are $4 for coffee at starbucks or $4 for a flat 20 oz coke at a generic airport vendor.</p><p>The best way to learn things is not tv or books. Experience is the only teacher worth listening to (cue the ridiculous examples of why this isn't true in 5...4..3..)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Books are not a substitute for cable television .
You also heavily overestimate the cost of both books and cable television .
If you can only choose one for informational needs , you choose television , hands down .
News , oddly enough ( not the crap on CNN ) does n't tend to age well .
If I want to learn that Barack Obama won a nobel peace prize for doing nothing , I 'm not going to read about it in a book .
If I want to find out how my investments are doing , I 'm not going to find that in a book either .
If I want to learn organic chemistry , I 'm going to learn about it in a lab , not in a book .
If I want to learn computer science , I 'm also not going to use a book .
If I want to learn grammar , maybe I 'll use a book .
It could be more efficient than an english course , which tends not to focus on books .
On that note , based on your grammar , you must have been watching a ton of science/history/discovery channels.While books tend to age well , what you really pay for with tv is up to the minute news , live sports , and occassional escapes from reality .
Sure , if all you use tv for is to watch reality shows or daytime soaps , you missed the point.Personally , my favorite sports team is Barcelona , but I live in Atlanta .
$ 30 a month is amazingly cheaper than hopping on a plane , getting a hotel , going to the stadium , watching the 3 hours football game , grabbing a bite to eat , and flying home ( nevermind the time costs ) .
Instead , I watch it on FSC.Simple really .
Not everyone spends every waking moment learning things.On the other hand , a lot of books are also entertainment .
I 'm not going to learn anything from Dan Brown or Tucker Max .
I might read them because my flight is delayed , I already had to convince TSA that a toothbrush is not a weapon , and if I want a drink my choices are $ 4 for coffee at starbucks or $ 4 for a flat 20 oz coke at a generic airport vendor.The best way to learn things is not tv or books .
Experience is the only teacher worth listening to ( cue the ridiculous examples of why this is n't true in 5...4..3.. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Books are not a substitute for cable television.
You also heavily overestimate the cost of both books and cable television.
If you can only choose one for informational needs, you choose television, hands down.
News, oddly enough (not the crap on CNN) doesn't tend to age well.
If I want to learn that Barack Obama won a nobel peace prize for doing nothing, I'm not going to read about it in a book.
If I want to find out how my investments are doing, I'm not going to find that in a book either.
If I want to learn organic chemistry, I'm going to learn about it in a lab, not in a book.
If I want to learn computer science, I'm also not going to use a book.
If I want to learn grammar, maybe I'll use a book.
It could be more efficient than an english course, which tends not to focus on books.
On that note, based on your grammar, you must have been watching a ton of science/history/discovery channels.While books tend to age well, what you really pay for with tv is up to the minute news, live sports, and occassional escapes from reality.
Sure, if all you use tv for is to watch reality shows or daytime soaps, you missed the point.Personally, my favorite sports team is Barcelona, but I live in Atlanta.
$30 a month is amazingly cheaper than hopping on a plane, getting a hotel, going to the stadium, watching the 3 hours football game, grabbing a bite to eat, and flying home (nevermind the time costs).
Instead, I watch it on FSC.Simple really.
Not everyone spends every waking moment learning things.On the other hand, a lot of books are also entertainment.
I'm not going to learn anything from Dan Brown or Tucker Max.
I might read them because my flight is delayed, I already had to convince TSA that a toothbrush is not a weapon, and if I want a drink my choices are $4 for coffee at starbucks or $4 for a flat 20 oz coke at a generic airport vendor.The best way to learn things is not tv or books.
Experience is the only teacher worth listening to (cue the ridiculous examples of why this isn't true in 5...4..3..)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739691</id>
	<title>latest bsg had too much drama ..until</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1255442220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they brought back in glen anderson WHO understood the balance.<br>LOOK at stargate universes 1st two episodes for TOOOOOO MUCH DRAMA</p><p>like anyone cared for the politician that got spaced , i could hear round the world YEA MOTHER  #\%$^#$ DIE.</p><p>It seems to be a problem in hollywood since they started suing, that all there doing is tossing up relatity tv and garbage DRAMA</p><p>DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA<br>one reason why 60GB caps in Canada wont be a death sentence , there just isnt any crap i want now.</p><p>In fact at 2 movies a month and maybe 8 tv eps 60GB cap is nothing......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they brought back in glen anderson WHO understood the balance.LOOK at stargate universes 1st two episodes for TOOOOOO MUCH DRAMAlike anyone cared for the politician that got spaced , i could hear round the world YEA MOTHER # \ % $ ^ # $ DIE.It seems to be a problem in hollywood since they started suing , that all there doing is tossing up relatity tv and garbage DRAMADRAMA DRAMA DRAMAone reason why 60GB caps in Canada wont be a death sentence , there just isnt any crap i want now.In fact at 2 movies a month and maybe 8 tv eps 60GB cap is nothing..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they brought back in glen anderson WHO understood the balance.LOOK at stargate universes 1st two episodes for TOOOOOO MUCH DRAMAlike anyone cared for the politician that got spaced , i could hear round the world YEA MOTHER  #\%$^#$ DIE.It seems to be a problem in hollywood since they started suing, that all there doing is tossing up relatity tv and garbage DRAMADRAMA DRAMA DRAMAone reason why 60GB caps in Canada wont be a death sentence , there just isnt any crap i want now.In fact at 2 movies a month and maybe 8 tv eps 60GB cap is nothing......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736723</id>
	<title>Ok..</title>
	<author>Anrego</author>
	<datestamp>1255427040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So.. is there anything to discuss here?</p><p>New age "hard core" sci-fi type writter states opinion regarding epic mainstream sci-fi series... world acknoledges opinion... life continues?</p><p>This isn't ground breaking stuff here.. most main-stream sci-fi just uses tech as a backdrop.. but it's been immensly popular. And like anything else immensly popular.. there are people who arn't going to like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So.. is there anything to discuss here ? New age " hard core " sci-fi type writter states opinion regarding epic mainstream sci-fi series... world acknoledges opinion... life continues ? This is n't ground breaking stuff here.. most main-stream sci-fi just uses tech as a backdrop.. but it 's been immensly popular .
And like anything else immensly popular.. there are people who ar n't going to like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So.. is there anything to discuss here?New age "hard core" sci-fi type writter states opinion regarding epic mainstream sci-fi series... world acknoledges opinion... life continues?This isn't ground breaking stuff here.. most main-stream sci-fi just uses tech as a backdrop.. but it's been immensly popular.
And like anything else immensly popular.. there are people who arn't going to like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29749231</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255511280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>B5 used this exact same literary device.<br>For the most part, the tech was just accepted without explanation (do you explain how a car engine works every time you go for a drive?).<br>When something technical did need explaining, the explanation was just what the person getting the explanation actually needed to know.</p><p>I could go off about the telepaths and 'gods' and other crap in B5, but JMS was actually pretty good on avoiding technobabble and keeping an internal consistency which made some sort of sense.</p><p>--<br>While I'm at it... ST:DS9 (at least most of it) really should not be classified along with the rest of ST.  It was written from a very different set of premises and methods.  Useful to keep in mind that the writers had different self-imposed rules for plot-arc eps and one-shot eps.</p><p>Also, who knows where Joss would have gone with Firefly.  Contrived plot devices are not something he even tries to avoid normally.  However, with Firefly he had enough a differential between the protagonists and the Alliance he didn't need to get too creative to put big challenges in their way.</p><p>On Stross....  I have yet to get beyond the first chapter of one of his books.  I like hard SF... I'm a scientist after all.  But the dude just can't write very well IMO.  Then again, I might be atypical since I really like Stephenson's writing style.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>B5 used this exact same literary device.For the most part , the tech was just accepted without explanation ( do you explain how a car engine works every time you go for a drive ?
) .When something technical did need explaining , the explanation was just what the person getting the explanation actually needed to know.I could go off about the telepaths and 'gods ' and other crap in B5 , but JMS was actually pretty good on avoiding technobabble and keeping an internal consistency which made some sort of sense.--While I 'm at it... ST : DS9 ( at least most of it ) really should not be classified along with the rest of ST. It was written from a very different set of premises and methods .
Useful to keep in mind that the writers had different self-imposed rules for plot-arc eps and one-shot eps.Also , who knows where Joss would have gone with Firefly .
Contrived plot devices are not something he even tries to avoid normally .
However , with Firefly he had enough a differential between the protagonists and the Alliance he did n't need to get too creative to put big challenges in their way.On Stross.... I have yet to get beyond the first chapter of one of his books .
I like hard SF... I 'm a scientist after all .
But the dude just ca n't write very well IMO .
Then again , I might be atypical since I really like Stephenson 's writing style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>B5 used this exact same literary device.For the most part, the tech was just accepted without explanation (do you explain how a car engine works every time you go for a drive?
).When something technical did need explaining, the explanation was just what the person getting the explanation actually needed to know.I could go off about the telepaths and 'gods' and other crap in B5, but JMS was actually pretty good on avoiding technobabble and keeping an internal consistency which made some sort of sense.--While I'm at it... ST:DS9 (at least most of it) really should not be classified along with the rest of ST.  It was written from a very different set of premises and methods.
Useful to keep in mind that the writers had different self-imposed rules for plot-arc eps and one-shot eps.Also, who knows where Joss would have gone with Firefly.
Contrived plot devices are not something he even tries to avoid normally.
However, with Firefly he had enough a differential between the protagonists and the Alliance he didn't need to get too creative to put big challenges in their way.On Stross....  I have yet to get beyond the first chapter of one of his books.
I like hard SF... I'm a scientist after all.
But the dude just can't write very well IMO.
Then again, I might be atypical since I really like Stephenson's writing style.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745421</id>
	<title>Magic!</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1255537920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget the actual quote, but it went something like: When observing technology of significant advancement, it can become to one that doesn't understand it as magic.</p><p>Now think about when people make fantasy movies. When something needs to makes sense, just say "Magic" and it fixes everything.</p><p>In science fiction they do the same. Because these are supposed to take place is time far far away, and the technology is advanced to such a level, it is really indiscipherable from that of magic, so the writers use it in the same way. Something doesn't make sense? Magic, or in this case red matter, or hydro spanners, or what have you.</p><p>The key to to have everything so far advanced that it doesn't really have to make sense, as really you assume your audience are comprised of primitives.</p><p>If your time line or technology is closer or more believable you also have to compensate by also tempering to what degree you use magic to fix things.</p><p>Also writers are lazy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget the actual quote , but it went something like : When observing technology of significant advancement , it can become to one that does n't understand it as magic.Now think about when people make fantasy movies .
When something needs to makes sense , just say " Magic " and it fixes everything.In science fiction they do the same .
Because these are supposed to take place is time far far away , and the technology is advanced to such a level , it is really indiscipherable from that of magic , so the writers use it in the same way .
Something does n't make sense ?
Magic , or in this case red matter , or hydro spanners , or what have you.The key to to have everything so far advanced that it does n't really have to make sense , as really you assume your audience are comprised of primitives.If your time line or technology is closer or more believable you also have to compensate by also tempering to what degree you use magic to fix things.Also writers are lazy .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget the actual quote, but it went something like: When observing technology of significant advancement, it can become to one that doesn't understand it as magic.Now think about when people make fantasy movies.
When something needs to makes sense, just say "Magic" and it fixes everything.In science fiction they do the same.
Because these are supposed to take place is time far far away, and the technology is advanced to such a level, it is really indiscipherable from that of magic, so the writers use it in the same way.
Something doesn't make sense?
Magic, or in this case red matter, or hydro spanners, or what have you.The key to to have everything so far advanced that it doesn't really have to make sense, as really you assume your audience are comprised of primitives.If your time line or technology is closer or more believable you also have to compensate by also tempering to what degree you use magic to fix things.Also writers are lazy.
:)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29746001</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1255540260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fans didn't revolt to to the idea of midichlorians because it was "scientific."  It was the idea that the force was caused by <i>bacteria</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fans did n't revolt to to the idea of midichlorians because it was " scientific .
" It was the idea that the force was caused by bacteria .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fans didn't revolt to to the idea of midichlorians because it was "scientific.
"  It was the idea that the force was caused by bacteria.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738687</id>
	<title>The problem</title>
	<author>oljanx</author>
	<datestamp>1255434900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's one problem with trying to explain your way through new technology. You end up with people sending printed messages through pneumatic tubes on intergalactic battleships, because the author couldn't thoroughly explain a more practical technology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's one problem with trying to explain your way through new technology .
You end up with people sending printed messages through pneumatic tubes on intergalactic battleships , because the author could n't thoroughly explain a more practical technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's one problem with trying to explain your way through new technology.
You end up with people sending printed messages through pneumatic tubes on intergalactic battleships, because the author couldn't thoroughly explain a more practical technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738095</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>pcolaman</author>
	<datestamp>1255431960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a big proponent of capitalism and a free-market society, and even I think that given those four things, a socialist society would be the logical choice.  Hell, if we had unlimited resources, easy access to those resources, etc, I would be pro-socialism.  Just because it's not the case in the real world doesn't mean it's not something to aspire to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a big proponent of capitalism and a free-market society , and even I think that given those four things , a socialist society would be the logical choice .
Hell , if we had unlimited resources , easy access to those resources , etc , I would be pro-socialism .
Just because it 's not the case in the real world does n't mean it 's not something to aspire to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a big proponent of capitalism and a free-market society, and even I think that given those four things, a socialist society would be the logical choice.
Hell, if we had unlimited resources, easy access to those resources, etc, I would be pro-socialism.
Just because it's not the case in the real world doesn't mean it's not something to aspire to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737541</id>
	<title>On the other hand..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255429920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet Stross loves Star Wars...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet Stross loves Star Wars.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet Stross loves Star Wars...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740609</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Devout\_IPUite</author>
	<datestamp>1255449840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To get more power to run the holodeck?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To get more power to run the holodeck ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To get more power to run the holodeck?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737815</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1255430940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How could anyone know this.  The only series that didn't take place inside a naval battleship was DS9, and there was at least one for-profit business there.  Come to think of it, there was a bar in the third ST movie (though whether it was private enterprise or not isn't quite clear, what with Star Fleet Gestap...security officers hanging around).</p><p>That, perhaps, is one of the worst parts about Star Trek, and the one Roddenberry did his best to not over-emphasize, and that's the militaristic nature of the show.  Apparently he was deeply dissatisfied with the TOS-based movies after the Motionless Picture, in particular Wrath of Khan and Search For Spock, and that was story lines very much more concerned with the military nature of Star Fleet itself.  I know that DS9 was meant to be part of a major story arc about how the Federation is undermined, and it's a pity Berman and Braga so thoroughly wasted what might have been an exceedingly interesting idea of a truly authoritarian Federation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How could anyone know this .
The only series that did n't take place inside a naval battleship was DS9 , and there was at least one for-profit business there .
Come to think of it , there was a bar in the third ST movie ( though whether it was private enterprise or not is n't quite clear , what with Star Fleet Gestap...security officers hanging around ) .That , perhaps , is one of the worst parts about Star Trek , and the one Roddenberry did his best to not over-emphasize , and that 's the militaristic nature of the show .
Apparently he was deeply dissatisfied with the TOS-based movies after the Motionless Picture , in particular Wrath of Khan and Search For Spock , and that was story lines very much more concerned with the military nature of Star Fleet itself .
I know that DS9 was meant to be part of a major story arc about how the Federation is undermined , and it 's a pity Berman and Braga so thoroughly wasted what might have been an exceedingly interesting idea of a truly authoritarian Federation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How could anyone know this.
The only series that didn't take place inside a naval battleship was DS9, and there was at least one for-profit business there.
Come to think of it, there was a bar in the third ST movie (though whether it was private enterprise or not isn't quite clear, what with Star Fleet Gestap...security officers hanging around).That, perhaps, is one of the worst parts about Star Trek, and the one Roddenberry did his best to not over-emphasize, and that's the militaristic nature of the show.
Apparently he was deeply dissatisfied with the TOS-based movies after the Motionless Picture, in particular Wrath of Khan and Search For Spock, and that was story lines very much more concerned with the military nature of Star Fleet itself.
I know that DS9 was meant to be part of a major story arc about how the Federation is undermined, and it's a pity Berman and Braga so thoroughly wasted what might have been an exceedingly interesting idea of a truly authoritarian Federation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737345</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>langelgjm</author>
	<datestamp>1255429020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously? Has the anti-socialist political fearmongering gotten so bad that now they have to pick on a fictional TV show?</p><p>Please reread your comment again. You are saying we should not like Star Trek because the Federation's economic system is a "socialist utopia". And presumably this is because socialism is bad! (Would you say the same thing if it were the equally implausible capitalist utopia?)</p><p>Not to mention that your characterization of the show not having any business or entrepreneurship is just not true, not to mention that some of us LIKE the idea of a world where human beings primary motivations are no longer purely and crassly economic... essentially you're saying that the ideological position of "Capitalism is teh best" is SO important to you that if a fictional work doesn't conform to it, people should dislike that work.</p><p>No, the TRUE one reason not to like Star Trek is the fact that they solve 95\% of problems by reversing the polarity of something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously ?
Has the anti-socialist political fearmongering gotten so bad that now they have to pick on a fictional TV show ? Please reread your comment again .
You are saying we should not like Star Trek because the Federation 's economic system is a " socialist utopia " .
And presumably this is because socialism is bad !
( Would you say the same thing if it were the equally implausible capitalist utopia ?
) Not to mention that your characterization of the show not having any business or entrepreneurship is just not true , not to mention that some of us LIKE the idea of a world where human beings primary motivations are no longer purely and crassly economic... essentially you 're saying that the ideological position of " Capitalism is teh best " is SO important to you that if a fictional work does n't conform to it , people should dislike that work.No , the TRUE one reason not to like Star Trek is the fact that they solve 95 \ % of problems by reversing the polarity of something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously?
Has the anti-socialist political fearmongering gotten so bad that now they have to pick on a fictional TV show?Please reread your comment again.
You are saying we should not like Star Trek because the Federation's economic system is a "socialist utopia".
And presumably this is because socialism is bad!
(Would you say the same thing if it were the equally implausible capitalist utopia?
)Not to mention that your characterization of the show not having any business or entrepreneurship is just not true, not to mention that some of us LIKE the idea of a world where human beings primary motivations are no longer purely and crassly economic... essentially you're saying that the ideological position of "Capitalism is teh best" is SO important to you that if a fictional work doesn't conform to it, people should dislike that work.No, the TRUE one reason not to like Star Trek is the fact that they solve 95\% of problems by reversing the polarity of something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738343</id>
	<title>charles stross should learn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that just stringing together 100 different futuristic tech words together in every sentence for 500 pages does not make a story either. no plot exposition, no backstory, no character or emoition, just being hit in the face with a wall of text filled with doubletalk.</p><p>so no charles, i really dont care what you have to say about one of the most popular scifi shows of all time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that just stringing together 100 different futuristic tech words together in every sentence for 500 pages does not make a story either .
no plot exposition , no backstory , no character or emoition , just being hit in the face with a wall of text filled with doubletalk.so no charles , i really dont care what you have to say about one of the most popular scifi shows of all time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that just stringing together 100 different futuristic tech words together in every sentence for 500 pages does not make a story either.
no plot exposition, no backstory, no character or emoition, just being hit in the face with a wall of text filled with doubletalk.so no charles, i really dont care what you have to say about one of the most popular scifi shows of all time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745175</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255536960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the note of Firefly being so wonderfully refreshing...</p><p>When SF first became popular in the early 30s and 40s, a large amount of it was "cowboys in space."  Many of the writers of the time wrote mostly cowboy stories, so when publishers and producers noted that there was a growing SF audience they had the same writers start turning out science fiction in the form of cowboys in space.  Put a cowboy in a rocket ship, have him fighting the railroad compan- err the intergalactic shipping corporation, etc. etc.</p><p>I appreciate that Firefly was well directed, had great fx, and tried to stay somewhat away from the techno-babble.  I still can't get over the sense of cowboys in space though.  Sooner or later, there's a scene where they go into a bar, or a whorehouse, or some other cowboy correlary.  Frequently it seemed like they even did things to encourage the association to cowboys.</p><p>So, basically, while it seems really fresh and new, it may be better described as a well written, smoothly done return to the old pulp cowboy sf.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the note of Firefly being so wonderfully refreshing...When SF first became popular in the early 30s and 40s , a large amount of it was " cowboys in space .
" Many of the writers of the time wrote mostly cowboy stories , so when publishers and producers noted that there was a growing SF audience they had the same writers start turning out science fiction in the form of cowboys in space .
Put a cowboy in a rocket ship , have him fighting the railroad compan- err the intergalactic shipping corporation , etc .
etc.I appreciate that Firefly was well directed , had great fx , and tried to stay somewhat away from the techno-babble .
I still ca n't get over the sense of cowboys in space though .
Sooner or later , there 's a scene where they go into a bar , or a whorehouse , or some other cowboy correlary .
Frequently it seemed like they even did things to encourage the association to cowboys.So , basically , while it seems really fresh and new , it may be better described as a well written , smoothly done return to the old pulp cowboy sf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the note of Firefly being so wonderfully refreshing...When SF first became popular in the early 30s and 40s, a large amount of it was "cowboys in space.
"  Many of the writers of the time wrote mostly cowboy stories, so when publishers and producers noted that there was a growing SF audience they had the same writers start turning out science fiction in the form of cowboys in space.
Put a cowboy in a rocket ship, have him fighting the railroad compan- err the intergalactic shipping corporation, etc.
etc.I appreciate that Firefly was well directed, had great fx, and tried to stay somewhat away from the techno-babble.
I still can't get over the sense of cowboys in space though.
Sooner or later, there's a scene where they go into a bar, or a whorehouse, or some other cowboy correlary.
Frequently it seemed like they even did things to encourage the association to cowboys.So, basically, while it seems really fresh and new, it may be better described as a well written, smoothly done return to the old pulp cowboy sf.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737903</id>
	<title>Rodenberry vs. Berman</title>
	<author>rezonat0r</author>
	<datestamp>1255431240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised no one seems to have brought up the difference between Star Trek under Gene Roddenberry, and Star Trek under Rick Berman.</p><p>If you watch ST:TNG in order, all the way through (yay Netflix), there is a CLEAR change in the series after Roddenberry passed away.</p><p>With Roddenbery, Star Trek was about tackling the big issues and (mostly) unanswerable questions facing humanity.  Under Berman, it turned into a (still mostly entertaining) technobabble soap opera, where some bug in the Enterprise supplies the main plot point for every other episode.</p><p>It really is a night-and-day difference.  Go back and watch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised no one seems to have brought up the difference between Star Trek under Gene Roddenberry , and Star Trek under Rick Berman.If you watch ST : TNG in order , all the way through ( yay Netflix ) , there is a CLEAR change in the series after Roddenberry passed away.With Roddenbery , Star Trek was about tackling the big issues and ( mostly ) unanswerable questions facing humanity .
Under Berman , it turned into a ( still mostly entertaining ) technobabble soap opera , where some bug in the Enterprise supplies the main plot point for every other episode.It really is a night-and-day difference .
Go back and watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised no one seems to have brought up the difference between Star Trek under Gene Roddenberry, and Star Trek under Rick Berman.If you watch ST:TNG in order, all the way through (yay Netflix), there is a CLEAR change in the series after Roddenberry passed away.With Roddenbery, Star Trek was about tackling the big issues and (mostly) unanswerable questions facing humanity.
Under Berman, it turned into a (still mostly entertaining) technobabble soap opera, where some bug in the Enterprise supplies the main plot point for every other episode.It really is a night-and-day difference.
Go back and watch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737527</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255429800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well to be honest the Sci Fi writers are writers not scientists. They don't know too much about Science and anything they write they tend to make up.</p><p>But some things on the Star Trek show made it to reality. Spock was using floppy disks in one episode and then later the Floppy Disk was invented, on the show they looked like 3.5" floppys that Sony later invented. Also the Classic Star Trek communicators eventually lead to the invention of the cell phone, which almost everyone uses in modern day times.</p><p>Still no transporter, warp drive, phasers, human like androids, or even a Tricorder yet. But we don't know if such things are possible or impossible, we just don't know how they work, and the Science on Star Trek was imaginary and nothing like Real Life Science.</p><p>When you have a show in the future, with advanced science, you cannot make a plot based on science or technology without making stuff up. Once Sci Fi universe is the <a href="http://www.farfuture.net/" title="farfuture.net">Traveller Universe</a> [farfuture.net] in which they tried to make the technology and science as realistic as possible. But the Jump Drive is basically a Hyperspace Drive that enters another dimension and takes a shortcut in three Parsecs per Jump factor of the Jump Drive. But almost everything else uses formulas from Physics to explain how they work. Traveller could have made a good movie or series of books, but most Traveller writers didn't know how to write them or used a "Chose your own adventure" type book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well to be honest the Sci Fi writers are writers not scientists .
They do n't know too much about Science and anything they write they tend to make up.But some things on the Star Trek show made it to reality .
Spock was using floppy disks in one episode and then later the Floppy Disk was invented , on the show they looked like 3.5 " floppys that Sony later invented .
Also the Classic Star Trek communicators eventually lead to the invention of the cell phone , which almost everyone uses in modern day times.Still no transporter , warp drive , phasers , human like androids , or even a Tricorder yet .
But we do n't know if such things are possible or impossible , we just do n't know how they work , and the Science on Star Trek was imaginary and nothing like Real Life Science.When you have a show in the future , with advanced science , you can not make a plot based on science or technology without making stuff up .
Once Sci Fi universe is the Traveller Universe [ farfuture.net ] in which they tried to make the technology and science as realistic as possible .
But the Jump Drive is basically a Hyperspace Drive that enters another dimension and takes a shortcut in three Parsecs per Jump factor of the Jump Drive .
But almost everything else uses formulas from Physics to explain how they work .
Traveller could have made a good movie or series of books , but most Traveller writers did n't know how to write them or used a " Chose your own adventure " type book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well to be honest the Sci Fi writers are writers not scientists.
They don't know too much about Science and anything they write they tend to make up.But some things on the Star Trek show made it to reality.
Spock was using floppy disks in one episode and then later the Floppy Disk was invented, on the show they looked like 3.5" floppys that Sony later invented.
Also the Classic Star Trek communicators eventually lead to the invention of the cell phone, which almost everyone uses in modern day times.Still no transporter, warp drive, phasers, human like androids, or even a Tricorder yet.
But we don't know if such things are possible or impossible, we just don't know how they work, and the Science on Star Trek was imaginary and nothing like Real Life Science.When you have a show in the future, with advanced science, you cannot make a plot based on science or technology without making stuff up.
Once Sci Fi universe is the Traveller Universe [farfuture.net] in which they tried to make the technology and science as realistic as possible.
But the Jump Drive is basically a Hyperspace Drive that enters another dimension and takes a shortcut in three Parsecs per Jump factor of the Jump Drive.
But almost everything else uses formulas from Physics to explain how they work.
Traveller could have made a good movie or series of books, but most Traveller writers didn't know how to write them or used a "Chose your own adventure" type book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739233</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255438440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You're thinking of 'deus ex machina', which is a plot device along the lines of "and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything". It's the fate of all lazy fiction...</p></div></blockquote><p>Like everything else, it can be interesting if used in moderation. I doubt there's very many new sci-fi plots, just roughly 100 or so recycled ones from around the 50's. Good periodic sci-fi has good characters and a good re-shuffling of plots to keep us guessing.</p><p>And maybe try reversing some of them. For example, they just finish solving a problem when a powerful being comes and farks it all up again just for the shear joy of it. (Well, I guess that'd be sort of Gilligan's Island.)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're thinking of 'deus ex machina ' , which is a plot device along the lines of " and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything " .
It 's the fate of all lazy fiction...Like everything else , it can be interesting if used in moderation .
I doubt there 's very many new sci-fi plots , just roughly 100 or so recycled ones from around the 50 's .
Good periodic sci-fi has good characters and a good re-shuffling of plots to keep us guessing.And maybe try reversing some of them .
For example , they just finish solving a problem when a powerful being comes and farks it all up again just for the shear joy of it .
( Well , I guess that 'd be sort of Gilligan 's Island .
)    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're thinking of 'deus ex machina', which is a plot device along the lines of "and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything".
It's the fate of all lazy fiction...Like everything else, it can be interesting if used in moderation.
I doubt there's very many new sci-fi plots, just roughly 100 or so recycled ones from around the 50's.
Good periodic sci-fi has good characters and a good re-shuffling of plots to keep us guessing.And maybe try reversing some of them.
For example, they just finish solving a problem when a powerful being comes and farks it all up again just for the shear joy of it.
(Well, I guess that'd be sort of Gilligan's Island.
)
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742531</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, B5 "technobabble"? Hardly...</title>
	<author>The Insane One</author>
	<datestamp>1255518240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IIRC, when jms started the show, he ran everything he could past the JPL (who were big fans) to get their take on things.</p></div><p>I can confirm this.  I was one of the people contacted by the Bablyon 5 production team.  It's also true that there were a lot of fans up at JPL.  When the call came in, I thought it was just one of my friends <i>goofing</i> me.  After a few seconds, I realized it was legit.  Basically it was 'twenty questions'.  I long for the days when my e-mail address always ilicited a reply.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , when jms started the show , he ran everything he could past the JPL ( who were big fans ) to get their take on things.I can confirm this .
I was one of the people contacted by the Bablyon 5 production team .
It 's also true that there were a lot of fans up at JPL .
When the call came in , I thought it was just one of my friends goofing me .
After a few seconds , I realized it was legit .
Basically it was 'twenty questions' .
I long for the days when my e-mail address always ilicited a reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, when jms started the show, he ran everything he could past the JPL (who were big fans) to get their take on things.I can confirm this.
I was one of the people contacted by the Bablyon 5 production team.
It's also true that there were a lot of fans up at JPL.
When the call came in, I thought it was just one of my friends goofing me.
After a few seconds, I realized it was legit.
Basically it was 'twenty questions'.
I long for the days when my e-mail address always ilicited a reply.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737769</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736939</id>
	<title>Moore's approach was the opposite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plot and character development as irrelevant to technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plot and character development as irrelevant to technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plot and character development as irrelevant to technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740891</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1255452540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just as you cannot spend all day watching porn on the internet</p></div></blockquote><p>Of course not.  There is the time you spend searching for it.  Alt-Tab defensive maneuvers, all that time you have to spend getting the proxy working to bypass corporate firewalls, bathroom breaks, supply runs, the odd staff meetings.... etc.</p><p>You can however, get it up to around 80\% efficiency if you are really good at it.  All of this assuming it is not your day off.</p><p>Additionally, unforeseen and unwise clicking of 4chan links can take you out of the game entirely for a couple of days.  At which point you have to start slowly again.</p><blockquote><div><p>, and you can't spend all day having holosex.</p></div></blockquote><p>I dunno.  Assuming holodeck technology exists it can be reasonable to assume there will be drug cocktails that make Viagra look downright ineffective and no better than a placebo.</p><p>One could also imagine that "What happens on Holodeck 5, stays on Holodeck 5".  In which case you will only be limited by your imagination and the number of gold pressed bars of latinum in your possession.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as you can not spend all day watching porn on the internetOf course not .
There is the time you spend searching for it .
Alt-Tab defensive maneuvers , all that time you have to spend getting the proxy working to bypass corporate firewalls , bathroom breaks , supply runs , the odd staff meetings.... etc.You can however , get it up to around 80 \ % efficiency if you are really good at it .
All of this assuming it is not your day off.Additionally , unforeseen and unwise clicking of 4chan links can take you out of the game entirely for a couple of days .
At which point you have to start slowly again. , and you ca n't spend all day having holosex.I dunno .
Assuming holodeck technology exists it can be reasonable to assume there will be drug cocktails that make Viagra look downright ineffective and no better than a placebo.One could also imagine that " What happens on Holodeck 5 , stays on Holodeck 5 " .
In which case you will only be limited by your imagination and the number of gold pressed bars of latinum in your possession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as you cannot spend all day watching porn on the internetOf course not.
There is the time you spend searching for it.
Alt-Tab defensive maneuvers, all that time you have to spend getting the proxy working to bypass corporate firewalls, bathroom breaks, supply runs, the odd staff meetings.... etc.You can however, get it up to around 80\% efficiency if you are really good at it.
All of this assuming it is not your day off.Additionally, unforeseen and unwise clicking of 4chan links can take you out of the game entirely for a couple of days.
At which point you have to start slowly again., and you can't spend all day having holosex.I dunno.
Assuming holodeck technology exists it can be reasonable to assume there will be drug cocktails that make Viagra look downright ineffective and no better than a placebo.One could also imagine that "What happens on Holodeck 5, stays on Holodeck 5".
In which case you will only be limited by your imagination and the number of gold pressed bars of latinum in your possession.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743535</id>
	<title>Re:it would all just be software.</title>
	<author>Captain Hook</author>
	<datestamp>1255529760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Holodecks would require a lot of space. Land would still cost a lot of money. So, you might need communal holodecks for people who can't afford large parcels of land.</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually I would see the opposite being true. Why have a big house when a small room the size of a walk-in closet and the illusion of as much space as you could ever need could fulfil the same purpose from a phsycological point of view. Especially if you don't need to have a lot of stuff to store locally (have a wardrobe that was actually a transporter to a storage warehouse on the moon)</p><p>Reliable holodecks could allow for massive population densities in cities.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holodecks would require a lot of space .
Land would still cost a lot of money .
So , you might need communal holodecks for people who ca n't afford large parcels of land.Actually I would see the opposite being true .
Why have a big house when a small room the size of a walk-in closet and the illusion of as much space as you could ever need could fulfil the same purpose from a phsycological point of view .
Especially if you do n't need to have a lot of stuff to store locally ( have a wardrobe that was actually a transporter to a storage warehouse on the moon ) Reliable holodecks could allow for massive population densities in cities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holodecks would require a lot of space.
Land would still cost a lot of money.
So, you might need communal holodecks for people who can't afford large parcels of land.Actually I would see the opposite being true.
Why have a big house when a small room the size of a walk-in closet and the illusion of as much space as you could ever need could fulfil the same purpose from a phsycological point of view.
Especially if you don't need to have a lot of stuff to store locally (have a wardrobe that was actually a transporter to a storage warehouse on the moon)Reliable holodecks could allow for massive population densities in cities.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740017</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737401</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, yeah</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1255429260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The pilot nothing, there were horses in every opening, and didn't one episode involve smuggling cattle?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The pilot nothing , there were horses in every opening , and did n't one episode involve smuggling cattle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pilot nothing, there were horses in every opening, and didn't one episode involve smuggling cattle?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741997</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Sobrique</author>
	<datestamp>1255511580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with that approach is that it so rarely works in an episodic, or indeed 'film length' format. I mean, you take something that has a profound impact on human society, and try and tell people a story of how things are now. <br>
There's a few Sci-fi books that do this, but remarkably few that have made the transition to film, simply because of the depth of the idea. It's far easier to have 'sci fi' as the glue in a space opera, than it is to actually do a sci fi concept, introduce the idea, and give it enough time to flesh out and show the audience what it means in a couple of hours. And even then, it wouldn't work for the \_average\_ audience - lots of people wouldn't get it, and would therefore hate on your film - another problem that doesn't tend to happen with books.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with that approach is that it so rarely works in an episodic , or indeed 'film length ' format .
I mean , you take something that has a profound impact on human society , and try and tell people a story of how things are now .
There 's a few Sci-fi books that do this , but remarkably few that have made the transition to film , simply because of the depth of the idea .
It 's far easier to have 'sci fi ' as the glue in a space opera , than it is to actually do a sci fi concept , introduce the idea , and give it enough time to flesh out and show the audience what it means in a couple of hours .
And even then , it would n't work for the \ _average \ _ audience - lots of people would n't get it , and would therefore hate on your film - another problem that does n't tend to happen with books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with that approach is that it so rarely works in an episodic, or indeed 'film length' format.
I mean, you take something that has a profound impact on human society, and try and tell people a story of how things are now.
There's a few Sci-fi books that do this, but remarkably few that have made the transition to film, simply because of the depth of the idea.
It's far easier to have 'sci fi' as the glue in a space opera, than it is to actually do a sci fi concept, introduce the idea, and give it enough time to flesh out and show the audience what it means in a couple of hours.
And even then, it wouldn't work for the \_average\_ audience - lots of people wouldn't get it, and would therefore hate on your film - another problem that doesn't tend to happen with books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737951</id>
	<title>Glass Houses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm. I don't know if anyone has read Stross, but he writes the pulpiest space opera crap I've ever heard called hard SF. Screw that, it's not SF. It's sci-fi. He writes techno-candy a step above Stargate. What business does he have criticizing Trek, when for all its horrible science failings, it still manages to produce some truly compelling fiction (City on the Edge of Forever? Measure of a Man? The starburst episode they show to airforce recruits?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm .
I do n't know if anyone has read Stross , but he writes the pulpiest space opera crap I 've ever heard called hard SF .
Screw that , it 's not SF .
It 's sci-fi .
He writes techno-candy a step above Stargate .
What business does he have criticizing Trek , when for all its horrible science failings , it still manages to produce some truly compelling fiction ( City on the Edge of Forever ?
Measure of a Man ?
The starburst episode they show to airforce recruits ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm.
I don't know if anyone has read Stross, but he writes the pulpiest space opera crap I've ever heard called hard SF.
Screw that, it's not SF.
It's sci-fi.
He writes techno-candy a step above Stargate.
What business does he have criticizing Trek, when for all its horrible science failings, it still manages to produce some truly compelling fiction (City on the Edge of Forever?
Measure of a Man?
The starburst episode they show to airforce recruits?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738189</id>
	<title>And that is bad - how?</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1255432500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humans have obviously reached the human frontier on that umm... front. And found Ferengi staring at them from the other side.<br>So, having warp-drive and replicators (which nearly eliminated scarcity), they decided to be guided by their natural curiosity, instead of their natural greed.<br>Space exploration sure beats "who has more valuables at the time of death" competition in my book.</p><p>As for inherent repulsion towards anything starting with social...<br>You do realize that you have been brainwashed by your rulers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans have obviously reached the human frontier on that umm... front. And found Ferengi staring at them from the other side.So , having warp-drive and replicators ( which nearly eliminated scarcity ) , they decided to be guided by their natural curiosity , instead of their natural greed.Space exploration sure beats " who has more valuables at the time of death " competition in my book.As for inherent repulsion towards anything starting with social...You do realize that you have been brainwashed by your rulers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans have obviously reached the human frontier on that umm... front. And found Ferengi staring at them from the other side.So, having warp-drive and replicators (which nearly eliminated scarcity), they decided to be guided by their natural curiosity, instead of their natural greed.Space exploration sure beats "who has more valuables at the time of death" competition in my book.As for inherent repulsion towards anything starting with social...You do realize that you have been brainwashed by your rulers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739509</id>
	<title>the science is irelevant and the writers are lazy</title>
	<author>seifried</author>
	<datestamp>1255440840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem isn't that the science is right or wrong, it's that it is irrelevant (he put it best saying you could stick them on an 18th century wind powered war ship and have Geordi fixing the rigging or something). The show is not even remotely internally consistent; if you have replicators that only require raw materials and energy, and energy is abundantly available from fission, fusion, warp drives and whatnot then why are there any poor people or such a disparity with technology within the Federation itself? To say nothing of the lack of protective gear (hint: wouldn't the security guys maybe wear uniforms that are resistant to weapons fire? Their union must suck or something.). They are pretty much socially identical to current standards, and yet in the last 20 years I have seen the world change almost unrecognizably due to technology. Basically it boils down to really, really bad script writing, which as entertainment is sort of a critical thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't that the science is right or wrong , it 's that it is irrelevant ( he put it best saying you could stick them on an 18th century wind powered war ship and have Geordi fixing the rigging or something ) .
The show is not even remotely internally consistent ; if you have replicators that only require raw materials and energy , and energy is abundantly available from fission , fusion , warp drives and whatnot then why are there any poor people or such a disparity with technology within the Federation itself ?
To say nothing of the lack of protective gear ( hint : would n't the security guys maybe wear uniforms that are resistant to weapons fire ?
Their union must suck or something. ) .
They are pretty much socially identical to current standards , and yet in the last 20 years I have seen the world change almost unrecognizably due to technology .
Basically it boils down to really , really bad script writing , which as entertainment is sort of a critical thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't that the science is right or wrong, it's that it is irrelevant (he put it best saying you could stick them on an 18th century wind powered war ship and have Geordi fixing the rigging or something).
The show is not even remotely internally consistent; if you have replicators that only require raw materials and energy, and energy is abundantly available from fission, fusion, warp drives and whatnot then why are there any poor people or such a disparity with technology within the Federation itself?
To say nothing of the lack of protective gear (hint: wouldn't the security guys maybe wear uniforms that are resistant to weapons fire?
Their union must suck or something.).
They are pretty much socially identical to current standards, and yet in the last 20 years I have seen the world change almost unrecognizably due to technology.
Basically it boils down to really, really bad script writing, which as entertainment is sort of a critical thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737741</id>
	<title>Re:Science Fiction focuses on the fiction</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1255430640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you can have both (real/plausible science and good plot/characters).</p><p>Pitch Black is a great example of this.<br>The whole plot revolves around a long solar eclipse brought cyclically by the orbit of the planet's moons every few decades (or something).  So there is a whole horde of cave-dwelling light-sensitive monster-bats that have evolved to hide in their caves until this eclipse occurs, and then come out and devour everything on the surface of the planet.<br>And of course, Vin Diesel can see in the dark because of his special "night-LASIK" operation that he had performed on him in prison.</p><p>One of my favorite sci-fi plots/characters of all time.<br>Realistic science, great story, great characters, great all-around film.</p><p>There's no reason to ditch science.<br>Its just easier for non-techie writers to treat science as a sort of technobabble MAD-LIBs, like they did in star-trek.<br>Which I think is the point of the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you can have both ( real/plausible science and good plot/characters ) .Pitch Black is a great example of this.The whole plot revolves around a long solar eclipse brought cyclically by the orbit of the planet 's moons every few decades ( or something ) .
So there is a whole horde of cave-dwelling light-sensitive monster-bats that have evolved to hide in their caves until this eclipse occurs , and then come out and devour everything on the surface of the planet.And of course , Vin Diesel can see in the dark because of his special " night-LASIK " operation that he had performed on him in prison.One of my favorite sci-fi plots/characters of all time.Realistic science , great story , great characters , great all-around film.There 's no reason to ditch science.Its just easier for non-techie writers to treat science as a sort of technobabble MAD-LIBs , like they did in star-trek.Which I think is the point of the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you can have both (real/plausible science and good plot/characters).Pitch Black is a great example of this.The whole plot revolves around a long solar eclipse brought cyclically by the orbit of the planet's moons every few decades (or something).
So there is a whole horde of cave-dwelling light-sensitive monster-bats that have evolved to hide in their caves until this eclipse occurs, and then come out and devour everything on the surface of the planet.And of course, Vin Diesel can see in the dark because of his special "night-LASIK" operation that he had performed on him in prison.One of my favorite sci-fi plots/characters of all time.Realistic science, great story, great characters, great all-around film.There's no reason to ditch science.Its just easier for non-techie writers to treat science as a sort of technobabble MAD-LIBs, like they did in star-trek.Which I think is the point of the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741113</id>
	<title>In realted news...</title>
	<author>uvajed\_ekil</author>
	<datestamp>1255454940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come find out why I hate Charles Stross at nobodygivesafuckwhatsomeirrelevantidiothates.com. His opinion on Star Trek, or anything else, is no more important than my opinion on him or on fried bologna sandwiches on white bread. Seriously, nothing to see here, move along. I'm not even going to RTFA or look at more than the first two comments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come find out why I hate Charles Stross at nobodygivesafuckwhatsomeirrelevantidiothates.com .
His opinion on Star Trek , or anything else , is no more important than my opinion on him or on fried bologna sandwiches on white bread .
Seriously , nothing to see here , move along .
I 'm not even going to RTFA or look at more than the first two comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come find out why I hate Charles Stross at nobodygivesafuckwhatsomeirrelevantidiothates.com.
His opinion on Star Trek, or anything else, is no more important than my opinion on him or on fried bologna sandwiches on white bread.
Seriously, nothing to see here, move along.
I'm not even going to RTFA or look at more than the first two comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738481</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think deus ex machina would be a more general case than what the parent mentioned. In this case we're talking about DEM being applied to a situation that wouldn't need to exist in the first place, except that it fits the DEM perfectly. Common names are phlebotinum or handwavium. I prefer "pulling a Dan Brown."</p><p>It doesn't need to happen at the end of the story, but it does need to be magic or sufficiently advanced technology. It's the typical resolution device for monster of the week type shows, where they always have "just the thing." I tend to picture deus ex machina as applicable to any or all situations ("it was just a dream") whereas in phlebotinum is specific to a plot or character (Superman only has one weakness, and it only works on him).</p><p>As usual, tvtropes.org have analyzed this in insane levels of detail:<br>- If it can't be used outside the plot: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReedRichardsIsUseless<br>- If it has to be obtained at some cost to the protagonist: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotCoupon<br>- If it doesn't actually do anything: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGuffin<br>- If it's a weapon: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SwordOfPlotAdvancement<br>- If it's foreshadowed: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGun</p><p>It's crap storytelling like that that keeps me away from serialized fiction. Except Lost, of course<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think deus ex machina would be a more general case than what the parent mentioned .
In this case we 're talking about DEM being applied to a situation that would n't need to exist in the first place , except that it fits the DEM perfectly .
Common names are phlebotinum or handwavium .
I prefer " pulling a Dan Brown .
" It does n't need to happen at the end of the story , but it does need to be magic or sufficiently advanced technology .
It 's the typical resolution device for monster of the week type shows , where they always have " just the thing .
" I tend to picture deus ex machina as applicable to any or all situations ( " it was just a dream " ) whereas in phlebotinum is specific to a plot or character ( Superman only has one weakness , and it only works on him ) .As usual , tvtropes.org have analyzed this in insane levels of detail : - If it ca n't be used outside the plot : http : //tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReedRichardsIsUseless- If it has to be obtained at some cost to the protagonist : http : //tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotCoupon- If it does n't actually do anything : http : //tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGuffin- If it 's a weapon : http : //tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SwordOfPlotAdvancement- If it 's foreshadowed : http : //tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGunIt 's crap storytelling like that that keeps me away from serialized fiction .
Except Lost , of course : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think deus ex machina would be a more general case than what the parent mentioned.
In this case we're talking about DEM being applied to a situation that wouldn't need to exist in the first place, except that it fits the DEM perfectly.
Common names are phlebotinum or handwavium.
I prefer "pulling a Dan Brown.
"It doesn't need to happen at the end of the story, but it does need to be magic or sufficiently advanced technology.
It's the typical resolution device for monster of the week type shows, where they always have "just the thing.
" I tend to picture deus ex machina as applicable to any or all situations ("it was just a dream") whereas in phlebotinum is specific to a plot or character (Superman only has one weakness, and it only works on him).As usual, tvtropes.org have analyzed this in insane levels of detail:- If it can't be used outside the plot: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReedRichardsIsUseless- If it has to be obtained at some cost to the protagonist: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotCoupon- If it doesn't actually do anything: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGuffin- If it's a weapon: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SwordOfPlotAdvancement- If it's foreshadowed: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChekhovsGunIt's crap storytelling like that that keeps me away from serialized fiction.
Except Lost, of course :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29754783</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1255603980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are *some* limits on replicator capability. They require energy to run, which typically comes from matter/antimatter reactors. There's no indication that the replicators can produce antimatter, and there are occasional references to needing to conserve supplies of it. There are other limits (dilithium for the reactors required mining, at least in TOS and I believe in TNG as well). There may have been other references to natural resources as well. In any case, I don't recall any particular sign that ships were so incredibly readily accessible as you imply. Indeed, TOS and TNG were remarkably short on civilian vessels, and when encountered it was usually because they were in some sort of trouble. That doesn't suggest a universe where anybody who wants to can get their own little starship.</p><p>As for the gold-pressed latinum issue, this is purely trivia but latinum itself (a silvery liquid) was the part that couldn't by replicated. The gold was just to make it possible to handle the stuff; there was no indication that gold couldn't be replicated easily enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are * some * limits on replicator capability .
They require energy to run , which typically comes from matter/antimatter reactors .
There 's no indication that the replicators can produce antimatter , and there are occasional references to needing to conserve supplies of it .
There are other limits ( dilithium for the reactors required mining , at least in TOS and I believe in TNG as well ) .
There may have been other references to natural resources as well .
In any case , I do n't recall any particular sign that ships were so incredibly readily accessible as you imply .
Indeed , TOS and TNG were remarkably short on civilian vessels , and when encountered it was usually because they were in some sort of trouble .
That does n't suggest a universe where anybody who wants to can get their own little starship.As for the gold-pressed latinum issue , this is purely trivia but latinum itself ( a silvery liquid ) was the part that could n't by replicated .
The gold was just to make it possible to handle the stuff ; there was no indication that gold could n't be replicated easily enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are *some* limits on replicator capability.
They require energy to run, which typically comes from matter/antimatter reactors.
There's no indication that the replicators can produce antimatter, and there are occasional references to needing to conserve supplies of it.
There are other limits (dilithium for the reactors required mining, at least in TOS and I believe in TNG as well).
There may have been other references to natural resources as well.
In any case, I don't recall any particular sign that ships were so incredibly readily accessible as you imply.
Indeed, TOS and TNG were remarkably short on civilian vessels, and when encountered it was usually because they were in some sort of trouble.
That doesn't suggest a universe where anybody who wants to can get their own little starship.As for the gold-pressed latinum issue, this is purely trivia but latinum itself (a silvery liquid) was the part that couldn't by replicated.
The gold was just to make it possible to handle the stuff; there was no indication that gold couldn't be replicated easily enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737737</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>ShadowRangerRIT</author>
	<datestamp>1255430640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say the difference is that BSG and Firefly don't pretend to focus on the tech.  Most problems in BSG/Firefly are solved with technology that:
</p><ol>
<li>Exists (or is on the very near horizon) <b>OR</b></li>
<li>Is one of a small number of "magic" technologies, usually introduced in an innocuous fashion long before it became an essential plot element</li>
</ol><p>Star Trek didn't limit itself to a small or particularly understandable set of "magic" technologies.  Many episodes had a bit of magic as the cause of a problem, with another piece of magic as the solution.  And usually both of them had never been seen before and were never seen again.  In the few cases where magic was reused, they pretended it wasn't: As another commenter notes, an inverse tachyon pulse from the main deflector was required to solve problems constantly, but somehow it always had to be jury rigged at the last second, and it was always a nail biting effort.</p><p>BSG's only consistent "magic" nail biters were things like last second jump calculations, which were clearly indicated as something that had to be done differently if either start or end coordinates changed, and was introduced in advance.  Firefly just had problems getting the damn engine started; no real sci-fi required (it was, for all intents and purposes, the plot equivalent of an IC engine).</p><p>Paraphrasing Hitchcock (by way of JMS), if someone gets shot in Act 3, you need to show the gun hanging over the mantelpiece in Act 1.  By and large, BSG (and to a lesser extent Firefly) did this.  Star Trek just pulled random guns out of dark crevices in every act, no foreshadowing required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say the difference is that BSG and Firefly do n't pretend to focus on the tech .
Most problems in BSG/Firefly are solved with technology that : Exists ( or is on the very near horizon ) OR Is one of a small number of " magic " technologies , usually introduced in an innocuous fashion long before it became an essential plot element Star Trek did n't limit itself to a small or particularly understandable set of " magic " technologies .
Many episodes had a bit of magic as the cause of a problem , with another piece of magic as the solution .
And usually both of them had never been seen before and were never seen again .
In the few cases where magic was reused , they pretended it was n't : As another commenter notes , an inverse tachyon pulse from the main deflector was required to solve problems constantly , but somehow it always had to be jury rigged at the last second , and it was always a nail biting effort.BSG 's only consistent " magic " nail biters were things like last second jump calculations , which were clearly indicated as something that had to be done differently if either start or end coordinates changed , and was introduced in advance .
Firefly just had problems getting the damn engine started ; no real sci-fi required ( it was , for all intents and purposes , the plot equivalent of an IC engine ) .Paraphrasing Hitchcock ( by way of JMS ) , if someone gets shot in Act 3 , you need to show the gun hanging over the mantelpiece in Act 1 .
By and large , BSG ( and to a lesser extent Firefly ) did this .
Star Trek just pulled random guns out of dark crevices in every act , no foreshadowing required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say the difference is that BSG and Firefly don't pretend to focus on the tech.
Most problems in BSG/Firefly are solved with technology that:

Exists (or is on the very near horizon) OR
Is one of a small number of "magic" technologies, usually introduced in an innocuous fashion long before it became an essential plot element
Star Trek didn't limit itself to a small or particularly understandable set of "magic" technologies.
Many episodes had a bit of magic as the cause of a problem, with another piece of magic as the solution.
And usually both of them had never been seen before and were never seen again.
In the few cases where magic was reused, they pretended it wasn't: As another commenter notes, an inverse tachyon pulse from the main deflector was required to solve problems constantly, but somehow it always had to be jury rigged at the last second, and it was always a nail biting effort.BSG's only consistent "magic" nail biters were things like last second jump calculations, which were clearly indicated as something that had to be done differently if either start or end coordinates changed, and was introduced in advance.
Firefly just had problems getting the damn engine started; no real sci-fi required (it was, for all intents and purposes, the plot equivalent of an IC engine).Paraphrasing Hitchcock (by way of JMS), if someone gets shot in Act 3, you need to show the gun hanging over the mantelpiece in Act 1.
By and large, BSG (and to a lesser extent Firefly) did this.
Star Trek just pulled random guns out of dark crevices in every act, no foreshadowing required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737633</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1255430220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Young man, you will bite your tongue after speaking of Firefly with such disrespect!</p><p>Compare the technobabble of TNG to Firefly.  How many times did the tachyon thing have to get reversed, repolarized, resynchronized or whatever in order to solve some time spacial anomaly?</p><p>Firefly ep Out of Gas:</p><blockquote><div><p>    Kaylee: Catalyzer on the port compression coil blew. It's where the trouble started.<br>
    Mal: Okay, I need that in captain dummy-talk, Kaylee.<br>
    Kaylee: We're dead in the water.</p></div></blockquote><p>And that's about as "technobabble to assist the plot" as Firefly got.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Young man , you will bite your tongue after speaking of Firefly with such disrespect ! Compare the technobabble of TNG to Firefly .
How many times did the tachyon thing have to get reversed , repolarized , resynchronized or whatever in order to solve some time spacial anomaly ? Firefly ep Out of Gas : Kaylee : Catalyzer on the port compression coil blew .
It 's where the trouble started .
Mal : Okay , I need that in captain dummy-talk , Kaylee .
Kaylee : We 're dead in the water.And that 's about as " technobabble to assist the plot " as Firefly got .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Young man, you will bite your tongue after speaking of Firefly with such disrespect!Compare the technobabble of TNG to Firefly.
How many times did the tachyon thing have to get reversed, repolarized, resynchronized or whatever in order to solve some time spacial anomaly?Firefly ep Out of Gas:    Kaylee: Catalyzer on the port compression coil blew.
It's where the trouble started.
Mal: Okay, I need that in captain dummy-talk, Kaylee.
Kaylee: We're dead in the water.And that's about as "technobabble to assist the plot" as Firefly got.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737059</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1255428180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While there can be disagreement as to how practical such a system would be, an economy of abundance where money wasn't the prime motivator for action would be rather appealing. We actually saw very little of the economic system on Earth, since Star Trek focused on the military, so there's rather little to go on.</p><p>Regarding the article, using technology as a mere device is entirely sensible, as long as it isn't used for deus ex machina. Stories are about people after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While there can be disagreement as to how practical such a system would be , an economy of abundance where money was n't the prime motivator for action would be rather appealing .
We actually saw very little of the economic system on Earth , since Star Trek focused on the military , so there 's rather little to go on.Regarding the article , using technology as a mere device is entirely sensible , as long as it is n't used for deus ex machina .
Stories are about people after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While there can be disagreement as to how practical such a system would be, an economy of abundance where money wasn't the prime motivator for action would be rather appealing.
We actually saw very little of the economic system on Earth, since Star Trek focused on the military, so there's rather little to go on.Regarding the article, using technology as a mere device is entirely sensible, as long as it isn't used for deus ex machina.
Stories are about people after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737083</id>
	<title>Dont piss off the Russian.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" and the same goes for similar shows such as Babylon Five"  Ivonova says she has a 200 megawatt pulse cannon in the forward cargo bay that would dissagree with you Mr. Stross.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" and the same goes for similar shows such as Babylon Five " Ivonova says she has a 200 megawatt pulse cannon in the forward cargo bay that would dissagree with you Mr. Stross .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" and the same goes for similar shows such as Babylon Five"  Ivonova says she has a 200 megawatt pulse cannon in the forward cargo bay that would dissagree with you Mr. Stross.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738719</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1255435020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>90\% of ST's problems are solved by "reversing the polarity".</p><p>In other words, they put the batteries in backwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % of ST 's problems are solved by " reversing the polarity " .In other words , they put the batteries in backwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>90\% of ST's problems are solved by "reversing the polarity".In other words, they put the batteries in backwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738961</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>IorDMUX</author>
	<datestamp>1255436580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.</p></div><p>Agreed.  <br> <br>If you are interested, check out Larry Niven's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Hole\_in\_Space" title="wikipedia.org">A Hole In Space</a> [wikipedia.org] for his look at how the transporter might really change the world (from a late-60's/early 70's perspective, of course).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter would n't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.Agreed .
If you are interested , check out Larry Niven 's A Hole In Space [ wikipedia.org ] for his look at how the transporter might really change the world ( from a late-60 's/early 70 's perspective , of course ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.Agreed.
If you are interested, check out Larry Niven's A Hole In Space [wikipedia.org] for his look at how the transporter might really change the world (from a late-60's/early 70's perspective, of course).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739547</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Graff</author>
	<datestamp>1255441140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Replicators capable of creating any material object except gold pressed latinum.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Unlimited energy using matter-antimatter.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>a capitalistic society is nearly impossible. There's nothing to buy or sell. As replicators themselves are replicated, anything of "value" can be had for virtually nothing.</p></div><p>A couple of problems here.</p><p>First off, it takes energy to run a replicator.  Yes, perhaps a replicator can make the matter and the anti-matter and then react them to get energy but it's pretty clear that the laws of thermodynamics are still in effect in the Star Trek universe.  The second law of thermodynamics prohibits perpetual motion types of scenarios like this.  Energy is still a resource.</p><p>Another resource would be real estate.  At some point most easily accessible places in the universe will be owned by someone.  Yes, the universe is a large place but you are still limited by time constraints to a relatively small portion of it during your lifetime.</p><p>Yet another resource would be thought, invention, and innovation.  Thinking beings would still demand some sort of value in exchange for plying their skills.</p><p>I'm sure there are other resources that can be brought up but you get the idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Replicators capable of creating any material object except gold pressed latinum .
...Unlimited energy using matter-antimatter .
...a capitalistic society is nearly impossible .
There 's nothing to buy or sell .
As replicators themselves are replicated , anything of " value " can be had for virtually nothing.A couple of problems here.First off , it takes energy to run a replicator .
Yes , perhaps a replicator can make the matter and the anti-matter and then react them to get energy but it 's pretty clear that the laws of thermodynamics are still in effect in the Star Trek universe .
The second law of thermodynamics prohibits perpetual motion types of scenarios like this .
Energy is still a resource.Another resource would be real estate .
At some point most easily accessible places in the universe will be owned by someone .
Yes , the universe is a large place but you are still limited by time constraints to a relatively small portion of it during your lifetime.Yet another resource would be thought , invention , and innovation .
Thinking beings would still demand some sort of value in exchange for plying their skills.I 'm sure there are other resources that can be brought up but you get the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replicators capable of creating any material object except gold pressed latinum.
...Unlimited energy using matter-antimatter.
...a capitalistic society is nearly impossible.
There's nothing to buy or sell.
As replicators themselves are replicated, anything of "value" can be had for virtually nothing.A couple of problems here.First off, it takes energy to run a replicator.
Yes, perhaps a replicator can make the matter and the anti-matter and then react them to get energy but it's pretty clear that the laws of thermodynamics are still in effect in the Star Trek universe.
The second law of thermodynamics prohibits perpetual motion types of scenarios like this.
Energy is still a resource.Another resource would be real estate.
At some point most easily accessible places in the universe will be owned by someone.
Yes, the universe is a large place but you are still limited by time constraints to a relatively small portion of it during your lifetime.Yet another resource would be thought, invention, and innovation.
Thinking beings would still demand some sort of value in exchange for plying their skills.I'm sure there are other resources that can be brought up but you get the idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739053</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>awshidahak</author>
	<datestamp>1255437240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So that we all don't end up being as socially backward as Barclay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So that we all do n't end up being as socially backward as Barclay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that we all don't end up being as socially backward as Barclay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737665</id>
	<title>Re:Just enjoy...</title>
	<author>Eightbitgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1255430460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bu, bu, bu, but I learned everything I know of science off old reruns!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bu , bu , bu , but I learned everything I know of science off old reruns !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bu, bu, bu, but I learned everything I know of science off old reruns!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29744943</id>
	<title>Darmok!</title>
	<author>tekrat</author>
	<datestamp>1255536000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charles Stross says "Darmok and Jelad... At Tenagra!"<br>And trust me, it's about as meaningful if he had said that instead of what he actually said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charles Stross says " Darmok and Jelad... At Tenagra !
" And trust me , it 's about as meaningful if he had said that instead of what he actually said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charles Stross says "Darmok and Jelad... At Tenagra!
"And trust me, it's about as meaningful if he had said that instead of what he actually said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736811</id>
	<title>Uh oh, trolls dead ahead...</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1255427340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cmdr Taco, more apply more tech to the tech!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cmdr Taco , more apply more tech to the tech !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cmdr Taco, more apply more tech to the tech!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29746159</id>
	<title>Re:Here's scifi Stross would approve of:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255540920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know - that story has some potential.  I mean first off - how the hell would you convince people to go on a few thousand year space journey without even using cryofreeze<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... would the folks remember what they left for in the first place when they got there?  They might develop their own society, have internal wars - accidently destroy their own ship, invent new religions etc - and then one day they actualy *do* meet another civilization and social chaos on a whole new scale breaks loose.</p><p>Lots of room to come up with something interesting in there - just requires a little imagination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know - that story has some potential .
I mean first off - how the hell would you convince people to go on a few thousand year space journey without even using cryofreeze ... would the folks remember what they left for in the first place when they got there ?
They might develop their own society , have internal wars - accidently destroy their own ship , invent new religions etc - and then one day they actualy * do * meet another civilization and social chaos on a whole new scale breaks loose.Lots of room to come up with something interesting in there - just requires a little imagination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know - that story has some potential.
I mean first off - how the hell would you convince people to go on a few thousand year space journey without even using cryofreeze ... would the folks remember what they left for in the first place when they got there?
They might develop their own society, have internal wars - accidently destroy their own ship, invent new religions etc - and then one day they actualy *do* meet another civilization and social chaos on a whole new scale breaks loose.Lots of room to come up with something interesting in there - just requires a little imagination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736953</id>
	<title>without star trek where would we be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has fueled the imagination of a generation, attached a human element to the otherwise intangible technology and made it accessible to the average person.  Based on those facets alone it is a winner.  And to Charles Stross.. You are a great writer but you are addressing a different audience.  Judging star trek for you is like an olympic decathalete judging a high school track meet, the rules may apply but there is no comparison in quality of performance, just let it go..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has fueled the imagination of a generation , attached a human element to the otherwise intangible technology and made it accessible to the average person .
Based on those facets alone it is a winner .
And to Charles Stross.. You are a great writer but you are addressing a different audience .
Judging star trek for you is like an olympic decathalete judging a high school track meet , the rules may apply but there is no comparison in quality of performance , just let it go. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has fueled the imagination of a generation, attached a human element to the otherwise intangible technology and made it accessible to the average person.
Based on those facets alone it is a winner.
And to Charles Stross.. You are a great writer but you are addressing a different audience.
Judging star trek for you is like an olympic decathalete judging a high school track meet, the rules may apply but there is no comparison in quality of performance, just let it go..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1255428120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So essentially, he should repeat to himself "It's just a show, I should really just relax"?</p></div><p>I think the point was "It's a TV show about something besides the daily life of being a writer for a TV show: odds are it's going to get nearly everything wrong, it's nothing specific to science."  Look at CSI: anything.  The science AND the justice system in that show only vaguely resemble real forensic science or our real justice system.  Or how our cops actually look or act for that matter.</p><p>To get even more ridiculous, look at MTV's "real world" and tell me that anything in the actual real world (outside of wherever they're filming) shares anything in common with it.</p><p>Anyway, of course the science is going to be an absurd prop in star trek.  That said, star trek did often take even bigger liberties with reality than most other shows.  I occasionally watched episodes of various star trek series until I saw on Voyager an episode where a virus takes up Klingon growth hormones and suddenly the things are the size of flies flying around, infecting all species with stingers.  That oddly was a line too far.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So essentially , he should repeat to himself " It 's just a show , I should really just relax " ? I think the point was " It 's a TV show about something besides the daily life of being a writer for a TV show : odds are it 's going to get nearly everything wrong , it 's nothing specific to science .
" Look at CSI : anything .
The science AND the justice system in that show only vaguely resemble real forensic science or our real justice system .
Or how our cops actually look or act for that matter.To get even more ridiculous , look at MTV 's " real world " and tell me that anything in the actual real world ( outside of wherever they 're filming ) shares anything in common with it.Anyway , of course the science is going to be an absurd prop in star trek .
That said , star trek did often take even bigger liberties with reality than most other shows .
I occasionally watched episodes of various star trek series until I saw on Voyager an episode where a virus takes up Klingon growth hormones and suddenly the things are the size of flies flying around , infecting all species with stingers .
That oddly was a line too far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So essentially, he should repeat to himself "It's just a show, I should really just relax"?I think the point was "It's a TV show about something besides the daily life of being a writer for a TV show: odds are it's going to get nearly everything wrong, it's nothing specific to science.
"  Look at CSI: anything.
The science AND the justice system in that show only vaguely resemble real forensic science or our real justice system.
Or how our cops actually look or act for that matter.To get even more ridiculous, look at MTV's "real world" and tell me that anything in the actual real world (outside of wherever they're filming) shares anything in common with it.Anyway, of course the science is going to be an absurd prop in star trek.
That said, star trek did often take even bigger liberties with reality than most other shows.
I occasionally watched episodes of various star trek series until I saw on Voyager an episode where a virus takes up Klingon growth hormones and suddenly the things are the size of flies flying around, infecting all species with stingers.
That oddly was a line too far.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738269</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255432860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Star Trek is...a socialist utopia...Theres no business, theres no enterpreneurship anymore.</p></div></blockquote><p>Perhaps you otta watch the Ferengi version.</p><p>Actually, there's a lot of entrepreneurship in Trek, it's just that one is payed in recognition and research grants instead of money.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Trek is...a socialist utopia...Theres no business , theres no enterpreneurship anymore.Perhaps you otta watch the Ferengi version.Actually , there 's a lot of entrepreneurship in Trek , it 's just that one is payed in recognition and research grants instead of money .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Trek is...a socialist utopia...Theres no business, theres no enterpreneurship anymore.Perhaps you otta watch the Ferengi version.Actually, there's a lot of entrepreneurship in Trek, it's just that one is payed in recognition and research grants instead of money.
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737263</id>
	<title>The ST bible</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1255428780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Roddenberry's bible on the original ST explicitly said that no solution to any plot issue/conflict may ever be resolved by a technological solution -- interpersonal relations/social behavior needed to resolve things.</p><p>This was thrown out in TNG, which is why it sucked monkies.</p><p>The best science fiction is represented by PKD, not Varley.  It's the society and the people and ideas that matter in any fiction, not the gears and details of the tech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Roddenberry 's bible on the original ST explicitly said that no solution to any plot issue/conflict may ever be resolved by a technological solution -- interpersonal relations/social behavior needed to resolve things.This was thrown out in TNG , which is why it sucked monkies.The best science fiction is represented by PKD , not Varley .
It 's the society and the people and ideas that matter in any fiction , not the gears and details of the tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roddenberry's bible on the original ST explicitly said that no solution to any plot issue/conflict may ever be resolved by a technological solution -- interpersonal relations/social behavior needed to resolve things.This was thrown out in TNG, which is why it sucked monkies.The best science fiction is represented by PKD, not Varley.
It's the society and the people and ideas that matter in any fiction, not the gears and details of the tech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738139</id>
	<title>Re:Uh oh, trolls dead ahead...</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1255432140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Cmdr Taco, more apply more tech to the tech!</p></div></blockquote><p>Please start with applying IPv6 support.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cmdr Taco , more apply more tech to the tech ! Please start with applying IPv6 support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cmdr Taco, more apply more tech to the tech!Please start with applying IPv6 support.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736819</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, anti-plot.  Very dangerous stuff.  It's red and even though it only takes a few drops of anti-plot to take out an entire world, Spock flew around in a ship with enough of it to take out just about every populated planet of significance.  'Cause you just never know when you'll need more anti-plot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , anti-plot .
Very dangerous stuff .
It 's red and even though it only takes a few drops of anti-plot to take out an entire world , Spock flew around in a ship with enough of it to take out just about every populated planet of significance .
'Cause you just never know when you 'll need more anti-plot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, anti-plot.
Very dangerous stuff.
It's red and even though it only takes a few drops of anti-plot to take out an entire world, Spock flew around in a ship with enough of it to take out just about every populated planet of significance.
'Cause you just never know when you'll need more anti-plot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737075</id>
	<title>Writers aren't tech experts.</title>
	<author>vxvxvxvx</author>
	<datestamp>1255428240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the complaint that the writers would just leave "I can't tech the tech core anymore!" kind of language in the script isn't surprising to me, nor am I upset over it. I don't think there are many people who possess the skill to both write an interesting story and come up with realistic-but-yet-nonexistant tech. So if they want to take people who are good at writing stories and have them write a script and then find tech experts to fill in the blanks, good for them. That's one solution the problem and given Star Trek's huge success it's one that worked.</p><p>That said, like all TV there's good scifi and bad scifi. Often within the very same TV series. There is some tech in Star Trek that is just so silly sounding it does distract you from the story. "Red Matter" for example...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the complaint that the writers would just leave " I ca n't tech the tech core anymore !
" kind of language in the script is n't surprising to me , nor am I upset over it .
I do n't think there are many people who possess the skill to both write an interesting story and come up with realistic-but-yet-nonexistant tech .
So if they want to take people who are good at writing stories and have them write a script and then find tech experts to fill in the blanks , good for them .
That 's one solution the problem and given Star Trek 's huge success it 's one that worked.That said , like all TV there 's good scifi and bad scifi .
Often within the very same TV series .
There is some tech in Star Trek that is just so silly sounding it does distract you from the story .
" Red Matter " for example.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the complaint that the writers would just leave "I can't tech the tech core anymore!
" kind of language in the script isn't surprising to me, nor am I upset over it.
I don't think there are many people who possess the skill to both write an interesting story and come up with realistic-but-yet-nonexistant tech.
So if they want to take people who are good at writing stories and have them write a script and then find tech experts to fill in the blanks, good for them.
That's one solution the problem and given Star Trek's huge success it's one that worked.That said, like all TV there's good scifi and bad scifi.
Often within the very same TV series.
There is some tech in Star Trek that is just so silly sounding it does distract you from the story.
"Red Matter" for example...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738251</id>
	<title>Re:As opposed to Ron Moores method?</title>
	<author>nyctopterus</author>
	<datestamp>1255432800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, there's not a lot of rationale for saying someone's wrong on matters of preference, but man, you are just totally and completely wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , there 's not a lot of rationale for saying someone 's wrong on matters of preference , but man , you are just totally and completely wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, there's not a lot of rationale for saying someone's wrong on matters of preference, but man, you are just totally and completely wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737297</id>
	<title>Just the thing</title>
	<author>Yergle143</author>
	<datestamp>1255428900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The entire Sci Fi field suffers from this --&gt; it's no different from the end of every fantasy movie you've ever seen. Harry Potter waves his
magic wand and shoots a green light at the Dark Lord whose red light appears much stronger and is about to engulf poor Harry until,
miracle of miracles he believes in himself or whatever. In how many episodes does a magic beam of reverse field tacheons or
 whatever shoot out of the Enterprise to magically heal the planet or confuse the Borg or yadda yadda yadda?

Super science = super natural = BS. Please don't quote back A Clarke back at me.

Good sci fi is dirty and broken and messy. I used to say like Star Wars before it was ruined. How about like Alien.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire Sci Fi field suffers from this -- &gt; it 's no different from the end of every fantasy movie you 've ever seen .
Harry Potter waves his magic wand and shoots a green light at the Dark Lord whose red light appears much stronger and is about to engulf poor Harry until , miracle of miracles he believes in himself or whatever .
In how many episodes does a magic beam of reverse field tacheons or whatever shoot out of the Enterprise to magically heal the planet or confuse the Borg or yadda yadda yadda ?
Super science = super natural = BS .
Please do n't quote back A Clarke back at me .
Good sci fi is dirty and broken and messy .
I used to say like Star Wars before it was ruined .
How about like Alien .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire Sci Fi field suffers from this --&gt; it's no different from the end of every fantasy movie you've ever seen.
Harry Potter waves his
magic wand and shoots a green light at the Dark Lord whose red light appears much stronger and is about to engulf poor Harry until,
miracle of miracles he believes in himself or whatever.
In how many episodes does a magic beam of reverse field tacheons or
 whatever shoot out of the Enterprise to magically heal the planet or confuse the Borg or yadda yadda yadda?
Super science = super natural = BS.
Please don't quote back A Clarke back at me.
Good sci fi is dirty and broken and messy.
I used to say like Star Wars before it was ruined.
How about like Alien.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737309</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Disgruntled Goats</author>
	<datestamp>1255428900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology.</p></div><p>Isn't science-fiction all about writing about made-up technology?  If it wasn't made-up wouldn't that make it no longer science-fiction but science-nonfiction?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology.Is n't science-fiction all about writing about made-up technology ?
If it was n't made-up would n't that make it no longer science-fiction but science-nonfiction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology.Isn't science-fiction all about writing about made-up technology?
If it wasn't made-up wouldn't that make it no longer science-fiction but science-nonfiction?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738845</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255435740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better - she was complaining about that compression coil for at least a few episodes BEFORE it finally blew, adding a touch of foreshadowing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better - she was complaining about that compression coil for at least a few episodes BEFORE it finally blew , adding a touch of foreshadowing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better - she was complaining about that compression coil for at least a few episodes BEFORE it finally blew, adding a touch of foreshadowing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>ciderVisor</author>
	<datestamp>1255432260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As Scott Adams says; "The Holodeck will be mankind's last great invention". I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out why we'd never ever want to leave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Scott Adams says ; " The Holodeck will be mankind 's last great invention " .
I 'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out why we 'd never ever want to leave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Scott Adams says; "The Holodeck will be mankind's last great invention".
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out why we'd never ever want to leave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737125</id>
	<title>Old SF Fan saying...</title>
	<author>ExRex</author>
	<datestamp>1255428360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the difference between fans and trekkies?
Fans read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the difference between fans and trekkies ?
Fans read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the difference between fans and trekkies?
Fans read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29744685</id>
	<title>"Real" shows are worse.</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1255534980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An aerodynamic starship flying around a planet making a whoosh sound?   Artifical gravity? Sections of laser beams traveling through the air?
<p> No problem. It's just a show. And (almost) anyone knows that it is BS. </p><p>
I see a much bigger problem with shows that claim to be real: Doctors, lawyers, cops, CEOs, some researchers, professors<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
- you only see how much BS it is, if you have some experience in that field. And people get their view on reality from this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An aerodynamic starship flying around a planet making a whoosh sound ?
Artifical gravity ?
Sections of laser beams traveling through the air ?
No problem .
It 's just a show .
And ( almost ) anyone knows that it is BS .
I see a much bigger problem with shows that claim to be real : Doctors , lawyers , cops , CEOs , some researchers , professors .. . - you only see how much BS it is , if you have some experience in that field .
And people get their view on reality from this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An aerodynamic starship flying around a planet making a whoosh sound?
Artifical gravity?
Sections of laser beams traveling through the air?
No problem.
It's just a show.
And (almost) anyone knows that it is BS.
I see a much bigger problem with shows that claim to be real: Doctors, lawyers, cops, CEOs, some researchers, professors ...
- you only see how much BS it is, if you have some experience in that field.
And people get their view on reality from this!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737913</id>
	<title>Re:speaking of glass houses...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is also why such a complaint is strange coming from Strauss. In *his* rebels-vs-evil-despots novel the rebels find a insta-cloning machine and in the last four pages of the book make enough copies of themselves to assure total victory. Brilliant use of science and storytelling there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is also why such a complaint is strange coming from Strauss .
In * his * rebels-vs-evil-despots novel the rebels find a insta-cloning machine and in the last four pages of the book make enough copies of themselves to assure total victory .
Brilliant use of science and storytelling there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is also why such a complaint is strange coming from Strauss.
In *his* rebels-vs-evil-despots novel the rebels find a insta-cloning machine and in the last four pages of the book make enough copies of themselves to assure total victory.
Brilliant use of science and storytelling there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736781</id>
	<title>thats cause</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>star wars is gay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>star wars is gay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>star wars is gay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737091</id>
	<title>The new series fixes that!</title>
	<author>Tired and Emotional</author>
	<datestamp>1255428240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have remodulated the phase colomators on the prion-antiprion exchange field surrounding the writer's conference room.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have remodulated the phase colomators on the prion-antiprion exchange field surrounding the writer 's conference room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have remodulated the phase colomators on the prion-antiprion exchange field surrounding the writer's conference room.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740173</id>
	<title>Re:Stross who?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255446180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading Shatner pretty much discredits any opinion of written SF you might have.</p><p>Given that Stross has won one Hugo and been nominated for five others, I think you might be underrating his opinion on SF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading Shatner pretty much discredits any opinion of written SF you might have.Given that Stross has won one Hugo and been nominated for five others , I think you might be underrating his opinion on SF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading Shatner pretty much discredits any opinion of written SF you might have.Given that Stross has won one Hugo and been nominated for five others, I think you might be underrating his opinion on SF.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738803</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255435500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's an often stated argument when the topic of star trek comes up.  But that isn't really supported by the show.  If the economy were truly post scarcity wouldn't everyone and his dog have a huge starship?  Or at least a few private citizens?  The only ones who do seem to be not part of the federation or it's an old piece of junk.  Furthermore, if capitalism were impossible with that kind of tech what about the ferengi?  Who tells people back on earth what jobs to do?  Sisko's parents have a restaurant, are we supposed to believe that there are people who actually want to be waiters to better themselves?  Is there a waiting list to get in?  How are people chosen to get to eat at the restaurant?  What about the wine made at picard's family winery?  Real wine, restaurant seating, etc.  These are all still scarce resources, they always will be, there has to be a means of distributing said scarce resources. If it isn't through the exchange of currency it must be through barter, which is just a less efficient way of trading, or through regulation.</p><p>Beyond the economics here are a lot of other problems with the way the federation is run. There seems to be little distinction between the politics of earth and starfleet command, which is clearly military.  The enterprise is routinely sent into situations that are likely to end in combat, yet only very rarely do they separate the saucer first.  With a thousand civilians on board this would be against international law even now, since it amounts to using human shields.  Sure, ya, it's a peaceful ship, with full shields, weapons targeted, on the edge of a DMZ between romulan and federation space?  Gimme a break.  I love star trek as much as the next guy, but it's unrealistic, and not even really desirable, on so many levels it's absurd to defend it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an often stated argument when the topic of star trek comes up .
But that is n't really supported by the show .
If the economy were truly post scarcity would n't everyone and his dog have a huge starship ?
Or at least a few private citizens ?
The only ones who do seem to be not part of the federation or it 's an old piece of junk .
Furthermore , if capitalism were impossible with that kind of tech what about the ferengi ?
Who tells people back on earth what jobs to do ?
Sisko 's parents have a restaurant , are we supposed to believe that there are people who actually want to be waiters to better themselves ?
Is there a waiting list to get in ?
How are people chosen to get to eat at the restaurant ?
What about the wine made at picard 's family winery ?
Real wine , restaurant seating , etc .
These are all still scarce resources , they always will be , there has to be a means of distributing said scarce resources .
If it is n't through the exchange of currency it must be through barter , which is just a less efficient way of trading , or through regulation.Beyond the economics here are a lot of other problems with the way the federation is run .
There seems to be little distinction between the politics of earth and starfleet command , which is clearly military .
The enterprise is routinely sent into situations that are likely to end in combat , yet only very rarely do they separate the saucer first .
With a thousand civilians on board this would be against international law even now , since it amounts to using human shields .
Sure , ya , it 's a peaceful ship , with full shields , weapons targeted , on the edge of a DMZ between romulan and federation space ?
Gim me a break .
I love star trek as much as the next guy , but it 's unrealistic , and not even really desirable , on so many levels it 's absurd to defend it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an often stated argument when the topic of star trek comes up.
But that isn't really supported by the show.
If the economy were truly post scarcity wouldn't everyone and his dog have a huge starship?
Or at least a few private citizens?
The only ones who do seem to be not part of the federation or it's an old piece of junk.
Furthermore, if capitalism were impossible with that kind of tech what about the ferengi?
Who tells people back on earth what jobs to do?
Sisko's parents have a restaurant, are we supposed to believe that there are people who actually want to be waiters to better themselves?
Is there a waiting list to get in?
How are people chosen to get to eat at the restaurant?
What about the wine made at picard's family winery?
Real wine, restaurant seating, etc.
These are all still scarce resources, they always will be, there has to be a means of distributing said scarce resources.
If it isn't through the exchange of currency it must be through barter, which is just a less efficient way of trading, or through regulation.Beyond the economics here are a lot of other problems with the way the federation is run.
There seems to be little distinction between the politics of earth and starfleet command, which is clearly military.
The enterprise is routinely sent into situations that are likely to end in combat, yet only very rarely do they separate the saucer first.
With a thousand civilians on board this would be against international law even now, since it amounts to using human shields.
Sure, ya, it's a peaceful ship, with full shields, weapons targeted, on the edge of a DMZ between romulan and federation space?
Gimme a break.
I love star trek as much as the next guy, but it's unrealistic, and not even really desirable, on so many levels it's absurd to defend it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738559</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, B5 "technobabble"? Hardly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255434180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, time travel was used precisely once, required an entire planet worth of power generation to implement, and spanned three episodes: one near the end of the first season, and a two-parter in the middle of the third season; henceforth, it was never used again.</p></div><p>The other key to the Babylon Squared/War Without End time travel is that it stays consistent. In Star Trek, characters are repeatedly traveling backwards in time to fix or prevent something. In B5, everything happened because they went back in time, and going back in time simply ensured that what happened did happen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , time travel was used precisely once , required an entire planet worth of power generation to implement , and spanned three episodes : one near the end of the first season , and a two-parter in the middle of the third season ; henceforth , it was never used again.The other key to the Babylon Squared/War Without End time travel is that it stays consistent .
In Star Trek , characters are repeatedly traveling backwards in time to fix or prevent something .
In B5 , everything happened because they went back in time , and going back in time simply ensured that what happened did happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, time travel was used precisely once, required an entire planet worth of power generation to implement, and spanned three episodes: one near the end of the first season, and a two-parter in the middle of the third season; henceforth, it was never used again.The other key to the Babylon Squared/War Without End time travel is that it stays consistent.
In Star Trek, characters are repeatedly traveling backwards in time to fix or prevent something.
In B5, everything happened because they went back in time, and going back in time simply ensured that what happened did happen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737501</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736869</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"he has long hated the Star Trek franchise for its relegation of technology as irrelevant to plot and character development"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... has he ever even seen Star Trek?  It relies on pure-tech plots more than any other science fiction series.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" he has long hated the Star Trek franchise for its relegation of technology as irrelevant to plot and character development " ... has he ever even seen Star Trek ?
It relies on pure-tech plots more than any other science fiction series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"he has long hated the Star Trek franchise for its relegation of technology as irrelevant to plot and character development" ... has he ever even seen Star Trek?
It relies on pure-tech plots more than any other science fiction series.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737947</id>
	<title>Re:Ok..</title>
	<author>IntlHarvester</author>
	<datestamp>1255431420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So.. is there anything to discuss here?</p></div><p>Hey remember that popular TV show from the 90s? The one that limped along for years with lousy ratings before it was finally cancelled? I have just discovered the edgy opinion that it wasn't very good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So.. is there anything to discuss here ? Hey remember that popular TV show from the 90s ?
The one that limped along for years with lousy ratings before it was finally cancelled ?
I have just discovered the edgy opinion that it was n't very good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So.. is there anything to discuss here?Hey remember that popular TV show from the 90s?
The one that limped along for years with lousy ratings before it was finally cancelled?
I have just discovered the edgy opinion that it wasn't very good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736723</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673</id>
	<title>Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255426860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think <a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/10/13/teching-the-tech/" title="scalzi.com">Scalzi was spot on</a> [scalzi.com] in addressing this.  I thought his second point was the best containing a couple great quotes - <i>"At this point in my life (and, really, for the last quarter century at least), I simply make the assumption that film and television science fiction is going to hump the bunk on the 'plausible extrapolation' aspect of their science, and factor that in before I start watching."</i> and <i>"But, yes, when you admit that Star Trek has as much to do with plausibly extrapolated science as The A-Team has to do with a realistic look at the lives of military veterans, life gets easier. "</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Scalzi was spot on [ scalzi.com ] in addressing this .
I thought his second point was the best containing a couple great quotes - " At this point in my life ( and , really , for the last quarter century at least ) , I simply make the assumption that film and television science fiction is going to hump the bunk on the 'plausible extrapolation ' aspect of their science , and factor that in before I start watching .
" and " But , yes , when you admit that Star Trek has as much to do with plausibly extrapolated science as The A-Team has to do with a realistic look at the lives of military veterans , life gets easier .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Scalzi was spot on [scalzi.com] in addressing this.
I thought his second point was the best containing a couple great quotes - "At this point in my life (and, really, for the last quarter century at least), I simply make the assumption that film and television science fiction is going to hump the bunk on the 'plausible extrapolation' aspect of their science, and factor that in before I start watching.
" and "But, yes, when you admit that Star Trek has as much to do with plausibly extrapolated science as The A-Team has to do with a realistic look at the lives of military veterans, life gets easier.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737817</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255430940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology.  It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.</p></div><p>The thing that annoyed me most about STNG was the ships councilor as part of the bridge crew.  Especially when you consider what high standards starfleet academy supposedly had.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek , and it was most common in the Next Generation , was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology .
It has no value to a plot ; actually it 's the opposite of plot , if there is such a thing.The thing that annoyed me most about STNG was the ships councilor as part of the bridge crew .
Especially when you consider what high standards starfleet academy supposedly had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology.
It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.The thing that annoyed me most about STNG was the ships councilor as part of the bridge crew.
Especially when you consider what high standards starfleet academy supposedly had.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737347</id>
	<title>Stross who?</title>
	<author>taskiss</author>
	<datestamp>1255429020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I consider myself a fan of science fiction and I've probably seen every episode of ST, STNG, and Enterprise, yet I've only read one book by Stross, "The Jennifer Morgue".  I wouldn't walk across the road to speak with him about his opinion on Science Fiction. If Roddenberry were still alive, I'd go considerably further.</p><p>Heck, I've read more Shatner than Stross!</p><p>The guy is either full of himself or this story was submitted by kdawson...</p><p>oh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider myself a fan of science fiction and I 've probably seen every episode of ST , STNG , and Enterprise , yet I 've only read one book by Stross , " The Jennifer Morgue " .
I would n't walk across the road to speak with him about his opinion on Science Fiction .
If Roddenberry were still alive , I 'd go considerably further.Heck , I 've read more Shatner than Stross ! The guy is either full of himself or this story was submitted by kdawson...oh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider myself a fan of science fiction and I've probably seen every episode of ST, STNG, and Enterprise, yet I've only read one book by Stross, "The Jennifer Morgue".
I wouldn't walk across the road to speak with him about his opinion on Science Fiction.
If Roddenberry were still alive, I'd go considerably further.Heck, I've read more Shatner than Stross!The guy is either full of himself or this story was submitted by kdawson...oh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738621</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1255434540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Still no transporter, warp drive, phasers, human like androids, or even a Tricorder yet.</p></div><p>But as <a href="http://code.google.com/p/moonblink/wiki/Tricorder" title="google.com">close</a> [google.com] as you might get</p><p>Don't you think modern smartphones (with wifi) became a kind of <a href="http://images.google.com/images?q=PADD" title="google.com"> PADD</a> [google.com] already? Whats missing for a tricorder? More sensors? Not included as most people don't need scientific equipment..... But take an existing sensor, hack it up to a bluetooth interface, put that into a saltshaker and wave around with it while reading the readouts on your cellphone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still no transporter , warp drive , phasers , human like androids , or even a Tricorder yet.But as close [ google.com ] as you might getDo n't you think modern smartphones ( with wifi ) became a kind of PADD [ google.com ] already ?
Whats missing for a tricorder ?
More sensors ?
Not included as most people do n't need scientific equipment..... But take an existing sensor , hack it up to a bluetooth interface , put that into a saltshaker and wave around with it while reading the readouts on your cellphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still no transporter, warp drive, phasers, human like androids, or even a Tricorder yet.But as close [google.com] as you might getDon't you think modern smartphones (with wifi) became a kind of  PADD [google.com] already?
Whats missing for a tricorder?
More sensors?
Not included as most people don't need scientific equipment..... But take an existing sensor, hack it up to a bluetooth interface, put that into a saltshaker and wave around with it while reading the readouts on your cellphone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737783</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255430820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>False.<br>There is business, it's been shown many times. There isn't money becasue anyone can get what they want. You do what you want to do, within common bounds.</p><p>It has to be that way to be neutral when presenting the moral.</p><p>Money is tightly wound in our culture, so it seems odd that someone would do something just becasue they wanted to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>False.There is business , it 's been shown many times .
There is n't money becasue anyone can get what they want .
You do what you want to do , within common bounds.It has to be that way to be neutral when presenting the moral.Money is tightly wound in our culture , so it seems odd that someone would do something just becasue they wanted to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>False.There is business, it's been shown many times.
There isn't money becasue anyone can get what they want.
You do what you want to do, within common bounds.It has to be that way to be neutral when presenting the moral.Money is tightly wound in our culture, so it seems odd that someone would do something just becasue they wanted to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742477</id>
	<title>Re:He's right, but so what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, that's what 99\% of all people do, that's why all the ships are crewed by overachievers and nerds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , that 's what 99 \ % of all people do , that 's why all the ships are crewed by overachievers and nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, that's what 99\% of all people do, that's why all the ships are crewed by overachievers and nerds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738395</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, B5 "technobabble"? Hardly...</title>
	<author>Moridineas</author>
	<datestamp>1255433340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately it was also very low on the "good dialog" meter. Never understood how people could comment favorably on the character dialog on B5.</p><p>Don't get me wrong--I loved the show (at least seasons 2-4), but I found the dialog very wince-inducing in many cases. One of my pet peeves...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately it was also very low on the " good dialog " meter .
Never understood how people could comment favorably on the character dialog on B5.Do n't get me wrong--I loved the show ( at least seasons 2-4 ) , but I found the dialog very wince-inducing in many cases .
One of my pet peeves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately it was also very low on the "good dialog" meter.
Never understood how people could comment favorably on the character dialog on B5.Don't get me wrong--I loved the show (at least seasons 2-4), but I found the dialog very wince-inducing in many cases.
One of my pet peeves...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740131</id>
	<title>Re:Given the enduring popularity of Star Trek, et.</title>
	<author>ucblockhead</author>
	<datestamp>1255445820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's people like you who make TV Science Fiction unintellectual pap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's people like you who make TV Science Fiction unintellectual pap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's people like you who make TV Science Fiction unintellectual pap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737769</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, B5 "technobabble"? Hardly...</title>
	<author>bdh</author>
	<datestamp>1255430760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC, when jms started the show, he ran everything he could past the JPL (who were big fans) to get their take on things. Outside of the jump gates, which were a necessary plot point, everything had at least *some* grounding in real world science, however tenuous. The jump gates had some gag line about being "(C) Minbari/Centauri Consortium", and they deliberately didn't explain how they worked, so as to prevent humans from making cheap knockoffs.</p><p>B5 itself actually looked like some of the proposed space stations, using centripetal force for gravity, etc. The handheld weapons were PPGs rather than slug throwers, because handguns in space have all sorts of problems.</p><p>There was obviously a lot of "this is beyond you" technology (Minbari, Vorlon, Shadow, <b>and</b> Centauri), but the story was never about the tech. It was about the politics that used the tech.</p><p>In contrast, Star Trek just made up tech as required, and promptly forgot about it at episode's end. Need to transport Picard to another galaxy? Just sprinkle some plot dust over the transporter, and hey, he can transport 57.2 light years safely. It's not like the Federation would ever bother to research that for future use or anything. In one episode, Barcley became super smart and actually dragged the Enterprise (at something like warp 56) to a planet that had given him the brainpower to upgrade the Enterprise to the point that they'd come visit. Why aren't all starships doing warp 56 afterwards? No technical or military use?</p><p>In the first season of B5, they came up with an alien medical device that could be used to cure or kill. Surprisingly, in the second season, they actually remembered it, and used it to restore a character (at cost to two other characters). It was deemed too dangerous to use. Lo and behold, in season four, it showed up again, and this time it <b>did</b> kill someone. Can anyone honestly see that happening in Trek?</p><p>My problem with Trek was that the tech was nothing but a plot crutch. Engineers could research, develop, and implement a generation's worth of technology, in a day, on board ship, in order to solve a crisis. And it would promptly be forgotten. How many episodes would be resolved if they just used the magic wand they created six episodes back? Too many. So, they'd handwave it away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC , when jms started the show , he ran everything he could past the JPL ( who were big fans ) to get their take on things .
Outside of the jump gates , which were a necessary plot point , everything had at least * some * grounding in real world science , however tenuous .
The jump gates had some gag line about being " ( C ) Minbari/Centauri Consortium " , and they deliberately did n't explain how they worked , so as to prevent humans from making cheap knockoffs.B5 itself actually looked like some of the proposed space stations , using centripetal force for gravity , etc .
The handheld weapons were PPGs rather than slug throwers , because handguns in space have all sorts of problems.There was obviously a lot of " this is beyond you " technology ( Minbari , Vorlon , Shadow , and Centauri ) , but the story was never about the tech .
It was about the politics that used the tech.In contrast , Star Trek just made up tech as required , and promptly forgot about it at episode 's end .
Need to transport Picard to another galaxy ?
Just sprinkle some plot dust over the transporter , and hey , he can transport 57.2 light years safely .
It 's not like the Federation would ever bother to research that for future use or anything .
In one episode , Barcley became super smart and actually dragged the Enterprise ( at something like warp 56 ) to a planet that had given him the brainpower to upgrade the Enterprise to the point that they 'd come visit .
Why are n't all starships doing warp 56 afterwards ?
No technical or military use ? In the first season of B5 , they came up with an alien medical device that could be used to cure or kill .
Surprisingly , in the second season , they actually remembered it , and used it to restore a character ( at cost to two other characters ) .
It was deemed too dangerous to use .
Lo and behold , in season four , it showed up again , and this time it did kill someone .
Can anyone honestly see that happening in Trek ? My problem with Trek was that the tech was nothing but a plot crutch .
Engineers could research , develop , and implement a generation 's worth of technology , in a day , on board ship , in order to solve a crisis .
And it would promptly be forgotten .
How many episodes would be resolved if they just used the magic wand they created six episodes back ?
Too many .
So , they 'd handwave it away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC, when jms started the show, he ran everything he could past the JPL (who were big fans) to get their take on things.
Outside of the jump gates, which were a necessary plot point, everything had at least *some* grounding in real world science, however tenuous.
The jump gates had some gag line about being "(C) Minbari/Centauri Consortium", and they deliberately didn't explain how they worked, so as to prevent humans from making cheap knockoffs.B5 itself actually looked like some of the proposed space stations, using centripetal force for gravity, etc.
The handheld weapons were PPGs rather than slug throwers, because handguns in space have all sorts of problems.There was obviously a lot of "this is beyond you" technology (Minbari, Vorlon, Shadow, and Centauri), but the story was never about the tech.
It was about the politics that used the tech.In contrast, Star Trek just made up tech as required, and promptly forgot about it at episode's end.
Need to transport Picard to another galaxy?
Just sprinkle some plot dust over the transporter, and hey, he can transport 57.2 light years safely.
It's not like the Federation would ever bother to research that for future use or anything.
In one episode, Barcley became super smart and actually dragged the Enterprise (at something like warp 56) to a planet that had given him the brainpower to upgrade the Enterprise to the point that they'd come visit.
Why aren't all starships doing warp 56 afterwards?
No technical or military use?In the first season of B5, they came up with an alien medical device that could be used to cure or kill.
Surprisingly, in the second season, they actually remembered it, and used it to restore a character (at cost to two other characters).
It was deemed too dangerous to use.
Lo and behold, in season four, it showed up again, and this time it did kill someone.
Can anyone honestly see that happening in Trek?My problem with Trek was that the tech was nothing but a plot crutch.
Engineers could research, develop, and implement a generation's worth of technology, in a day, on board ship, in order to solve a crisis.
And it would promptly be forgotten.
How many episodes would be resolved if they just used the magic wand they created six episodes back?
Too many.
So, they'd handwave it away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29755217</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Idaho</author>
	<datestamp>1255609500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As Scott Adams says; "The Holodeck will be mankind's last great invention". I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out why we'd never ever want to leave.</p></div></blockquote><p>David Foster Wallace worked out this theme (among others) in great detail - 1200 pages - in his novel "Infinite Jest".</p><p>(Unfortunately, and ironically perhaps, he committed suicide sometime last year.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Scott Adams says ; " The Holodeck will be mankind 's last great invention " .
I 'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out why we 'd never ever want to leave.David Foster Wallace worked out this theme ( among others ) in great detail - 1200 pages - in his novel " Infinite Jest " .
( Unfortunately , and ironically perhaps , he committed suicide sometime last year .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Scott Adams says; "The Holodeck will be mankind's last great invention".
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out why we'd never ever want to leave.David Foster Wallace worked out this theme (among others) in great detail - 1200 pages - in his novel "Infinite Jest".
(Unfortunately, and ironically perhaps, he committed suicide sometime last year.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740201</id>
	<title>Make it real</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1255446360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever noticed how fantasies are so much more exciting <i>when they are possible</i>? I think that that's where he's coming from. There are enough TV shows about hostile narcissist super-men who use their "magic" to zap the bad guys, all the while licking their lips. Make it real -- not just something to titillate the crocodile brain. We've got pr0n for that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever noticed how fantasies are so much more exciting when they are possible ?
I think that that 's where he 's coming from .
There are enough TV shows about hostile narcissist super-men who use their " magic " to zap the bad guys , all the while licking their lips .
Make it real -- not just something to titillate the crocodile brain .
We 've got pr0n for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever noticed how fantasies are so much more exciting when they are possible?
I think that that's where he's coming from.
There are enough TV shows about hostile narcissist super-men who use their "magic" to zap the bad guys, all the while licking their lips.
Make it real -- not just something to titillate the crocodile brain.
We've got pr0n for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738763</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>kikito</author>
	<datestamp>1255435260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Iphone in particular, and smartphones in general, are getting more and more similar to tricorders - think augmented reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Iphone in particular , and smartphones in general , are getting more and more similar to tricorders - think augmented reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Iphone in particular, and smartphones in general, are getting more and more similar to tricorders - think augmented reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736783</id>
	<title>Millions of fans disagree</title>
	<author>popo</author>
	<datestamp>1255427220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ie:  Millions of people think Stross is wrong.</p><p>There's not much more to say on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ie : Millions of people think Stross is wrong.There 's not much more to say on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ie:  Millions of people think Stross is wrong.There's not much more to say on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737859</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, yeah</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255431120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually Firefly is post civil war in space.</p><p>While ST was described as a western in space in order to sell it, it doesn't really follow the western tv style of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Firefly is post civil war in space.While ST was described as a western in space in order to sell it , it does n't really follow the western tv style of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Firefly is post civil war in space.While ST was described as a western in space in order to sell it, it doesn't really follow the western tv style of the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738021</id>
	<title>B5 and ST:TNG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The biggest weakness of the entire genre is this: the protagonists don't tell us anything interesting about the human condition under science fictional circumstances.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I cannot believe this person actually watched Babylon 5.  The science fiction circumstances are how the protagonists learn how little they are in the big scheme of things, and then decide to not be little.  And telepaths?!  That's not generic tech.  The remoteness and non-self-sufficiency when they break from Earth?  Ok, I guess you can do that in an 18th century plot, but it would be really boring.</p><p>B5 is legit science fiction.</p><p>On Star Trek, the "tech" crap rings true; ST:TNG was full of lame filler.  <em>But</em> there were some techs that they did not genericize with the word "tech".  They had FTL (warp drive) and AI (Data) and those things (mainly FTL) were core to many plots.  Those plots wouldn't work in 18th century setting.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest weakness of the entire genre is this : the protagonists do n't tell us anything interesting about the human condition under science fictional circumstances .
I can not believe this person actually watched Babylon 5 .
The science fiction circumstances are how the protagonists learn how little they are in the big scheme of things , and then decide to not be little .
And telepaths ? !
That 's not generic tech .
The remoteness and non-self-sufficiency when they break from Earth ?
Ok , I guess you can do that in an 18th century plot , but it would be really boring.B5 is legit science fiction.On Star Trek , the " tech " crap rings true ; ST : TNG was full of lame filler .
But there were some techs that they did not genericize with the word " tech " .
They had FTL ( warp drive ) and AI ( Data ) and those things ( mainly FTL ) were core to many plots .
Those plots would n't work in 18th century setting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest weakness of the entire genre is this: the protagonists don't tell us anything interesting about the human condition under science fictional circumstances.
I cannot believe this person actually watched Babylon 5.
The science fiction circumstances are how the protagonists learn how little they are in the big scheme of things, and then decide to not be little.
And telepaths?!
That's not generic tech.
The remoteness and non-self-sufficiency when they break from Earth?
Ok, I guess you can do that in an 18th century plot, but it would be really boring.B5 is legit science fiction.On Star Trek, the "tech" crap rings true; ST:TNG was full of lame filler.
But there were some techs that they did not genericize with the word "tech".
They had FTL (warp drive) and AI (Data) and those things (mainly FTL) were core to many plots.
Those plots wouldn't work in 18th century setting.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738879</id>
	<title>Re:Given the enduring popularity of Star Trek, et.</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1255435980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I want education, I'll watch Science/Discovery/History</p> </div><p>Better avoid American shows. Just the other day I watched "Lock N' Load with R. Lee Ermey" where host happily omitted Pinfire mechanism invented by French Gunsmith, instead declaring American inventors as fathers of modern shotguns/ammunition. Rewriting history much, eh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I want education , I 'll watch Science/Discovery/History Better avoid American shows .
Just the other day I watched " Lock N ' Load with R. Lee Ermey " where host happily omitted Pinfire mechanism invented by French Gunsmith , instead declaring American inventors as fathers of modern shotguns/ammunition .
Rewriting history much , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I want education, I'll watch Science/Discovery/History Better avoid American shows.
Just the other day I watched "Lock N' Load with R. Lee Ermey" where host happily omitted Pinfire mechanism invented by French Gunsmith, instead declaring American inventors as fathers of modern shotguns/ammunition.
Rewriting history much, eh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737403</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1255429260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...why exactly? How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly? It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.</p></div><p>I call it "If it's enjoyable, I'll overlook it. If it's not enjoyable, I'll nitpick it out of pique." Plot hole example: in Empire Strikes Back, the Faclon's hyperdrive was broken when it tried to leave Hoth. The fight with the Star Destroyers, the TIE's, the jaunt in the asteroid belt, all was in the Hoth system. Hell, the asteroid belt might have been a planetary ring around Hoth. The point is, by the time they did the drift away maneuver and the Imperials left, they were still in the Hoth system. They then set course for Bespin. Given that the hyperdrive did not work, either Bespin is in the same system as Hoth or someone made a booboo. The Falcon ends up travelling to a new system at sublight speed which should still take a few centuries. Do we care about that oversight? Not really cuz the movie was still quite enjoyable. We don't complain when we see the stormtrooper hit his head on the door in A New Hope.</p><p>Now if we look at the recent Trek movie, it sucked great donkey cock. It simply wasn't enjoyable. So we nitpick. Badguy is upset Spock didn't save his planet and goes back in time. Rather than warning the planet hundreds of years early that the evacuation should begin, he blows up Vulcan. But now knowing Romulus is a goner, they could begin the evacuation now and thus prevent the situation from arising that Nero needs to go back in time. But even if we say that this is now fixed in the timeline and nothing can change, why was Spock sitting pretty on the ice planet instead of walking over to the outpost months ago and sending word to Starfleet that a crazy Romulan was going to blow shit up.</p><p>That script sucked from stem to stern. The actors were pleasant and might have been able to make a decent movie with a decent script. The camera man was obviously suffering from some form of palsy and should have been given a medical retirement and replaced with someone who could hold the fucking thing steady!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...why exactly ?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly ?
It 's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.I call it " If it 's enjoyable , I 'll overlook it .
If it 's not enjoyable , I 'll nitpick it out of pique .
" Plot hole example : in Empire Strikes Back , the Faclon 's hyperdrive was broken when it tried to leave Hoth .
The fight with the Star Destroyers , the TIE 's , the jaunt in the asteroid belt , all was in the Hoth system .
Hell , the asteroid belt might have been a planetary ring around Hoth .
The point is , by the time they did the drift away maneuver and the Imperials left , they were still in the Hoth system .
They then set course for Bespin .
Given that the hyperdrive did not work , either Bespin is in the same system as Hoth or someone made a booboo .
The Falcon ends up travelling to a new system at sublight speed which should still take a few centuries .
Do we care about that oversight ?
Not really cuz the movie was still quite enjoyable .
We do n't complain when we see the stormtrooper hit his head on the door in A New Hope.Now if we look at the recent Trek movie , it sucked great donkey cock .
It simply was n't enjoyable .
So we nitpick .
Badguy is upset Spock did n't save his planet and goes back in time .
Rather than warning the planet hundreds of years early that the evacuation should begin , he blows up Vulcan .
But now knowing Romulus is a goner , they could begin the evacuation now and thus prevent the situation from arising that Nero needs to go back in time .
But even if we say that this is now fixed in the timeline and nothing can change , why was Spock sitting pretty on the ice planet instead of walking over to the outpost months ago and sending word to Starfleet that a crazy Romulan was going to blow shit up.That script sucked from stem to stern .
The actors were pleasant and might have been able to make a decent movie with a decent script .
The camera man was obviously suffering from some form of palsy and should have been given a medical retirement and replaced with someone who could hold the fucking thing steady !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...why exactly?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly?
It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.I call it "If it's enjoyable, I'll overlook it.
If it's not enjoyable, I'll nitpick it out of pique.
" Plot hole example: in Empire Strikes Back, the Faclon's hyperdrive was broken when it tried to leave Hoth.
The fight with the Star Destroyers, the TIE's, the jaunt in the asteroid belt, all was in the Hoth system.
Hell, the asteroid belt might have been a planetary ring around Hoth.
The point is, by the time they did the drift away maneuver and the Imperials left, they were still in the Hoth system.
They then set course for Bespin.
Given that the hyperdrive did not work, either Bespin is in the same system as Hoth or someone made a booboo.
The Falcon ends up travelling to a new system at sublight speed which should still take a few centuries.
Do we care about that oversight?
Not really cuz the movie was still quite enjoyable.
We don't complain when we see the stormtrooper hit his head on the door in A New Hope.Now if we look at the recent Trek movie, it sucked great donkey cock.
It simply wasn't enjoyable.
So we nitpick.
Badguy is upset Spock didn't save his planet and goes back in time.
Rather than warning the planet hundreds of years early that the evacuation should begin, he blows up Vulcan.
But now knowing Romulus is a goner, they could begin the evacuation now and thus prevent the situation from arising that Nero needs to go back in time.
But even if we say that this is now fixed in the timeline and nothing can change, why was Spock sitting pretty on the ice planet instead of walking over to the outpost months ago and sending word to Starfleet that a crazy Romulan was going to blow shit up.That script sucked from stem to stern.
The actors were pleasant and might have been able to make a decent movie with a decent script.
The camera man was obviously suffering from some form of palsy and should have been given a medical retirement and replaced with someone who could hold the fucking thing steady!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29750345</id>
	<title>The Oddesy</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1255516560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somewhere in the middle of TNG, Captain Picard makes quite a few references to Homer.  Anyway, at that point the legitimacy of their technology became less important to me.  I see TNG as an imaginative foray into what lies throughout the galaxy.  We all know that Homer's gods didn't exist, yet his works are still considered solid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhere in the middle of TNG , Captain Picard makes quite a few references to Homer .
Anyway , at that point the legitimacy of their technology became less important to me .
I see TNG as an imaginative foray into what lies throughout the galaxy .
We all know that Homer 's gods did n't exist , yet his works are still considered solid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhere in the middle of TNG, Captain Picard makes quite a few references to Homer.
Anyway, at that point the legitimacy of their technology became less important to me.
I see TNG as an imaginative foray into what lies throughout the galaxy.
We all know that Homer's gods didn't exist, yet his works are still considered solid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738993</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255436820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>OK, so in that environment, a capitalistic society is nearly impossible. There's nothing to buy or sell. As replicators themselves are replicated, anything of "value" can be had for virtually nothing. Acquisition, per se, now means nothing. Experiences themselves are similarly cheap, or free. If your neighbors complain, you leave and join the anarcho-syndicalist collective colony on Kaka 4. Where does capitalism fit in with this technology?</i> </p><p>Simply, you are ignorant and have confused business with capitalism.  All societies engage in business.  All societies have politics and the use of force - even hippie colonies.  The essense of capitalism is an economic system noted for the lack of force (as in "give me all your money or else).  It doesn't matter how cheap something gets.  Raw materials will still have a value.  Real estate would be limited.  Energy may be cheap but I doubt it is limitless.  TNG sold you a fiction - not everyone had a starship to captain.  Not everyone grew up on a secluded vineyard and just beamed to wherever the hell they wanted to visit.</p><p>The first lesson in economics is always this: needs are unlimited.  There is also no distinction between needs and desires.  From an economic perspective, they are same (even if different politically, socially, personally).  Needs are never satisfied and no economic system can change this as it is fundamental to the nature of economics itself.  NOW, it may be you don't want everyone running around halfcocked with a replicator.  So maybe the technologies are state controlled or socialist.  Fine, whatever, you're a prisoner of Jean Claude Picard and his leather-bound vision of the future.  It is not freedom and it is not limitless resources and you are never without your needs, Ensign Pissant (assuming you even passed the Academy entrance exam).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so in that environment , a capitalistic society is nearly impossible .
There 's nothing to buy or sell .
As replicators themselves are replicated , anything of " value " can be had for virtually nothing .
Acquisition , per se , now means nothing .
Experiences themselves are similarly cheap , or free .
If your neighbors complain , you leave and join the anarcho-syndicalist collective colony on Kaka 4 .
Where does capitalism fit in with this technology ?
Simply , you are ignorant and have confused business with capitalism .
All societies engage in business .
All societies have politics and the use of force - even hippie colonies .
The essense of capitalism is an economic system noted for the lack of force ( as in " give me all your money or else ) .
It does n't matter how cheap something gets .
Raw materials will still have a value .
Real estate would be limited .
Energy may be cheap but I doubt it is limitless .
TNG sold you a fiction - not everyone had a starship to captain .
Not everyone grew up on a secluded vineyard and just beamed to wherever the hell they wanted to visit.The first lesson in economics is always this : needs are unlimited .
There is also no distinction between needs and desires .
From an economic perspective , they are same ( even if different politically , socially , personally ) .
Needs are never satisfied and no economic system can change this as it is fundamental to the nature of economics itself .
NOW , it may be you do n't want everyone running around halfcocked with a replicator .
So maybe the technologies are state controlled or socialist .
Fine , whatever , you 're a prisoner of Jean Claude Picard and his leather-bound vision of the future .
It is not freedom and it is not limitless resources and you are never without your needs , Ensign Pissant ( assuming you even passed the Academy entrance exam ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so in that environment, a capitalistic society is nearly impossible.
There's nothing to buy or sell.
As replicators themselves are replicated, anything of "value" can be had for virtually nothing.
Acquisition, per se, now means nothing.
Experiences themselves are similarly cheap, or free.
If your neighbors complain, you leave and join the anarcho-syndicalist collective colony on Kaka 4.
Where does capitalism fit in with this technology?
Simply, you are ignorant and have confused business with capitalism.
All societies engage in business.
All societies have politics and the use of force - even hippie colonies.
The essense of capitalism is an economic system noted for the lack of force (as in "give me all your money or else).
It doesn't matter how cheap something gets.
Raw materials will still have a value.
Real estate would be limited.
Energy may be cheap but I doubt it is limitless.
TNG sold you a fiction - not everyone had a starship to captain.
Not everyone grew up on a secluded vineyard and just beamed to wherever the hell they wanted to visit.The first lesson in economics is always this: needs are unlimited.
There is also no distinction between needs and desires.
From an economic perspective, they are same (even if different politically, socially, personally).
Needs are never satisfied and no economic system can change this as it is fundamental to the nature of economics itself.
NOW, it may be you don't want everyone running around halfcocked with a replicator.
So maybe the technologies are state controlled or socialist.
Fine, whatever, you're a prisoner of Jean Claude Picard and his leather-bound vision of the future.
It is not freedom and it is not limitless resources and you are never without your needs, Ensign Pissant (assuming you even passed the Academy entrance exam).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737643</id>
	<title>Meh...</title>
	<author>History's Coming To</author>
	<datestamp>1255430280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's just being a Hard Science Fiction vs SciFi vs Fantasy snob.  I happen to agree with him frankly, doesn't stop you enjoying other things, but reversing the polarity of the neutron field is a bit far from the logically explained and well researched cutting-edge-nearly-science for purists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's just being a Hard Science Fiction vs SciFi vs Fantasy snob .
I happen to agree with him frankly , does n't stop you enjoying other things , but reversing the polarity of the neutron field is a bit far from the logically explained and well researched cutting-edge-nearly-science for purists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's just being a Hard Science Fiction vs SciFi vs Fantasy snob.
I happen to agree with him frankly, doesn't stop you enjoying other things, but reversing the polarity of the neutron field is a bit far from the logically explained and well researched cutting-edge-nearly-science for purists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738915</id>
	<title>Re:Star Trek, Asimov</title>
	<author>kikito</author>
	<datestamp>1255436220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you finish with his Sci-fi, you might want to have a look at his "Pure Science"-books. He wrote plenty of divulgatory science books, very interesting and fun to read.</p><p>I don't recommend you his history books... even if he's still my favourite, on history he didn't shine as much, in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you finish with his Sci-fi , you might want to have a look at his " Pure Science " -books .
He wrote plenty of divulgatory science books , very interesting and fun to read.I do n't recommend you his history books... even if he 's still my favourite , on history he did n't shine as much , in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you finish with his Sci-fi, you might want to have a look at his "Pure Science"-books.
He wrote plenty of divulgatory science books, very interesting and fun to read.I don't recommend you his history books... even if he's still my favourite, on history he didn't shine as much, in my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738591</id>
	<title>Ron Moore!!!!?!!</title>
	<author>Touvan</author>
	<datestamp>1255434420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well Ron Moore inserts "cause God said so" into his scripts when it's convenient, so who is he to talk!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Ron Moore inserts " cause God said so " into his scripts when it 's convenient , so who is he to talk !
: -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Ron Moore inserts "cause God said so" into his scripts when it's convenient, so who is he to talk!
:-P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739005</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>BodhiCat</author>
	<datestamp>1255436880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, there is Enterprise.  ha ha ha</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is Enterprise .
ha ha ha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there is Enterprise.
ha ha ha</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739709</id>
	<title>Old.. Boring.. News.</title>
	<author>sudog</author>
	<datestamp>1255442340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charles Stross just figured out what every Trekker has known for a decade or more. The writers depend on someone else to fill in the science-y sounding gaps.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and then goes on to write a huge diatribe about how much better his writing is.</p><p>I've read his writing. For all the nerd-dropping[1] I couldn't get through more than 3/4 of it before I had to put it down in disgust.</p><p>His rip-off novel Saturn's Children (he should've just called it Friday 2) was readable only because it was borderline erotica.</p><p>You don't tear down an infinitely more successful (and therefore relevant)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Universe.. of scifi.. by comparing it to your own works without inviting a legion of people to mock you endlessly for all the stupid little mistakes and problems in your own writing.</p><p>And Star Trek isn't *SCIENCE FICTION* you turd. It's scifi. The entire genre is borderline space opera--and this is what you're claiming you dislike! So what?</p><p>Space Opera<br>SciFi            ] CS stuff is<br>Science Fiction  ] right in between here.<br>Hard Science Fiction</p><p>His "science" isn't science either. There's just as much hand-wavy fucking CRAP in the Atrocity Archives as any ST:TNG episode with Q plagued with techno-babble in the whole friggin' series.</p><p>If you're going to so completely rip someone else off (*cough* Lovecraft) that your work is no longer a work of original fiction, but a derivative--and a poor one at that--don't sit back and congratulate yourself on how smart and clever you are.</p><p>You want a bad-ass Lovecraftian book with an interesting spin on it? Resume with Monsters. There's a mostly-original piece that doesn't constantly congratulate itself on how COOL it is, on how much the author GETS IT, on how well the author is HIP AND TRENDY. There's an amusing story with an interesting core of an idea!</p><p>Nothing HAPPENS in CS's Atrocity Archives. The only reason to read it, by the halfway point, is to find out how the author ENDS it.</p><p>[1] Nerd-dropping is the constant dropping of nerdy concepts and marketing-friendly terms that will rapidly make your work irrelevant once people get over the idea that you've managed to--poorly--fuse geekery and Lovecraft into a single work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charles Stross just figured out what every Trekker has known for a decade or more .
The writers depend on someone else to fill in the science-y sounding gaps .
... and then goes on to write a huge diatribe about how much better his writing is.I 've read his writing .
For all the nerd-dropping [ 1 ] I could n't get through more than 3/4 of it before I had to put it down in disgust.His rip-off novel Saturn 's Children ( he should 've just called it Friday 2 ) was readable only because it was borderline erotica.You do n't tear down an infinitely more successful ( and therefore relevant ) .. Universe.. of scifi.. by comparing it to your own works without inviting a legion of people to mock you endlessly for all the stupid little mistakes and problems in your own writing.And Star Trek is n't * SCIENCE FICTION * you turd .
It 's scifi .
The entire genre is borderline space opera--and this is what you 're claiming you dislike !
So what ? Space OperaSciFi ] CS stuff isScience Fiction ] right in between here.Hard Science FictionHis " science " is n't science either .
There 's just as much hand-wavy fucking CRAP in the Atrocity Archives as any ST : TNG episode with Q plagued with techno-babble in the whole friggin ' series.If you 're going to so completely rip someone else off ( * cough * Lovecraft ) that your work is no longer a work of original fiction , but a derivative--and a poor one at that--do n't sit back and congratulate yourself on how smart and clever you are.You want a bad-ass Lovecraftian book with an interesting spin on it ?
Resume with Monsters .
There 's a mostly-original piece that does n't constantly congratulate itself on how COOL it is , on how much the author GETS IT , on how well the author is HIP AND TRENDY .
There 's an amusing story with an interesting core of an idea ! Nothing HAPPENS in CS 's Atrocity Archives .
The only reason to read it , by the halfway point , is to find out how the author ENDS it .
[ 1 ] Nerd-dropping is the constant dropping of nerdy concepts and marketing-friendly terms that will rapidly make your work irrelevant once people get over the idea that you 've managed to--poorly--fuse geekery and Lovecraft into a single work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charles Stross just figured out what every Trekker has known for a decade or more.
The writers depend on someone else to fill in the science-y sounding gaps.
... and then goes on to write a huge diatribe about how much better his writing is.I've read his writing.
For all the nerd-dropping[1] I couldn't get through more than 3/4 of it before I had to put it down in disgust.His rip-off novel Saturn's Children (he should've just called it Friday 2) was readable only because it was borderline erotica.You don't tear down an infinitely more successful (and therefore relevant) .. Universe.. of scifi.. by comparing it to your own works without inviting a legion of people to mock you endlessly for all the stupid little mistakes and problems in your own writing.And Star Trek isn't *SCIENCE FICTION* you turd.
It's scifi.
The entire genre is borderline space opera--and this is what you're claiming you dislike!
So what?Space OperaSciFi            ] CS stuff isScience Fiction  ] right in between here.Hard Science FictionHis "science" isn't science either.
There's just as much hand-wavy fucking CRAP in the Atrocity Archives as any ST:TNG episode with Q plagued with techno-babble in the whole friggin' series.If you're going to so completely rip someone else off (*cough* Lovecraft) that your work is no longer a work of original fiction, but a derivative--and a poor one at that--don't sit back and congratulate yourself on how smart and clever you are.You want a bad-ass Lovecraftian book with an interesting spin on it?
Resume with Monsters.
There's a mostly-original piece that doesn't constantly congratulate itself on how COOL it is, on how much the author GETS IT, on how well the author is HIP AND TRENDY.
There's an amusing story with an interesting core of an idea!Nothing HAPPENS in CS's Atrocity Archives.
The only reason to read it, by the halfway point, is to find out how the author ENDS it.
[1] Nerd-dropping is the constant dropping of nerdy concepts and marketing-friendly terms that will rapidly make your work irrelevant once people get over the idea that you've managed to--poorly--fuse geekery and Lovecraft into a single work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738483</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, B5 "technobabble"? Hardly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255433760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>B5 used a some arbitrary technobabble, but it was used sparingly.  Most of it was advanced technology that was used consistently, and with limitations that they stuck with throughout the series.</p><p>You mention hyperspace, and that's a good example.  Sure, the hyperspace gates were an arbitrary technology that let them bridge interstellar distances quickly, but it wasn't instantaneous -- it still took time to traverse hyperspace, and more or less in proportion to the distance away from the destination.  Sometimes that was days.  They still had to build the gates, and in one episode they showed the ship necessary to build them.  Only larger ships had the ability to open a portal to hyperspace directly.  Small ones were stuck in normal space and had access to hyperspace only via gates (or by tagging along with bigger ships).</p><p>B5 also spent a fair amount of time trying to keep the ships in normal space behaving like they would according to normal, everyday physics, and showed battle strategies that reflected that (e.g., ships did not have to meet "right side up" all the time as if they were sailing on a 2D map).  Even the B5 station itself made a decent amount of sense -- with low/zero-g sections for different purposes, and rotation to generate artificial gravity.  You even had characters looking out windows on the floor (i.e. the outer hull of the rotating sections).  They didn't have to do all that, but they obviously tried to get it right rather than inventing "particle of the week" to explain things.</p><p>Finally, some alien societies had artificial gravity on board their ships, some didn't (e.g., all of Earth's ships).  The way it was done technologically was never explained because <i>it wasn't important</i>.  The uneven distribution of the technology across alien societies was important to the story, and that distribution made sense.  So, the less advanced cultures were stuck with having rotating sections of their larger ships.  Smaller ships didn't even have that, and the crew were therefore shown strapped into their chairs like you should be if you were doing maneuvers using normal physics.</p><p>They still stretched things, of course, and there were flaws (e.g., the first thing you'd probably do on a ship with rotating sections when you go into battle would be to stop the rotation to avoid having to change the angular momentum as you are maneuvering) but there was a lot more attention to keeping things realistic than usual, and when they had to make stuff up for the sake of plot, they did it once and more or less stuck with it.</p><p>It was only with shows like Firefly or BSG that I remember a comparable attention to detail.  I sure as heck wouldn't lump Star Trek and B5 together.  Bad example.  There's never the attention in SF TV shows as in SF novels, but B5 didn't do badly for TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>B5 used a some arbitrary technobabble , but it was used sparingly .
Most of it was advanced technology that was used consistently , and with limitations that they stuck with throughout the series.You mention hyperspace , and that 's a good example .
Sure , the hyperspace gates were an arbitrary technology that let them bridge interstellar distances quickly , but it was n't instantaneous -- it still took time to traverse hyperspace , and more or less in proportion to the distance away from the destination .
Sometimes that was days .
They still had to build the gates , and in one episode they showed the ship necessary to build them .
Only larger ships had the ability to open a portal to hyperspace directly .
Small ones were stuck in normal space and had access to hyperspace only via gates ( or by tagging along with bigger ships ) .B5 also spent a fair amount of time trying to keep the ships in normal space behaving like they would according to normal , everyday physics , and showed battle strategies that reflected that ( e.g. , ships did not have to meet " right side up " all the time as if they were sailing on a 2D map ) .
Even the B5 station itself made a decent amount of sense -- with low/zero-g sections for different purposes , and rotation to generate artificial gravity .
You even had characters looking out windows on the floor ( i.e .
the outer hull of the rotating sections ) .
They did n't have to do all that , but they obviously tried to get it right rather than inventing " particle of the week " to explain things.Finally , some alien societies had artificial gravity on board their ships , some did n't ( e.g. , all of Earth 's ships ) .
The way it was done technologically was never explained because it was n't important .
The uneven distribution of the technology across alien societies was important to the story , and that distribution made sense .
So , the less advanced cultures were stuck with having rotating sections of their larger ships .
Smaller ships did n't even have that , and the crew were therefore shown strapped into their chairs like you should be if you were doing maneuvers using normal physics.They still stretched things , of course , and there were flaws ( e.g. , the first thing you 'd probably do on a ship with rotating sections when you go into battle would be to stop the rotation to avoid having to change the angular momentum as you are maneuvering ) but there was a lot more attention to keeping things realistic than usual , and when they had to make stuff up for the sake of plot , they did it once and more or less stuck with it.It was only with shows like Firefly or BSG that I remember a comparable attention to detail .
I sure as heck would n't lump Star Trek and B5 together .
Bad example .
There 's never the attention in SF TV shows as in SF novels , but B5 did n't do badly for TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>B5 used a some arbitrary technobabble, but it was used sparingly.
Most of it was advanced technology that was used consistently, and with limitations that they stuck with throughout the series.You mention hyperspace, and that's a good example.
Sure, the hyperspace gates were an arbitrary technology that let them bridge interstellar distances quickly, but it wasn't instantaneous -- it still took time to traverse hyperspace, and more or less in proportion to the distance away from the destination.
Sometimes that was days.
They still had to build the gates, and in one episode they showed the ship necessary to build them.
Only larger ships had the ability to open a portal to hyperspace directly.
Small ones were stuck in normal space and had access to hyperspace only via gates (or by tagging along with bigger ships).B5 also spent a fair amount of time trying to keep the ships in normal space behaving like they would according to normal, everyday physics, and showed battle strategies that reflected that (e.g., ships did not have to meet "right side up" all the time as if they were sailing on a 2D map).
Even the B5 station itself made a decent amount of sense -- with low/zero-g sections for different purposes, and rotation to generate artificial gravity.
You even had characters looking out windows on the floor (i.e.
the outer hull of the rotating sections).
They didn't have to do all that, but they obviously tried to get it right rather than inventing "particle of the week" to explain things.Finally, some alien societies had artificial gravity on board their ships, some didn't (e.g., all of Earth's ships).
The way it was done technologically was never explained because it wasn't important.
The uneven distribution of the technology across alien societies was important to the story, and that distribution made sense.
So, the less advanced cultures were stuck with having rotating sections of their larger ships.
Smaller ships didn't even have that, and the crew were therefore shown strapped into their chairs like you should be if you were doing maneuvers using normal physics.They still stretched things, of course, and there were flaws (e.g., the first thing you'd probably do on a ship with rotating sections when you go into battle would be to stop the rotation to avoid having to change the angular momentum as you are maneuvering) but there was a lot more attention to keeping things realistic than usual, and when they had to make stuff up for the sake of plot, they did it once and more or less stuck with it.It was only with shows like Firefly or BSG that I remember a comparable attention to detail.
I sure as heck wouldn't lump Star Trek and B5 together.
Bad example.
There's never the attention in SF TV shows as in SF novels, but B5 didn't do badly for TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738279</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1255432920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were (bulky!) handheld radios before Star Trek. The cell phone is a natural evolution of radios, miniaturization and the telephone system, not something that came from Star Trek (all sorts of props to the show for getting it right, but it isn't really all that out there).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were ( bulky !
) handheld radios before Star Trek .
The cell phone is a natural evolution of radios , miniaturization and the telephone system , not something that came from Star Trek ( all sorts of props to the show for getting it right , but it is n't really all that out there ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were (bulky!
) handheld radios before Star Trek.
The cell phone is a natural evolution of radios, miniaturization and the telephone system, not something that came from Star Trek (all sorts of props to the show for getting it right, but it isn't really all that out there).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737193</id>
	<title>i think there's room for both approaches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>does ALL sci-fi have to be about the technology?  is that a requirement?</p><p>star trek does a crummy job of predicting plausible technology and its deeper implications on man's place in the universe.  but that's like saying Shakespeare's Henry VIII is not very historically informative.  it sort of misses the point.</p><p>star trek, when it's about something, is primarily about meditations on what it means to be human.  the writers would be trying to say something about, i don't know, honor or justice or leadership or whatever.  they didn't care about how transporter technology would transform society.  they definitely didn't give a crap about scientific principles or bosons or tachyons or whatever.</p><p>the science is flawed, and the whole scenario is more than a bit ludicrous.</p><p>but i'm ok with that.</p><p>is it really a huge problem that the ressikans, a dying culture with limited apparent technology, could build an indestructible, arbitrarily fast probe that could transmit a lifetime of completely real, interactive memories through the enterprise's shields into the brain of picard in a matter of minutes?  who cares, that episode rocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does ALL sci-fi have to be about the technology ?
is that a requirement ? star trek does a crummy job of predicting plausible technology and its deeper implications on man 's place in the universe .
but that 's like saying Shakespeare 's Henry VIII is not very historically informative .
it sort of misses the point.star trek , when it 's about something , is primarily about meditations on what it means to be human .
the writers would be trying to say something about , i do n't know , honor or justice or leadership or whatever .
they did n't care about how transporter technology would transform society .
they definitely did n't give a crap about scientific principles or bosons or tachyons or whatever.the science is flawed , and the whole scenario is more than a bit ludicrous.but i 'm ok with that.is it really a huge problem that the ressikans , a dying culture with limited apparent technology , could build an indestructible , arbitrarily fast probe that could transmit a lifetime of completely real , interactive memories through the enterprise 's shields into the brain of picard in a matter of minutes ?
who cares , that episode rocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does ALL sci-fi have to be about the technology?
is that a requirement?star trek does a crummy job of predicting plausible technology and its deeper implications on man's place in the universe.
but that's like saying Shakespeare's Henry VIII is not very historically informative.
it sort of misses the point.star trek, when it's about something, is primarily about meditations on what it means to be human.
the writers would be trying to say something about, i don't know, honor or justice or leadership or whatever.
they didn't care about how transporter technology would transform society.
they definitely didn't give a crap about scientific principles or bosons or tachyons or whatever.the science is flawed, and the whole scenario is more than a bit ludicrous.but i'm ok with that.is it really a huge problem that the ressikans, a dying culture with limited apparent technology, could build an indestructible, arbitrarily fast probe that could transmit a lifetime of completely real, interactive memories through the enterprise's shields into the brain of picard in a matter of minutes?
who cares, that episode rocked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29752553</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255532220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...the proof is in the pudding...</p> </div><p>The actual saying goes"</p><p>"The proof of the pudding is in the eating"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the proof is in the pudding... The actual saying goes " " The proof of the pudding is in the eating "</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...the proof is in the pudding... The actual saying goes""The proof of the pudding is in the eating"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740405</id>
	<title>Re:He's right, but so what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255448160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>An "accurate" Star Trek story would have people lying in bed all day, being fed through a tube, while they lived out their fantasies in the holodeck. Robotic mining ships would troll the galaxy for dilithium to power everything.</i></p><p>Isn't that the plot of "WALL-E"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An " accurate " Star Trek story would have people lying in bed all day , being fed through a tube , while they lived out their fantasies in the holodeck .
Robotic mining ships would troll the galaxy for dilithium to power everything.Is n't that the plot of " WALL-E " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An "accurate" Star Trek story would have people lying in bed all day, being fed through a tube, while they lived out their fantasies in the holodeck.
Robotic mining ships would troll the galaxy for dilithium to power everything.Isn't that the plot of "WALL-E"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741743</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Eclipse-now</author>
	<datestamp>1255550940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great point and I totally agree! With all the technology of the Federation in that Star Trek universe, why are they still so, well, <i>human?</i> Why aren't they more biomorphic with the technology like something out of Greg Bear's Eon? That's why I liked BSG. The human race is wiped out, and unlike the 70's BattleStar Galactica, the heroes in the modern BSG remake are <i>hurting, suicidal, and totally Fraked up!</i>
<br> <br>They occasionally get to blow away Cylon raiders, but lasers? Shields up? Give me a break! BSG do it right: line up side by side and commence blasting each other with huge cannons like Spanish galleons.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great point and I totally agree !
With all the technology of the Federation in that Star Trek universe , why are they still so , well , human ?
Why are n't they more biomorphic with the technology like something out of Greg Bear 's Eon ?
That 's why I liked BSG .
The human race is wiped out , and unlike the 70 's BattleStar Galactica , the heroes in the modern BSG remake are hurting , suicidal , and totally Fraked up !
They occasionally get to blow away Cylon raiders , but lasers ?
Shields up ?
Give me a break !
BSG do it right : line up side by side and commence blasting each other with huge cannons like Spanish galleons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great point and I totally agree!
With all the technology of the Federation in that Star Trek universe, why are they still so, well, human?
Why aren't they more biomorphic with the technology like something out of Greg Bear's Eon?
That's why I liked BSG.
The human race is wiped out, and unlike the 70's BattleStar Galactica, the heroes in the modern BSG remake are hurting, suicidal, and totally Fraked up!
They occasionally get to blow away Cylon raiders, but lasers?
Shields up?
Give me a break!
BSG do it right: line up side by side and commence blasting each other with huge cannons like Spanish galleons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737363</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Champion3</author>
	<datestamp>1255429140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must be a Ferengi.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be a Ferengi .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be a Ferengi.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739021</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255437000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Replicators capable of creating any material object except gold pressed latinum.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, actually they can, but the energy required is worth more than the generated G.P.L.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Replicators capable of creating any material object except gold pressed latinum.Well , actually they can , but the energy required is worth more than the generated G.P.L .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replicators capable of creating any material object except gold pressed latinum.Well, actually they can, but the energy required is worth more than the generated G.P.L.
   
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742605</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1255519500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Really? Try me. In fact, just as an experiment, let's set up a fake holodeck, with a non-stop supply of sex hungry people of the desired gender and general physical attributes, and let's see just how long it takes before I get bored and decide to leave.</p></div></blockquote><p>

<a href="http://secondlife.com/" title="secondlife.com">These folks?</a> [secondlife.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Try me .
In fact , just as an experiment , let 's set up a fake holodeck , with a non-stop supply of sex hungry people of the desired gender and general physical attributes , and let 's see just how long it takes before I get bored and decide to leave .
These folks ?
[ secondlife.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Try me.
In fact, just as an experiment, let's set up a fake holodeck, with a non-stop supply of sex hungry people of the desired gender and general physical attributes, and let's see just how long it takes before I get bored and decide to leave.
These folks?
[secondlife.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745731</id>
	<title>re: does sci-fi have to be about the technology?</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1255539120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, sort of.  That's what makes it "science fiction" or, as used in the very old days, "scientific fiction".  That's why it's not "fantasy".  OTOH it doesn't necessarily have to be about immediately plausible technology; it just has to be seriously scientific and rational and plausible about whatever technology it presents.
<br> <br>
Really, though, it's about people interacting with technology, and how the technology affects people and society.
<br> <br>
Two good essays by Larry Niven (award-winning SF author) on the Theory and Practice of Time Travel  and  Teleportation are instructive.  He doesn't believe either will work; but ASSUMING THAT THEY DO, what happens?  With teleportation, for example, how does it affect society?  What happens with different constraints on the cost?  Do you still have transportation hubs if long-distance is more complex than short-distance?  Do heavy people have to pay more than light people, leading to discrimination?  It's supposed to make you *think*.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , sort of .
That 's what makes it " science fiction " or , as used in the very old days , " scientific fiction " .
That 's why it 's not " fantasy " .
OTOH it does n't necessarily have to be about immediately plausible technology ; it just has to be seriously scientific and rational and plausible about whatever technology it presents .
Really , though , it 's about people interacting with technology , and how the technology affects people and society .
Two good essays by Larry Niven ( award-winning SF author ) on the Theory and Practice of Time Travel and Teleportation are instructive .
He does n't believe either will work ; but ASSUMING THAT THEY DO , what happens ?
With teleportation , for example , how does it affect society ?
What happens with different constraints on the cost ?
Do you still have transportation hubs if long-distance is more complex than short-distance ?
Do heavy people have to pay more than light people , leading to discrimination ?
It 's supposed to make you * think * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, sort of.
That's what makes it "science fiction" or, as used in the very old days, "scientific fiction".
That's why it's not "fantasy".
OTOH it doesn't necessarily have to be about immediately plausible technology; it just has to be seriously scientific and rational and plausible about whatever technology it presents.
Really, though, it's about people interacting with technology, and how the technology affects people and society.
Two good essays by Larry Niven (award-winning SF author) on the Theory and Practice of Time Travel  and  Teleportation are instructive.
He doesn't believe either will work; but ASSUMING THAT THEY DO, what happens?
With teleportation, for example, how does it affect society?
What happens with different constraints on the cost?
Do you still have transportation hubs if long-distance is more complex than short-distance?
Do heavy people have to pay more than light people, leading to discrimination?
It's supposed to make you *think*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889</id>
	<title>Given the enduring popularity of Star Trek, et. al</title>
	<author>mmell</author>
	<datestamp>1255427640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to go out on a limb and say Mr. Stross is the one who seems to be missing the point.<p>
If I want education, I'll watch Science/Discovery/History . . . better yet, I'll read a book.  When I want entertainment, I want entertainment.  Obviously, I'm not alone in feeling that Star Trek/Babylon 5/Firefly et. al. provide that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to go out on a limb and say Mr. Stross is the one who seems to be missing the point .
If I want education , I 'll watch Science/Discovery/History .
. .
better yet , I 'll read a book .
When I want entertainment , I want entertainment .
Obviously , I 'm not alone in feeling that Star Trek/Babylon 5/Firefly et .
al. provide that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to go out on a limb and say Mr. Stross is the one who seems to be missing the point.
If I want education, I'll watch Science/Discovery/History .
. .
better yet, I'll read a book.
When I want entertainment, I want entertainment.
Obviously, I'm not alone in feeling that Star Trek/Babylon 5/Firefly et.
al. provide that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737185</id>
	<title>Department of Departments</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255428540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's "fiction" in "science fiction"? Gee, I never noticed that.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's " fiction " in " science fiction " ?
Gee , I never noticed that .
       </tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's "fiction" in "science fiction"?
Gee, I never noticed that.
       </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29749349</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly, he's right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255511820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The attack on the Death Star in SW is cribbed pretty much verbatim from "The Dam Busters"... a 1955 fictionalization of a WWII squadron.  Even the targeting systems in SW were copied from WWII targeting computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The attack on the Death Star in SW is cribbed pretty much verbatim from " The Dam Busters " ... a 1955 fictionalization of a WWII squadron .
Even the targeting systems in SW were copied from WWII targeting computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The attack on the Death Star in SW is cribbed pretty much verbatim from "The Dam Busters"... a 1955 fictionalization of a WWII squadron.
Even the targeting systems in SW were copied from WWII targeting computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737135</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1255428360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...why exactly? How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly? It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.</p></div><p>Have you watched Firefly? It had a lot less technobabble and a lot more sino-babble. But to answer your question: He's picking on Star Trek because it is THE iconic sci-fi show: People who do not watch sci-fi know it despite not watching it; they don't know Firefly, and they don't know BSG..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...why exactly ?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly ?
It 's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.Have you watched Firefly ?
It had a lot less technobabble and a lot more sino-babble .
But to answer your question : He 's picking on Star Trek because it is THE iconic sci-fi show : People who do not watch sci-fi know it despite not watching it ; they do n't know Firefly , and they do n't know BSG. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...why exactly?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly?
It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.Have you watched Firefly?
It had a lot less technobabble and a lot more sino-babble.
But to answer your question: He's picking on Star Trek because it is THE iconic sci-fi show: People who do not watch sci-fi know it despite not watching it; they don't know Firefly, and they don't know BSG..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29747537</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>DahGhostfacedFiddlah</author>
	<datestamp>1255547160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You are saying we should not like Star Trek because the Federation's economic system is a "socialist utopia". </i></p><p>Don't underestimate the power that socialist propaganda can have over a society.</p><p>Proof: You didn't have terrorists flying planes into 100-story buildings before Star Trek first aired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are saying we should not like Star Trek because the Federation 's economic system is a " socialist utopia " .
Do n't underestimate the power that socialist propaganda can have over a society.Proof : You did n't have terrorists flying planes into 100-story buildings before Star Trek first aired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are saying we should not like Star Trek because the Federation's economic system is a "socialist utopia".
Don't underestimate the power that socialist propaganda can have over a society.Proof: You didn't have terrorists flying planes into 100-story buildings before Star Trek first aired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</id>
	<title>utopian socialism</title>
	<author>savuporo</author>
	<datestamp>1255427580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The one reason to not like Star Trek is its political system. I mean, a socialist utopia.

<a href="http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/287079.php" title="colossus.mu.nu" rel="nofollow">http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/287079.php</a> [colossus.mu.nu]

Theres no business, theres no enterpreneurship anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one reason to not like Star Trek is its political system .
I mean , a socialist utopia .
http : //colossus.mu.nu/archives/287079.php [ colossus.mu.nu ] Theres no business , theres no enterpreneurship anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one reason to not like Star Trek is its political system.
I mean, a socialist utopia.
http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/287079.php [colossus.mu.nu]

Theres no business, theres no enterpreneurship anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737419</id>
	<title>And millions of flies eat shit...</title>
	<author>Inf0phreak</author>
	<datestamp>1255429380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What was your point again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What was your point again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What was your point again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737517</id>
	<title>The effects of technology are hard to predict</title>
	<author>shoor</author>
	<datestamp>1255429800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I thought that "The Next Generation" did make some plausible speculations on the effects of the holodeck, what they called holodiction.  They also did raise the occasional philosophical point about what Data was.  Generally, while the science and tech may have been ad hoc, they did try to explore ideas from time to time, as in the "Rashomon" like episode "Matter of Perspective".

However, there's no way anyone can predict the effects technology will have even 100 years from now.  Presumably there will be a 'singularity', when machines become smarter than humans.  The famous science fiction writer and editor of 'the Golden Age' of science fiction, John W. Campbell, challenged his writers to write stories involving aliens who were smarter than humans.  As I recall, about all they could do was either have the aliens be juveniles, or have them do a bunch of seemingly random things that somehow made things work out for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I thought that " The Next Generation " did make some plausible speculations on the effects of the holodeck , what they called holodiction .
They also did raise the occasional philosophical point about what Data was .
Generally , while the science and tech may have been ad hoc , they did try to explore ideas from time to time , as in the " Rashomon " like episode " Matter of Perspective " .
However , there 's no way anyone can predict the effects technology will have even 100 years from now .
Presumably there will be a 'singularity ' , when machines become smarter than humans .
The famous science fiction writer and editor of 'the Golden Age ' of science fiction , John W. Campbell , challenged his writers to write stories involving aliens who were smarter than humans .
As I recall , about all they could do was either have the aliens be juveniles , or have them do a bunch of seemingly random things that somehow made things work out for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I thought that "The Next Generation" did make some plausible speculations on the effects of the holodeck, what they called holodiction.
They also did raise the occasional philosophical point about what Data was.
Generally, while the science and tech may have been ad hoc, they did try to explore ideas from time to time, as in the "Rashomon" like episode "Matter of Perspective".
However, there's no way anyone can predict the effects technology will have even 100 years from now.
Presumably there will be a 'singularity', when machines become smarter than humans.
The famous science fiction writer and editor of 'the Golden Age' of science fiction, John W. Campbell, challenged his writers to write stories involving aliens who were smarter than humans.
As I recall, about all they could do was either have the aliens be juveniles, or have them do a bunch of seemingly random things that somehow made things work out for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738123</id>
	<title>Re:Star Trek, Asimov</title>
	<author>pcolaman</author>
	<datestamp>1255432080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What always shocked me was how easy it was for outside forces to infiltrate and capture a big fucking Federation starship.  I mean seriously, how often did some bumbling idiots or rag tag band of aliens capture the fucking Enterprise, a ship with thousands of of people including Fucking Worf and Fucking Data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What always shocked me was how easy it was for outside forces to infiltrate and capture a big fucking Federation starship .
I mean seriously , how often did some bumbling idiots or rag tag band of aliens capture the fucking Enterprise , a ship with thousands of of people including Fucking Worf and Fucking Data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What always shocked me was how easy it was for outside forces to infiltrate and capture a big fucking Federation starship.
I mean seriously, how often did some bumbling idiots or rag tag band of aliens capture the fucking Enterprise, a ship with thousands of of people including Fucking Worf and Fucking Data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737827</id>
	<title>Re:Technology is cool, but...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255431000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YOu can ahve a story where the technology uis the plot.<br>ST did the does Data have rights, and he is just technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YOu can ahve a story where the technology uis the plot.ST did the does Data have rights , and he is just technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YOu can ahve a story where the technology uis the plot.ST did the does Data have rights, and he is just technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737553</id>
	<title>Real Life?</title>
	<author>Tr3vin</author>
	<datestamp>1255429920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't the use of technology in Star Trek reflect how we use it in real life? How often do you see a person with a broken computer get a full lecture on how it works and the significance of each component? I don't think any Sci-Fi needs to focus on the importance or implications of a particular theory. The entire point of Sci-Fi that it is fictional. It is very hard to explain advanced scientific theories to the masses. Futuristic science is even more difficult because we don't know it yet because it is in the <i>future</i>.</p><p>The point of a good Sci-Fi story is to use technology as a backdrop to talk about an issue or just tell a story. If they went into any more detail, the shows would just become a lecture on science that may or may not have a valid basis. While it is important to keep things consistent, too much information is distracting. We really don't need to know exactly how a warp drive works. All we need to know is the general idea behind a warp drive and that people use them for space travel. Realistically, even if there was something wrong with a warp drive, nobody would need to explain the theories in detail. The characters would either know enough so that a simple explanation would suffice, or they wouldn't know nearly enough to have the situation explained to them in a timely manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't the use of technology in Star Trek reflect how we use it in real life ?
How often do you see a person with a broken computer get a full lecture on how it works and the significance of each component ?
I do n't think any Sci-Fi needs to focus on the importance or implications of a particular theory .
The entire point of Sci-Fi that it is fictional .
It is very hard to explain advanced scientific theories to the masses .
Futuristic science is even more difficult because we do n't know it yet because it is in the future.The point of a good Sci-Fi story is to use technology as a backdrop to talk about an issue or just tell a story .
If they went into any more detail , the shows would just become a lecture on science that may or may not have a valid basis .
While it is important to keep things consistent , too much information is distracting .
We really do n't need to know exactly how a warp drive works .
All we need to know is the general idea behind a warp drive and that people use them for space travel .
Realistically , even if there was something wrong with a warp drive , nobody would need to explain the theories in detail .
The characters would either know enough so that a simple explanation would suffice , or they would n't know nearly enough to have the situation explained to them in a timely manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't the use of technology in Star Trek reflect how we use it in real life?
How often do you see a person with a broken computer get a full lecture on how it works and the significance of each component?
I don't think any Sci-Fi needs to focus on the importance or implications of a particular theory.
The entire point of Sci-Fi that it is fictional.
It is very hard to explain advanced scientific theories to the masses.
Futuristic science is even more difficult because we don't know it yet because it is in the future.The point of a good Sci-Fi story is to use technology as a backdrop to talk about an issue or just tell a story.
If they went into any more detail, the shows would just become a lecture on science that may or may not have a valid basis.
While it is important to keep things consistent, too much information is distracting.
We really don't need to know exactly how a warp drive works.
All we need to know is the general idea behind a warp drive and that people use them for space travel.
Realistically, even if there was something wrong with a warp drive, nobody would need to explain the theories in detail.
The characters would either know enough so that a simple explanation would suffice, or they wouldn't know nearly enough to have the situation explained to them in a timely manner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736921</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>stoolpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1255427760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefly was awesome.  The first televised episode when Mal kicked a guy through the intake of the ships engine I knew that it was going to be substantially different than any sci-fi I'd seen on t.v. in some time.  They also did some cool things to help suspend disbelief, which were picked up by BSG.  Fortunately BSG for BSG fans, the show got more viewers and lasted longer than Firefly - though I think it owed Firefly a huge debt for the look, tone, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefly was awesome .
The first televised episode when Mal kicked a guy through the intake of the ships engine I knew that it was going to be substantially different than any sci-fi I 'd seen on t.v .
in some time .
They also did some cool things to help suspend disbelief , which were picked up by BSG .
Fortunately BSG for BSG fans , the show got more viewers and lasted longer than Firefly - though I think it owed Firefly a huge debt for the look , tone , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefly was awesome.
The first televised episode when Mal kicked a guy through the intake of the ships engine I knew that it was going to be substantially different than any sci-fi I'd seen on t.v.
in some time.
They also did some cool things to help suspend disbelief, which were picked up by BSG.
Fortunately BSG for BSG fans, the show got more viewers and lasted longer than Firefly - though I think it owed Firefly a huge debt for the look, tone, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737879</id>
	<title>Lets define Science Fiction</title>
	<author>flabbergast</author>
	<datestamp>1255431180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article:<br>
<i>SF, at its best, is an exploration of the human condition under circumstances that we can conceive of existing, but which don't currently exist</i> <br>
<br>This is Charles Stross' definition of science fiction (and explains a lot of his writing).  And he doesn't hate just Star Trek, he hates Babylon 5 and didn't watch BSG.  If this is Charles Stross' starting point, then its perfectly reasonable for him to hate ST/B5/BSG.
<br> <br>The creators of TNG/B5/BSG simply had a different world view from Charles Stross.  They wanted to use their shows as a reflection of our current world.  TNG was so touchy feely (and upon recent viewing, fairly preachy), its a reflection of the politically correct atmosphere from which it was wrought.  Nothing like an classically trained Shakespearean actor to bring a moral voice to the world.  Likewise BSG is a reflection of its times with flawed characters making morally ambiguous decisions.  Or, more concrete examples of a science fiction as a mirror would be a religious nut for a president or Battlestar Pegasus as a reflection of military zealotry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : SF , at its best , is an exploration of the human condition under circumstances that we can conceive of existing , but which do n't currently exist This is Charles Stross ' definition of science fiction ( and explains a lot of his writing ) .
And he does n't hate just Star Trek , he hates Babylon 5 and did n't watch BSG .
If this is Charles Stross ' starting point , then its perfectly reasonable for him to hate ST/B5/BSG .
The creators of TNG/B5/BSG simply had a different world view from Charles Stross .
They wanted to use their shows as a reflection of our current world .
TNG was so touchy feely ( and upon recent viewing , fairly preachy ) , its a reflection of the politically correct atmosphere from which it was wrought .
Nothing like an classically trained Shakespearean actor to bring a moral voice to the world .
Likewise BSG is a reflection of its times with flawed characters making morally ambiguous decisions .
Or , more concrete examples of a science fiction as a mirror would be a religious nut for a president or Battlestar Pegasus as a reflection of military zealotry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:
SF, at its best, is an exploration of the human condition under circumstances that we can conceive of existing, but which don't currently exist 
This is Charles Stross' definition of science fiction (and explains a lot of his writing).
And he doesn't hate just Star Trek, he hates Babylon 5 and didn't watch BSG.
If this is Charles Stross' starting point, then its perfectly reasonable for him to hate ST/B5/BSG.
The creators of TNG/B5/BSG simply had a different world view from Charles Stross.
They wanted to use their shows as a reflection of our current world.
TNG was so touchy feely (and upon recent viewing, fairly preachy), its a reflection of the politically correct atmosphere from which it was wrought.
Nothing like an classically trained Shakespearean actor to bring a moral voice to the world.
Likewise BSG is a reflection of its times with flawed characters making morally ambiguous decisions.
Or, more concrete examples of a science fiction as a mirror would be a religious nut for a president or Battlestar Pegasus as a reflection of military zealotry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740393</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255448040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...capitalist utopia...</p></div></blockquote><p>I just feel the need to point out that utopia is a socialist concept.  It's a socialist paradise.  It doesn't have capitalism.  A "capitalist utopia", by definition, cannot exist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...capitalist utopia...I just feel the need to point out that utopia is a socialist concept .
It 's a socialist paradise .
It does n't have capitalism .
A " capitalist utopia " , by definition , can not exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...capitalist utopia...I just feel the need to point out that utopia is a socialist concept.
It's a socialist paradise.
It doesn't have capitalism.
A "capitalist utopia", by definition, cannot exist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737617</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, B5 "technobabble"? Hardly...</title>
	<author>j00r0m4nc3r</author>
	<datestamp>1255430100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why I watch the Simpsons. Very little techmomababble...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I watch the Simpsons .
Very little techmomababble.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I watch the Simpsons.
Very little techmomababble...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738157</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1255432260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is what is missing from so much science fiction. The really great science fiction isn't just about gadgets and aliens, it's about how humans and human culture will adapt to the new landscape. We've been doing it for thousands of years, and we'll just keep on doing it! So many people miss that, and I'm glad I'm not the only one that doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is what is missing from so much science fiction .
The really great science fiction is n't just about gadgets and aliens , it 's about how humans and human culture will adapt to the new landscape .
We 've been doing it for thousands of years , and we 'll just keep on doing it !
So many people miss that , and I 'm glad I 'm not the only one that does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is what is missing from so much science fiction.
The really great science fiction isn't just about gadgets and aliens, it's about how humans and human culture will adapt to the new landscape.
We've been doing it for thousands of years, and we'll just keep on doing it!
So many people miss that, and I'm glad I'm not the only one that doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29758937</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255628340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually the Federation is more of a Fascist state.  It is essentially one party rule and one of the main avenues for political advancement is through military (for lack of a better word) service.  It kind of reminds me of starship troopers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually the Federation is more of a Fascist state .
It is essentially one party rule and one of the main avenues for political advancement is through military ( for lack of a better word ) service .
It kind of reminds me of starship troopers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually the Federation is more of a Fascist state.
It is essentially one party rule and one of the main avenues for political advancement is through military (for lack of a better word) service.
It kind of reminds me of starship troopers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736967</id>
	<title>Science Fiction focuses on the fiction</title>
	<author>imgod2u</author>
	<datestamp>1255428000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go figure. Star Trek used flashy lights to get people's attention but in the words of Joss Whedon, "I don't know much about science but what I do know about science fiction is that flashy lights means....science."</p><p>That's about as science-y as it gets. You focus too much on making it within the realm of plausible extrapolation and you end up losing sight of things like interesting story arc, plausible plot turns and characters and you end up randomly writing your characters into roles and ending your series with some cliche reset-button-style let's-just-get-back-to-nature conclusion.</p><p>Why yes, I'm still bitter about BSG, why do you ask?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go figure .
Star Trek used flashy lights to get people 's attention but in the words of Joss Whedon , " I do n't know much about science but what I do know about science fiction is that flashy lights means....science .
" That 's about as science-y as it gets .
You focus too much on making it within the realm of plausible extrapolation and you end up losing sight of things like interesting story arc , plausible plot turns and characters and you end up randomly writing your characters into roles and ending your series with some cliche reset-button-style let 's-just-get-back-to-nature conclusion.Why yes , I 'm still bitter about BSG , why do you ask ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go figure.
Star Trek used flashy lights to get people's attention but in the words of Joss Whedon, "I don't know much about science but what I do know about science fiction is that flashy lights means....science.
"That's about as science-y as it gets.
You focus too much on making it within the realm of plausible extrapolation and you end up losing sight of things like interesting story arc, plausible plot turns and characters and you end up randomly writing your characters into roles and ending your series with some cliche reset-button-style let's-just-get-back-to-nature conclusion.Why yes, I'm still bitter about BSG, why do you ask?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737445</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, B5 "technobabble"? Hardly...</title>
	<author>SlashdotOgre</author>
	<datestamp>1255429500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, and after reading the article (I know...) I doubt Mr. Stross has even seen the show.  Some of his issues are the lack of story arcs or lasting impact to the universe, yet the show had both.  The series had major story arcs with actions from the first and second season directly impacting what occurs in the final one.  You definitely got the feeling that the major points of the series had been planned years in advance.  Likewise the fate of several races varied tremendously with major effects to the surrounding galaxy (effectively the universe for the races in the show).  Babylon 5 also took an interesting approach in not making humanity some &#252;berpowerful utopian society, in fact it was much closer to the opposite (earth wasn't even close to a powerhouse in the galaxy, and its political climate approached dictatorship through the series).  I get the feeling that he has a bit too much prejudice against non-hard science fiction to fairly evaluate several of the shows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , and after reading the article ( I know... ) I doubt Mr. Stross has even seen the show .
Some of his issues are the lack of story arcs or lasting impact to the universe , yet the show had both .
The series had major story arcs with actions from the first and second season directly impacting what occurs in the final one .
You definitely got the feeling that the major points of the series had been planned years in advance .
Likewise the fate of several races varied tremendously with major effects to the surrounding galaxy ( effectively the universe for the races in the show ) .
Babylon 5 also took an interesting approach in not making humanity some   berpowerful utopian society , in fact it was much closer to the opposite ( earth was n't even close to a powerhouse in the galaxy , and its political climate approached dictatorship through the series ) .
I get the feeling that he has a bit too much prejudice against non-hard science fiction to fairly evaluate several of the shows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, and after reading the article (I know...) I doubt Mr. Stross has even seen the show.
Some of his issues are the lack of story arcs or lasting impact to the universe, yet the show had both.
The series had major story arcs with actions from the first and second season directly impacting what occurs in the final one.
You definitely got the feeling that the major points of the series had been planned years in advance.
Likewise the fate of several races varied tremendously with major effects to the surrounding galaxy (effectively the universe for the races in the show).
Babylon 5 also took an interesting approach in not making humanity some überpowerful utopian society, in fact it was much closer to the opposite (earth wasn't even close to a powerhouse in the galaxy, and its political climate approached dictatorship through the series).
I get the feeling that he has a bit too much prejudice against non-hard science fiction to fairly evaluate several of the shows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737587</id>
	<title>Warning: May contain traces of science.</title>
	<author>Snufu</author>
	<datestamp>1255429980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Science fiction has always been 99\% fiction and 1\% science. Probably best that way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Science fiction has always been 99 \ % fiction and 1 \ % science .
Probably best that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Science fiction has always been 99\% fiction and 1\% science.
Probably best that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745905</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1255539900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The technical mumbo-jumbo of various Star Trek series makes about as much sense to me as the medical mumbo-jumbo of House (regardless of the fact that I'm assuming the stuff in House is actually more or less scientifically valid - I still don't understand it so its the same to me.)  The entertainment is in seeing the characters reacting to the situation.  I don't watch House for the medicine, just as I didn't watch Star Trek strictly for the technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The technical mumbo-jumbo of various Star Trek series makes about as much sense to me as the medical mumbo-jumbo of House ( regardless of the fact that I 'm assuming the stuff in House is actually more or less scientifically valid - I still do n't understand it so its the same to me .
) The entertainment is in seeing the characters reacting to the situation .
I do n't watch House for the medicine , just as I did n't watch Star Trek strictly for the technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The technical mumbo-jumbo of various Star Trek series makes about as much sense to me as the medical mumbo-jumbo of House (regardless of the fact that I'm assuming the stuff in House is actually more or less scientifically valid - I still don't understand it so its the same to me.
)  The entertainment is in seeing the characters reacting to the situation.
I don't watch House for the medicine, just as I didn't watch Star Trek strictly for the technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</id>
	<title>And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...why exactly? How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly? It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...why exactly ?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly ?
It 's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...why exactly?
How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly?
It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737675</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1255430460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, here's a crude (and not necessarily accurate) chart of series' technobabble quotient, with 100 being equal to a typical pop sci program on Discovery. (Technobabble that is consistent in the series is not considered true technobabble, as it becomes part of the workings of that universe.)</p><p>Star Trek - TOS: 500<br>Star Trek - TNG: 600<br>Star Trek - Voyager: 500<br>Star Trek - DS9: 600</p><p>Doctor Who - Original: 200<br>Doctor Who - New Series: 300<br>Blake's 7: 200<br>Sapphire and Steel: 125<br>The Omega Factor: 150<br>Day of the Triffids: 110<br>Survivor - Original: 110<br>The Stone Tape: 125<br>Quatermass II: 125<br>A For Andromeda: 120<br>Space 1999: 300<br>The Tomorrow People - Original: 150<br>The Tripods: 140<br>Project Icarus: 115<br>Moondial: 120</p><p>Other than Doctor Who (which I like despite the problems, not because of them), every single series I've named is far more solid, far less fluffy, than Star Trek. And even Dr Who is well below ST fluffiness.</p><p>This not only shows that ST <i>IS</i> different from other sci-fi series.Maybe not different from, say, Firefly, but it's not where the real heavy-hitting series are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , here 's a crude ( and not necessarily accurate ) chart of series ' technobabble quotient , with 100 being equal to a typical pop sci program on Discovery .
( Technobabble that is consistent in the series is not considered true technobabble , as it becomes part of the workings of that universe .
) Star Trek - TOS : 500Star Trek - TNG : 600Star Trek - Voyager : 500Star Trek - DS9 : 600Doctor Who - Original : 200Doctor Who - New Series : 300Blake 's 7 : 200Sapphire and Steel : 125The Omega Factor : 150Day of the Triffids : 110Survivor - Original : 110The Stone Tape : 125Quatermass II : 125A For Andromeda : 120Space 1999 : 300The Tomorrow People - Original : 150The Tripods : 140Project Icarus : 115Moondial : 120Other than Doctor Who ( which I like despite the problems , not because of them ) , every single series I 've named is far more solid , far less fluffy , than Star Trek .
And even Dr Who is well below ST fluffiness.This not only shows that ST IS different from other sci-fi series.Maybe not different from , say , Firefly , but it 's not where the real heavy-hitting series are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, here's a crude (and not necessarily accurate) chart of series' technobabble quotient, with 100 being equal to a typical pop sci program on Discovery.
(Technobabble that is consistent in the series is not considered true technobabble, as it becomes part of the workings of that universe.
)Star Trek - TOS: 500Star Trek - TNG: 600Star Trek - Voyager: 500Star Trek - DS9: 600Doctor Who - Original: 200Doctor Who - New Series: 300Blake's 7: 200Sapphire and Steel: 125The Omega Factor: 150Day of the Triffids: 110Survivor - Original: 110The Stone Tape: 125Quatermass II: 125A For Andromeda: 120Space 1999: 300The Tomorrow People - Original: 150The Tripods: 140Project Icarus: 115Moondial: 120Other than Doctor Who (which I like despite the problems, not because of them), every single series I've named is far more solid, far less fluffy, than Star Trek.
And even Dr Who is well below ST fluffiness.This not only shows that ST IS different from other sci-fi series.Maybe not different from, say, Firefly, but it's not where the real heavy-hitting series are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741925</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255553820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why?  Simply, nothing is ever good enough.  Hop aboard.</p><p>So, Star Trek had holodecks.  But, they weren't "real enough" to begin with, as confirmed by Riker in the first season's big holodeck-themed episode, where some magic computer people made a "realistic" woman temporarily appear on the holodeck (apparently, holo-sentience was an intermittent bug rather than a bona-fide feature, much like time travel).  So, there's the incentive to go back to the drawing boards -- our/Riker's discerning tastes demand better holo-whores.  It's a likely bet that better holodeck tech will need more power, so someone's going to have to find a way to route more power through the holo-polarity interlink sequencers so that more better holo-chicks are available -- thus someone's going to have to be an engineer and do real work, thank you Geordie.  Even with better holo-hardware available, someone's going to have to innovate in content production; after everyone's boinked history's greatest beauties and the tarted-up clones of their co-workers, they're going to want new thrills: here we have demand for the arts!  Then, it's a given that someone is going to feel deprived and want early access to the new best in holo-porn, so you have trade, diplomacy, and military demands springing up right there, as people barter, bicker, and brawl with each other over who gets the first run of Holo-Cleopatra XVII: Snakes in a Fane (did I mention we'll all be more literate in the future?).  We're going to have illegal content, hacking, and resource skimming in this holo-addicted 'verse, so we need administrators and a justice system.  Humans being social animals, communities will form.  Don't even make me spell out the focuses for these communities; let's just say that Rule 34 WILL exist in the future and leave it at that.  Eventually, humans will manage to reproduce (even if they're doing it via holo-insemination) to the point that they've drained the available resources of their region of the galaxy, and they're going to either need to go take more or figure out new uses for what they have left -- exploration, war, and R&amp;D time!</p><p>Now, let's recap.  Even if everyone is spending every second of every day in a holodeck, holo-commuting to do work (WAY plausible), and spending as much time as possible in their holo-harems, progress continues to tick along quality-quantity lines, as always.  Even if the only shared area of interest for all of humanity is finding new and interesting ways to sleep with fake people, progress in the supplemental tech will continue at a certain pace.  If virtual experiences are limited in any way whatsoever, the demand for better experiences will drive innovation.  Yes, some people will bliss out happily with current or outdated technology, but some people already do that with their televisions, and we've had habitual drunks for as long as we've had fermentation.  If nothing else, we'll work to increase the carrying capacity of the holo-matrix so that we can let even more people sleep with even more computer-driven bimbos.  We'd have an entire quadrant filled with humans building holodecks and making more humans to use and maintain those.  Maybe we'd even construct a Dyson structure around the entire galaxy.  No, scratch that, make it a trans-dimensional holo-Dyson amalgam, harnessing the power of multiple dimensions spanning the energy of multiple universes to generate THE ULTIMATE HOLO-HUSSY capable of delivering erotic pleasures of a scale and state that even a Q couldn't conceive.  And then, after experiencing sensual pleasure on a scale never before existent in an infinite number of universes, after reaching a literally transcendental level of limitless, boundless, consummate exhilaration...we'd wonder what having two of them would be like.</p><p>In short, massive potential for libido stimulation coupled with nagging sexual ennui FTW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Simply , nothing is ever good enough .
Hop aboard.So , Star Trek had holodecks .
But , they were n't " real enough " to begin with , as confirmed by Riker in the first season 's big holodeck-themed episode , where some magic computer people made a " realistic " woman temporarily appear on the holodeck ( apparently , holo-sentience was an intermittent bug rather than a bona-fide feature , much like time travel ) .
So , there 's the incentive to go back to the drawing boards -- our/Riker 's discerning tastes demand better holo-whores .
It 's a likely bet that better holodeck tech will need more power , so someone 's going to have to find a way to route more power through the holo-polarity interlink sequencers so that more better holo-chicks are available -- thus someone 's going to have to be an engineer and do real work , thank you Geordie .
Even with better holo-hardware available , someone 's going to have to innovate in content production ; after everyone 's boinked history 's greatest beauties and the tarted-up clones of their co-workers , they 're going to want new thrills : here we have demand for the arts !
Then , it 's a given that someone is going to feel deprived and want early access to the new best in holo-porn , so you have trade , diplomacy , and military demands springing up right there , as people barter , bicker , and brawl with each other over who gets the first run of Holo-Cleopatra XVII : Snakes in a Fane ( did I mention we 'll all be more literate in the future ? ) .
We 're going to have illegal content , hacking , and resource skimming in this holo-addicted 'verse , so we need administrators and a justice system .
Humans being social animals , communities will form .
Do n't even make me spell out the focuses for these communities ; let 's just say that Rule 34 WILL exist in the future and leave it at that .
Eventually , humans will manage to reproduce ( even if they 're doing it via holo-insemination ) to the point that they 've drained the available resources of their region of the galaxy , and they 're going to either need to go take more or figure out new uses for what they have left -- exploration , war , and R&amp;D time ! Now , let 's recap .
Even if everyone is spending every second of every day in a holodeck , holo-commuting to do work ( WAY plausible ) , and spending as much time as possible in their holo-harems , progress continues to tick along quality-quantity lines , as always .
Even if the only shared area of interest for all of humanity is finding new and interesting ways to sleep with fake people , progress in the supplemental tech will continue at a certain pace .
If virtual experiences are limited in any way whatsoever , the demand for better experiences will drive innovation .
Yes , some people will bliss out happily with current or outdated technology , but some people already do that with their televisions , and we 've had habitual drunks for as long as we 've had fermentation .
If nothing else , we 'll work to increase the carrying capacity of the holo-matrix so that we can let even more people sleep with even more computer-driven bimbos .
We 'd have an entire quadrant filled with humans building holodecks and making more humans to use and maintain those .
Maybe we 'd even construct a Dyson structure around the entire galaxy .
No , scratch that , make it a trans-dimensional holo-Dyson amalgam , harnessing the power of multiple dimensions spanning the energy of multiple universes to generate THE ULTIMATE HOLO-HUSSY capable of delivering erotic pleasures of a scale and state that even a Q could n't conceive .
And then , after experiencing sensual pleasure on a scale never before existent in an infinite number of universes , after reaching a literally transcendental level of limitless , boundless , consummate exhilaration...we 'd wonder what having two of them would be like.In short , massive potential for libido stimulation coupled with nagging sexual ennui FTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
Simply, nothing is ever good enough.
Hop aboard.So, Star Trek had holodecks.
But, they weren't "real enough" to begin with, as confirmed by Riker in the first season's big holodeck-themed episode, where some magic computer people made a "realistic" woman temporarily appear on the holodeck (apparently, holo-sentience was an intermittent bug rather than a bona-fide feature, much like time travel).
So, there's the incentive to go back to the drawing boards -- our/Riker's discerning tastes demand better holo-whores.
It's a likely bet that better holodeck tech will need more power, so someone's going to have to find a way to route more power through the holo-polarity interlink sequencers so that more better holo-chicks are available -- thus someone's going to have to be an engineer and do real work, thank you Geordie.
Even with better holo-hardware available, someone's going to have to innovate in content production; after everyone's boinked history's greatest beauties and the tarted-up clones of their co-workers, they're going to want new thrills: here we have demand for the arts!
Then, it's a given that someone is going to feel deprived and want early access to the new best in holo-porn, so you have trade, diplomacy, and military demands springing up right there, as people barter, bicker, and brawl with each other over who gets the first run of Holo-Cleopatra XVII: Snakes in a Fane (did I mention we'll all be more literate in the future?).
We're going to have illegal content, hacking, and resource skimming in this holo-addicted 'verse, so we need administrators and a justice system.
Humans being social animals, communities will form.
Don't even make me spell out the focuses for these communities; let's just say that Rule 34 WILL exist in the future and leave it at that.
Eventually, humans will manage to reproduce (even if they're doing it via holo-insemination) to the point that they've drained the available resources of their region of the galaxy, and they're going to either need to go take more or figure out new uses for what they have left -- exploration, war, and R&amp;D time!Now, let's recap.
Even if everyone is spending every second of every day in a holodeck, holo-commuting to do work (WAY plausible), and spending as much time as possible in their holo-harems, progress continues to tick along quality-quantity lines, as always.
Even if the only shared area of interest for all of humanity is finding new and interesting ways to sleep with fake people, progress in the supplemental tech will continue at a certain pace.
If virtual experiences are limited in any way whatsoever, the demand for better experiences will drive innovation.
Yes, some people will bliss out happily with current or outdated technology, but some people already do that with their televisions, and we've had habitual drunks for as long as we've had fermentation.
If nothing else, we'll work to increase the carrying capacity of the holo-matrix so that we can let even more people sleep with even more computer-driven bimbos.
We'd have an entire quadrant filled with humans building holodecks and making more humans to use and maintain those.
Maybe we'd even construct a Dyson structure around the entire galaxy.
No, scratch that, make it a trans-dimensional holo-Dyson amalgam, harnessing the power of multiple dimensions spanning the energy of multiple universes to generate THE ULTIMATE HOLO-HUSSY capable of delivering erotic pleasures of a scale and state that even a Q couldn't conceive.
And then, after experiencing sensual pleasure on a scale never before existent in an infinite number of universes, after reaching a literally transcendental level of limitless, boundless, consummate exhilaration...we'd wonder what having two of them would be like.In short, massive potential for libido stimulation coupled with nagging sexual ennui FTW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742113</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1255512660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some daft bugger of a Chief Engineer creates a Sherlock Holmes character which is specified to tax the only sentient android in existence?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some daft bugger of a Chief Engineer creates a Sherlock Holmes character which is specified to tax the only sentient android in existence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some daft bugger of a Chief Engineer creates a Sherlock Holmes character which is specified to tax the only sentient android in existence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738837</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255435740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you are talking specifically about Earth you are wrong (why would Cisco's dad have an Italian restaurant if there were no capitalism)..As for the rest of the Star Trek Universe, the Borg commerce in the pursuit of perfection, while the rest of us take gold-pressed latinum as our currency of choice!
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are talking specifically about Earth you are wrong ( why would Cisco 's dad have an Italian restaurant if there were no capitalism ) ..As for the rest of the Star Trek Universe , the Borg commerce in the pursuit of perfection , while the rest of us take gold-pressed latinum as our currency of choice !
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are talking specifically about Earth you are wrong (why would Cisco's dad have an Italian restaurant if there were no capitalism)..As for the rest of the Star Trek Universe, the Borg commerce in the pursuit of perfection, while the rest of us take gold-pressed latinum as our currency of choice!
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737487</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1255429680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.</i>
<br>
<br>
Yes, yes they do.  By an order of magnitude.  Have you even seen these shows?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second .
Yes , yes they do .
By an order of magnitude .
Have you even seen these shows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.
Yes, yes they do.
By an order of magnitude.
Have you even seen these shows?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740167</id>
	<title>Primer</title>
	<author>Exception Duck</author>
	<datestamp>1255446180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would like to point out to a really good science fiction movie.</p><p><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/</a> [imdb.com]</p><p>You'll probably want to watch it two times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would like to point out to a really good science fiction movie.http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/ [ imdb.com ] You 'll probably want to watch it two times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would like to point out to a really good science fiction movie.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/ [imdb.com]You'll probably want to watch it two times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737797</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>drewsup</author>
	<datestamp>1255430880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You Sir,
Have obviously never met Harry Mudd!

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudd's\_Women" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudd's\_Women</a> [wikipedia.org]

Any man who figures out a way to pimp out female robots in a future where there is no money is one HELL of an entrepreneur!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You Sir , Have obviously never met Harry Mudd !
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudd 's \ _Women [ wikipedia.org ] Any man who figures out a way to pimp out female robots in a future where there is no money is one HELL of an entrepreneur !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You Sir,
Have obviously never met Harry Mudd!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudd's\_Women [wikipedia.org]

Any man who figures out a way to pimp out female robots in a future where there is no money is one HELL of an entrepreneur!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737317</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefly was ONLY about the characters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefly was ONLY about the characters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefly was ONLY about the characters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738493</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1255433880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the real question is whether or not it makes good TV, and the proof is in the pudding (especially for TNG).  TV shows are, after all, entertainment and not great literary works. (Indeed, the two don't frequently go hand-in-hand...)</p></div><p>But TNG rather often managed to deliver both! (Well, not literaly literary works, of course...) Just remember episodes like "The inner light" (you may want to remove the Star-Trek-Bookends from that one) or "Chain of Command". Pure work of art every now and then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the real question is whether or not it makes good TV , and the proof is in the pudding ( especially for TNG ) .
TV shows are , after all , entertainment and not great literary works .
( Indeed , the two do n't frequently go hand-in-hand... ) But TNG rather often managed to deliver both !
( Well , not literaly literary works , of course... ) Just remember episodes like " The inner light " ( you may want to remove the Star-Trek-Bookends from that one ) or " Chain of Command " .
Pure work of art every now and then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the real question is whether or not it makes good TV, and the proof is in the pudding (especially for TNG).
TV shows are, after all, entertainment and not great literary works.
(Indeed, the two don't frequently go hand-in-hand...)But TNG rather often managed to deliver both!
(Well, not literaly literary works, of course...) Just remember episodes like "The inner light" (you may want to remove the Star-Trek-Bookends from that one) or "Chain of Command".
Pure work of art every now and then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738073</id>
	<title>"Klingons and the Romulans Pose No Threat To Us"</title>
	<author>Ukab the Great</author>
	<datestamp>1255431840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2v6rXs5J9M" title="youtube.com">"Cause if we find we're in a bind we just make some shit up"</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Cause if we find we 're in a bind we just make some shit up " [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Cause if we find we're in a bind we just make some shit up" [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737405</id>
	<title>Star Trek = soap opera in space</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255429260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I more or less agree with the criticism. Star Trek episodes often seem like conventional (if somewhat geeky and preachy) soap opera, debating very standard political, social or emotional issues with a veneer of science fiction to keep the guys interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I more or less agree with the criticism .
Star Trek episodes often seem like conventional ( if somewhat geeky and preachy ) soap opera , debating very standard political , social or emotional issues with a veneer of science fiction to keep the guys interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I more or less agree with the criticism.
Star Trek episodes often seem like conventional (if somewhat geeky and preachy) soap opera, debating very standard political, social or emotional issues with a veneer of science fiction to keep the guys interested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29748931</id>
	<title>Re:There have been occasional exceptions.</title>
	<author>CountBrass</author>
	<datestamp>1255552980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that's an excellent example of the ST:TNG writers (and many SF writers in general) just not thinking things through.<br><br>Other examples include:<br>+ Replicators obviate the need for any merchants/traders let alone pirates (like the Orions)?<br>+ Transporters (every trip requires you to make a new copy and murder the original: witness 'Thomas' versus William Riker),<br>+ Cloaking (believable technology but with a huge impact: would the Federation really not use it?) And the worst of all:<br>+ Time Travel (possibility of paradoxes, too easy to endlessly go back and change then re-change things, or simply go back and wipe out your opponents long in the past as the Borg try to do),</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's an excellent example of the ST : TNG writers ( and many SF writers in general ) just not thinking things through.Other examples include : + Replicators obviate the need for any merchants/traders let alone pirates ( like the Orions ) ? + Transporters ( every trip requires you to make a new copy and murder the original : witness 'Thomas ' versus William Riker ) , + Cloaking ( believable technology but with a huge impact : would the Federation really not use it ?
) And the worst of all : + Time Travel ( possibility of paradoxes , too easy to endlessly go back and change then re-change things , or simply go back and wipe out your opponents long in the past as the Borg try to do ) ,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's an excellent example of the ST:TNG writers (and many SF writers in general) just not thinking things through.Other examples include:+ Replicators obviate the need for any merchants/traders let alone pirates (like the Orions)?+ Transporters (every trip requires you to make a new copy and murder the original: witness 'Thomas' versus William Riker),+ Cloaking (believable technology but with a huge impact: would the Federation really not use it?
) And the worst of all:+ Time Travel (possibility of paradoxes, too easy to endlessly go back and change then re-change things, or simply go back and wipe out your opponents long in the past as the Borg try to do),</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Lemmy Caution</author>
	<datestamp>1255429560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't the weakness of the science, actually. It's the weakness of the sociology! It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable. There are technologies of bio-technological intervention that get trotted out regularly, yet we still are told that people would be quite satisfied with a 100-year life span, more or less. I won't even mention time-travel.</p><p>An interesting speculation about an improbable or even impossible technology is more compelling to me than cliches and failures of conjecture wrapped around sound technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't the weakness of the science , actually .
It 's the weakness of the sociology !
It 's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter would n't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable .
There are technologies of bio-technological intervention that get trotted out regularly , yet we still are told that people would be quite satisfied with a 100-year life span , more or less .
I wo n't even mention time-travel.An interesting speculation about an improbable or even impossible technology is more compelling to me than cliches and failures of conjecture wrapped around sound technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't the weakness of the science, actually.
It's the weakness of the sociology!
It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.
There are technologies of bio-technological intervention that get trotted out regularly, yet we still are told that people would be quite satisfied with a 100-year life span, more or less.
I won't even mention time-travel.An interesting speculation about an improbable or even impossible technology is more compelling to me than cliches and failures of conjecture wrapped around sound technologies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737179</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1255428540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You're thinking of 'deus ex machina' [wikipedia.org], which is a plot device along the lines of "and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything".</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yeah, but what's that Q guy got to do with it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're thinking of 'deus ex machina ' [ wikipedia.org ] , which is a plot device along the lines of " and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything " .
Yeah , but what 's that Q guy got to do with it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're thinking of 'deus ex machina' [wikipedia.org], which is a plot device along the lines of "and suddenly a god-like being appeared and fixed everything".
Yeah, but what's that Q guy got to do with it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737645</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Eightbitgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1255430280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes the fictional show in a fictional future with fictional technology does use made up physics. Now if they were using real science then these technologies wouldn't exactly be fictional anymore and I'd have warp engines and the holodeck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes the fictional show in a fictional future with fictional technology does use made up physics .
Now if they were using real science then these technologies would n't exactly be fictional anymore and I 'd have warp engines and the holodeck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes the fictional show in a fictional future with fictional technology does use made up physics.
Now if they were using real science then these technologies wouldn't exactly be fictional anymore and I'd have warp engines and the holodeck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741299</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1255457640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, star trek differs from firefly because some people have actually watched star trek on tv.</p><p>Star trek isnt being picked on, at least not specifically. The concept of science fiction not being based on science fact for sci-fi entertainment is the issue.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers (and the article) want science fiction to come up with a sciency based solution and then create the plot. From a writer's standpoint, that is ridiculous. You create a problem, and then a resolution. If it isn't based on actual science, so what? Its entertainment.</p><p>From a personal perspective, if you are writing a book, you might want to do your research. After all, someone might read it someday. If you are scripting a tv show, it might be beneficial to purposefully write in some impossibilities, so that the people who care watch to complain about it, and those who don't watch it for the shiny plot holes. You wouldn't believe how many starving african children can be fed from plot holes. No wait, thats not what tv writers or producers do with advertising dollars...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , star trek differs from firefly because some people have actually watched star trek on tv.Star trek isnt being picked on , at least not specifically .
The concept of science fiction not being based on science fact for sci-fi entertainment is the issue .
/.ers ( and the article ) want science fiction to come up with a sciency based solution and then create the plot .
From a writer 's standpoint , that is ridiculous .
You create a problem , and then a resolution .
If it is n't based on actual science , so what ?
Its entertainment.From a personal perspective , if you are writing a book , you might want to do your research .
After all , someone might read it someday .
If you are scripting a tv show , it might be beneficial to purposefully write in some impossibilities , so that the people who care watch to complain about it , and those who do n't watch it for the shiny plot holes .
You would n't believe how many starving african children can be fed from plot holes .
No wait , thats not what tv writers or producers do with advertising dollars.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, star trek differs from firefly because some people have actually watched star trek on tv.Star trek isnt being picked on, at least not specifically.
The concept of science fiction not being based on science fact for sci-fi entertainment is the issue.
/.ers (and the article) want science fiction to come up with a sciency based solution and then create the plot.
From a writer's standpoint, that is ridiculous.
You create a problem, and then a resolution.
If it isn't based on actual science, so what?
Its entertainment.From a personal perspective, if you are writing a book, you might want to do your research.
After all, someone might read it someday.
If you are scripting a tv show, it might be beneficial to purposefully write in some impossibilities, so that the people who care watch to complain about it, and those who don't watch it for the shiny plot holes.
You wouldn't believe how many starving african children can be fed from plot holes.
No wait, thats not what tv writers or producers do with advertising dollars...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742029</id>
	<title>- and why I don't give a damn</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1255511880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is true that Star Trek is an appalling load of nonse, when it comes to just about anything related to technology and science. Others with more knowledge about this have elaborated on this already.</p><p>But that is really beside the point - Star Trek is first and foremost a fairy tale, a story about magic vaguely disgused as 'Science Fiction', because at the time that was the mainstream in fantasy. To compare it to real SF, like 2001, is as reasonable as comparing it to "War and Peace" or "Oliver Twist". Star Trek is just an easily digested, light-hearted fantasy, and as such it works very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is true that Star Trek is an appalling load of nonse , when it comes to just about anything related to technology and science .
Others with more knowledge about this have elaborated on this already.But that is really beside the point - Star Trek is first and foremost a fairy tale , a story about magic vaguely disgused as 'Science Fiction ' , because at the time that was the mainstream in fantasy .
To compare it to real SF , like 2001 , is as reasonable as comparing it to " War and Peace " or " Oliver Twist " .
Star Trek is just an easily digested , light-hearted fantasy , and as such it works very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is true that Star Trek is an appalling load of nonse, when it comes to just about anything related to technology and science.
Others with more knowledge about this have elaborated on this already.But that is really beside the point - Star Trek is first and foremost a fairy tale, a story about magic vaguely disgused as 'Science Fiction', because at the time that was the mainstream in fantasy.
To compare it to real SF, like 2001, is as reasonable as comparing it to "War and Peace" or "Oliver Twist".
Star Trek is just an easily digested, light-hearted fantasy, and as such it works very well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739097</id>
	<title>Re:i think there's room for both approaches</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1255437540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen that one a few times (Scif-Fi channel use to play the whole TNG series, then switch to Voyager, and eventually Enterprise 5 days a week 4-7 pm). I couldn't agree more about that episode. I'd always wondered though, how the original person Picard was "living" actually lived? Was the history modeled specifically to fit Picard? Was the original person not of that world? I don't know why, but it seems he had an enormous amount of impact on the technological level of the planet, for being just some "guy" living in a post-agrarian culture. Either way you're right...that episode frackin rocked!
<br>
<br>
 -Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen that one a few times ( Scif-Fi channel use to play the whole TNG series , then switch to Voyager , and eventually Enterprise 5 days a week 4-7 pm ) .
I could n't agree more about that episode .
I 'd always wondered though , how the original person Picard was " living " actually lived ?
Was the history modeled specifically to fit Picard ?
Was the original person not of that world ?
I do n't know why , but it seems he had an enormous amount of impact on the technological level of the planet , for being just some " guy " living in a post-agrarian culture .
Either way you 're right...that episode frackin rocked !
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen that one a few times (Scif-Fi channel use to play the whole TNG series, then switch to Voyager, and eventually Enterprise 5 days a week 4-7 pm).
I couldn't agree more about that episode.
I'd always wondered though, how the original person Picard was "living" actually lived?
Was the history modeled specifically to fit Picard?
Was the original person not of that world?
I don't know why, but it seems he had an enormous amount of impact on the technological level of the planet, for being just some "guy" living in a post-agrarian culture.
Either way you're right...that episode frackin rocked!
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739211</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1255438380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The problem isn't the weakness of the science, actually. It's the weakness of the sociology! It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.</i></p><p>There was actually a Star Trek book about a planet where everyone traveled around the planet instantly by transporter.  It does raise the question of why they don't use the transporters this much elsewhere in ST, since they obviously have the technology.  Obviously, you probably wouldn't do it on the ship (they can say it's too dangerous, uses too much energy, etc.), but every time they visit a sufficiently advanced planet it seems like people should be transporting everywhere.</p><p><i>yet we still are told that people would be quite satisfied with a 100-year life span, more or less.</i></p><p>Yep, ST definitely missed some things they could have explored.  They have great medical technology, but people still die at the same age?  It seems like they would have figured out how to extend our lifespan by then.</p><p><i>I won't even mention time-travel.</i></p><p>Actually, that was something they did a little too often in ST.  Time-travel is a little too complex if you ask me, and introduces all kinds of questions about chicken-and-egg, altering the future, paradoxes, etc.  Time travel can make a very good movie when it's the central plot device of the movie (like in 12 Monkeys), but for a weekly TV show I think they should stay away from it.  Imagine if BSG had tried to throw in several episodes of time travel; it would have turned into a mess.</p><p><i>An interesting speculation about an improbable or even impossible technology is more compelling to me than cliches and failures of conjecture wrapped around sound technologies.</i></p><p>The other problem is that conjecture about near-term advances are usually flat-out wrong, and become apparently so very soon, making the story dated very quickly.   By focusing on things that are very far away (like warp drive), you don't have that problem.  One big problem with a lot of sci-fi stories is that they never predict the Internet, and show people on Earth in the future still reading newspapers or watching TV, or otherwise getting all their communications from media outlets rather than having a communications medium where everyone has an equal voice as we have now.  But you never see anyone complain that Star Trek missed that, because it's irrelevant to the story lines there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't the weakness of the science , actually .
It 's the weakness of the sociology !
It 's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter would n't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.There was actually a Star Trek book about a planet where everyone traveled around the planet instantly by transporter .
It does raise the question of why they do n't use the transporters this much elsewhere in ST , since they obviously have the technology .
Obviously , you probably would n't do it on the ship ( they can say it 's too dangerous , uses too much energy , etc .
) , but every time they visit a sufficiently advanced planet it seems like people should be transporting everywhere.yet we still are told that people would be quite satisfied with a 100-year life span , more or less.Yep , ST definitely missed some things they could have explored .
They have great medical technology , but people still die at the same age ?
It seems like they would have figured out how to extend our lifespan by then.I wo n't even mention time-travel.Actually , that was something they did a little too often in ST. Time-travel is a little too complex if you ask me , and introduces all kinds of questions about chicken-and-egg , altering the future , paradoxes , etc .
Time travel can make a very good movie when it 's the central plot device of the movie ( like in 12 Monkeys ) , but for a weekly TV show I think they should stay away from it .
Imagine if BSG had tried to throw in several episodes of time travel ; it would have turned into a mess.An interesting speculation about an improbable or even impossible technology is more compelling to me than cliches and failures of conjecture wrapped around sound technologies.The other problem is that conjecture about near-term advances are usually flat-out wrong , and become apparently so very soon , making the story dated very quickly .
By focusing on things that are very far away ( like warp drive ) , you do n't have that problem .
One big problem with a lot of sci-fi stories is that they never predict the Internet , and show people on Earth in the future still reading newspapers or watching TV , or otherwise getting all their communications from media outlets rather than having a communications medium where everyone has an equal voice as we have now .
But you never see anyone complain that Star Trek missed that , because it 's irrelevant to the story lines there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't the weakness of the science, actually.
It's the weakness of the sociology!
It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.There was actually a Star Trek book about a planet where everyone traveled around the planet instantly by transporter.
It does raise the question of why they don't use the transporters this much elsewhere in ST, since they obviously have the technology.
Obviously, you probably wouldn't do it on the ship (they can say it's too dangerous, uses too much energy, etc.
), but every time they visit a sufficiently advanced planet it seems like people should be transporting everywhere.yet we still are told that people would be quite satisfied with a 100-year life span, more or less.Yep, ST definitely missed some things they could have explored.
They have great medical technology, but people still die at the same age?
It seems like they would have figured out how to extend our lifespan by then.I won't even mention time-travel.Actually, that was something they did a little too often in ST.  Time-travel is a little too complex if you ask me, and introduces all kinds of questions about chicken-and-egg, altering the future, paradoxes, etc.
Time travel can make a very good movie when it's the central plot device of the movie (like in 12 Monkeys), but for a weekly TV show I think they should stay away from it.
Imagine if BSG had tried to throw in several episodes of time travel; it would have turned into a mess.An interesting speculation about an improbable or even impossible technology is more compelling to me than cliches and failures of conjecture wrapped around sound technologies.The other problem is that conjecture about near-term advances are usually flat-out wrong, and become apparently so very soon, making the story dated very quickly.
By focusing on things that are very far away (like warp drive), you don't have that problem.
One big problem with a lot of sci-fi stories is that they never predict the Internet, and show people on Earth in the future still reading newspapers or watching TV, or otherwise getting all their communications from media outlets rather than having a communications medium where everyone has an equal voice as we have now.
But you never see anyone complain that Star Trek missed that, because it's irrelevant to the story lines there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738065</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>eples</author>
	<datestamp>1255431840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're kidding right? That's not the show at all. I recall a show that tackled social and moral issues all the time as the centerpiece of the plot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're kidding right ?
That 's not the show at all .
I recall a show that tackled social and moral issues all the time as the centerpiece of the plot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're kidding right?
That's not the show at all.
I recall a show that tackled social and moral issues all the time as the centerpiece of the plot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739065</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255437300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd argue that once the following two things happen, socialism is the only sane course.<br>1) Free/so-close-to-free-it-makes-no-difference enegery<br>2) Energy -&gt; arbitrary matter converters (a.k.a. replicators)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd argue that once the following two things happen , socialism is the only sane course.1 ) Free/so-close-to-free-it-makes-no-difference enegery2 ) Energy - &gt; arbitrary matter converters ( a.k.a .
replicators )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd argue that once the following two things happen, socialism is the only sane course.1) Free/so-close-to-free-it-makes-no-difference enegery2) Energy -&gt; arbitrary matter converters (a.k.a.
replicators)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736747</id>
	<title>Goddam limey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's only jealous because we got to the moon before they did.  Plus, he has shit teath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's only jealous because we got to the moon before they did .
Plus , he has shit teath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's only jealous because we got to the moon before they did.
Plus, he has shit teath.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736917</id>
	<title>Ultratech technobabble I'm okay with, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the fact that the science is not the focus of the plot excuses treknobabble, to a degree. It never really bothers me, because it's generally pretty self-aware that it's just making stuff up.</p><p>On the other hand, to use a current example, a show like Fringe distorts or flat-out makes up stuff about real world, modern-day science so often that I actually find it distracting, and I don't even have a particularly strong science background. Star Trek is at least in the far future - I can't call them out on making stuff up about dilithium crystals and transwarp mogons or what-have-you.</p><p>But if you're going to talk about things that aren't much more advanced than a high school science class, you should at least try not to just make stuff up because you're too lazy to look it up. Not only does it take people out of it who know that it's wrong, it misleads people and perpetuates a poor understanding of science in the general population. I'm not saying fictional programming should be educational, but it should at least make a modicum of effort to not be absurd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the fact that the science is not the focus of the plot excuses treknobabble , to a degree .
It never really bothers me , because it 's generally pretty self-aware that it 's just making stuff up.On the other hand , to use a current example , a show like Fringe distorts or flat-out makes up stuff about real world , modern-day science so often that I actually find it distracting , and I do n't even have a particularly strong science background .
Star Trek is at least in the far future - I ca n't call them out on making stuff up about dilithium crystals and transwarp mogons or what-have-you.But if you 're going to talk about things that are n't much more advanced than a high school science class , you should at least try not to just make stuff up because you 're too lazy to look it up .
Not only does it take people out of it who know that it 's wrong , it misleads people and perpetuates a poor understanding of science in the general population .
I 'm not saying fictional programming should be educational , but it should at least make a modicum of effort to not be absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the fact that the science is not the focus of the plot excuses treknobabble, to a degree.
It never really bothers me, because it's generally pretty self-aware that it's just making stuff up.On the other hand, to use a current example, a show like Fringe distorts or flat-out makes up stuff about real world, modern-day science so often that I actually find it distracting, and I don't even have a particularly strong science background.
Star Trek is at least in the far future - I can't call them out on making stuff up about dilithium crystals and transwarp mogons or what-have-you.But if you're going to talk about things that aren't much more advanced than a high school science class, you should at least try not to just make stuff up because you're too lazy to look it up.
Not only does it take people out of it who know that it's wrong, it misleads people and perpetuates a poor understanding of science in the general population.
I'm not saying fictional programming should be educational, but it should at least make a modicum of effort to not be absurd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737799</id>
	<title>Sadly, he's right.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1255430880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
He's so right.  He references the <a href="http://www.sfwa.org/2009/06/turkey-city-lexicon-a-primer-for-sf-workshops/" title="sfwa.org">Turkey City Lexicon</a> [sfwa.org], which lists most of the things that make bad SF.  Also worth reading is the <a href="http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html" title="eviloverlord.com">Evil Overlord List.</a> [eviloverlord.com] (" 2. My ventilation ducts will be too small to crawl through."  "56. My Legions of Terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice."  "67. No matter how many shorts we have in the system, my guards will be instructed to treat every surveillance camera malfunction as a full-scale emergency.")
</p><p>
There are some other annoying cliches in SF.  One is copying historical battles.  The Defense of Roarke's Drift has shown up in at least four SF novels.  (Nobody ever seems to do the <a href="http://carl.army.mil/resources/csi/Swinton/Swinton.asp" title="army.mil">Defense of Duffer's Drift.</a> [army.mil])  Star Wars space battles are copied from WWI biplane battles, where nobody can hit targets consistently, even at short range.  There's also the embarrassing fact that, historically, heroism hasn't decided many major battles.  (Roman saying: "The Legion is not composed of heroes.  Heroes are what the Legion kills.")  Military SF no longer reflects this, because the WWII generation, which learned that the hard way, has died off.
</p><p>
David Weber does battles better, but his stuff requires too much exposition for most people.  His latest book in the Honor Harrington series consists mostly of transcripts of meetings, setting up the political background for the next book.
</p><p>
Stross himself has his moments.  The Merchant's War series starts out as fantasy, but slowly, book by book, moves into hard fiction and then politics.  In the last book out so far, a character modelled on Dick Cheney has dealt with a threat from a castle in an alternate universe by having his people blow up the castle with a nuclear weapon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's so right .
He references the Turkey City Lexicon [ sfwa.org ] , which lists most of the things that make bad SF .
Also worth reading is the Evil Overlord List .
[ eviloverlord.com ] ( " 2 .
My ventilation ducts will be too small to crawl through .
" " 56 .
My Legions of Terror will be trained in basic marksmanship .
Any who can not learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice .
" " 67 .
No matter how many shorts we have in the system , my guards will be instructed to treat every surveillance camera malfunction as a full-scale emergency .
" ) There are some other annoying cliches in SF .
One is copying historical battles .
The Defense of Roarke 's Drift has shown up in at least four SF novels .
( Nobody ever seems to do the Defense of Duffer 's Drift .
[ army.mil ] ) Star Wars space battles are copied from WWI biplane battles , where nobody can hit targets consistently , even at short range .
There 's also the embarrassing fact that , historically , heroism has n't decided many major battles .
( Roman saying : " The Legion is not composed of heroes .
Heroes are what the Legion kills .
" ) Military SF no longer reflects this , because the WWII generation , which learned that the hard way , has died off .
David Weber does battles better , but his stuff requires too much exposition for most people .
His latest book in the Honor Harrington series consists mostly of transcripts of meetings , setting up the political background for the next book .
Stross himself has his moments .
The Merchant 's War series starts out as fantasy , but slowly , book by book , moves into hard fiction and then politics .
In the last book out so far , a character modelled on Dick Cheney has dealt with a threat from a castle in an alternate universe by having his people blow up the castle with a nuclear weapon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
He's so right.
He references the Turkey City Lexicon [sfwa.org], which lists most of the things that make bad SF.
Also worth reading is the Evil Overlord List.
[eviloverlord.com] (" 2.
My ventilation ducts will be too small to crawl through.
"  "56.
My Legions of Terror will be trained in basic marksmanship.
Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
"  "67.
No matter how many shorts we have in the system, my guards will be instructed to treat every surveillance camera malfunction as a full-scale emergency.
")

There are some other annoying cliches in SF.
One is copying historical battles.
The Defense of Roarke's Drift has shown up in at least four SF novels.
(Nobody ever seems to do the Defense of Duffer's Drift.
[army.mil])  Star Wars space battles are copied from WWI biplane battles, where nobody can hit targets consistently, even at short range.
There's also the embarrassing fact that, historically, heroism hasn't decided many major battles.
(Roman saying: "The Legion is not composed of heroes.
Heroes are what the Legion kills.
")  Military SF no longer reflects this, because the WWII generation, which learned that the hard way, has died off.
David Weber does battles better, but his stuff requires too much exposition for most people.
His latest book in the Honor Harrington series consists mostly of transcripts of meetings, setting up the political background for the next book.
Stross himself has his moments.
The Merchant's War series starts out as fantasy, but slowly, book by book, moves into hard fiction and then politics.
In the last book out so far, a character modelled on Dick Cheney has dealt with a threat from a castle in an alternate universe by having his people blow up the castle with a nuclear weapon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736999</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>flitty</author>
	<datestamp>1255428060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Totally.  I'd much rather watch the episode where the Enterprise was reposessed due to the military cuts in spending, but because the construction was contracted to several different manufacturers (who then sub-contracted) and nobody really owned the thing, and because thousands of shares of it were sold off, making out who actually owned the thing an impossibility, and nobody knew who to serve the intergalactic summons to.<br> <br>

Oh, and the Klingons were waiting outside of spaceport cloaked the entire episode... waiting for a fair battle..  Good times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally .
I 'd much rather watch the episode where the Enterprise was reposessed due to the military cuts in spending , but because the construction was contracted to several different manufacturers ( who then sub-contracted ) and nobody really owned the thing , and because thousands of shares of it were sold off , making out who actually owned the thing an impossibility , and nobody knew who to serve the intergalactic summons to .
Oh , and the Klingons were waiting outside of spaceport cloaked the entire episode... waiting for a fair battle.. Good times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally.
I'd much rather watch the episode where the Enterprise was reposessed due to the military cuts in spending, but because the construction was contracted to several different manufacturers (who then sub-contracted) and nobody really owned the thing, and because thousands of shares of it were sold off, making out who actually owned the thing an impossibility, and nobody knew who to serve the intergalactic summons to.
Oh, and the Klingons were waiting outside of spaceport cloaked the entire episode... waiting for a fair battle..  Good times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737087</id>
	<title>really slashdot?</title>
	<author>Neotrantor</author>
	<datestamp>1255428240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this has been front page in reddit/r/scifi for days now. you need to update your model please</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this has been front page in reddit/r/scifi for days now .
you need to update your model please</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this has been front page in reddit/r/scifi for days now.
you need to update your model please</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737429</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255429440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an internal consistency to star trek tech though. You can't just solve *any* problem by re-aligning the warp matrix... or well, re-aligning the warp matrix will fix a lot of problems in star trek, but most of the problems are with the warp matrix to begin with.</p><p>That's just writing. Invent a problem, let the characters solve it. Roll credits.</p><p>It may not be your cuppa, but essentially all TV writing works that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an internal consistency to star trek tech though .
You ca n't just solve * any * problem by re-aligning the warp matrix... or well , re-aligning the warp matrix will fix a lot of problems in star trek , but most of the problems are with the warp matrix to begin with.That 's just writing .
Invent a problem , let the characters solve it .
Roll credits.It may not be your cuppa , but essentially all TV writing works that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an internal consistency to star trek tech though.
You can't just solve *any* problem by re-aligning the warp matrix... or well, re-aligning the warp matrix will fix a lot of problems in star trek, but most of the problems are with the warp matrix to begin with.That's just writing.
Invent a problem, let the characters solve it.
Roll credits.It may not be your cuppa, but essentially all TV writing works that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742269</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255514580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From B5:</p><p>Sheridan: Get us the hell out of here, Lennier!<br>Lennier: Aye... initiating... 'getting the hell out of here' manoeuvre, captain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From B5 : Sheridan : Get us the hell out of here , Lennier ! Lennier : Aye... initiating... 'getting the hell out of here ' manoeuvre , captain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From B5:Sheridan: Get us the hell out of here, Lennier!Lennier: Aye... initiating... 'getting the hell out of here' manoeuvre, captain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739329</id>
	<title>Oh, BullShit!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255439220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Star Trek at its best is *Biting* social commentary - It is *Good* fiction.  I lift up "City on the Edge of Forever" and the *ENTIRE* last season of Voyager.  The episode where 7of9 quits being cheeze cake and has to deal with the result of using her technology to fix a man who becomes true love only to see him go and face execution for taking one life, while she has killed more people than even she can count, or the poor klinglon lady having to struggle with altering her unborn child?  Come on.  This is literature in its purest and finest form.  For crying out loud, IT MAKES US THINK!!!</p><p>Of course if you make people think they are thinking they will love you, it you make them really think they will kill you.</p><p>Eat me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Trek at its best is * Biting * social commentary - It is * Good * fiction .
I lift up " City on the Edge of Forever " and the * ENTIRE * last season of Voyager .
The episode where 7of9 quits being cheeze cake and has to deal with the result of using her technology to fix a man who becomes true love only to see him go and face execution for taking one life , while she has killed more people than even she can count , or the poor klinglon lady having to struggle with altering her unborn child ?
Come on .
This is literature in its purest and finest form .
For crying out loud , IT MAKES US THINK ! !
! Of course if you make people think they are thinking they will love you , it you make them really think they will kill you.Eat me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Trek at its best is *Biting* social commentary - It is *Good* fiction.
I lift up "City on the Edge of Forever" and the *ENTIRE* last season of Voyager.
The episode where 7of9 quits being cheeze cake and has to deal with the result of using her technology to fix a man who becomes true love only to see him go and face execution for taking one life, while she has killed more people than even she can count, or the poor klinglon lady having to struggle with altering her unborn child?
Come on.
This is literature in its purest and finest form.
For crying out loud, IT MAKES US THINK!!
!Of course if you make people think they are thinking they will love you, it you make them really think they will kill you.Eat me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739057</id>
	<title>Seriously...</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1255437240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what?</p><p>Plenty of people don't like Star Trek.</p><p>Why is it important to any of us that this guy doesn't?</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ? Plenty of people do n't like Star Trek.Why is it important to any of us that this guy does n't ? LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?Plenty of people don't like Star Trek.Why is it important to any of us that this guy doesn't?LK</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743033</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>discord5</author>
	<datestamp>1255525560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.</p></div><p>It'll change the way we look at traffic forever. We'll just get out of bed, go through our morning routine and hop on the transporter to beam to work. No more traffic jams on the roads, but photon jams in the fiberoptic cable as billions of humans teleport to work at the same time. And every now and then some idiot will be trying to break the speedlimit, and you'll get a horrible accident. From what I hear, the fiberoptic switch between node 353 and node 295 is hell. I'd pity the poor sobs who have to go to work through those cables.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I won't even mention time-travel.</p></div><p>Yes, please don't. It'll upset the natives and they'll be arguing about paradoxes, self fullfilling prophecy type of time travel, etc ad nauseum. It's not pretty when that happens, and at the end of the day tears will be shed.</p><p>Seriously though, I'd rather have a look at a universe that didn't have a nicely wrapped up happy end every 45 minutes (or 90 minutes if it's a two part episode). The technology really doesn't matter that much. Every scifi show solves the faster-than-light problem with a lot of hand waving and a magical device (warp engine, jumpgate, hedge drive, chocolate-doh-doh-wave-accelerator), so in my opinion it's better to ignore the actual technology-aspect and focus on the story. With "ignore the technology" I don't mean to say that you can't focus on the impact of said technology on society, but I'd rather not have "particle of the week"-type of episodes that Star Trek loved so much.</p><p>I'd much rather have a story driven Star Trek like many of the episodes in DS9. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In\_the\_pale\_moonlight" title="wikipedia.org">In the pale moonlight</a> [wikipedia.org] is a perfect example of what I mean. Again a lot of hand waving about "optholithic datarods" (blah blah blah), but you really get a feel for the dilemma Sisko is facing, and how he learns to accept his choice as being for the better despite it not being in his nature. I'd rather have more of that kind of storytelling, than another 3 seasons of "Neutrino emissions from the port nacelle have ruptured the fabric of subspace, so let's bomb it with tachyon emissions from the deflector dish and hope this show gets a lot of money from commercial slots. Ensign Redshirt, you go to the airlock and make sure it's sealed properly."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter would n't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.It 'll change the way we look at traffic forever .
We 'll just get out of bed , go through our morning routine and hop on the transporter to beam to work .
No more traffic jams on the roads , but photon jams in the fiberoptic cable as billions of humans teleport to work at the same time .
And every now and then some idiot will be trying to break the speedlimit , and you 'll get a horrible accident .
From what I hear , the fiberoptic switch between node 353 and node 295 is hell .
I 'd pity the poor sobs who have to go to work through those cables.I wo n't even mention time-travel.Yes , please do n't .
It 'll upset the natives and they 'll be arguing about paradoxes , self fullfilling prophecy type of time travel , etc ad nauseum .
It 's not pretty when that happens , and at the end of the day tears will be shed.Seriously though , I 'd rather have a look at a universe that did n't have a nicely wrapped up happy end every 45 minutes ( or 90 minutes if it 's a two part episode ) .
The technology really does n't matter that much .
Every scifi show solves the faster-than-light problem with a lot of hand waving and a magical device ( warp engine , jumpgate , hedge drive , chocolate-doh-doh-wave-accelerator ) , so in my opinion it 's better to ignore the actual technology-aspect and focus on the story .
With " ignore the technology " I do n't mean to say that you ca n't focus on the impact of said technology on society , but I 'd rather not have " particle of the week " -type of episodes that Star Trek loved so much.I 'd much rather have a story driven Star Trek like many of the episodes in DS9 .
In the pale moonlight [ wikipedia.org ] is a perfect example of what I mean .
Again a lot of hand waving about " optholithic datarods " ( blah blah blah ) , but you really get a feel for the dilemma Sisko is facing , and how he learns to accept his choice as being for the better despite it not being in his nature .
I 'd rather have more of that kind of storytelling , than another 3 seasons of " Neutrino emissions from the port nacelle have ruptured the fabric of subspace , so let 's bomb it with tachyon emissions from the deflector dish and hope this show gets a lot of money from commercial slots .
Ensign Redshirt , you go to the airlock and make sure it 's sealed properly .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's inconceivable to me that a creation like the transporter wouldn't radically transform human culture and society into something unrecognizable.It'll change the way we look at traffic forever.
We'll just get out of bed, go through our morning routine and hop on the transporter to beam to work.
No more traffic jams on the roads, but photon jams in the fiberoptic cable as billions of humans teleport to work at the same time.
And every now and then some idiot will be trying to break the speedlimit, and you'll get a horrible accident.
From what I hear, the fiberoptic switch between node 353 and node 295 is hell.
I'd pity the poor sobs who have to go to work through those cables.I won't even mention time-travel.Yes, please don't.
It'll upset the natives and they'll be arguing about paradoxes, self fullfilling prophecy type of time travel, etc ad nauseum.
It's not pretty when that happens, and at the end of the day tears will be shed.Seriously though, I'd rather have a look at a universe that didn't have a nicely wrapped up happy end every 45 minutes (or 90 minutes if it's a two part episode).
The technology really doesn't matter that much.
Every scifi show solves the faster-than-light problem with a lot of hand waving and a magical device (warp engine, jumpgate, hedge drive, chocolate-doh-doh-wave-accelerator), so in my opinion it's better to ignore the actual technology-aspect and focus on the story.
With "ignore the technology" I don't mean to say that you can't focus on the impact of said technology on society, but I'd rather not have "particle of the week"-type of episodes that Star Trek loved so much.I'd much rather have a story driven Star Trek like many of the episodes in DS9.
In the pale moonlight [wikipedia.org] is a perfect example of what I mean.
Again a lot of hand waving about "optholithic datarods" (blah blah blah), but you really get a feel for the dilemma Sisko is facing, and how he learns to accept his choice as being for the better despite it not being in his nature.
I'd rather have more of that kind of storytelling, than another 3 seasons of "Neutrino emissions from the port nacelle have ruptured the fabric of subspace, so let's bomb it with tachyon emissions from the deflector dish and hope this show gets a lot of money from commercial slots.
Ensign Redshirt, you go to the airlock and make sure it's sealed properly.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737045</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Even if it were so, exactly what's wrong with that?</p><p>Do you think man should always exploit the other man?<br>It's not a straw man. This is the crux of the matter. Fairness vs. exploitation. And you, dear smoked reindeer, are on the side of exploitation. Why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Even if it were so , exactly what 's wrong with that ? Do you think man should always exploit the other man ? It 's not a straw man .
This is the crux of the matter .
Fairness vs. exploitation. And you , dear smoked reindeer , are on the side of exploitation .
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Even if it were so, exactly what's wrong with that?Do you think man should always exploit the other man?It's not a straw man.
This is the crux of the matter.
Fairness vs. exploitation. And you, dear smoked reindeer, are on the side of exploitation.
Why?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738861</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>coldmist</author>
	<datestamp>1255435860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I HATED this in Stargate SG-1.  Where Carter would have to explain everything to Jack, in every episode.  I turned off of the series, just for this reason!</p><p>Firefily: Very good.<br>Star Wars: Very good (hyperspanner was about it)<br>Star Trek: horrible.  as everyone else has pointed out.</p><p>It just makes the series feel dated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I HATED this in Stargate SG-1 .
Where Carter would have to explain everything to Jack , in every episode .
I turned off of the series , just for this reason ! Firefily : Very good.Star Wars : Very good ( hyperspanner was about it ) Star Trek : horrible .
as everyone else has pointed out.It just makes the series feel dated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I HATED this in Stargate SG-1.
Where Carter would have to explain everything to Jack, in every episode.
I turned off of the series, just for this reason!Firefily: Very good.Star Wars: Very good (hyperspanner was about it)Star Trek: horrible.
as everyone else has pointed out.It just makes the series feel dated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742613</id>
	<title>Re:Adapting to the Landscape!</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1255519560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, we've got exactly that going on right now!</p><p>What we've got is the first generation of the Replicator! Now look at the thrashing wounded Beast of Olde Music struggling and failing to adapt!</p><p>We're caught with the ease of the actual tech, and a serious unease about what level of quality of entertainment we'll get if the performers didn't get paid.</p><p>But someone in a scary meeting about 2000 in the dank dark Room 401 decided that *Music* would be the posterboy of the copyright wars. After all, one track of music is some 5 performers, 6ish minutes long, needing about 10 hours of mastering. All in all, that's really pretty easy. There's so much music(including bad) we're nearly swamped by it.</p><p>Look at movies. A CHEAP movie is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>(Dr. Evil) "One Hundred Million Dollars!!!" (/Dr. Evil)</p><p>Being generous, there's only about 25 watchable movies per year, and perhaps another 25 of various bad unwatchable varities.</p><p>Except you could copy the entire suite in a day if you had discs, and maybe a week on FIOS.<br>Replicator. Then agency meanness aside, that's a SERIOUS crash of the economy. "Eh, Musicians can do shows, they'll make ten grand..."<br>We all know what happens when movies cut money... our *effects greed* tells. Hence the jokes about the effects in Star Trek TOS.</p><p>It's here all right. And we haven't found an answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , we 've got exactly that going on right now ! What we 've got is the first generation of the Replicator !
Now look at the thrashing wounded Beast of Olde Music struggling and failing to adapt ! We 're caught with the ease of the actual tech , and a serious unease about what level of quality of entertainment we 'll get if the performers did n't get paid.But someone in a scary meeting about 2000 in the dank dark Room 401 decided that * Music * would be the posterboy of the copyright wars .
After all , one track of music is some 5 performers , 6ish minutes long , needing about 10 hours of mastering .
All in all , that 's really pretty easy .
There 's so much music ( including bad ) we 're nearly swamped by it.Look at movies .
A CHEAP movie is ... ( Dr. Evil ) " One Hundred Million Dollars ! ! !
" ( /Dr .
Evil ) Being generous , there 's only about 25 watchable movies per year , and perhaps another 25 of various bad unwatchable varities.Except you could copy the entire suite in a day if you had discs , and maybe a week on FIOS.Replicator .
Then agency meanness aside , that 's a SERIOUS crash of the economy .
" Eh , Musicians can do shows , they 'll make ten grand... " We all know what happens when movies cut money... our * effects greed * tells .
Hence the jokes about the effects in Star Trek TOS.It 's here all right .
And we have n't found an answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, we've got exactly that going on right now!What we've got is the first generation of the Replicator!
Now look at the thrashing wounded Beast of Olde Music struggling and failing to adapt!We're caught with the ease of the actual tech, and a serious unease about what level of quality of entertainment we'll get if the performers didn't get paid.But someone in a scary meeting about 2000 in the dank dark Room 401 decided that *Music* would be the posterboy of the copyright wars.
After all, one track of music is some 5 performers, 6ish minutes long, needing about 10 hours of mastering.
All in all, that's really pretty easy.
There's so much music(including bad) we're nearly swamped by it.Look at movies.
A CHEAP movie is ...(Dr. Evil) "One Hundred Million Dollars!!!
" (/Dr.
Evil)Being generous, there's only about 25 watchable movies per year, and perhaps another 25 of various bad unwatchable varities.Except you could copy the entire suite in a day if you had discs, and maybe a week on FIOS.Replicator.
Then agency meanness aside, that's a SERIOUS crash of the economy.
"Eh, Musicians can do shows, they'll make ten grand..."We all know what happens when movies cut money... our *effects greed* tells.
Hence the jokes about the effects in Star Trek TOS.It's here all right.
And we haven't found an answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743121</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>DaFallus</author>
	<datestamp>1255526700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As Scott Adams says; "The Holodeck will be mankind's last great invention". I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out why we'd never ever want to leave.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

It will malfunction and release Evil Lincoln upon us?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As Scott Adams says ; " The Holodeck will be mankind 's last great invention " .
I 'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out why we 'd never ever want to leave .
It will malfunction and release Evil Lincoln upon us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Scott Adams says; "The Holodeck will be mankind's last great invention".
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out why we'd never ever want to leave.
It will malfunction and release Evil Lincoln upon us?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739181</id>
	<title>Re:Given the enduring popularity of Star Trek, et.</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1255438200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>When I want entertainment, I want entertainment. Obviously, I'm not alone in feeling that Star Trek/Babylon 5/Firefly et. al. provide that.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
He didn't claim it was unpopular. He didn't even claim it was objectively bad. He just explained why he personally didn't like it.
</p><p>
Pick any lowest-common-denominator popular culture. Britney Spears. Dogs playing poker. The Transformers movie. Whatever. The reason it sells is that a lot of people like it. But the fact that it's popular doesn't mean that it should be magically insulated from criticism.
</p><p>
Let's translate from science fiction to a different genre, say westerns, so Star Trek becomes Wagon Trek.
Stross is basically saying that he doesn't enjoy Wagon Trek, because he's an enthusiast for westerns, he's spent a lot of time reading good westerns, and he's developed enough taste to discriminate between shitty westerns and good ones. In particular, if a western novel has Cherokees in Spanish Colonial California, he's not going to enjoy that western, because he can't suspend his disbelief, and he can tell that the author was an idiot who didn't even have enough respect for the genre to do his research. Ditto if a Montana cowboy in 1895 is using flintlocks.
</p><p>
Science fiction used to be a niche market. It was part of the "long tails," before the notion of the long tails was invented. What's happened over the last 40 years is that it's become such a commoditized thing that a lot of SF (and especially a lot of the TV/movie SF) is written for people who have no actual affection for or knowledge of the genre. There's nothing wrong with letting those people enjoy their SF, just as there's nothing wrong with listening to Sonny and Cher sing "I Got You, Babe." But sometimes there are people who don't want Sonny and Cher, they want James Brown.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I want entertainment , I want entertainment .
Obviously , I 'm not alone in feeling that Star Trek/Babylon 5/Firefly et .
al. provide that .
He did n't claim it was unpopular .
He did n't even claim it was objectively bad .
He just explained why he personally did n't like it .
Pick any lowest-common-denominator popular culture .
Britney Spears .
Dogs playing poker .
The Transformers movie .
Whatever. The reason it sells is that a lot of people like it .
But the fact that it 's popular does n't mean that it should be magically insulated from criticism .
Let 's translate from science fiction to a different genre , say westerns , so Star Trek becomes Wagon Trek .
Stross is basically saying that he does n't enjoy Wagon Trek , because he 's an enthusiast for westerns , he 's spent a lot of time reading good westerns , and he 's developed enough taste to discriminate between shitty westerns and good ones .
In particular , if a western novel has Cherokees in Spanish Colonial California , he 's not going to enjoy that western , because he ca n't suspend his disbelief , and he can tell that the author was an idiot who did n't even have enough respect for the genre to do his research .
Ditto if a Montana cowboy in 1895 is using flintlocks .
Science fiction used to be a niche market .
It was part of the " long tails , " before the notion of the long tails was invented .
What 's happened over the last 40 years is that it 's become such a commoditized thing that a lot of SF ( and especially a lot of the TV/movie SF ) is written for people who have no actual affection for or knowledge of the genre .
There 's nothing wrong with letting those people enjoy their SF , just as there 's nothing wrong with listening to Sonny and Cher sing " I Got You , Babe .
" But sometimes there are people who do n't want Sonny and Cher , they want James Brown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I want entertainment, I want entertainment.
Obviously, I'm not alone in feeling that Star Trek/Babylon 5/Firefly et.
al. provide that.
He didn't claim it was unpopular.
He didn't even claim it was objectively bad.
He just explained why he personally didn't like it.
Pick any lowest-common-denominator popular culture.
Britney Spears.
Dogs playing poker.
The Transformers movie.
Whatever. The reason it sells is that a lot of people like it.
But the fact that it's popular doesn't mean that it should be magically insulated from criticism.
Let's translate from science fiction to a different genre, say westerns, so Star Trek becomes Wagon Trek.
Stross is basically saying that he doesn't enjoy Wagon Trek, because he's an enthusiast for westerns, he's spent a lot of time reading good westerns, and he's developed enough taste to discriminate between shitty westerns and good ones.
In particular, if a western novel has Cherokees in Spanish Colonial California, he's not going to enjoy that western, because he can't suspend his disbelief, and he can tell that the author was an idiot who didn't even have enough respect for the genre to do his research.
Ditto if a Montana cowboy in 1895 is using flintlocks.
Science fiction used to be a niche market.
It was part of the "long tails," before the notion of the long tails was invented.
What's happened over the last 40 years is that it's become such a commoditized thing that a lot of SF (and especially a lot of the TV/movie SF) is written for people who have no actual affection for or knowledge of the genre.
There's nothing wrong with letting those people enjoy their SF, just as there's nothing wrong with listening to Sonny and Cher sing "I Got You, Babe.
" But sometimes there are people who don't want Sonny and Cher, they want James Brown.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737519</id>
	<title>Merry Frelling Christmas.</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1255429800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree with some of the points whereby the later Star Treks overly rely on techno-babble and simplicities, "Data: In theory, a Graviton pulse should collapse the... blah, blah...", and I still enjoy the franchise to a large extent, but I think it's all rather tame.  The updated BSG had its moments, but could have been even better.
<p>
While not perfect either, I'm happy, instead, to re-watch my Firefly and (more specifically) <b>Farscape</b> DVDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with some of the points whereby the later Star Treks overly rely on techno-babble and simplicities , " Data : In theory , a Graviton pulse should collapse the... blah , blah... " , and I still enjoy the franchise to a large extent , but I think it 's all rather tame .
The updated BSG had its moments , but could have been even better .
While not perfect either , I 'm happy , instead , to re-watch my Firefly and ( more specifically ) Farscape DVDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with some of the points whereby the later Star Treks overly rely on techno-babble and simplicities, "Data: In theory, a Graviton pulse should collapse the... blah, blah...", and I still enjoy the franchise to a large extent, but I think it's all rather tame.
The updated BSG had its moments, but could have been even better.
While not perfect either, I'm happy, instead, to re-watch my Firefly and (more specifically) Farscape DVDs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740087</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1255445400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Federation, at least in TNG and later, is not a socialist utopia, it's a militaristic police state where the Navy runs all research and development, polices not just international but also interstate borders (why are there are so many Starfleet ships within the Federation itself? don't they have a coast guard equivalent?), runs the only university worth mentioning, has total control over dozens, if not hundreds, of colonies, and essentially tells the President and Parliament what to do. I don't think that counts as anyone's idea of utopia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Federation , at least in TNG and later , is not a socialist utopia , it 's a militaristic police state where the Navy runs all research and development , polices not just international but also interstate borders ( why are there are so many Starfleet ships within the Federation itself ?
do n't they have a coast guard equivalent ?
) , runs the only university worth mentioning , has total control over dozens , if not hundreds , of colonies , and essentially tells the President and Parliament what to do .
I do n't think that counts as anyone 's idea of utopia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Federation, at least in TNG and later, is not a socialist utopia, it's a militaristic police state where the Navy runs all research and development, polices not just international but also interstate borders (why are there are so many Starfleet ships within the Federation itself?
don't they have a coast guard equivalent?
), runs the only university worth mentioning, has total control over dozens, if not hundreds, of colonies, and essentially tells the President and Parliament what to do.
I don't think that counts as anyone's idea of utopia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737029</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1255428120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology.  It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.</p></div><p>Different people are satisfied with different levels of explanation.  I'm not surprised a sci-fi author is dissatisfied with another sci-fi writer's work.  Possibly could explain the great divide between Star Wars and Star Trek fans.  Rarely was a hyperdrive or the force explained in great detail in Star Wars but Star Trek seemed to like to take it a couple steps further.  And when they got into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midi-chlorians#Midi-chlorians\_and\_the\_Chosen\_One" title="wikipedia.org">midichlorians</a> [wikipedia.org] just to <i>measure</i> the force it presented a possible science to the force or an explanation and the fans revolted.  I liken it to cheerleaders at football games.  From a distance and on TV they look great but if you've ever got up in one of their mugs during a game they are caked -- I mean <b>caked</b> -- with makeup.  To a disgusting degree.  It's so you can see it from a great distance in the stands but up close they're circus clowns.  Similar to this a lot of sci-fi plot devices fall apart upon closer inspection.  Those that hold up are allowed deep introspection before the readers/viewer/listener gets upset.  Personally I cannot stand the way magic is explained in Harry Potter yet I eat up "The One Power" from the Wheel of Time like a fanboi ready to forgive Robert Jordan for purple prose, "light" oath taking and hair tugging.  I guess it's just the way I am and how those authors deliver to me.  <br> <br>

Oh, and my biggest beef with Star Trek is the stretched analogies (after I just made one about cheerleaders) in the original series.  I feel this has caused a lot of nerds to stretch for analogies when explaining something complicated.  That analogy allowed for little explanation to be made and since it was made to something real in real life we were more likely to swallow it.  Now, let's say you're trying to explain something complicated in real life and you're a Star Trek fan.  You're probably tempted to stretch to an analogy but, in the end, what have you really taught that person?  Nothing but a (possibly) problematic association a la Ted Stevens' Tubes.  <br> <br>

In the end it's fiction.  It gets scrutinized because it's such massively popular fiction.  A lot of this criticism is really stupid stuff and nitpicking.  My advice is just relax and enjoy it or simply find something else to watch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek , and it was most common in the Next Generation , was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology .
It has no value to a plot ; actually it 's the opposite of plot , if there is such a thing.Different people are satisfied with different levels of explanation .
I 'm not surprised a sci-fi author is dissatisfied with another sci-fi writer 's work .
Possibly could explain the great divide between Star Wars and Star Trek fans .
Rarely was a hyperdrive or the force explained in great detail in Star Wars but Star Trek seemed to like to take it a couple steps further .
And when they got into midichlorians [ wikipedia.org ] just to measure the force it presented a possible science to the force or an explanation and the fans revolted .
I liken it to cheerleaders at football games .
From a distance and on TV they look great but if you 've ever got up in one of their mugs during a game they are caked -- I mean caked -- with makeup .
To a disgusting degree .
It 's so you can see it from a great distance in the stands but up close they 're circus clowns .
Similar to this a lot of sci-fi plot devices fall apart upon closer inspection .
Those that hold up are allowed deep introspection before the readers/viewer/listener gets upset .
Personally I can not stand the way magic is explained in Harry Potter yet I eat up " The One Power " from the Wheel of Time like a fanboi ready to forgive Robert Jordan for purple prose , " light " oath taking and hair tugging .
I guess it 's just the way I am and how those authors deliver to me .
Oh , and my biggest beef with Star Trek is the stretched analogies ( after I just made one about cheerleaders ) in the original series .
I feel this has caused a lot of nerds to stretch for analogies when explaining something complicated .
That analogy allowed for little explanation to be made and since it was made to something real in real life we were more likely to swallow it .
Now , let 's say you 're trying to explain something complicated in real life and you 're a Star Trek fan .
You 're probably tempted to stretch to an analogy but , in the end , what have you really taught that person ?
Nothing but a ( possibly ) problematic association a la Ted Stevens ' Tubes .
In the end it 's fiction .
It gets scrutinized because it 's such massively popular fiction .
A lot of this criticism is really stupid stuff and nitpicking .
My advice is just relax and enjoy it or simply find something else to watch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology.
It has no value to a plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.Different people are satisfied with different levels of explanation.
I'm not surprised a sci-fi author is dissatisfied with another sci-fi writer's work.
Possibly could explain the great divide between Star Wars and Star Trek fans.
Rarely was a hyperdrive or the force explained in great detail in Star Wars but Star Trek seemed to like to take it a couple steps further.
And when they got into midichlorians [wikipedia.org] just to measure the force it presented a possible science to the force or an explanation and the fans revolted.
I liken it to cheerleaders at football games.
From a distance and on TV they look great but if you've ever got up in one of their mugs during a game they are caked -- I mean caked -- with makeup.
To a disgusting degree.
It's so you can see it from a great distance in the stands but up close they're circus clowns.
Similar to this a lot of sci-fi plot devices fall apart upon closer inspection.
Those that hold up are allowed deep introspection before the readers/viewer/listener gets upset.
Personally I cannot stand the way magic is explained in Harry Potter yet I eat up "The One Power" from the Wheel of Time like a fanboi ready to forgive Robert Jordan for purple prose, "light" oath taking and hair tugging.
I guess it's just the way I am and how those authors deliver to me.
Oh, and my biggest beef with Star Trek is the stretched analogies (after I just made one about cheerleaders) in the original series.
I feel this has caused a lot of nerds to stretch for analogies when explaining something complicated.
That analogy allowed for little explanation to be made and since it was made to something real in real life we were more likely to swallow it.
Now, let's say you're trying to explain something complicated in real life and you're a Star Trek fan.
You're probably tempted to stretch to an analogy but, in the end, what have you really taught that person?
Nothing but a (possibly) problematic association a la Ted Stevens' Tubes.
In the end it's fiction.
It gets scrutinized because it's such massively popular fiction.
A lot of this criticism is really stupid stuff and nitpicking.
My advice is just relax and enjoy it or simply find something else to watch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736973</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>Artraze</author>
	<datestamp>1255428000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was<br>&gt; the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology. It has no value to a<br>&gt; plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.</p><p>"contrived" is probably the word you're looking for.</p><p>However, how contrived the plot is isn't really the point; the real question is whether or not it makes good TV, and the proof is in the pudding (especially for TNG).  TV shows are, after all, entertainment and not great literary works. (Indeed, the two don't frequently go hand-in-hand...)</p><p>Regardless, sci-fi generally means made-up technology, and made-up technology problems.  Sometimes these can be/are solved by going back to human ingenuity or 'old-school' tech, but sometimes they need to be solved with more made-up technology.  That's just kinda how things go.  For example, if you had someone hacking your critical (pulling the plug isn't an option) system, you may have to, say, "reconfigure the firewall".  If this were the 1920's and computers were made-up technology, then the whole situation would appear contrived, though from our perspective it's not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek , and it was most common in the Next Generation , was &gt; the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology .
It has no value to a &gt; plot ; actually it 's the opposite of plot , if there is such a thing .
" contrived " is probably the word you 're looking for.However , how contrived the plot is is n't really the point ; the real question is whether or not it makes good TV , and the proof is in the pudding ( especially for TNG ) .
TV shows are , after all , entertainment and not great literary works .
( Indeed , the two do n't frequently go hand-in-hand... ) Regardless , sci-fi generally means made-up technology , and made-up technology problems .
Sometimes these can be/are solved by going back to human ingenuity or 'old-school ' tech , but sometimes they need to be solved with more made-up technology .
That 's just kinda how things go .
For example , if you had someone hacking your critical ( pulling the plug is n't an option ) system , you may have to , say , " reconfigure the firewall " .
If this were the 1920 's and computers were made-up technology , then the whole situation would appear contrived , though from our perspective it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The thing that annoyed me the most about Star Trek, and it was most common in the Next Generation, was&gt; the idiotic idea of solving a made-up scientific problem with made-up technology.
It has no value to a&gt; plot; actually it's the opposite of plot, if there is such a thing.
"contrived" is probably the word you're looking for.However, how contrived the plot is isn't really the point; the real question is whether or not it makes good TV, and the proof is in the pudding (especially for TNG).
TV shows are, after all, entertainment and not great literary works.
(Indeed, the two don't frequently go hand-in-hand...)Regardless, sci-fi generally means made-up technology, and made-up technology problems.
Sometimes these can be/are solved by going back to human ingenuity or 'old-school' tech, but sometimes they need to be solved with more made-up technology.
That's just kinda how things go.
For example, if you had someone hacking your critical (pulling the plug isn't an option) system, you may have to, say, "reconfigure the firewall".
If this were the 1920's and computers were made-up technology, then the whole situation would appear contrived, though from our perspective it's not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742979</id>
	<title>Come ON!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255525020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on people!  Get real!  Its a TV show.  TV IS NOT REALITY!!!!!  TV is fantasy for the purpose of entertainment.  Some people don't like Star Trek.  Many do.  While I admit that in some aspects of the future portrayed in Star Trek is never likely to happen, Many of us like the idea that such a society is possible, however unlikely.</p><p>Anf for the record, like many of the other very popular shows, Star Trek is about the people, not just technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on people !
Get real !
Its a TV show .
TV IS NOT REALITY ! ! ! ! !
TV is fantasy for the purpose of entertainment .
Some people do n't like Star Trek .
Many do .
While I admit that in some aspects of the future portrayed in Star Trek is never likely to happen , Many of us like the idea that such a society is possible , however unlikely.Anf for the record , like many of the other very popular shows , Star Trek is about the people , not just technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on people!
Get real!
Its a TV show.
TV IS NOT REALITY!!!!!
TV is fantasy for the purpose of entertainment.
Some people don't like Star Trek.
Many do.
While I admit that in some aspects of the future portrayed in Star Trek is never likely to happen, Many of us like the idea that such a society is possible, however unlikely.Anf for the record, like many of the other very popular shows, Star Trek is about the people, not just technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29748759</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>CountBrass</author>
	<datestamp>1255552320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that's fair of the 'modern' Star Treks, particularly Voyager and Enterprise but I definitely don't think that's fair of the original which was a trail blazer and defined many of the things we now think of as cliches. You also have to remember the original Star Trek was quite subversive and a socially innovative: a black female officer, inter-racial sexual relations (Kirk kissing alien women) to name a few (whether you think those were 'good' innovations or not isn't relevant).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's fair of the 'modern ' Star Treks , particularly Voyager and Enterprise but I definitely do n't think that 's fair of the original which was a trail blazer and defined many of the things we now think of as cliches .
You also have to remember the original Star Trek was quite subversive and a socially innovative : a black female officer , inter-racial sexual relations ( Kirk kissing alien women ) to name a few ( whether you think those were 'good ' innovations or not is n't relevant ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's fair of the 'modern' Star Treks, particularly Voyager and Enterprise but I definitely don't think that's fair of the original which was a trail blazer and defined many of the things we now think of as cliches.
You also have to remember the original Star Trek was quite subversive and a socially innovative: a black female officer, inter-racial sexual relations (Kirk kissing alien women) to name a few (whether you think those were 'good' innovations or not isn't relevant).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736865</id>
	<title>Works In Congress:  +1, Insidious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.  From Stross</p><p>'insert' technology or science into the script whenever needed, without any real regard to its significance; 'then they'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words (aka technobabble) later.'"</p><p>2. Copy for OUR INDUSTRY:</p><p>insert *** YOUR INDUSTRY *** into the legislation whenever<br>needed, without any real regard to its significance for people; then they'd have lobbyists fill  in the appropriate<br>words  ( aka DEMOCRACYBABBLE , FREEDOMBABBLE )  later.</p><p>3. = PROFIT.</p><p>Yours In Tashkent,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
From Stross'insert ' technology or science into the script whenever needed , without any real regard to its significance ; 'then they 'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words ( aka technobabble ) later. ' " 2 .
Copy for OUR INDUSTRY : insert * * * YOUR INDUSTRY * * * into the legislation wheneverneeded , without any real regard to its significance for people ; then they 'd have lobbyists fill in the appropriatewords ( aka DEMOCRACYBABBLE , FREEDOMBABBLE ) later.3 .
= PROFIT.Yours In Tashkent,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
From Stross'insert' technology or science into the script whenever needed, without any real regard to its significance; 'then they'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words (aka technobabble) later.'"2.
Copy for OUR INDUSTRY:insert *** YOUR INDUSTRY *** into the legislation wheneverneeded, without any real regard to its significance for people; then they'd have lobbyists fill  in the appropriatewords  ( aka DEMOCRACYBABBLE , FREEDOMBABBLE )  later.3.
= PROFIT.Yours In Tashkent,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839</id>
	<title>Re:Scalzi on Stross on ST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>So essentially, he should repeat to himself "It's just a show, I should really just relax"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So essentially , he should repeat to himself " It 's just a show , I should really just relax " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So essentially, he should repeat to himself "It's just a show, I should really just relax"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737917</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>jopet</author>
	<datestamp>1255431300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anyone not hate Star Trek?<br>It is boring, uninspired and stupid. It has the charm of a fascist dystopia combined with the silliness of "Plan 9" technology mockups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone not hate Star Trek ? It is boring , uninspired and stupid .
It has the charm of a fascist dystopia combined with the silliness of " Plan 9 " technology mockups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone not hate Star Trek?It is boring, uninspired and stupid.
It has the charm of a fascist dystopia combined with the silliness of "Plan 9" technology mockups.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29750287</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1255516200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Huh, I don't remember that episode.  I do remember the Voyager one where Paris and Janeway get it on as some sort of ultra-evolved alligator but can be miraculously returned to normal by the doctor.   Something about reaching Warp 10... or did theirs go to 11?</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh , I do n't remember that episode .
I do remember the Voyager one where Paris and Janeway get it on as some sort of ultra-evolved alligator but can be miraculously returned to normal by the doctor .
Something about reaching Warp 10... or did theirs go to 11 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh, I don't remember that episode.
I do remember the Voyager one where Paris and Janeway get it on as some sort of ultra-evolved alligator but can be miraculously returned to normal by the doctor.
Something about reaching Warp 10... or did theirs go to 11?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741079</id>
	<title>And then ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255454520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we remembered that story telling is primarily about people or character.  That's what makes it entertainment.  The science part is really just "syntactic sugar."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we remembered that story telling is primarily about people or character .
That 's what makes it entertainment .
The science part is really just " syntactic sugar .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we remembered that story telling is primarily about people or character.
That's what makes it entertainment.
The science part is really just "syntactic sugar.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738247</id>
	<title>Re:hmmm</title>
	<author>xmundt</author>
	<datestamp>1255432740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     True enough....There have not been any real scientists writing SF since (to name a couple) Isaac Asimov and Fred Hoyle.    However, the really GOOD SF writers DO tend to be far more educated in science and technology than the average population...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I would argue, though, that there has not been any "true" SF written since the 50s and 60s.   A vast majority of what passes for SF today is nothing more than a fantasy trip.  While that is not bad, in and of itself, it is not the root strength of the genre.    In my opinion, that strength came from two areas...1) an examination of the failures of society, cloaked in a scientific disguise, which allowed taboo topics to be examined, and, more positive alternatives posited.   2) an extrapolation of how advancing technology might change society, cheering on the positive aspects, and, warning of the dangerous pits we might fall into.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; With the exception of some of the Cyberpunk writings of Gibson, et al, and POSSIBLY some of the Steampunk genre becoming popular, there are almost no examples of this sort of writing any longer.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Regards<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Dave Mundt<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True enough....There have not been any real scientists writing SF since ( to name a couple ) Isaac Asimov and Fred Hoyle .
However , the really GOOD SF writers DO tend to be far more educated in science and technology than the average population.. .             I would argue , though , that there has not been any " true " SF written since the 50s and 60s .
A vast majority of what passes for SF today is nothing more than a fantasy trip .
While that is not bad , in and of itself , it is not the root strength of the genre .
In my opinion , that strength came from two areas...1 ) an examination of the failures of society , cloaked in a scientific disguise , which allowed taboo topics to be examined , and , more positive alternatives posited .
2 ) an extrapolation of how advancing technology might change society , cheering on the positive aspects , and , warning of the dangerous pits we might fall into .
              With the exception of some of the Cyberpunk writings of Gibson , et al , and POSSIBLY some of the Steampunk genre becoming popular , there are almost no examples of this sort of writing any longer .
                Regards                 Dave Mundt  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>     True enough....There have not been any real scientists writing SF since (to name a couple) Isaac Asimov and Fred Hoyle.
However, the really GOOD SF writers DO tend to be far more educated in science and technology than the average population...
            I would argue, though, that there has not been any "true" SF written since the 50s and 60s.
A vast majority of what passes for SF today is nothing more than a fantasy trip.
While that is not bad, in and of itself, it is not the root strength of the genre.
In my opinion, that strength came from two areas...1) an examination of the failures of society, cloaked in a scientific disguise, which allowed taboo topics to be examined, and, more positive alternatives posited.
2) an extrapolation of how advancing technology might change society, cheering on the positive aspects, and, warning of the dangerous pits we might fall into.
              With the exception of some of the Cyberpunk writings of Gibson, et al, and POSSIBLY some of the Steampunk genre becoming popular, there are almost no examples of this sort of writing any longer.
                Regards
                Dave Mundt
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738271</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>Moridineas</author>
	<datestamp>1255432860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Other than Doctor Who (which I like despite the problems, not because of them), every single series I've named is far more solid, far less fluffy, than Star Trek. And even Dr Who is well below ST fluffiness.</p></div><p>Yet the problem is with all those shows is that they suck!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p><p>I say that tongue in cheek so as not to start a flamewar. I DO hate Dr Who and find it completely unwatchable, but I'm also a big fan of the latin de gustibus non est disputandum -- there's no disputing about taste. I'm fine with the fact that other people like stuff I don't, etc, I just wanted to note that lack or excess of technobabble does not make or break a show's enjoyability. It's characters and plots that matter--even in s.f.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than Doctor Who ( which I like despite the problems , not because of them ) , every single series I 've named is far more solid , far less fluffy , than Star Trek .
And even Dr Who is well below ST fluffiness.Yet the problem is with all those shows is that they suck !
: pI say that tongue in cheek so as not to start a flamewar .
I DO hate Dr Who and find it completely unwatchable , but I 'm also a big fan of the latin de gustibus non est disputandum -- there 's no disputing about taste .
I 'm fine with the fact that other people like stuff I do n't , etc , I just wanted to note that lack or excess of technobabble does not make or break a show 's enjoyability .
It 's characters and plots that matter--even in s.f .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than Doctor Who (which I like despite the problems, not because of them), every single series I've named is far more solid, far less fluffy, than Star Trek.
And even Dr Who is well below ST fluffiness.Yet the problem is with all those shows is that they suck!
:pI say that tongue in cheek so as not to start a flamewar.
I DO hate Dr Who and find it completely unwatchable, but I'm also a big fan of the latin de gustibus non est disputandum -- there's no disputing about taste.
I'm fine with the fact that other people like stuff I don't, etc, I just wanted to note that lack or excess of technobabble does not make or break a show's enjoyability.
It's characters and plots that matter--even in s.f.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737241</id>
	<title>Quid Pro Quo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, I happen to hate Charles Stross for almost the exact opposite reason.  His books are drowning in an obsession with flushing out every angle he can find on the technology, and leave almost no room for anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I happen to hate Charles Stross for almost the exact opposite reason .
His books are drowning in an obsession with flushing out every angle he can find on the technology , and leave almost no room for anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, I happen to hate Charles Stross for almost the exact opposite reason.
His books are drowning in an obsession with flushing out every angle he can find on the technology, and leave almost no room for anything else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739117</id>
	<title>Re:utopian socialism</title>
	<author>RyuuzakiTetsuya</author>
	<datestamp>1255437720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea is that there's also no more GREED any more.  But I guess that's the same as saying there's no more entrepreneurship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea is that there 's also no more GREED any more .
But I guess that 's the same as saying there 's no more entrepreneurship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea is that there's also no more GREED any more.
But I guess that's the same as saying there's no more entrepreneurship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737571</id>
	<title>Re:And ST is being picked on....</title>
	<author>fincan</author>
	<datestamp>1255429980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Fortunately BSG for BSG fans, the show got more viewers and lasted longer than Firefly - though I think it owed Firefly a huge debt for the look, tone, etc.</p></div><p>No my friend, it owed that to Tricia Helfer and Grace Park. God bless Cylons (but not the male ones)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately BSG for BSG fans , the show got more viewers and lasted longer than Firefly - though I think it owed Firefly a huge debt for the look , tone , etc.No my friend , it owed that to Tricia Helfer and Grace Park .
God bless Cylons ( but not the male ones )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Fortunately BSG for BSG fans, the show got more viewers and lasted longer than Firefly - though I think it owed Firefly a huge debt for the look, tone, etc.No my friend, it owed that to Tricia Helfer and Grace Park.
God bless Cylons (but not the male ones)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736921</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737897</id>
	<title>This just in: Space Opera != Science Fiction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This Charles Stross guy is clearly aware of the distinction, saying for example "You could strip out the 25th century tech in Star Trek and replace it with 18th century tech &mdash; make the Enterprise a man o'war (with a particularly eccentric crew) at large upon the seven seas during the age of sail &mdash; without changing the scripts significantly" and "the situation is irrelevant, it's background for a story which is all about the interpersonal relationships among the cast."</p><p>But what is the problem with that?  No, it's not really science fiction, but it's not supposed to be.  So what if it's "just" a drama with some fancy special effects?  Big deal--I like drama, and I like special effects.  Yes, having things take place on a starship or whatever makes the deus ex machina far easier for the writers, but you see all the same stuff in dramas set in present day earth, usually coming from ridiculous coincidences, new characters, etc. rather than technology in particular (though there are certainly examples with just as egregious "tech the tech in the tech" writing, e.g. the very successful drama 24).</p><p>I do like science fiction too, but I don't think much of it is necessary for a good TV/movie space opera.  I've enjoyed space opera novels with very little science fiction in them too.  On the other hand, I think some science fiction authors find themselves making the mistake of focusing so hard on the science fiction that they end up neglecting their characters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This Charles Stross guy is clearly aware of the distinction , saying for example " You could strip out the 25th century tech in Star Trek and replace it with 18th century tech    make the Enterprise a man o'war ( with a particularly eccentric crew ) at large upon the seven seas during the age of sail    without changing the scripts significantly " and " the situation is irrelevant , it 's background for a story which is all about the interpersonal relationships among the cast .
" But what is the problem with that ?
No , it 's not really science fiction , but it 's not supposed to be .
So what if it 's " just " a drama with some fancy special effects ?
Big deal--I like drama , and I like special effects .
Yes , having things take place on a starship or whatever makes the deus ex machina far easier for the writers , but you see all the same stuff in dramas set in present day earth , usually coming from ridiculous coincidences , new characters , etc .
rather than technology in particular ( though there are certainly examples with just as egregious " tech the tech in the tech " writing , e.g .
the very successful drama 24 ) .I do like science fiction too , but I do n't think much of it is necessary for a good TV/movie space opera .
I 've enjoyed space opera novels with very little science fiction in them too .
On the other hand , I think some science fiction authors find themselves making the mistake of focusing so hard on the science fiction that they end up neglecting their characters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Charles Stross guy is clearly aware of the distinction, saying for example "You could strip out the 25th century tech in Star Trek and replace it with 18th century tech — make the Enterprise a man o'war (with a particularly eccentric crew) at large upon the seven seas during the age of sail — without changing the scripts significantly" and "the situation is irrelevant, it's background for a story which is all about the interpersonal relationships among the cast.
"But what is the problem with that?
No, it's not really science fiction, but it's not supposed to be.
So what if it's "just" a drama with some fancy special effects?
Big deal--I like drama, and I like special effects.
Yes, having things take place on a starship or whatever makes the deus ex machina far easier for the writers, but you see all the same stuff in dramas set in present day earth, usually coming from ridiculous coincidences, new characters, etc.
rather than technology in particular (though there are certainly examples with just as egregious "tech the tech in the tech" writing, e.g.
the very successful drama 24).I do like science fiction too, but I don't think much of it is necessary for a good TV/movie space opera.
I've enjoyed space opera novels with very little science fiction in them too.
On the other hand, I think some science fiction authors find themselves making the mistake of focusing so hard on the science fiction that they end up neglecting their characters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738479</id>
	<title>The Next Generation</title>
	<author>DougReed</author>
	<datestamp>1255433760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gene Roddenberry made the mistake of calling Star Trek a 'Wagon Train' to the stars when trying to sell it to the idiots who made the decisions, and ended up stuck with a swashbuckling hero who was always improperly abandoning his ship to interfere with other life forms and screw their women.  But it was still better than anything else at the time.  When it took off in reruns, the suits wanted more, and Gene said not unless we do it my way.  TNG was his way.  The science was better, the interaction with other life forms was better, and the ship was managed better.  When that went away, Rick Berman and the suits drove it all straight into the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gene Roddenberry made the mistake of calling Star Trek a 'Wagon Train ' to the stars when trying to sell it to the idiots who made the decisions , and ended up stuck with a swashbuckling hero who was always improperly abandoning his ship to interfere with other life forms and screw their women .
But it was still better than anything else at the time .
When it took off in reruns , the suits wanted more , and Gene said not unless we do it my way .
TNG was his way .
The science was better , the interaction with other life forms was better , and the ship was managed better .
When that went away , Rick Berman and the suits drove it all straight into the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gene Roddenberry made the mistake of calling Star Trek a 'Wagon Train' to the stars when trying to sell it to the idiots who made the decisions, and ended up stuck with a swashbuckling hero who was always improperly abandoning his ship to interfere with other life forms and screw their women.
But it was still better than anything else at the time.
When it took off in reruns, the suits wanted more, and Gene said not unless we do it my way.
TNG was his way.
The science was better, the interaction with other life forms was better, and the ship was managed better.
When that went away, Rick Berman and the suits drove it all straight into the ground.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737275</id>
	<title>Ron Moore????</title>
	<author>JeffSpudrinski</author>
	<datestamp>1255428840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From description:  "...Battlestar Galactica creator Ron Moore..."</p><p>Ron Moore didn't create Battlestar Galactica...he just took a very good pre-existing idea and ruined it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From description : " ...Battlestar Galactica creator Ron Moore... " Ron Moore did n't create Battlestar Galactica...he just took a very good pre-existing idea and ruined it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From description:  "...Battlestar Galactica creator Ron Moore..."Ron Moore didn't create Battlestar Galactica...he just took a very good pre-existing idea and ruined it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29755217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_163</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29749703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29749231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29746159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29758937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_167</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29754783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29752553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_165</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29753653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29744395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29748759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29746001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736935
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29747537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29748931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29744403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29754131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29749349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_166</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_164</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_204259_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29748931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29747537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29749703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29758937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739547
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741305
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740017
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738803
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738095
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29754783
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738143
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738251
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740201
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29746159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29744395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29754131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29746001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29752553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29753653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738879
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736901
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29748759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739793
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737947
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739709
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737879
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29749349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737041
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737453
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743359
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741743
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740879
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738961
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739211
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738155
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742113
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29755217
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741925
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739053
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743121
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740609
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739169
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739625
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29739529
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29740891
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742061
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741919
-------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742605
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738357
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29743033
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738179
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738157
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742613
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29741299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736921
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737571
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29745175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737633
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29749231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29742269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29737481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29744403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_204259.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29736877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_204259.29738123
</commentlist>
</conversation>
