<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_27_1715200</id>
	<title>Laptop Fires On Airplanes</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256666100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The risk posed by lithium batteries on airplanes is not exactly <a href="//hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/17/1857232&amp;tid=154">new</a> <a href="//it.slashdot.org/story/07/12/28/1944208/TSA-Limits-Lithium-Batteries-on-Airplanes">news</a> to this community; but the issue is starting to get wider exposure. Reader Maximum Prophet points out that as usual <a href="http://xkcd.com/651/">xkcd gets it right</a>, and sends in an NY Times article calling the batteries a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/business/27fires.html?\_r=2&amp;hpw">fire risk that clears security</a>. <i>"More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years. One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The risk posed by lithium batteries on airplanes is not exactly new news to this community ; but the issue is starting to get wider exposure .
Reader Maximum Prophet points out that as usual xkcd gets it right , and sends in an NY Times article calling the batteries a fire risk that clears security .
" More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years .
One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard ' people can bring on airplanes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The risk posed by lithium batteries on airplanes is not exactly new news to this community; but the issue is starting to get wider exposure.
Reader Maximum Prophet points out that as usual xkcd gets it right, and sends in an NY Times article calling the batteries a fire risk that clears security.
"More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years.
One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888463</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>moonbender</author>
	<datestamp>1256635140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The alternative is not going to the other side of the country or the other side of the ocean on every whim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The alternative is not going to the other side of the country or the other side of the ocean on every whim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The alternative is not going to the other side of the country or the other side of the ocean on every whim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886643</id>
	<title>Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1256670900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering all the different types of ends and Voltages that laptops use, it'll either be impractical to carry them all, or for those "Universal Adapters", quite possible another fire hazard waiting to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering all the different types of ends and Voltages that laptops use , it 'll either be impractical to carry them all , or for those " Universal Adapters " , quite possible another fire hazard waiting to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering all the different types of ends and Voltages that laptops use, it'll either be impractical to carry them all, or for those "Universal Adapters", quite possible another fire hazard waiting to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887411</id>
	<title>Re:Can't eliminate every hazard</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1256673900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The shoe bomber didn't actually get his shoes to explode, yet they make people remove their shoes for inspection.
<br> <br>
AFAIK, no one actually exploded a liquid bomb, but they limit bottles of water.
<br> <br>
If you are a terrorist, it's not too difficult to remove the safe cells from your laptop battery, and replace them with unsafe, less than stable cells, with extra shrapnel in the battery case. Ad relay or switch to short them out on command, and bang!   The battery in your laptop is several times more dangerous than my shoes or my water bottle, and there have been (accidental) fires.    A ban on lithium batteries makes a small amount of sense, banning water bottles, doesn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The shoe bomber did n't actually get his shoes to explode , yet they make people remove their shoes for inspection .
AFAIK , no one actually exploded a liquid bomb , but they limit bottles of water .
If you are a terrorist , it 's not too difficult to remove the safe cells from your laptop battery , and replace them with unsafe , less than stable cells , with extra shrapnel in the battery case .
Ad relay or switch to short them out on command , and bang !
The battery in your laptop is several times more dangerous than my shoes or my water bottle , and there have been ( accidental ) fires .
A ban on lithium batteries makes a small amount of sense , banning water bottles , does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The shoe bomber didn't actually get his shoes to explode, yet they make people remove their shoes for inspection.
AFAIK, no one actually exploded a liquid bomb, but they limit bottles of water.
If you are a terrorist, it's not too difficult to remove the safe cells from your laptop battery, and replace them with unsafe, less than stable cells, with extra shrapnel in the battery case.
Ad relay or switch to short them out on command, and bang!
The battery in your laptop is several times more dangerous than my shoes or my water bottle, and there have been (accidental) fires.
A ban on lithium batteries makes a small amount of sense, banning water bottles, doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889183</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1256637960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?</p></div></blockquote><p>Just wait until they figure out that paper is flammable...  No more books.</p><p>The question isn't electronics or books, it's personal entertainment versus in-flight multimedia systems.  $20 headphones so you can listen to the same 5 genre cliche songs over and over...  $5/minute for a phone call...  Lowest-common-denomination TV and movies, selected for those that won't possibly stimulate nervous passengers in any way... etc.</p><p>If I could exchange my laptop for seats that are twice the size, and planes that are only 3/4ths full like they used-to be, I'd gladly do it.  If the choice is smaller seats &amp; no entertainment, I'll stop flying for even cross-continental trips, and take the train in nice large comfortable seats, with a HVAC system which can easily handle being parked in direct sunlight, peace and quiet without the whining turbines, with all my electronic devices, with a wall outlet so I don't even NEED batteries, and so much personal and cargo room you can pack your motorcycle in your luggage and nobody will care.  Never mind no security checks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I 'm serious : Ban everything , and force passengers to maybe , I do n't know , read a book perhaps ? Just wait until they figure out that paper is flammable... No more books.The question is n't electronics or books , it 's personal entertainment versus in-flight multimedia systems .
$ 20 headphones so you can listen to the same 5 genre cliche songs over and over... $ 5/minute for a phone call... Lowest-common-denomination TV and movies , selected for those that wo n't possibly stimulate nervous passengers in any way... etc.If I could exchange my laptop for seats that are twice the size , and planes that are only 3/4ths full like they used-to be , I 'd gladly do it .
If the choice is smaller seats &amp; no entertainment , I 'll stop flying for even cross-continental trips , and take the train in nice large comfortable seats , with a HVAC system which can easily handle being parked in direct sunlight , peace and quiet without the whining turbines , with all my electronic devices , with a wall outlet so I do n't even NEED batteries , and so much personal and cargo room you can pack your motorcycle in your luggage and nobody will care .
Never mind no security checks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?Just wait until they figure out that paper is flammable...  No more books.The question isn't electronics or books, it's personal entertainment versus in-flight multimedia systems.
$20 headphones so you can listen to the same 5 genre cliche songs over and over...  $5/minute for a phone call...  Lowest-common-denomination TV and movies, selected for those that won't possibly stimulate nervous passengers in any way... etc.If I could exchange my laptop for seats that are twice the size, and planes that are only 3/4ths full like they used-to be, I'd gladly do it.
If the choice is smaller seats &amp; no entertainment, I'll stop flying for even cross-continental trips, and take the train in nice large comfortable seats, with a HVAC system which can easily handle being parked in direct sunlight, peace and quiet without the whining turbines, with all my electronic devices, with a wall outlet so I don't even NEED batteries, and so much personal and cargo room you can pack your motorcycle in your luggage and nobody will care.
Never mind no security checks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886567</id>
	<title>Laptop Fires On Airplanes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256670480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Headlines; I wish people writing headlines (especially the professionals at places like the Chicago Tribune) would look at what their headlines may be saying.</p><p>Before I read TFS I thoght it was about somebody controlling a Predator with a laptop and making the predator shoot at manned planes. Or something.</p><p>Would it be too much to add "Risk of" before "Laptop Fires On Airplanes"?</p><p>Why is it legal to bring a laptop, far more of a fire hazard than a bic lighter (Bics don't spontaneously combust, nore do they contain as much energy as a laptop battery) but not the lighter? If I was a smoker, after a three hour flight the first thing I'd want to do would be get the hell outside and smoke, and I wouldn't want to waste time buying a lighter.</p><p>The linked comic is good, but it has more to do with security theater. Of course, when it comes to flying, all "security" is nothing BUT theater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Headlines ; I wish people writing headlines ( especially the professionals at places like the Chicago Tribune ) would look at what their headlines may be saying.Before I read TFS I thoght it was about somebody controlling a Predator with a laptop and making the predator shoot at manned planes .
Or something.Would it be too much to add " Risk of " before " Laptop Fires On Airplanes " ? Why is it legal to bring a laptop , far more of a fire hazard than a bic lighter ( Bics do n't spontaneously combust , nore do they contain as much energy as a laptop battery ) but not the lighter ?
If I was a smoker , after a three hour flight the first thing I 'd want to do would be get the hell outside and smoke , and I would n't want to waste time buying a lighter.The linked comic is good , but it has more to do with security theater .
Of course , when it comes to flying , all " security " is nothing BUT theater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Headlines; I wish people writing headlines (especially the professionals at places like the Chicago Tribune) would look at what their headlines may be saying.Before I read TFS I thoght it was about somebody controlling a Predator with a laptop and making the predator shoot at manned planes.
Or something.Would it be too much to add "Risk of" before "Laptop Fires On Airplanes"?Why is it legal to bring a laptop, far more of a fire hazard than a bic lighter (Bics don't spontaneously combust, nore do they contain as much energy as a laptop battery) but not the lighter?
If I was a smoker, after a three hour flight the first thing I'd want to do would be get the hell outside and smoke, and I wouldn't want to waste time buying a lighter.The linked comic is good, but it has more to do with security theater.
Of course, when it comes to flying, all "security" is nothing BUT theater.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888233</id>
	<title>Lets look at the numbers...</title>
	<author>osjedi</author>
	<datestamp>1256634180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are over 30,000 commercial flights per day in the USA alone. Assuming the article is only discussing fires on US carriers (doesn't specify, but we'll give it to them). That means that even if all 22 fires happened this year the chances of a fire on a flight is 0.0002009\%.  Or in other words less than 1 in 497,727 thousand flights.  The simple answer is know where the fire extinguisher is. Problem solved. Since in actuality only 1/2 the 22 fires were in the past 3 years the odds today are about 1 in 2.98 million. Compare that to the odds of me having to share a row with a fatty or a stinker which are about 1 in 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are over 30,000 commercial flights per day in the USA alone .
Assuming the article is only discussing fires on US carriers ( does n't specify , but we 'll give it to them ) .
That means that even if all 22 fires happened this year the chances of a fire on a flight is 0.0002009 \ % .
Or in other words less than 1 in 497,727 thousand flights .
The simple answer is know where the fire extinguisher is .
Problem solved .
Since in actuality only 1/2 the 22 fires were in the past 3 years the odds today are about 1 in 2.98 million .
Compare that to the odds of me having to share a row with a fatty or a stinker which are about 1 in 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are over 30,000 commercial flights per day in the USA alone.
Assuming the article is only discussing fires on US carriers (doesn't specify, but we'll give it to them).
That means that even if all 22 fires happened this year the chances of a fire on a flight is 0.0002009\%.
Or in other words less than 1 in 497,727 thousand flights.
The simple answer is know where the fire extinguisher is.
Problem solved.
Since in actuality only 1/2 the 22 fires were in the past 3 years the odds today are about 1 in 2.98 million.
Compare that to the odds of me having to share a row with a fatty or a stinker which are about 1 in 3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886917</id>
	<title>Laptop fires on airplanes?</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1256672040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is SKYNET taking over?  Should we be concerned.  That's one powerful laptop, if it can fire on an airplane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is SKYNET taking over ?
Should we be concerned .
That 's one powerful laptop , if it can fire on an airplane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is SKYNET taking over?
Should we be concerned.
That's one powerful laptop, if it can fire on an airplane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888041</id>
	<title>"They took our obligs!"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linking xkcd in summary forces<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ers to work instead of looking for a relavant comics to post.</p><p>They took our jobs!<br>terk er jerbs!<br>dert der derbs!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linking xkcd in summary forces ./ers to work instead of looking for a relavant comics to post.They took our jobs ! terk er jerbs ! dert der derbs !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linking xkcd in summary forces ./ers to work instead of looking for a relavant comics to post.They took our jobs!terk er jerbs!dert der derbs!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887185</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256673060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?"</p><p>You must be joking. How can I read a book without a battery in my Kindle?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yes , I 'm serious : Ban everything , and force passengers to maybe , I do n't know , read a book perhaps ?
" You must be joking .
How can I read a book without a battery in my Kindle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?
"You must be joking.
How can I read a book without a battery in my Kindle?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893267</id>
	<title>Re:Business business model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256664780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What train could you possibly take that is only <b>half</b> the speed of a plane?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What train could you possibly take that is only half the speed of a plane ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What train could you possibly take that is only half the speed of a plane?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887277</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop Fires On Airplanes</title>
	<author>mathimus1863</author>
	<datestamp>1256673360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The BIC lighter ban has nothing to do with starting fires in the cabin (if it was, why do they let you take matches?)  It's actually because the pressure changes associated with ascent and descent of the aircraft, cause the lighter to emit a HUGE flame the first time it is used.  The airlines are trying to avoid customers accidentally removing their eyebrows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BIC lighter ban has nothing to do with starting fires in the cabin ( if it was , why do they let you take matches ?
) It 's actually because the pressure changes associated with ascent and descent of the aircraft , cause the lighter to emit a HUGE flame the first time it is used .
The airlines are trying to avoid customers accidentally removing their eyebrows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BIC lighter ban has nothing to do with starting fires in the cabin (if it was, why do they let you take matches?
)  It's actually because the pressure changes associated with ascent and descent of the aircraft, cause the lighter to emit a HUGE flame the first time it is used.
The airlines are trying to avoid customers accidentally removing their eyebrows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887905</id>
	<title>Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they steal the camera, they take the battery too, so we are all safer now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they steal the camera , they take the battery too , so we are all safer now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they steal the camera, they take the battery too, so we are all safer now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886609</id>
	<title>Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1256670720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Battery Vending machines at every luggage carousel, featuring Sony, Dell, HP, etc etc.  All charged and waiting for your $50.  Just don't rock the machine if your battery gets stuck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Battery Vending machines at every luggage carousel , featuring Sony , Dell , HP , etc etc .
All charged and waiting for your $ 50 .
Just do n't rock the machine if your battery gets stuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Battery Vending machines at every luggage carousel, featuring Sony, Dell, HP, etc etc.
All charged and waiting for your $50.
Just don't rock the machine if your battery gets stuck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893171</id>
	<title>Re:I'll check my batteries...</title>
	<author>novakreo</author>
	<datestamp>1256663580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll check my batteries...when you give me 110v AC 60hz plugs in business class. Of course this wouldn't help the international traveler (where laptops REALLY help pass the time).</p></div><p>Have a look at the small print on your laptop's power adapter; most elecronic devices these days support multiple voltages and frequencies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll check my batteries...when you give me 110v AC 60hz plugs in business class .
Of course this would n't help the international traveler ( where laptops REALLY help pass the time ) .Have a look at the small print on your laptop 's power adapter ; most elecronic devices these days support multiple voltages and frequencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll check my batteries...when you give me 110v AC 60hz plugs in business class.
Of course this wouldn't help the international traveler (where laptops REALLY help pass the time).Have a look at the small print on your laptop's power adapter; most elecronic devices these days support multiple voltages and frequencies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886427</id>
	<title>Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1256670060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then get a new laptop...  Every one I've owned works without it.  (Albeit, what's the point in general of a laptop that's no longer portable)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then get a new laptop... Every one I 've owned works without it .
( Albeit , what 's the point in general of a laptop that 's no longer portable ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then get a new laptop...  Every one I've owned works without it.
(Albeit, what's the point in general of a laptop that's no longer portable)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892725</id>
	<title>Ice</title>
	<author>shadowblaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256658540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if anyone has tried bringing in a bottle of solid water (ice). Explain at the security personnel that it is not a liquid. No way they can argue with that, you are backed by the law.</p><p>The law of physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if anyone has tried bringing in a bottle of solid water ( ice ) .
Explain at the security personnel that it is not a liquid .
No way they can argue with that , you are backed by the law.The law of physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if anyone has tried bringing in a bottle of solid water (ice).
Explain at the security personnel that it is not a liquid.
No way they can argue with that, you are backed by the law.The law of physics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887591</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256674740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?</p></div></blockquote><p>You have obviously never seen how much damage a terrorist could do by hitting someone on the head with a hardcover book.  They're far worse than toenail clippers, pliers or bottles of water larger than 100mL.  Nothing is more dangerous to the American people than books.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I 'm serious : Ban everything , and force passengers to maybe , I do n't know , read a book perhaps ? You have obviously never seen how much damage a terrorist could do by hitting someone on the head with a hardcover book .
They 're far worse than toenail clippers , pliers or bottles of water larger than 100mL .
Nothing is more dangerous to the American people than books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I'm serious: Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?You have obviously never seen how much damage a terrorist could do by hitting someone on the head with a hardcover book.
They're far worse than toenail clippers, pliers or bottles of water larger than 100mL.
Nothing is more dangerous to the American people than books.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888209</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1256634120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, I can see complaints about cell phone conversations in crowded places, sure, or bums with boomboxes on the bus, but good lord! A few keypresses and the "tinny whine" of someone listening to an iPod is too much for you? On an <b>airplane</b>, no less, with all the engine noise that entails? Dude. Get a $30-$90 pair of noise-cancelling headphones and stop acting like interacting with the rest of Humanity from time to time is <i>such</i> a <i>burden</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I can see complaints about cell phone conversations in crowded places , sure , or bums with boomboxes on the bus , but good lord !
A few keypresses and the " tinny whine " of someone listening to an iPod is too much for you ?
On an airplane , no less , with all the engine noise that entails ?
Dude. Get a $ 30- $ 90 pair of noise-cancelling headphones and stop acting like interacting with the rest of Humanity from time to time is such a burden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I can see complaints about cell phone conversations in crowded places, sure, or bums with boomboxes on the bus, but good lord!
A few keypresses and the "tinny whine" of someone listening to an iPod is too much for you?
On an airplane, no less, with all the engine noise that entails?
Dude. Get a $30-$90 pair of noise-cancelling headphones and stop acting like interacting with the rest of Humanity from time to time is such a burden.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889315</id>
	<title>Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256638560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>--- My own laptop, even when plugged into AC, won't start without a battery.</p><p>I would like to know what brand laptop you got, so I can avoid buying one in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>--- My own laptop , even when plugged into AC , wo n't start without a battery.I would like to know what brand laptop you got , so I can avoid buying one in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--- My own laptop, even when plugged into AC, won't start without a battery.I would like to know what brand laptop you got, so I can avoid buying one in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890461</id>
	<title>nothing to see here</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1256643000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That works out to a bit over 3 "battery" fires per year (not just laptops but all batteries) out of more than 10 million flights in the us alone,<br>That takes it down to statistical anomaly area. and the number of injuries? None?..two? basically minor burns for the person holding the device at the time. Batteries don't just explode you have too short them with a solid piece of copper to get those kinds of reaction (don't bother sending links to people purposely shorting RC batteries that would never happen in a consumer electronic device) at best they go poof. Scary as shit if it happens in your lap but Hot coffee is probably a bigger threat to air safety.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That works out to a bit over 3 " battery " fires per year ( not just laptops but all batteries ) out of more than 10 million flights in the us alone,That takes it down to statistical anomaly area .
and the number of injuries ?
None ? ..two ? basically minor burns for the person holding the device at the time .
Batteries do n't just explode you have too short them with a solid piece of copper to get those kinds of reaction ( do n't bother sending links to people purposely shorting RC batteries that would never happen in a consumer electronic device ) at best they go poof .
Scary as shit if it happens in your lap but Hot coffee is probably a bigger threat to air safety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That works out to a bit over 3 "battery" fires per year (not just laptops but all batteries) out of more than 10 million flights in the us alone,That takes it down to statistical anomaly area.
and the number of injuries?
None?..two? basically minor burns for the person holding the device at the time.
Batteries don't just explode you have too short them with a solid piece of copper to get those kinds of reaction (don't bother sending links to people purposely shorting RC batteries that would never happen in a consumer electronic device) at best they go poof.
Scary as shit if it happens in your lap but Hot coffee is probably a bigger threat to air safety.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888099</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>22hour flight and you have work to do which is impossible without a laptop? Maybe you have free time to put your life on hold or the willingness to do so but I'm not willing to give up stuff for security theater.</htmltext>
<tokenext>22hour flight and you have work to do which is impossible without a laptop ?
Maybe you have free time to put your life on hold or the willingness to do so but I 'm not willing to give up stuff for security theater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>22hour flight and you have work to do which is impossible without a laptop?
Maybe you have free time to put your life on hold or the willingness to do so but I'm not willing to give up stuff for security theater.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887041</id>
	<title>Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>SatanMat</author>
	<datestamp>1256672580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Make users store batteries in suitcase, make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ($50) and charge a usage fee ($50)<br> <br> <br>


----yes tell me how that works with the non-removeable battery on my mac, my ipod touch, that guy's iphone; etc.<br> <br>

just saying...<br> <br>

TSA is security theater, they want sheeple to feel that TSA is doing something to keep the sheeple safe....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Make users store batteries in suitcase , make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ( $ 50 ) and charge a usage fee ( $ 50 ) ----yes tell me how that works with the non-removeable battery on my mac , my ipod touch , that guy 's iphone ; etc .
just saying.. . TSA is security theater , they want sheeple to feel that TSA is doing something to keep the sheeple safe... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make users store batteries in suitcase, make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ($50) and charge a usage fee ($50)  


----yes tell me how that works with the non-removeable battery on my mac, my ipod touch, that guy's iphone; etc.
just saying... 

TSA is security theater, they want sheeple to feel that TSA is doing something to keep the sheeple safe....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887079</id>
	<title>Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256672640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if they are they don't do it.  I have been through TSA security several times in the past year with spare lithium-ion batteries that were just loose in my bag.  I think on one trip I had 2 spare extended capacity batteries for my laptop, 1 spare for my PSP, and 1 spare for my phone.  The TSA guys either don't notice or don't care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if they are they do n't do it .
I have been through TSA security several times in the past year with spare lithium-ion batteries that were just loose in my bag .
I think on one trip I had 2 spare extended capacity batteries for my laptop , 1 spare for my PSP , and 1 spare for my phone .
The TSA guys either do n't notice or do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if they are they don't do it.
I have been through TSA security several times in the past year with spare lithium-ion batteries that were just loose in my bag.
I think on one trip I had 2 spare extended capacity batteries for my laptop, 1 spare for my PSP, and 1 spare for my phone.
The TSA guys either don't notice or don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29899873</id>
	<title>not quite</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1256755320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes."</p><p>Actually, that would be the passengers themselves. You actually can kill somebody with your bare hands, or even your teeth, if so inclined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the last unrestricted fire hazard ' people can bring on airplanes .
" Actually , that would be the passengers themselves .
You actually can kill somebody with your bare hands , or even your teeth , if so inclined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes.
"Actually, that would be the passengers themselves.
You actually can kill somebody with your bare hands, or even your teeth, if so inclined.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888285</id>
	<title>Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256634420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, the vending machine owner won't have any trouble stocking up a machine full of $50 batteries for every laptop model on earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , the vending machine owner wo n't have any trouble stocking up a machine full of $ 50 batteries for every laptop model on earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, the vending machine owner won't have any trouble stocking up a machine full of $50 batteries for every laptop model on earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887315</id>
	<title>I'd carry a portable fire extingusher, but</title>
	<author>mcwop</author>
	<datestamp>1256673540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it only holds 3 ounces, and is not effective in putting out laptop battery fires.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it only holds 3 ounces , and is not effective in putting out laptop battery fires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it only holds 3 ounces, and is not effective in putting out laptop battery fires.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888363</id>
	<title>Re:Can't eliminate every hazard</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256634720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a proven fact that if you eliminate all the people from flights and only fly them over completely unpopulated areas, we'll never have another air fatality again! We must do this now! Not just because we can, but because we are fucking morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a proven fact that if you eliminate all the people from flights and only fly them over completely unpopulated areas , we 'll never have another air fatality again !
We must do this now !
Not just because we can , but because we are fucking morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a proven fact that if you eliminate all the people from flights and only fly them over completely unpopulated areas, we'll never have another air fatality again!
We must do this now!
Not just because we can, but because we are fucking morons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637</id>
	<title>Can't eliminate every hazard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256670840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this really enough for us to go running scared about yet another airplane hazard?  22 incidents over 10 years is enough to make you think, but when there are hundreds of flights a day I would have to say it's one of the more minor problems that commercial airlines have to face and it seems like it can be solved by properly training crew members how to deal with that sort of fire.  You could probably eliminate loads of possible "hazards" off of commercial flights, but not without major inconvenience and making the entire flight experience more miserable than it already is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this really enough for us to go running scared about yet another airplane hazard ?
22 incidents over 10 years is enough to make you think , but when there are hundreds of flights a day I would have to say it 's one of the more minor problems that commercial airlines have to face and it seems like it can be solved by properly training crew members how to deal with that sort of fire .
You could probably eliminate loads of possible " hazards " off of commercial flights , but not without major inconvenience and making the entire flight experience more miserable than it already is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this really enough for us to go running scared about yet another airplane hazard?
22 incidents over 10 years is enough to make you think, but when there are hundreds of flights a day I would have to say it's one of the more minor problems that commercial airlines have to face and it seems like it can be solved by properly training crew members how to deal with that sort of fire.
You could probably eliminate loads of possible "hazards" off of commercial flights, but not without major inconvenience and making the entire flight experience more miserable than it already is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887753</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about Overly Pedantic Asshole who is so far above the unwashed masses that he refers to them as sheeple, thinking its clever?  What does he carry with Li-Ion batteries?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about Overly Pedantic Asshole who is so far above the unwashed masses that he refers to them as sheeple , thinking its clever ?
What does he carry with Li-Ion batteries ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about Overly Pedantic Asshole who is so far above the unwashed masses that he refers to them as sheeple, thinking its clever?
What does he carry with Li-Ion batteries?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887291</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256673420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothes</p></div><p>As a regular flyer on SAS, your ideas intrigue me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothesAs a regular flyer on SAS , your ideas intrigue me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothesAs a regular flyer on SAS, your ideas intrigue me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888669</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1256635920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Do not interfere with my dream of mile-high club webcasting!!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do not interfere with my dream of mile-high club webcasting !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do not interfere with my dream of mile-high club webcasting!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887349</id>
	<title>Re:22 fires out of how many?</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1256673660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I think I am more worried about pilots updating their facebook pages and overshooting their destination airport by 150 miles.</p></div><p>That's getting dealt with</p><p><div class="quote"><p>22 fires out of how many millions of flights, of which none resulted in any catastrophe..</p></div><p>Your opinion may be different if you were in one of those flights with one of the 22 fires.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I am more worried about pilots updating their facebook pages and overshooting their destination airport by 150 miles.That 's getting dealt with22 fires out of how many millions of flights , of which none resulted in any catastrophe..Your opinion may be different if you were in one of those flights with one of the 22 fires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think I am more worried about pilots updating their facebook pages and overshooting their destination airport by 150 miles.That's getting dealt with22 fires out of how many millions of flights, of which none resulted in any catastrophe..Your opinion may be different if you were in one of those flights with one of the 22 fires.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887401</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Benzido</author>
	<datestamp>1256673840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why bother with clothes at all? It would save money on those fancy new millimeter-wave scanners if they just forced you to check your clothing with your bags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why bother with clothes at all ?
It would save money on those fancy new millimeter-wave scanners if they just forced you to check your clothing with your bags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why bother with clothes at all?
It would save money on those fancy new millimeter-wave scanners if they just forced you to check your clothing with your bags.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887727</id>
	<title>Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1256675340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>$50 would be about a 50\% discount on a major vendor laptop battery.  I would buy those in a heartbeat.<br>
<br>
Of course, you're missing the point still.  What you have there is a bomb dispensing machine, because those batteries are inherently explosive and the only thing that keeps them from blowing up are the safety circuits.  If you were to disable the safeties you would have a bomb that would be at least as effective as whatever the Shoe Bomber was using.</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 50 would be about a 50 \ % discount on a major vendor laptop battery .
I would buy those in a heartbeat .
Of course , you 're missing the point still .
What you have there is a bomb dispensing machine , because those batteries are inherently explosive and the only thing that keeps them from blowing up are the safety circuits .
If you were to disable the safeties you would have a bomb that would be at least as effective as whatever the Shoe Bomber was using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$50 would be about a 50\% discount on a major vendor laptop battery.
I would buy those in a heartbeat.
Of course, you're missing the point still.
What you have there is a bomb dispensing machine, because those batteries are inherently explosive and the only thing that keeps them from blowing up are the safety circuits.
If you were to disable the safeties you would have a bomb that would be at least as effective as whatever the Shoe Bomber was using.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889367</id>
	<title>Re:Can't eliminate every hazard</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1256638740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is this really enough for us to go running scared about yet another airplane hazard? 22 incidents over 10 years is enough to make you think,</p></div><p>To get that in perspective, how many serious (presumably non-battery related) air crashes have there been in 10 years? One or two a year sounds about par for the course to me. So the chances of being on a flight with a minor fire, one or two nasty, but non-fatal burns and some smelly fumes are roughly on a par with the danger of becoming geography,  which we happily accept every time we step on a plane.
</p><p>However, after my last flight experience, I think I'm going to skip flying, break into the nearest microbiology lab and snort the contents of a few random petri dishes - the practical effect will probably be about the same. Plus, I'm surprised they have a fire problem on planes, because whatever the shit is that they pump round the cabin, it doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to air.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this really enough for us to go running scared about yet another airplane hazard ?
22 incidents over 10 years is enough to make you think,To get that in perspective , how many serious ( presumably non-battery related ) air crashes have there been in 10 years ?
One or two a year sounds about par for the course to me .
So the chances of being on a flight with a minor fire , one or two nasty , but non-fatal burns and some smelly fumes are roughly on a par with the danger of becoming geography , which we happily accept every time we step on a plane .
However , after my last flight experience , I think I 'm going to skip flying , break into the nearest microbiology lab and snort the contents of a few random petri dishes - the practical effect will probably be about the same .
Plus , I 'm surprised they have a fire problem on planes , because whatever the shit is that they pump round the cabin , it does n't seem to bear much resemblance to air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this really enough for us to go running scared about yet another airplane hazard?
22 incidents over 10 years is enough to make you think,To get that in perspective, how many serious (presumably non-battery related) air crashes have there been in 10 years?
One or two a year sounds about par for the course to me.
So the chances of being on a flight with a minor fire, one or two nasty, but non-fatal burns and some smelly fumes are roughly on a par with the danger of becoming geography,  which we happily accept every time we step on a plane.
However, after my last flight experience, I think I'm going to skip flying, break into the nearest microbiology lab and snort the contents of a few random petri dishes - the practical effect will probably be about the same.
Plus, I'm surprised they have a fire problem on planes, because whatever the shit is that they pump round the cabin, it doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to air.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887435</id>
	<title>Batteries, schmatteries</title>
	<author>bondjamesbond</author>
	<datestamp>1256674020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but my bottle of Ozarka will F*** YOU UP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but my bottle of Ozarka will F * * * YOU UP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but my bottle of Ozarka will F*** YOU UP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29894711</id>
	<title>Gen X...with a bullet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256728860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Laptop Fires On Airplanes"</p><p>This just in. The DHS has statistics showing that last year, the number of planes being fired upon by laptop toting citizens has gone up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Laptop Fires On Airplanes " This just in .
The DHS has statistics showing that last year , the number of planes being fired upon by laptop toting citizens has gone up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Laptop Fires On Airplanes"This just in.
The DHS has statistics showing that last year, the number of planes being fired upon by laptop toting citizens has gone up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1256672040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If they start looking into this, they might decide to not only ban laptops, but everything else that might have a lithium battery...</i></p><p>And where, exactly, is the problem with this?  I long for the days of a relaxing flight that isn't marred by the clickety-click of a keyboard next to me, the horrendous sounds of Windows booting up, or the tinny whine of a pair of inferior earbuds hooked up to an iPod.</p><p>Yes, I'm serious:  Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they start looking into this , they might decide to not only ban laptops , but everything else that might have a lithium battery...And where , exactly , is the problem with this ?
I long for the days of a relaxing flight that is n't marred by the clickety-click of a keyboard next to me , the horrendous sounds of Windows booting up , or the tinny whine of a pair of inferior earbuds hooked up to an iPod.Yes , I 'm serious : Ban everything , and force passengers to maybe , I do n't know , read a book perhaps ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they start looking into this, they might decide to not only ban laptops, but everything else that might have a lithium battery...And where, exactly, is the problem with this?
I long for the days of a relaxing flight that isn't marred by the clickety-click of a keyboard next to me, the horrendous sounds of Windows booting up, or the tinny whine of a pair of inferior earbuds hooked up to an iPod.Yes, I'm serious:  Ban everything, and force passengers to maybe, I don't know, read a book perhaps?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892803</id>
	<title>Statistics game</title>
	<author>Silicon\_Knight</author>
	<datestamp>1256659080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's two issues here:  There's the issue of whether current (or more stringent) security measures can still be beaten by a determined foe, then there's the issue of actual Li-Ion batteries going kaboom.  I'll address the later.</p><p>Li-Ion batteries are some of the highest energy-density storage devices available to the general public.  As such, they *are* dangerous.  I design battery packs for a living, and let me tell you - if not for microprocessors and safety circuits, we wouldn't use Li-Ion batteries.</p><p>They are the only batteries that I know of that can fail dangerously when over-discharged.  You start creating internal shorts of lithium whiskers between the cathode and anode, which bypasses any cell safety circuits.<br>They go boom very spectacularly if you overcharge them.  The model RC heli folks have found this out the hard way, as they tend to run bare cells without protection circuits to save weight. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcwOwf55Rtc).<br>They have very low internal resistance, which means in a short circuit, they can release energy very quickly.  Every manufacturing engineer at the company I work at have welded calipers to cell tabs, from accidentally touching the wrong stuff while taking measurements.</p><p>For a good cell manufacturer - and I'm talking about the LiShens, Sanyos, Kokams, and Panasonics of the world, the failure rate is 1 in 1 million.  It's just a fact of life.  The fly-by-night operations in China, responsible for some of the god-awful counterfeit cells out there, god knows what those failure rates are.  And the vendors who use these cells tends to not put in the safety features (look up a BQ20Z70 chip, for example) to make a failure more likely.</p><p>The nightmare scenario would be some dude getting some last minute work in at the terminal, plugging the battery in for charging.  Then the plane takes off with the laptop in the overhead compartment where the oxygen lines for the safety masks are kept, and the cells let go.  Judging from how much energy a single 18650 cell can contain, it could easily do some very serious damage.</p><p>With the prices on Li-Ion dropping and more devices using them, it's no wonder that almost all of the 22 incidents reported occured in the last 3 years.  Still a small number considering the amount of airplanes in the air at any given time, but enough for someone to pause and think...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's two issues here : There 's the issue of whether current ( or more stringent ) security measures can still be beaten by a determined foe , then there 's the issue of actual Li-Ion batteries going kaboom .
I 'll address the later.Li-Ion batteries are some of the highest energy-density storage devices available to the general public .
As such , they * are * dangerous .
I design battery packs for a living , and let me tell you - if not for microprocessors and safety circuits , we would n't use Li-Ion batteries.They are the only batteries that I know of that can fail dangerously when over-discharged .
You start creating internal shorts of lithium whiskers between the cathode and anode , which bypasses any cell safety circuits.They go boom very spectacularly if you overcharge them .
The model RC heli folks have found this out the hard way , as they tend to run bare cells without protection circuits to save weight .
( http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = hcwOwf55Rtc ) .They have very low internal resistance , which means in a short circuit , they can release energy very quickly .
Every manufacturing engineer at the company I work at have welded calipers to cell tabs , from accidentally touching the wrong stuff while taking measurements.For a good cell manufacturer - and I 'm talking about the LiShens , Sanyos , Kokams , and Panasonics of the world , the failure rate is 1 in 1 million .
It 's just a fact of life .
The fly-by-night operations in China , responsible for some of the god-awful counterfeit cells out there , god knows what those failure rates are .
And the vendors who use these cells tends to not put in the safety features ( look up a BQ20Z70 chip , for example ) to make a failure more likely.The nightmare scenario would be some dude getting some last minute work in at the terminal , plugging the battery in for charging .
Then the plane takes off with the laptop in the overhead compartment where the oxygen lines for the safety masks are kept , and the cells let go .
Judging from how much energy a single 18650 cell can contain , it could easily do some very serious damage.With the prices on Li-Ion dropping and more devices using them , it 's no wonder that almost all of the 22 incidents reported occured in the last 3 years .
Still a small number considering the amount of airplanes in the air at any given time , but enough for someone to pause and think.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's two issues here:  There's the issue of whether current (or more stringent) security measures can still be beaten by a determined foe, then there's the issue of actual Li-Ion batteries going kaboom.
I'll address the later.Li-Ion batteries are some of the highest energy-density storage devices available to the general public.
As such, they *are* dangerous.
I design battery packs for a living, and let me tell you - if not for microprocessors and safety circuits, we wouldn't use Li-Ion batteries.They are the only batteries that I know of that can fail dangerously when over-discharged.
You start creating internal shorts of lithium whiskers between the cathode and anode, which bypasses any cell safety circuits.They go boom very spectacularly if you overcharge them.
The model RC heli folks have found this out the hard way, as they tend to run bare cells without protection circuits to save weight.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcwOwf55Rtc).They have very low internal resistance, which means in a short circuit, they can release energy very quickly.
Every manufacturing engineer at the company I work at have welded calipers to cell tabs, from accidentally touching the wrong stuff while taking measurements.For a good cell manufacturer - and I'm talking about the LiShens, Sanyos, Kokams, and Panasonics of the world, the failure rate is 1 in 1 million.
It's just a fact of life.
The fly-by-night operations in China, responsible for some of the god-awful counterfeit cells out there, god knows what those failure rates are.
And the vendors who use these cells tends to not put in the safety features (look up a BQ20Z70 chip, for example) to make a failure more likely.The nightmare scenario would be some dude getting some last minute work in at the terminal, plugging the battery in for charging.
Then the plane takes off with the laptop in the overhead compartment where the oxygen lines for the safety masks are kept, and the cells let go.
Judging from how much energy a single 18650 cell can contain, it could easily do some very serious damage.With the prices on Li-Ion dropping and more devices using them, it's no wonder that almost all of the 22 incidents reported occured in the last 3 years.
Still a small number considering the amount of airplanes in the air at any given time, but enough for someone to pause and think...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890621</id>
	<title>Re:Can't eliminate every hazard</title>
	<author>turtleshadow</author>
	<datestamp>1256643720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be better to completely re-think the design of the aircraft for the 22nd Century than to keep striping  99.999\% of the persons traveling.</p><p>Thus far the current design paradigm for air travel is hopelessly stuck in 1950's style.<br>Even the Titanic had more compartmentalization than a modern aircraft which has nearly 100\% shared air, food, water and physical space among crew and passengers. Airlines can not even get the boarding and passenger dis-embarkment to work in under 10 minutes for a small plane through typically a single gate door.</p><p>Indeed the cost to weight tradeoff has always been done at the cost of consumers.</p><p>How much would it take for 5th element type transport where everyone is in their own tube for the duration of the flight where they are unable to do anything to anyone else not traveling with them!  Going to the bathroom in private is already less of a privacy expectation than not being shaken down at security. If I was in my own pod I wouldn't even have to leave me seat -- literally - to go to the bathroom. Groups would get a common stall. Each pod would be sanitized after each trip like the food carts today-- which is actually a huge operation and intense process. You'd get board the plane by 1st getting into them like a Disney Ride and the ground crews would push you into the plane and take out out like a can from a case of coke a cola. Plane transfers would be no longer dependent on politeness but if I got a quick transfer my pod is moved to the top of the queue and shuttled to the next plane.<br>Window seats are just turning on the OLED screen in the pod and using the joystick to look any direction I want. No more on your Right is Mt. Rushmore -- sucks to be you sitting on the Left.</p><p>If it was found out that somebody was a threat you just eject them like R2D2 and C3P0 in epIV. They safely land somewhere else with their own checked and carry on luggage.</p><p>The greatest frequent human suffering is if somebody goes into labor or a heart attack or seizure but for most rational people the only real course is to land to take care of this - despite the movies. "Water landings" would just be to eject the pods at low / speed altitude which have a beacon and flotation built in. High speed crash/really bad turbulance - the tube has a self contained restraint system kinda in demolition man's car wreck but reusable many times in a flight.</p><p>The savings of properly built cubes/tubes versus Crew Security+ 2 decks + cargo containers + difficult to clean &amp; maintain banked seating arrangements + Pilot Cabin security + multiple door inspection/security+ +baggage handler cost and fiascos+ lost time in boarding/deplaning would I think balance  out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be better to completely re-think the design of the aircraft for the 22nd Century than to keep striping 99.999 \ % of the persons traveling.Thus far the current design paradigm for air travel is hopelessly stuck in 1950 's style.Even the Titanic had more compartmentalization than a modern aircraft which has nearly 100 \ % shared air , food , water and physical space among crew and passengers .
Airlines can not even get the boarding and passenger dis-embarkment to work in under 10 minutes for a small plane through typically a single gate door.Indeed the cost to weight tradeoff has always been done at the cost of consumers.How much would it take for 5th element type transport where everyone is in their own tube for the duration of the flight where they are unable to do anything to anyone else not traveling with them !
Going to the bathroom in private is already less of a privacy expectation than not being shaken down at security .
If I was in my own pod I would n't even have to leave me seat -- literally - to go to the bathroom .
Groups would get a common stall .
Each pod would be sanitized after each trip like the food carts today-- which is actually a huge operation and intense process .
You 'd get board the plane by 1st getting into them like a Disney Ride and the ground crews would push you into the plane and take out out like a can from a case of coke a cola .
Plane transfers would be no longer dependent on politeness but if I got a quick transfer my pod is moved to the top of the queue and shuttled to the next plane.Window seats are just turning on the OLED screen in the pod and using the joystick to look any direction I want .
No more on your Right is Mt .
Rushmore -- sucks to be you sitting on the Left.If it was found out that somebody was a threat you just eject them like R2D2 and C3P0 in epIV .
They safely land somewhere else with their own checked and carry on luggage.The greatest frequent human suffering is if somebody goes into labor or a heart attack or seizure but for most rational people the only real course is to land to take care of this - despite the movies .
" Water landings " would just be to eject the pods at low / speed altitude which have a beacon and flotation built in .
High speed crash/really bad turbulance - the tube has a self contained restraint system kinda in demolition man 's car wreck but reusable many times in a flight.The savings of properly built cubes/tubes versus Crew Security + 2 decks + cargo containers + difficult to clean &amp; maintain banked seating arrangements + Pilot Cabin security + multiple door inspection/security + + baggage handler cost and fiascos + lost time in boarding/deplaning would I think balance out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be better to completely re-think the design of the aircraft for the 22nd Century than to keep striping  99.999\% of the persons traveling.Thus far the current design paradigm for air travel is hopelessly stuck in 1950's style.Even the Titanic had more compartmentalization than a modern aircraft which has nearly 100\% shared air, food, water and physical space among crew and passengers.
Airlines can not even get the boarding and passenger dis-embarkment to work in under 10 minutes for a small plane through typically a single gate door.Indeed the cost to weight tradeoff has always been done at the cost of consumers.How much would it take for 5th element type transport where everyone is in their own tube for the duration of the flight where they are unable to do anything to anyone else not traveling with them!
Going to the bathroom in private is already less of a privacy expectation than not being shaken down at security.
If I was in my own pod I wouldn't even have to leave me seat -- literally - to go to the bathroom.
Groups would get a common stall.
Each pod would be sanitized after each trip like the food carts today-- which is actually a huge operation and intense process.
You'd get board the plane by 1st getting into them like a Disney Ride and the ground crews would push you into the plane and take out out like a can from a case of coke a cola.
Plane transfers would be no longer dependent on politeness but if I got a quick transfer my pod is moved to the top of the queue and shuttled to the next plane.Window seats are just turning on the OLED screen in the pod and using the joystick to look any direction I want.
No more on your Right is Mt.
Rushmore -- sucks to be you sitting on the Left.If it was found out that somebody was a threat you just eject them like R2D2 and C3P0 in epIV.
They safely land somewhere else with their own checked and carry on luggage.The greatest frequent human suffering is if somebody goes into labor or a heart attack or seizure but for most rational people the only real course is to land to take care of this - despite the movies.
"Water landings" would just be to eject the pods at low / speed altitude which have a beacon and flotation built in.
High speed crash/really bad turbulance - the tube has a self contained restraint system kinda in demolition man's car wreck but reusable many times in a flight.The savings of properly built cubes/tubes versus Crew Security+ 2 decks + cargo containers + difficult to clean &amp; maintain banked seating arrangements + Pilot Cabin security + multiple door inspection/security+ +baggage handler cost and fiascos+ lost time in boarding/deplaning would I think balance  out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887057</id>
	<title>Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1256672580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What makes you think they care?</p></div></blockquote><p>What makes you think they should?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes you think they care ? What makes you think they should ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes you think they care?What makes you think they should?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886605</id>
	<title>Downside?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256670660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Uh, no, I actually CAN'T work on the presentation during the flight."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Uh , no , I actually CA N'T work on the presentation during the flight .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Uh, no, I actually CAN'T work on the presentation during the flight.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886995</id>
	<title>Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1256672340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah that rule is crazy. It's crazy to prevent people from carrying water or their cosmetics and similar stuff onboard.<br><br>They stop someone from bringing in a bottle of moisturizer, but when someone goes through the scanner and it beeps, they just look at his keys, coins etc and let him through.<br><br>Given their procedures I think it's easy to sneak onboard a dangerous amount of [fill in the blanks yourself terrorist, I'm not gonna help you that much<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)].<br><br>It's all to make people feel safe, not to actually make people safe.<br><br>That said, people feeling that plane travel is unsafe (even if untrue) could actually cause a lot of damage to the airline industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah that rule is crazy .
It 's crazy to prevent people from carrying water or their cosmetics and similar stuff onboard.They stop someone from bringing in a bottle of moisturizer , but when someone goes through the scanner and it beeps , they just look at his keys , coins etc and let him through.Given their procedures I think it 's easy to sneak onboard a dangerous amount of [ fill in the blanks yourself terrorist , I 'm not gon na help you that much ; ) ] .It 's all to make people feel safe , not to actually make people safe.That said , people feeling that plane travel is unsafe ( even if untrue ) could actually cause a lot of damage to the airline industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah that rule is crazy.
It's crazy to prevent people from carrying water or their cosmetics and similar stuff onboard.They stop someone from bringing in a bottle of moisturizer, but when someone goes through the scanner and it beeps, they just look at his keys, coins etc and let him through.Given their procedures I think it's easy to sneak onboard a dangerous amount of [fill in the blanks yourself terrorist, I'm not gonna help you that much ;)].It's all to make people feel safe, not to actually make people safe.That said, people feeling that plane travel is unsafe (even if untrue) could actually cause a lot of damage to the airline industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29899291</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>knarf</author>
	<datestamp>1256753160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Who knows, maybe they'll create a "laptop license", and charge $50/year to get it renewed, and have a background check done on it. My work would cover that.</p></div></blockquote><p>That would be exactly the sort of nonsensical reaction I'd expect from something like TSA. The problem with the laptop lies in its battery which is of a volatile nature. A 'laptop license' and the 'background check' will do nothing to mitigate the risk of that battery going <strong>poof</strong> but it will look like they're 'doing something'.</p><p>No, a better solution to this 'problem' - if a problem it is - is to change to a less volatile battery chemistry for those occasions you have to take the thing on board something 'protected' by the TSA. NiMH would do for now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who knows , maybe they 'll create a " laptop license " , and charge $ 50/year to get it renewed , and have a background check done on it .
My work would cover that.That would be exactly the sort of nonsensical reaction I 'd expect from something like TSA .
The problem with the laptop lies in its battery which is of a volatile nature .
A 'laptop license ' and the 'background check ' will do nothing to mitigate the risk of that battery going poof but it will look like they 're 'doing something'.No , a better solution to this 'problem ' - if a problem it is - is to change to a less volatile battery chemistry for those occasions you have to take the thing on board something 'protected ' by the TSA .
NiMH would do for now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who knows, maybe they'll create a "laptop license", and charge $50/year to get it renewed, and have a background check done on it.
My work would cover that.That would be exactly the sort of nonsensical reaction I'd expect from something like TSA.
The problem with the laptop lies in its battery which is of a volatile nature.
A 'laptop license' and the 'background check' will do nothing to mitigate the risk of that battery going poof but it will look like they're 'doing something'.No, a better solution to this 'problem' - if a problem it is - is to change to a less volatile battery chemistry for those occasions you have to take the thing on board something 'protected' by the TSA.
NiMH would do for now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887297</id>
	<title>jettison tube</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256673420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well the obvious solution is to equip aircraft with an airlocked jettison tube. put burning laptop/pda/mp3 in the slot and pull the lever. (works best over open ocean.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well the obvious solution is to equip aircraft with an airlocked jettison tube .
put burning laptop/pda/mp3 in the slot and pull the lever .
( works best over open ocean .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well the obvious solution is to equip aircraft with an airlocked jettison tube.
put burning laptop/pda/mp3 in the slot and pull the lever.
(works best over open ocean.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886741</id>
	<title>SHHHHHHH!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256671320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geeze!  Do you <i>want</i> them to ban all batteries?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geeze !
Do you want them to ban all batteries ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geeze!
Do you want them to ban all batteries?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377</id>
	<title>But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256669820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What good is a laptop without one?  My own laptop, even when plugged into AC, won't start without a battery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What good is a laptop without one ?
My own laptop , even when plugged into AC , wo n't start without a battery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What good is a laptop without one?
My own laptop, even when plugged into AC, won't start without a battery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886611</id>
	<title>Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>FauxReal</author>
	<datestamp>1256670720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I booked a flight on Alaska Airlines today and decided to actually read their restrictions on baggage and I saw <a href="http://www.alaskaair.com/as/www2/help/faqs/CheckedBaggage.asp" title="alaskaair.com">this</a> [alaskaair.com].<p><div class="quote"><p>As of January 1, 2008, customers may no longer pack spare lithium batteries of any kind in checked baggage. Customers can carry spare lithium batteries for devices such as laptops, cell phones and cameras, but they must be packed in their carry-on baggage with the terminals covered/insulated. Customers may check bags that contain lithium batteries only if they are installed in the electronic devices. Damaged batteries will not be accepted for transport. For important details regarding the safe transportation of batteries/battery-powered devices while flying, please visit <a href="http://safetravel.dot.gov/" title="dot.gov">http://safetravel.dot.gov/</a> [dot.gov].</p></div><p>
I wonder if TSA agents are trained to actually take out and read the packaging/label of all batteries they come across as they rifle through your belongings.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I booked a flight on Alaska Airlines today and decided to actually read their restrictions on baggage and I saw this [ alaskaair.com ] .As of January 1 , 2008 , customers may no longer pack spare lithium batteries of any kind in checked baggage .
Customers can carry spare lithium batteries for devices such as laptops , cell phones and cameras , but they must be packed in their carry-on baggage with the terminals covered/insulated .
Customers may check bags that contain lithium batteries only if they are installed in the electronic devices .
Damaged batteries will not be accepted for transport .
For important details regarding the safe transportation of batteries/battery-powered devices while flying , please visit http : //safetravel.dot.gov/ [ dot.gov ] .
I wonder if TSA agents are trained to actually take out and read the packaging/label of all batteries they come across as they rifle through your belongings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I booked a flight on Alaska Airlines today and decided to actually read their restrictions on baggage and I saw this [alaskaair.com].As of January 1, 2008, customers may no longer pack spare lithium batteries of any kind in checked baggage.
Customers can carry spare lithium batteries for devices such as laptops, cell phones and cameras, but they must be packed in their carry-on baggage with the terminals covered/insulated.
Customers may check bags that contain lithium batteries only if they are installed in the electronic devices.
Damaged batteries will not be accepted for transport.
For important details regarding the safe transportation of batteries/battery-powered devices while flying, please visit http://safetravel.dot.gov/ [dot.gov].
I wonder if TSA agents are trained to actually take out and read the packaging/label of all batteries they come across as they rifle through your belongings.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888465</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256635200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This video will show what they really need to ban: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGOGl1JsJW8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">PEOPLE</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This video will show what they really need to ban : PEOPLE [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This video will show what they really need to ban: PEOPLE [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886851</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1256671740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It is a government run agency. It will only become a problem when the senator who is chairman of some committee was told he couldn't bring his laptop as carry on, and it gets stolen as a checked item."</p><p>You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works.  Said senator would not get the law changed; he would simply make sure that he got a special exception from complying with the law.</p><p>Example - when Ted Kennedy got held up at an airport for his name being on the no-fly list, the system didn't get changed.  The list just had an asterisk added at the name "Kennedy" that said " *does not apply to the fat drunk claiming to be a Senator - he really is one."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is a government run agency .
It will only become a problem when the senator who is chairman of some committee was told he could n't bring his laptop as carry on , and it gets stolen as a checked item .
" You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works .
Said senator would not get the law changed ; he would simply make sure that he got a special exception from complying with the law.Example - when Ted Kennedy got held up at an airport for his name being on the no-fly list , the system did n't get changed .
The list just had an asterisk added at the name " Kennedy " that said " * does not apply to the fat drunk claiming to be a Senator - he really is one .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is a government run agency.
It will only become a problem when the senator who is chairman of some committee was told he couldn't bring his laptop as carry on, and it gets stolen as a checked item.
"You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works.
Said senator would not get the law changed; he would simply make sure that he got a special exception from complying with the law.Example - when Ted Kennedy got held up at an airport for his name being on the no-fly list, the system didn't get changed.
The list just had an asterisk added at the name "Kennedy" that said " *does not apply to the fat drunk claiming to be a Senator - he really is one.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888717</id>
	<title>I worry more about lightning strikes.</title>
	<author>mstrcat</author>
	<datestamp>1256636040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just a bit of statical analysis:<br>30,000 flights/day * 365.25 days/year*10 years = 110 million flights.<br>22 laptop fires<br>1 in 5 million odds of having your flight involved.</p><p>Apparently someone decided that they needed some press coverage, as I'm not buying it as a credible hazard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just a bit of statical analysis : 30,000 flights/day * 365.25 days/year * 10 years = 110 million flights.22 laptop fires1 in 5 million odds of having your flight involved.Apparently someone decided that they needed some press coverage , as I 'm not buying it as a credible hazard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just a bit of statical analysis:30,000 flights/day * 365.25 days/year*10 years = 110 million flights.22 laptop fires1 in 5 million odds of having your flight involved.Apparently someone decided that they needed some press coverage, as I'm not buying it as a credible hazard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892549</id>
	<title>Re:SHHHHHHH!</title>
	<author>myowntrueself</author>
	<datestamp>1256657040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Geeze! Do you want them to ban all batteries?</p></div><p>I'd like them to ban glass as well.</p><p>Did you know that Al Qaida are training their terrorists in flint knapping these days???</p><p>They can make a weapon out of any piece of glass!!!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Geeze !
Do you want them to ban all batteries ? I 'd like them to ban glass as well.Did you know that Al Qaida are training their terrorists in flint knapping these days ? ?
? They can make a weapon out of any piece of glass ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geeze!
Do you want them to ban all batteries?I'd like them to ban glass as well.Did you know that Al Qaida are training their terrorists in flint knapping these days??
?They can make a weapon out of any piece of glass!!!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886741</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531</id>
	<title>Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>danaris</author>
	<datestamp>1256670360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they start looking into this, they might decide to not only ban laptops, but everything else that might have a lithium battery...</p><p>Of course, it might be that banning nearly everything electronic from the cabins is just the kind of ridiculousness we need to get a backlash against all this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security\_theater" title="wikipedia.org">security theater</a> [wikipedia.org], and get the people in charge to actually take some time to come up with <b>reasonable</b> restrictions on what we can bring on an airplane.</p><p>...The other alternative seems to be to go all the way in the other direction: all our luggage gets checked into an ultra-secure compartment, and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothes that can't be used to conceal anything in.</p><p>Dan Aris</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they start looking into this , they might decide to not only ban laptops , but everything else that might have a lithium battery...Of course , it might be that banning nearly everything electronic from the cabins is just the kind of ridiculousness we need to get a backlash against all this security theater [ wikipedia.org ] , and get the people in charge to actually take some time to come up with reasonable restrictions on what we can bring on an airplane....The other alternative seems to be to go all the way in the other direction : all our luggage gets checked into an ultra-secure compartment , and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothes that ca n't be used to conceal anything in.Dan Aris</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they start looking into this, they might decide to not only ban laptops, but everything else that might have a lithium battery...Of course, it might be that banning nearly everything electronic from the cabins is just the kind of ridiculousness we need to get a backlash against all this security theater [wikipedia.org], and get the people in charge to actually take some time to come up with reasonable restrictions on what we can bring on an airplane....The other alternative seems to be to go all the way in the other direction: all our luggage gets checked into an ultra-secure compartment, and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothes that can't be used to conceal anything in.Dan Aris</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887029</id>
	<title>Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256672520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like a bad battery.  Some models of Thinkpads have the same design - the power coming in from the AC will travel through the battery (if present) before it goes to the laptop's power supply or something along those lines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like a bad battery .
Some models of Thinkpads have the same design - the power coming in from the AC will travel through the battery ( if present ) before it goes to the laptop 's power supply or something along those lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like a bad battery.
Some models of Thinkpads have the same design - the power coming in from the AC will travel through the battery (if present) before it goes to the laptop's power supply or something along those lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29895789</id>
	<title>This is an dvert for xkcd</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256738340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Reader Maximum Prophet points out that as usual xkcd gets it right, " had to get the ad in there somehow. Very inventive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Reader Maximum Prophet points out that as usual xkcd gets it right , " had to get the ad in there somehow .
Very inventive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Reader Maximum Prophet points out that as usual xkcd gets it right, " had to get the ad in there somehow.
Very inventive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888033</id>
	<title>Here's how this is going to go down...</title>
	<author>NevarMore</author>
	<datestamp>1256676600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-1. XKCD writes comic and STARTS a meme instead of referencing one<br>0. News article on li-ion batteries<br>1. TSA begins to crack down on enforcing no li-ion batteries in *carry on* baggage<br>2. Airlines now have a regulation that forces consumers to pay for a checked bag<br>3. Profit</p><p>Personal griping anecdote follows:<br>I flew recently, from MEM to SNA and from SNA to SDF with just my backpack. It had the liquids (in a seperate bag, that hotel shampoo and my Irish Spring are dangerous), nicer shoes, a suit, a 1000 page hardback, a 300 page paperback, my laptop, and some salty snacks. I had to give it a pretty good shove to get it stowed in an approved location because the under seat space was a hair too small and the overhead was full up with rolly suitcases.</p><p>The bitching about air travel and the TSA has gone well beyond a few loud, pissed off customers. Its par now to find most people unhappy with flying.</p><p>Me, I've learned to cope. I get a thrill out of finding holes in games with poorly written rules. Both the airlines and the TSA have placed an arbitrary set of rules in front of me. I get a kick out of walking around the airport barefoot, I get a thrill out of understanding basic science and knowing what I can do to ruin a flight thats far worse than what the TSA can stop*, I'm enough of a nerd to watch the system grind away**, and at the end of it I get to sit in a rare-metal and epoxy tube and travel at hundreds of miles an hour.</p><p>I was going somewhere with this. Post probably isn't worth my karma mod, but oh well. Lets discuss a little.</p><p>*point of the article plus my feet are bare, therefore my well worn hiking boots are emanating their scent freely from their place in my pack<br>**think about all the people that are involved just to get me on a plane, clerks, air crew, stewardesses, ground crew, security goons. Shit no wonder it costs so much to fly</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 .
XKCD writes comic and STARTS a meme instead of referencing one0 .
News article on li-ion batteries1 .
TSA begins to crack down on enforcing no li-ion batteries in * carry on * baggage2 .
Airlines now have a regulation that forces consumers to pay for a checked bag3 .
ProfitPersonal griping anecdote follows : I flew recently , from MEM to SNA and from SNA to SDF with just my backpack .
It had the liquids ( in a seperate bag , that hotel shampoo and my Irish Spring are dangerous ) , nicer shoes , a suit , a 1000 page hardback , a 300 page paperback , my laptop , and some salty snacks .
I had to give it a pretty good shove to get it stowed in an approved location because the under seat space was a hair too small and the overhead was full up with rolly suitcases.The bitching about air travel and the TSA has gone well beyond a few loud , pissed off customers .
Its par now to find most people unhappy with flying.Me , I 've learned to cope .
I get a thrill out of finding holes in games with poorly written rules .
Both the airlines and the TSA have placed an arbitrary set of rules in front of me .
I get a kick out of walking around the airport barefoot , I get a thrill out of understanding basic science and knowing what I can do to ruin a flight thats far worse than what the TSA can stop * , I 'm enough of a nerd to watch the system grind away * * , and at the end of it I get to sit in a rare-metal and epoxy tube and travel at hundreds of miles an hour.I was going somewhere with this .
Post probably is n't worth my karma mod , but oh well .
Lets discuss a little .
* point of the article plus my feet are bare , therefore my well worn hiking boots are emanating their scent freely from their place in my pack * * think about all the people that are involved just to get me on a plane , clerks , air crew , stewardesses , ground crew , security goons .
Shit no wonder it costs so much to fly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1.
XKCD writes comic and STARTS a meme instead of referencing one0.
News article on li-ion batteries1.
TSA begins to crack down on enforcing no li-ion batteries in *carry on* baggage2.
Airlines now have a regulation that forces consumers to pay for a checked bag3.
ProfitPersonal griping anecdote follows:I flew recently, from MEM to SNA and from SNA to SDF with just my backpack.
It had the liquids (in a seperate bag, that hotel shampoo and my Irish Spring are dangerous), nicer shoes, a suit, a 1000 page hardback, a 300 page paperback, my laptop, and some salty snacks.
I had to give it a pretty good shove to get it stowed in an approved location because the under seat space was a hair too small and the overhead was full up with rolly suitcases.The bitching about air travel and the TSA has gone well beyond a few loud, pissed off customers.
Its par now to find most people unhappy with flying.Me, I've learned to cope.
I get a thrill out of finding holes in games with poorly written rules.
Both the airlines and the TSA have placed an arbitrary set of rules in front of me.
I get a kick out of walking around the airport barefoot, I get a thrill out of understanding basic science and knowing what I can do to ruin a flight thats far worse than what the TSA can stop*, I'm enough of a nerd to watch the system grind away**, and at the end of it I get to sit in a rare-metal and epoxy tube and travel at hundreds of miles an hour.I was going somewhere with this.
Post probably isn't worth my karma mod, but oh well.
Lets discuss a little.
*point of the article plus my feet are bare, therefore my well worn hiking boots are emanating their scent freely from their place in my pack**think about all the people that are involved just to get me on a plane, clerks, air crew, stewardesses, ground crew, security goons.
Shit no wonder it costs so much to fly</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888409</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>NiteShaed</author>
	<datestamp>1256634900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And don't think the problem will be isolated to blackberries and laptops carried by business folk. Helicopter-Soccer Mom and Socially Enabled 12-Year Old have cell phones and laptops, too, and those have Li-Ion batteries. Not to mention Electronic-Dependent Cannot Entertain Him/Herself for an hour Child and their ever-present array of Gaming Devices and/or DVD Players. PhotoAmateur Dad always carries his Digicamera or Camcorder. In fact, I think you'd be amazed at how many people DO NOT carry at least one Li-Ion battery in their carryon or on their person today.</p></div></blockquote><p>Luckily Overly-Impressed-With-Himself-Slashdot-Poster doesn't have any of these problems since there are no direct flights out of his mom's basement.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n't think the problem will be isolated to blackberries and laptops carried by business folk .
Helicopter-Soccer Mom and Socially Enabled 12-Year Old have cell phones and laptops , too , and those have Li-Ion batteries .
Not to mention Electronic-Dependent Can not Entertain Him/Herself for an hour Child and their ever-present array of Gaming Devices and/or DVD Players .
PhotoAmateur Dad always carries his Digicamera or Camcorder .
In fact , I think you 'd be amazed at how many people DO NOT carry at least one Li-Ion battery in their carryon or on their person today.Luckily Overly-Impressed-With-Himself-Slashdot-Poster does n't have any of these problems since there are no direct flights out of his mom 's basement.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And don't think the problem will be isolated to blackberries and laptops carried by business folk.
Helicopter-Soccer Mom and Socially Enabled 12-Year Old have cell phones and laptops, too, and those have Li-Ion batteries.
Not to mention Electronic-Dependent Cannot Entertain Him/Herself for an hour Child and their ever-present array of Gaming Devices and/or DVD Players.
PhotoAmateur Dad always carries his Digicamera or Camcorder.
In fact, I think you'd be amazed at how many people DO NOT carry at least one Li-Ion battery in their carryon or on their person today.Luckily Overly-Impressed-With-Himself-Slashdot-Poster doesn't have any of these problems since there are no direct flights out of his mom's basement.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886569</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>tuxedobob</author>
	<datestamp>1256670540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I've never actually asked ("Excuse me, but do you have a fire blanket on board?" "Why?), but I'd hope planes carry a fire blanket on them. Maybe it's not so dangerous if you have a quick response?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I 've never actually asked ( " Excuse me , but do you have a fire blanket on board ?
" " Why ?
) , but I 'd hope planes carry a fire blanket on them .
Maybe it 's not so dangerous if you have a quick response ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I've never actually asked ("Excuse me, but do you have a fire blanket on board?
" "Why?
), but I'd hope planes carry a fire blanket on them.
Maybe it's not so dangerous if you have a quick response?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886555</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>Ceiynt</author>
	<datestamp>1256670420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They banned fingernail clippers, why not batteries?<br> <br>I'd very upset, because they would not stop at laptop batteries, but it would be a blanket ban on ALL batteries; cellphone, Nintendo DS, PSP, the little bop bop games like game and watch.<br> <br>It is a government run agency. It will only become a problem when the senator who is chairman of some committee was told he couldn't bring his laptop as carry on, and it gets stolen as a checked item.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They banned fingernail clippers , why not batteries ?
I 'd very upset , because they would not stop at laptop batteries , but it would be a blanket ban on ALL batteries ; cellphone , Nintendo DS , PSP , the little bop bop games like game and watch .
It is a government run agency .
It will only become a problem when the senator who is chairman of some committee was told he could n't bring his laptop as carry on , and it gets stolen as a checked item .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They banned fingernail clippers, why not batteries?
I'd very upset, because they would not stop at laptop batteries, but it would be a blanket ban on ALL batteries; cellphone, Nintendo DS, PSP, the little bop bop games like game and watch.
It is a government run agency.
It will only become a problem when the senator who is chairman of some committee was told he couldn't bring his laptop as carry on, and it gets stolen as a checked item.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886509</id>
	<title>Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>Golddess</author>
	<datestamp>1256670240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What good is a laptop without one?</p></div><p>What makes you think they care?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What good is a laptop without one ? What makes you think they care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What good is a laptop without one?What makes you think they care?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887955</id>
	<title>Whoosh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>&nbsp; &lt;--------- Whooosh<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;/"""""<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; |&nbsp; (')')<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; C&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;\_)<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;\&nbsp; &nbsp;\_|<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; \\_\_/<br><br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Mods</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>        / " " " " "     |   ( ' ) ' )     C       \ _ )       \     \ _ |       \ \ _ \ _/       Mods</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       /"""""    |  (')')    C     \_)     \   \_|      \\_\_/      Mods</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887105</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256672760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's only one solution.  Ban passengers from planes!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only one solution .
Ban passengers from planes !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only one solution.
Ban passengers from planes!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889431</id>
	<title>Re:Business business model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256638980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then why does it happen today?  Could it be that we don't have the train infrastructure to compete with airlines? Anybody here planning on taking a train to travel for this holiday season? Hummmmmmmmm.... It ain't going to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then why does it happen today ?
Could it be that we do n't have the train infrastructure to compete with airlines ?
Anybody here planning on taking a train to travel for this holiday season ?
Hummmmmmmmm.... It ai n't going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then why does it happen today?
Could it be that we don't have the train infrastructure to compete with airlines?
Anybody here planning on taking a train to travel for this holiday season?
Hummmmmmmmm.... It ain't going to happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890217</id>
	<title>What about humans spontaneously combusting?</title>
	<author>c4str4t0</author>
	<datestamp>1256642040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should start banning humans from boarding aircraft as well since they could be another potential fire hazard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should start banning humans from boarding aircraft as well since they could be another potential fire hazard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should start banning humans from boarding aircraft as well since they could be another potential fire hazard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887425</id>
	<title>Cesium</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256673960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is not that laptop batteries are dangerous, it is that liquids are not that dangerous.   They can not outlaw water on a plane, all they do is prevent you from bringing it on yourself.  They have to supply it, as the flights are too long.    They also can't easily detect non-radioactive cesium.   But what happens if some bright terrorist takes 12 ounces of powdered up Cesium, packed in Argon (non-reactive).  Wait till they get up in the air, ask the Stewardess for water and pour the H20 into the Cesium.  No more plane.</p><p>We can't stop suicide bombers.  Not on the ground in Israel, not on Airplanes.    We CAN stop terrorists from taking over airplanes.  Reinforce and lock the cockpit doors and give out sharpened stake knives to all the passengers.   Makes a lot more sense than most of the silly rules they have already have.  We should encourage people to take pocket knives on the plane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not that laptop batteries are dangerous , it is that liquids are not that dangerous .
They can not outlaw water on a plane , all they do is prevent you from bringing it on yourself .
They have to supply it , as the flights are too long .
They also ca n't easily detect non-radioactive cesium .
But what happens if some bright terrorist takes 12 ounces of powdered up Cesium , packed in Argon ( non-reactive ) .
Wait till they get up in the air , ask the Stewardess for water and pour the H20 into the Cesium .
No more plane.We ca n't stop suicide bombers .
Not on the ground in Israel , not on Airplanes .
We CAN stop terrorists from taking over airplanes .
Reinforce and lock the cockpit doors and give out sharpened stake knives to all the passengers .
Makes a lot more sense than most of the silly rules they have already have .
We should encourage people to take pocket knives on the plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not that laptop batteries are dangerous, it is that liquids are not that dangerous.
They can not outlaw water on a plane, all they do is prevent you from bringing it on yourself.
They have to supply it, as the flights are too long.
They also can't easily detect non-radioactive cesium.
But what happens if some bright terrorist takes 12 ounces of powdered up Cesium, packed in Argon (non-reactive).
Wait till they get up in the air, ask the Stewardess for water and pour the H20 into the Cesium.
No more plane.We can't stop suicide bombers.
Not on the ground in Israel, not on Airplanes.
We CAN stop terrorists from taking over airplanes.
Reinforce and lock the cockpit doors and give out sharpened stake knives to all the passengers.
Makes a lot more sense than most of the silly rules they have already have.
We should encourage people to take pocket knives on the plane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890365</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1256642640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Helicopter-Soccer Mom"</p><p>That's sorta like polo, but with helicopters? Rock!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Helicopter-Soccer Mom " That 's sorta like polo , but with helicopters ?
Rock !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Helicopter-Soccer Mom"That's sorta like polo, but with helicopters?
Rock!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887805</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>ComputerSlicer23</author>
	<datestamp>1256675640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Funny, I took off my shoes after 9/11 but before they required it, precisely because my work boots always set off the metal detectors.
</p><p>
Yeah, but Evian water is just an inconvenience, as I'll buy some when I get there (if I drank bottled water).  I'm not dropping the money for a laptop on the other side, especially if I can't bring it back with me.  I'm highly unlikely to check my $1800 laptop.  For my work, I'd not go on the trip, as me without my laptop has virtually no value.  It'd take a half day just to get a machine setup so I could get logged in over the VPN, and get all of the tools I need installed.
</p><p>
So cheap items, there's no big deal, but items that are too expensive to just replace upon every trip, are likely to cause a much bigger backlash.  Especially if they affect business people, who generate the bulk of the revenue in flying.  Hell, they could tell me I couldn't take clothes except what I had on, and I'd deal with that (assuming there I could locate a decent big and tall shop in town).  Who knows, maybe they'll create a "laptop license", and charge $50/year to get it renewed, and have a background check done on it.  My work would cover that.
</p><p>
If they do ban them, look for people to start carrying on laptop hard drives, and using laptop rentals.  Or a lot more driving than flying.
</p><p>
Kirby</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I took off my shoes after 9/11 but before they required it , precisely because my work boots always set off the metal detectors .
Yeah , but Evian water is just an inconvenience , as I 'll buy some when I get there ( if I drank bottled water ) .
I 'm not dropping the money for a laptop on the other side , especially if I ca n't bring it back with me .
I 'm highly unlikely to check my $ 1800 laptop .
For my work , I 'd not go on the trip , as me without my laptop has virtually no value .
It 'd take a half day just to get a machine setup so I could get logged in over the VPN , and get all of the tools I need installed .
So cheap items , there 's no big deal , but items that are too expensive to just replace upon every trip , are likely to cause a much bigger backlash .
Especially if they affect business people , who generate the bulk of the revenue in flying .
Hell , they could tell me I could n't take clothes except what I had on , and I 'd deal with that ( assuming there I could locate a decent big and tall shop in town ) .
Who knows , maybe they 'll create a " laptop license " , and charge $ 50/year to get it renewed , and have a background check done on it .
My work would cover that .
If they do ban them , look for people to start carrying on laptop hard drives , and using laptop rentals .
Or a lot more driving than flying .
Kirby</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Funny, I took off my shoes after 9/11 but before they required it, precisely because my work boots always set off the metal detectors.
Yeah, but Evian water is just an inconvenience, as I'll buy some when I get there (if I drank bottled water).
I'm not dropping the money for a laptop on the other side, especially if I can't bring it back with me.
I'm highly unlikely to check my $1800 laptop.
For my work, I'd not go on the trip, as me without my laptop has virtually no value.
It'd take a half day just to get a machine setup so I could get logged in over the VPN, and get all of the tools I need installed.
So cheap items, there's no big deal, but items that are too expensive to just replace upon every trip, are likely to cause a much bigger backlash.
Especially if they affect business people, who generate the bulk of the revenue in flying.
Hell, they could tell me I couldn't take clothes except what I had on, and I'd deal with that (assuming there I could locate a decent big and tall shop in town).
Who knows, maybe they'll create a "laptop license", and charge $50/year to get it renewed, and have a background check done on it.
My work would cover that.
If they do ban them, look for people to start carrying on laptop hard drives, and using laptop rentals.
Or a lot more driving than flying.
Kirby</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887607</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256674800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The number one thing we can do to improve safety is to just ban people from flying.  Problem solved - 100\% safe for passengers.<br>It's not like the airlines remember that their purpose is to move people about anyways.<br>Let's just make it official that we're a hindrance to air traffic and be done with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The number one thing we can do to improve safety is to just ban people from flying .
Problem solved - 100 \ % safe for passengers.It 's not like the airlines remember that their purpose is to move people about anyways.Let 's just make it official that we 're a hindrance to air traffic and be done with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The number one thing we can do to improve safety is to just ban people from flying.
Problem solved - 100\% safe for passengers.It's not like the airlines remember that their purpose is to move people about anyways.Let's just make it official that we're a hindrance to air traffic and be done with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886575</id>
	<title>Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256670540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, well I have a laptop (G4 Powerbook) that won't start <em>with</em> a battery. Not sure what happened to cause that problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , well I have a laptop ( G4 Powerbook ) that wo n't start with a battery .
Not sure what happened to cause that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, well I have a laptop (G4 Powerbook) that won't start with a battery.
Not sure what happened to cause that problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890261</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1256642160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The sheeple..."</p><p>(Why is it always sheeple? Not horsple, or cowple, or chickple or llample? Echidnple? Chinchipple? Meerkatple? Rhinocerple? Hippopotaple?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The sheeple... " ( Why is it always sheeple ?
Not horsple , or cowple , or chickple or llample ?
Echidnple ? Chinchipple ?
Meerkatple ? Rhinocerple ?
Hippopotaple ? )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The sheeple..."(Why is it always sheeple?
Not horsple, or cowple, or chickple or llample?
Echidnple? Chinchipple?
Meerkatple? Rhinocerple?
Hippopotaple?)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429</id>
	<title>They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>Kryptonian Jor-El</author>
	<datestamp>1256670060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The backlash of removing batteries would outweigh the safety benefit.

<br> <br>

Knowing the airlines, they could turn this into some type of profit scheme. Make users store batteries in suitcase, make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ($50) and charge a usage fee ($50)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The backlash of removing batteries would outweigh the safety benefit .
Knowing the airlines , they could turn this into some type of profit scheme .
Make users store batteries in suitcase , make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ( $ 50 ) and charge a usage fee ( $ 50 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The backlash of removing batteries would outweigh the safety benefit.
Knowing the airlines, they could turn this into some type of profit scheme.
Make users store batteries in suitcase, make users bring special plane chargers/buy one ($50) and charge a usage fee ($50)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887449</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256674020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Earplugs, man. Bitchy much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Earplugs , man .
Bitchy much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Earplugs, man.
Bitchy much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887685</id>
	<title>Watch batteries?</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1256675160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are watch batteries made from Li-Ion?</p><p>Yep.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch\_battery" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch\_battery</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are watch batteries made from Li-Ion ? Yep.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch \ _battery [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are watch batteries made from Li-Ion?Yep.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch\_battery [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29903079</id>
	<title>Re:Business business model</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256726820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're ignoring airplane delays waiting for takeoff, or circling waiting to land, etc.  Not that trains are immune to delays, but the airlines have raised delays to a level of art which trains cannot possibly match.  Also, compared to train terminals, airport terminals tend to be farther away from your specific destination, adding time to your secondary transportation needs.</p><p>- T</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're ignoring airplane delays waiting for takeoff , or circling waiting to land , etc .
Not that trains are immune to delays , but the airlines have raised delays to a level of art which trains can not possibly match .
Also , compared to train terminals , airport terminals tend to be farther away from your specific destination , adding time to your secondary transportation needs.- T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're ignoring airplane delays waiting for takeoff, or circling waiting to land, etc.
Not that trains are immune to delays, but the airlines have raised delays to a level of art which trains cannot possibly match.
Also, compared to train terminals, airport terminals tend to be farther away from your specific destination, adding time to your secondary transportation needs.- T</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887711</id>
	<title>The solution is obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Airplanes need to have fewer laptops and more lap dances.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Airplanes need to have fewer laptops and more lap dances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airplanes need to have fewer laptops and more lap dances.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888513</id>
	<title>wow.</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1256635440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>Guy with the fancy cowboy boots;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Woman wearing Prada shoes;<br>Urbanite with Evian;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Helicopter-Soccer Mom;<br>Socially Enabled 12-Year Old;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Electronic [game]-Dependent Child;<br>and PhotoAmateur Dad...</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>Is there anyone you <em>don't</em> have contempt for?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guy with the fancy cowboy boots ;     Woman wearing Prada shoes ; Urbanite with Evian ;     Helicopter-Soccer Mom ; Socially Enabled 12-Year Old ;     Electronic [ game ] -Dependent Child ; and PhotoAmateur Dad... Is there anyone you do n't have contempt for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Guy with the fancy cowboy boots;
    Woman wearing Prada shoes;Urbanite with Evian;
    Helicopter-Soccer Mom;Socially Enabled 12-Year Old;
    Electronic [game]-Dependent Child;and PhotoAmateur Dad... Is there anyone you don't have contempt for?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892669</id>
	<title>Re:They won't</title>
	<author>alantus</author>
	<datestamp>1256658120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering what will happen when they catch a terrorist smuggling some kind of explosive in his rectum.<br>After all, they are on a suicide mission, so this is 100\% possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering what will happen when they catch a terrorist smuggling some kind of explosive in his rectum.After all , they are on a suicide mission , so this is 100 \ % possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering what will happen when they catch a terrorist smuggling some kind of explosive in his rectum.After all, they are on a suicide mission, so this is 100\% possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890129</id>
	<title>Would you prefer the fires happen in the cargo?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256641680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they ban carry-on laptops (with batteries) then if/when those batteries do decide to pop while in flight, I would much rather it happens in the passenger area where one can see the smoke, then down in cargo, inside a suitcase filled with flammables like clothing and paper... no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they ban carry-on laptops ( with batteries ) then if/when those batteries do decide to pop while in flight , I would much rather it happens in the passenger area where one can see the smoke , then down in cargo , inside a suitcase filled with flammables like clothing and paper... no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they ban carry-on laptops (with batteries) then if/when those batteries do decide to pop while in flight, I would much rather it happens in the passenger area where one can see the smoke, then down in cargo, inside a suitcase filled with flammables like clothing and paper... no?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886923</id>
	<title>They won't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256672100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because nobody has intentionally tried to start a fire with one.<br>We take off our shoes because someone tried to light exploding shoes. We surrender liquids because someone tried to use liquid explosive on a plane.</p><p>If someone brings an explosive piggy-bank shaped like a Raiders helmet, we will ban piggy-banks... and Raiders gear. We're just proactive like that.</p><p>So don't sweat it. Until some 'turrist' uses a laptop battery, you're good to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because nobody has intentionally tried to start a fire with one.We take off our shoes because someone tried to light exploding shoes .
We surrender liquids because someone tried to use liquid explosive on a plane.If someone brings an explosive piggy-bank shaped like a Raiders helmet , we will ban piggy-banks... and Raiders gear .
We 're just proactive like that.So do n't sweat it .
Until some 'turrist ' uses a laptop battery , you 're good to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because nobody has intentionally tried to start a fire with one.We take off our shoes because someone tried to light exploding shoes.
We surrender liquids because someone tried to use liquid explosive on a plane.If someone brings an explosive piggy-bank shaped like a Raiders helmet, we will ban piggy-banks... and Raiders gear.
We're just proactive like that.So don't sweat it.
Until some 'turrist' uses a laptop battery, you're good to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431</id>
	<title>They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>snowraver1</author>
	<datestamp>1256670060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could you imagine what would happen if you told all the business people that they had to either put thier (soon to be broken) laptop in checked luggage or couldn't board the plane.<br> <br>It's one thing to get felt up by security, but you will never pry a laptop or blackberry from a business person unless thier hands are cold and dead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you imagine what would happen if you told all the business people that they had to either put thier ( soon to be broken ) laptop in checked luggage or could n't board the plane .
It 's one thing to get felt up by security , but you will never pry a laptop or blackberry from a business person unless thier hands are cold and dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you imagine what would happen if you told all the business people that they had to either put thier (soon to be broken) laptop in checked luggage or couldn't board the plane.
It's one thing to get felt up by security, but you will never pry a laptop or blackberry from a business person unless thier hands are cold and dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886947</id>
	<title>In Related News</title>
	<author>quercus.aeternam</author>
	<datestamp>1256672220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In related news, Chuck Norris has been banned from all Airlines.</p><p>Officials stated that "... Well, obviously he's a weapon.  I mean, would you want to travel with a nuclear weapon your airliner?"</p><p>It remains to be seen how they intend on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/stopping/ Chuck Norris from boarding a plane.</p><p>Chuck's only comment on the matter was "why would I need a plane to fly?"</p><p>We agree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , Chuck Norris has been banned from all Airlines.Officials stated that " ... Well , obviously he 's a weapon .
I mean , would you want to travel with a nuclear weapon your airliner ?
" It remains to be seen how they intend on /stopping/ Chuck Norris from boarding a plane.Chuck 's only comment on the matter was " why would I need a plane to fly ?
" We agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, Chuck Norris has been banned from all Airlines.Officials stated that "... Well, obviously he's a weapon.
I mean, would you want to travel with a nuclear weapon your airliner?
"It remains to be seen how they intend on /stopping/ Chuck Norris from boarding a plane.Chuck's only comment on the matter was "why would I need a plane to fly?
"We agree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888341</id>
	<title>Last fire hazard?</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1256634660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes.</p></div><p>Umm... <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/washington/20tsa.html" title="nytimes.com">they still allow cigarette lighters...</a> [nytimes.com]  How does an "air safety expert" miss that one?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard ' people can bring on airplanes.Umm... they still allow cigarette lighters... [ nytimes.com ] How does an " air safety expert " miss that one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes.Umm... they still allow cigarette lighters... [nytimes.com]  How does an "air safety expert" miss that one?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889551</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>philspear</author>
	<datestamp>1256639400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?</p></div><p>Since they're already paying an outrageous amount for it outside the airport, they'd be willing to pay a slightly more outrageous amount for it INSIDE the airport: no revolt.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?</p></div><p>Her kids still get their dose of high fructose corn syrup once on the plane, and again, higher priced juice available on the other side of the gate keeps the revolting to a minimum.  I do remember some bad press about a woman being required to drink her own breast milk (from a bottle) to prove it wasn't milk-colored liquid explosives, but she got it on.</p><p>Anyway: no revolt.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Could you imagine what would happen if you told the guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner, and they have to walk through security on the icky floors wearing only socks/stockings?</p></div><p>I don't actually know many people with fancy boots... maybe they've all been shot by security because they went a hootin' and a hollerin'.  I suspect though that they may have been proud to do their part to stop terrorism.  Prada shoes probably whined a bit and bitched on twitter about it.  And at the end of the day, having your shoes off for 5-20 mins is not that annoying, even the spoiled have a hard time making much noise about it.  Once again, on the other side of the gate, things go back to normal: no revolt</p><p>All the things you point to as failing to start a revolution are things that are very short inconvinences to small demographics.  Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I don't believe they could get away with banning all -outside- lithium batteries just to sell you higher priced lithium batteries inside the airport.  They're going to ask you to give up your device for the entire trip.  As you point out, theres going to be a lot more people affected by this one.  Therefore, I don't think they would do this one, for fear of losing buisiness.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they could n't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane ? Since they 're already paying an outrageous amount for it outside the airport , they 'd be willing to pay a slightly more outrageous amount for it INSIDE the airport : no revolt.Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she could n't bring a box of apple juice for her kid ? Her kids still get their dose of high fructose corn syrup once on the plane , and again , higher priced juice available on the other side of the gate keeps the revolting to a minimum .
I do remember some bad press about a woman being required to drink her own breast milk ( from a bottle ) to prove it was n't milk-colored liquid explosives , but she got it on.Anyway : no revolt.Could you imagine what would happen if you told the guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner , and they have to walk through security on the icky floors wearing only socks/stockings ? I do n't actually know many people with fancy boots... maybe they 've all been shot by security because they went a hootin ' and a hollerin' .
I suspect though that they may have been proud to do their part to stop terrorism .
Prada shoes probably whined a bit and bitched on twitter about it .
And at the end of the day , having your shoes off for 5-20 mins is not that annoying , even the spoiled have a hard time making much noise about it .
Once again , on the other side of the gate , things go back to normal : no revoltAll the things you point to as failing to start a revolution are things that are very short inconvinences to small demographics .
Maybe I 'm being optimistic , but I do n't believe they could get away with banning all -outside- lithium batteries just to sell you higher priced lithium batteries inside the airport .
They 're going to ask you to give up your device for the entire trip .
As you point out , theres going to be a lot more people affected by this one .
Therefore , I do n't think they would do this one , for fear of losing buisiness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?Since they're already paying an outrageous amount for it outside the airport, they'd be willing to pay a slightly more outrageous amount for it INSIDE the airport: no revolt.Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?Her kids still get their dose of high fructose corn syrup once on the plane, and again, higher priced juice available on the other side of the gate keeps the revolting to a minimum.
I do remember some bad press about a woman being required to drink her own breast milk (from a bottle) to prove it wasn't milk-colored liquid explosives, but she got it on.Anyway: no revolt.Could you imagine what would happen if you told the guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner, and they have to walk through security on the icky floors wearing only socks/stockings?I don't actually know many people with fancy boots... maybe they've all been shot by security because they went a hootin' and a hollerin'.
I suspect though that they may have been proud to do their part to stop terrorism.
Prada shoes probably whined a bit and bitched on twitter about it.
And at the end of the day, having your shoes off for 5-20 mins is not that annoying, even the spoiled have a hard time making much noise about it.
Once again, on the other side of the gate, things go back to normal: no revoltAll the things you point to as failing to start a revolution are things that are very short inconvinences to small demographics.
Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I don't believe they could get away with banning all -outside- lithium batteries just to sell you higher priced lithium batteries inside the airport.
They're going to ask you to give up your device for the entire trip.
As you point out, theres going to be a lot more people affected by this one.
Therefore, I don't think they would do this one, for fear of losing buisiness.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888947</id>
	<title>Hey, at least ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1256636940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... the occasional laptop going 'Bang!' will keep the Northwest pilots awake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the occasional laptop going 'Bang !
' will keep the Northwest pilots awake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the occasional laptop going 'Bang!
' will keep the Northwest pilots awake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887169</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>bugnuts</author>
	<datestamp>1256673000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course a lithium ban would have to apply to your cellphones, radios, laptops, etc.</p><p>But this is not a security issue (intentional shorting a battery to cause a fire and some hydrogen gas) but an issue of accidental fire.  The airlines should, if they don't already, have some fireproof gloves and a burn-proof compartment to securely throw malfunctioning devices such as a dropped iphone or overloaded phaser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course a lithium ban would have to apply to your cellphones , radios , laptops , etc.But this is not a security issue ( intentional shorting a battery to cause a fire and some hydrogen gas ) but an issue of accidental fire .
The airlines should , if they do n't already , have some fireproof gloves and a burn-proof compartment to securely throw malfunctioning devices such as a dropped iphone or overloaded phaser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course a lithium ban would have to apply to your cellphones, radios, laptops, etc.But this is not a security issue (intentional shorting a battery to cause a fire and some hydrogen gas) but an issue of accidental fire.
The airlines should, if they don't already, have some fireproof gloves and a burn-proof compartment to securely throw malfunctioning devices such as a dropped iphone or overloaded phaser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887293</id>
	<title>just because Randal proposed it</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1256673420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>doesnt mean we need a slashdot article so we can masturbate about it.<br> <br>

flight crews are trained to handle a fire, planes carry surplus breathable oxygen and fire extinguishers, and a laptop fire can easily be smothered out with one of the conveniently fire-retardant and incredibly uncomfortable blankets or pillows most airlines offer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>doesnt mean we need a slashdot article so we can masturbate about it .
flight crews are trained to handle a fire , planes carry surplus breathable oxygen and fire extinguishers , and a laptop fire can easily be smothered out with one of the conveniently fire-retardant and incredibly uncomfortable blankets or pillows most airlines offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesnt mean we need a slashdot article so we can masturbate about it.
flight crews are trained to handle a fire, planes carry surplus breathable oxygen and fire extinguishers, and a laptop fire can easily be smothered out with one of the conveniently fire-retardant and incredibly uncomfortable blankets or pillows most airlines offer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888451</id>
	<title>Ultracapacitors instead?</title>
	<author>sunderland56</author>
	<datestamp>1256635080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, when will laptops start to use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracapacitors" title="wikipedia.org">ultracapacitors</a> [wikipedia.org] instead?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , when will laptops start to use ultracapacitors [ wikipedia.org ] instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, when will laptops start to use ultracapacitors [wikipedia.org] instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890279</id>
	<title>Re:I'll check my batteries...</title>
	<author>wramsdel</author>
	<datestamp>1256642280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a solved problem.  I flew Northwest from Portland to Tokyo, an A330-300, pretty regularly between mid-2005 and mid-2008.  120V, 60 Hz was available in coach class forward of row 21, and throughout business and first.  <a href="http://seatguru.com/" title="seatguru.com" rel="nofollow">Seat Guru</a> [seatguru.com] is your friend here.  Sadly, after the Delta acquisition they moved the A330 elsewhere and replaced it with a ridden-hard-and-put-up-wet 767.  At least I don't have to make the trip any more, I'd probably be bored senseless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a solved problem .
I flew Northwest from Portland to Tokyo , an A330-300 , pretty regularly between mid-2005 and mid-2008 .
120V , 60 Hz was available in coach class forward of row 21 , and throughout business and first .
Seat Guru [ seatguru.com ] is your friend here .
Sadly , after the Delta acquisition they moved the A330 elsewhere and replaced it with a ridden-hard-and-put-up-wet 767 .
At least I do n't have to make the trip any more , I 'd probably be bored senseless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a solved problem.
I flew Northwest from Portland to Tokyo, an A330-300, pretty regularly between mid-2005 and mid-2008.
120V, 60 Hz was available in coach class forward of row 21, and throughout business and first.
Seat Guru [seatguru.com] is your friend here.
Sadly, after the Delta acquisition they moved the A330 elsewhere and replaced it with a ridden-hard-and-put-up-wet 767.
At least I don't have to make the trip any more, I'd probably be bored senseless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887403</id>
	<title>Damn</title>
	<author>overcaffein8d</author>
	<datestamp>1256673840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i knew there was something wrong with buying a macbook pro with a non-removable battery...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i knew there was something wrong with buying a macbook pro with a non-removable battery.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i knew there was something wrong with buying a macbook pro with a non-removable battery...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29895471</id>
	<title>Trains my friend, trains.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Luckily enough in Europe we have HighSpeed Train.<br>No TSA or the likes to bother you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and no more or less threat than with plane.<br>I've long stop flying, it's a pain in the ass and it isn't faster anymore.<br>Beside, trains leave you right in the center of the city.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily enough in Europe we have HighSpeed Train.No TSA or the likes to bother you ... and no more or less threat than with plane.I 've long stop flying , it 's a pain in the ass and it is n't faster anymore.Beside , trains leave you right in the center of the city .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily enough in Europe we have HighSpeed Train.No TSA or the likes to bother you ... and no more or less threat than with plane.I've long stop flying, it's a pain in the ass and it isn't faster anymore.Beside, trains leave you right in the center of the city.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887799</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, look at the alternative:  Adding many days to travel over long distances.  Taking the train from New York to LA takes literally days longer than a flight, and I don't know if anybody does business-class transatlantic cruises anymore.  I mean if your work tells you "Go to this conference in Copenhagen" and you're in San Fransisco, then you can't exactly tell your boss "Ok, but I need 2 weeks of travel time on either side of the 1 day conference".  <br>
<br>
That's why people accept it.  There are really no viable alternatives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , look at the alternative : Adding many days to travel over long distances .
Taking the train from New York to LA takes literally days longer than a flight , and I do n't know if anybody does business-class transatlantic cruises anymore .
I mean if your work tells you " Go to this conference in Copenhagen " and you 're in San Fransisco , then you ca n't exactly tell your boss " Ok , but I need 2 weeks of travel time on either side of the 1 day conference " .
That 's why people accept it .
There are really no viable alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, look at the alternative:  Adding many days to travel over long distances.
Taking the train from New York to LA takes literally days longer than a flight, and I don't know if anybody does business-class transatlantic cruises anymore.
I mean if your work tells you "Go to this conference in Copenhagen" and you're in San Fransisco, then you can't exactly tell your boss "Ok, but I need 2 weeks of travel time on either side of the 1 day conference".
That's why people accept it.
There are really no viable alternatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887071</id>
	<title>Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>metlin</author>
	<datestamp>1256672640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I usually carry a spare battery and an additional laptop when I travel, and so far I've not had any problems whatosever.</p><p>The times I've had any problems, I've told them that I travel a lot and spend a lot of time flying (or stranded) and joke about it (which is true).</p><p>I've never really tried checking anything in, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I usually carry a spare battery and an additional laptop when I travel , and so far I 've not had any problems whatosever.The times I 've had any problems , I 've told them that I travel a lot and spend a lot of time flying ( or stranded ) and joke about it ( which is true ) .I 've never really tried checking anything in , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I usually carry a spare battery and an additional laptop when I travel, and so far I've not had any problems whatosever.The times I've had any problems, I've told them that I travel a lot and spend a lot of time flying (or stranded) and joke about it (which is true).I've never really tried checking anything in, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887599</id>
	<title>Airline Gowns Here We Come</title>
	<author>Temujin\_12</author>
	<datestamp>1256674740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just waiting for the time when you must ship your belongings ahead of time and when you go through security you are issued your official air-traveler gown to wear for the duration of the flight. Your civilian clothes/effects would be wrapped, checked as luggage, and ready for you to pick up at your destination.</p><p>Bonus conspiracy points if your gown has a bar code printed on it identifying you which is scanned anywhere you need identification or money in the terminal or on the plane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just waiting for the time when you must ship your belongings ahead of time and when you go through security you are issued your official air-traveler gown to wear for the duration of the flight .
Your civilian clothes/effects would be wrapped , checked as luggage , and ready for you to pick up at your destination.Bonus conspiracy points if your gown has a bar code printed on it identifying you which is scanned anywhere you need identification or money in the terminal or on the plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just waiting for the time when you must ship your belongings ahead of time and when you go through security you are issued your official air-traveler gown to wear for the duration of the flight.
Your civilian clothes/effects would be wrapped, checked as luggage, and ready for you to pick up at your destination.Bonus conspiracy points if your gown has a bar code printed on it identifying you which is scanned anywhere you need identification or money in the terminal or on the plane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886905</id>
	<title>Immediately, the summary says nothing</title>
	<author>bugnuts</author>
	<datestamp>1256672040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years.</p></div><p>What is the reader supposed to draw from this?  Will we see 4x as many in the next 3 years?  1.5 years?</p><p>This is a great example of misusing statistics to imply the wrong conclusions.  What's the degree of relevance?  Or is that left as an exercise for the reader, to guess if we have twice as many people travelling with electronics or if electronics are more dangerous, or what?</p><p>We've seen <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=iphone\%20explosion" title="google.com">iphones explode</a> [google.com] and <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/08/26/bc-overheating-laptop-fire-death-vancouver.html" title="www.cbc.ca">laptop fires</a> [www.cbc.ca], but when you use scary events like that and then add some sort of implication that the rate is increasing, that's bad reporting in my book.  It's why concepts that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny (intelligent design, anyone?) can gain such momentum: pick and choose statistics that sound relevant enough to convince, yet mean nothing without further data and degree of relevance.</p><p>In case you don't remember, <a href="http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/sop/index.shtm" title="tsa.gov">lighters and matches are allowed on planes again.</a> [tsa.gov]  Isn't that a more obvious, more common fire hazard?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years.What is the reader supposed to draw from this ?
Will we see 4x as many in the next 3 years ?
1.5 years ? This is a great example of misusing statistics to imply the wrong conclusions .
What 's the degree of relevance ?
Or is that left as an exercise for the reader , to guess if we have twice as many people travelling with electronics or if electronics are more dangerous , or what ? We 've seen iphones explode [ google.com ] and laptop fires [ www.cbc.ca ] , but when you use scary events like that and then add some sort of implication that the rate is increasing , that 's bad reporting in my book .
It 's why concepts that can not stand up to scientific scrutiny ( intelligent design , anyone ?
) can gain such momentum : pick and choose statistics that sound relevant enough to convince , yet mean nothing without further data and degree of relevance.In case you do n't remember , lighters and matches are allowed on planes again .
[ tsa.gov ] Is n't that a more obvious , more common fire hazard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years.What is the reader supposed to draw from this?
Will we see 4x as many in the next 3 years?
1.5 years?This is a great example of misusing statistics to imply the wrong conclusions.
What's the degree of relevance?
Or is that left as an exercise for the reader, to guess if we have twice as many people travelling with electronics or if electronics are more dangerous, or what?We've seen iphones explode [google.com] and laptop fires [www.cbc.ca], but when you use scary events like that and then add some sort of implication that the rate is increasing, that's bad reporting in my book.
It's why concepts that cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny (intelligent design, anyone?
) can gain such momentum: pick and choose statistics that sound relevant enough to convince, yet mean nothing without further data and degree of relevance.In case you don't remember, lighters and matches are allowed on planes again.
[tsa.gov]  Isn't that a more obvious, more common fire hazard?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887439</id>
	<title>Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>PrimaryConsult</author>
	<datestamp>1256674020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not quite the same analogy...
You can fill an empty water bottle at a water fountain or (if your airport has deemed such things unnecessary) the bathroom sink.  If they make you separate the battery from the laptop and either transport it as checked or (worse) mail it to your destination, you can't exactly build a new battery on the other side of security...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not quite the same analogy.. . You can fill an empty water bottle at a water fountain or ( if your airport has deemed such things unnecessary ) the bathroom sink .
If they make you separate the battery from the laptop and either transport it as checked or ( worse ) mail it to your destination , you ca n't exactly build a new battery on the other side of security.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not quite the same analogy...
You can fill an empty water bottle at a water fountain or (if your airport has deemed such things unnecessary) the bathroom sink.
If they make you separate the battery from the laptop and either transport it as checked or (worse) mail it to your destination, you can't exactly build a new battery on the other side of security...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887049</id>
	<title>Re:22 fires out of how many?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256672580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if laptops had been banned on the plane, the pilots wouldn't have HAD their laptops with them, and they couldn't have been distracted.</p><p>In fact, we should ban anything that could be a safety hazard at all.  What if a pilot is distracted because his shoelace comes loose, and decides to retie it during the final critical seconds of touchdown?  That could be a serious distraction.  Ban shoelaces.  And don't get me started on the chances of a nonpolarized set of eyeglasses focusing the sun on the seat back magazine and starting a fire - what's a little squinting and bumping against walls and attempting to drive with no visibility for those of us who are very nearsighted compared to the risk of a small paper fire and the resulting scared three people?</p><p>I could also rip a strip out of my t-shirt, twist it really tight, and have a garrote.  Tie my shoes to the end of it and I have a functioning bola.  Oh, God, I could use a FINGER to push a button that releases the coffee pot from its fancy little holder and have a carafe of BOILING WATER at my disposal.  Or if I'm allowed to keep my arm I might use it to open the front evacuation door while in flight.</p><p>The next terrorist attack will be performed by 12-15 Sumo-sized individuals who will get seats as far back in the plane as possible.  Then, in the last 10 seconds of touchdown, they will all get out of their seats and run as fast as they can toward the front of the aircraft, making the plane nose-heavy and causing a crash.</p><p>Maybe we ought to just ban passengers.  After all, explosive shoes don't blow up planes, PEOPLE with explosive shoes, err, try...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if laptops had been banned on the plane , the pilots would n't have HAD their laptops with them , and they could n't have been distracted.In fact , we should ban anything that could be a safety hazard at all .
What if a pilot is distracted because his shoelace comes loose , and decides to retie it during the final critical seconds of touchdown ?
That could be a serious distraction .
Ban shoelaces .
And do n't get me started on the chances of a nonpolarized set of eyeglasses focusing the sun on the seat back magazine and starting a fire - what 's a little squinting and bumping against walls and attempting to drive with no visibility for those of us who are very nearsighted compared to the risk of a small paper fire and the resulting scared three people ? I could also rip a strip out of my t-shirt , twist it really tight , and have a garrote .
Tie my shoes to the end of it and I have a functioning bola .
Oh , God , I could use a FINGER to push a button that releases the coffee pot from its fancy little holder and have a carafe of BOILING WATER at my disposal .
Or if I 'm allowed to keep my arm I might use it to open the front evacuation door while in flight.The next terrorist attack will be performed by 12-15 Sumo-sized individuals who will get seats as far back in the plane as possible .
Then , in the last 10 seconds of touchdown , they will all get out of their seats and run as fast as they can toward the front of the aircraft , making the plane nose-heavy and causing a crash.Maybe we ought to just ban passengers .
After all , explosive shoes do n't blow up planes , PEOPLE with explosive shoes , err , try.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if laptops had been banned on the plane, the pilots wouldn't have HAD their laptops with them, and they couldn't have been distracted.In fact, we should ban anything that could be a safety hazard at all.
What if a pilot is distracted because his shoelace comes loose, and decides to retie it during the final critical seconds of touchdown?
That could be a serious distraction.
Ban shoelaces.
And don't get me started on the chances of a nonpolarized set of eyeglasses focusing the sun on the seat back magazine and starting a fire - what's a little squinting and bumping against walls and attempting to drive with no visibility for those of us who are very nearsighted compared to the risk of a small paper fire and the resulting scared three people?I could also rip a strip out of my t-shirt, twist it really tight, and have a garrote.
Tie my shoes to the end of it and I have a functioning bola.
Oh, God, I could use a FINGER to push a button that releases the coffee pot from its fancy little holder and have a carafe of BOILING WATER at my disposal.
Or if I'm allowed to keep my arm I might use it to open the front evacuation door while in flight.The next terrorist attack will be performed by 12-15 Sumo-sized individuals who will get seats as far back in the plane as possible.
Then, in the last 10 seconds of touchdown, they will all get out of their seats and run as fast as they can toward the front of the aircraft, making the plane nose-heavy and causing a crash.Maybe we ought to just ban passengers.
After all, explosive shoes don't blow up planes, PEOPLE with explosive shoes, err, try...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886929</id>
	<title>Ah ha!</title>
	<author>BlindSpot</author>
	<datestamp>1256672100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah ha!  First we get the story about the <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/10/27/0613244" title="slashdot.org">airline pilots</a> [slashdot.org] who got off course because they supposedly pulled out their laptops in the cabin, and now, just hours later, we get a story about laptop fires on airplanes.</p><p>Conclusion:  The pilots' laptops burst into flame and they got lost because too busy dealing with the fire!</p><p>See, Slashdot really does have all the answers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah ha !
First we get the story about the airline pilots [ slashdot.org ] who got off course because they supposedly pulled out their laptops in the cabin , and now , just hours later , we get a story about laptop fires on airplanes.Conclusion : The pilots ' laptops burst into flame and they got lost because too busy dealing with the fire ! See , Slashdot really does have all the answers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah ha!
First we get the story about the airline pilots [slashdot.org] who got off course because they supposedly pulled out their laptops in the cabin, and now, just hours later, we get a story about laptop fires on airplanes.Conclusion:  The pilots' laptops burst into flame and they got lost because too busy dealing with the fire!See, Slashdot really does have all the answers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888053</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1256676720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Idiot, now we'll all have to bend over. But really the scanners would catch that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Idiot , now we 'll all have to bend over .
But really the scanners would catch that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Idiot, now we'll all have to bend over.
But really the scanners would catch that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886881</id>
	<title>I'll check my batteries...</title>
	<author>Beau6183</author>
	<datestamp>1256671920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll check my batteries...when you give me 110v AC 60hz plugs in business class. Of course this wouldn't help the international traveler (where laptops REALLY help pass the time). Most airliners have 115v AC @ 400hz and 28vdc systems...

Or perhaps a universal 12v DC plug. This would require laptop manufacturers to standardize power supplies and plug fittings (yay!). Not an immediate fix by any stretch, but probably the safest ("low" voltage) most efficient (no inverter inefficiencies).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll check my batteries...when you give me 110v AC 60hz plugs in business class .
Of course this would n't help the international traveler ( where laptops REALLY help pass the time ) .
Most airliners have 115v AC @ 400hz and 28vdc systems.. . Or perhaps a universal 12v DC plug .
This would require laptop manufacturers to standardize power supplies and plug fittings ( yay ! ) .
Not an immediate fix by any stretch , but probably the safest ( " low " voltage ) most efficient ( no inverter inefficiencies ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll check my batteries...when you give me 110v AC 60hz plugs in business class.
Of course this wouldn't help the international traveler (where laptops REALLY help pass the time).
Most airliners have 115v AC @ 400hz and 28vdc systems...

Or perhaps a universal 12v DC plug.
This would require laptop manufacturers to standardize power supplies and plug fittings (yay!).
Not an immediate fix by any stretch, but probably the safest ("low" voltage) most efficient (no inverter inefficiencies).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29891419</id>
	<title>Re:FIRST</title>
	<author>Duhavid</author>
	<datestamp>1256647980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laptop fires on planes.</p><p>Not quite as catchy as "Snakes on planes", but scarier, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laptop fires on planes.Not quite as catchy as " Snakes on planes " , but scarier , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laptop fires on planes.Not quite as catchy as "Snakes on planes", but scarier, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888699</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256635980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hah, and I thought you were actually refering to <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103206" title="southparkstudios.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [southparkstudios.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hah , and I thought you were actually refering to this [ southparkstudios.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hah, and I thought you were actually refering to this [southparkstudios.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886595</id>
	<title>Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256670600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What good is my water bottle without water?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What good is my water bottle without water ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What good is my water bottle without water?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892401</id>
	<title>Re:They won't</title>
	<author>triffid\_98</author>
	<datestamp>1256655660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>If someone brings an explosive piggy-bank shaped like a Raiders helmet, we will ban piggy-banks... and Raiders gear. We're just proactive like that.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
I guess I was asleep when terrorists attempted to take over a plane with my nail clippers and 2 8oz bottles of shampoo. How about we just hand everyone a complimentary club during check-in and be done with it? Then we can take the billions we're throwing at Homeland security and throw them at some other overly expensive government mandate. Perhaps we could call it 'health insurance'...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone brings an explosive piggy-bank shaped like a Raiders helmet , we will ban piggy-banks... and Raiders gear .
We 're just proactive like that .
I guess I was asleep when terrorists attempted to take over a plane with my nail clippers and 2 8oz bottles of shampoo .
How about we just hand everyone a complimentary club during check-in and be done with it ?
Then we can take the billions we 're throwing at Homeland security and throw them at some other overly expensive government mandate .
Perhaps we could call it 'health insurance'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If someone brings an explosive piggy-bank shaped like a Raiders helmet, we will ban piggy-banks... and Raiders gear.
We're just proactive like that.
I guess I was asleep when terrorists attempted to take over a plane with my nail clippers and 2 8oz bottles of shampoo.
How about we just hand everyone a complimentary club during check-in and be done with it?
Then we can take the billions we're throwing at Homeland security and throw them at some other overly expensive government mandate.
Perhaps we could call it 'health insurance'...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887225</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1256673180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're one of those people who's never happy unless surrounded by people just like yourself.</p><p>Good luck with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're one of those people who 's never happy unless surrounded by people just like yourself.Good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're one of those people who's never happy unless surrounded by people just like yourself.Good luck with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887981</id>
	<title>Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fill it after passing security?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fill it after passing security ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fill it after passing security?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888527</id>
	<title>Re:22 fires out of how many?</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1256635500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worry more about fires starting from poorly maintained planes, happened to me.  Something shorted in the air conditioning system, the whole cabin reeked of smoke, but none was visible, a faint alarm could be heard, and we returned to the airport we just left to be greeted by the fire trucks.  They wouldn't let any of us take another flight *that was not full*, instead we had to wait until after it left and take the same hopefully-now-fixed plane.</p><p>That flight replaced a 1200mi drive.  I'm driving it this year.  Seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worry more about fires starting from poorly maintained planes , happened to me .
Something shorted in the air conditioning system , the whole cabin reeked of smoke , but none was visible , a faint alarm could be heard , and we returned to the airport we just left to be greeted by the fire trucks .
They would n't let any of us take another flight * that was not full * , instead we had to wait until after it left and take the same hopefully-now-fixed plane.That flight replaced a 1200mi drive .
I 'm driving it this year .
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worry more about fires starting from poorly maintained planes, happened to me.
Something shorted in the air conditioning system, the whole cabin reeked of smoke, but none was visible, a faint alarm could be heard, and we returned to the airport we just left to be greeted by the fire trucks.
They wouldn't let any of us take another flight *that was not full*, instead we had to wait until after it left and take the same hopefully-now-fixed plane.That flight replaced a 1200mi drive.
I'm driving it this year.
Seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29894525</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256726280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Nothing is more dangerous to the American people than books.</p></div></blockquote></div><p>- The earth is round...<br>- Gasp!!!<br>-<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and was created 4.5 billions years ago<br>- Aaaarrgglll!!!<br>- Humans descend from apes<br>- Stooop iiiitt!!! I'll land where you want!!!<br>- In that tower.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing is more dangerous to the American people than books.- The earth is round...- Gasp ! !
! - .. and was created 4.5 billions years ago- Aaaarrgglll ! !
! - Humans descend from apes- Stooop iiiitt ! ! !
I 'll land where you want ! !
! - In that tower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing is more dangerous to the American people than books.- The earth is round...- Gasp!!
!- .. and was created 4.5 billions years ago- Aaaarrgglll!!
!- Humans descend from apes- Stooop iiiitt!!!
I'll land where you want!!
!- In that tower.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256671140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?<br>Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?<br>Could you imagine what would happen if you told the guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner, and they have to walk through security on the icky floors wearing only socks/stockings?</p><p>Oh, wait, you don't have to.  The sheeple just throw the stuff away they can't check, maybe bleat a little, and get baa-aa-aa-ck in line.</p><p>And don't think the problem will be isolated to blackberries and laptops carried by business folk.  Helicopter-Soccer Mom and Socially Enabled 12-Year Old have cell phones and laptops, too, and those have Li-Ion batteries.  Not to mention Electronic-Dependent Cannot Entertain Him/Herself for an hour Child and their ever-present array of Gaming Devices and/or DVD Players.  PhotoAmateur Dad always carries his Digicamera or Camcorder.  In fact, I think you'd be amazed at how many people DO NOT carry at least one Li-Ion battery in their carryon or on their person today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they could n't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane ? Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she could n't bring a box of apple juice for her kid ? Could you imagine what would happen if you told the guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner , and they have to walk through security on the icky floors wearing only socks/stockings ? Oh , wait , you do n't have to .
The sheeple just throw the stuff away they ca n't check , maybe bleat a little , and get baa-aa-aa-ck in line.And do n't think the problem will be isolated to blackberries and laptops carried by business folk .
Helicopter-Soccer Mom and Socially Enabled 12-Year Old have cell phones and laptops , too , and those have Li-Ion batteries .
Not to mention Electronic-Dependent Can not Entertain Him/Herself for an hour Child and their ever-present array of Gaming Devices and/or DVD Players .
PhotoAmateur Dad always carries his Digicamera or Camcorder .
In fact , I think you 'd be amazed at how many people DO NOT carry at least one Li-Ion battery in their carryon or on their person today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?Could you imagine what would happen if you told the guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner, and they have to walk through security on the icky floors wearing only socks/stockings?Oh, wait, you don't have to.
The sheeple just throw the stuff away they can't check, maybe bleat a little, and get baa-aa-aa-ck in line.And don't think the problem will be isolated to blackberries and laptops carried by business folk.
Helicopter-Soccer Mom and Socially Enabled 12-Year Old have cell phones and laptops, too, and those have Li-Ion batteries.
Not to mention Electronic-Dependent Cannot Entertain Him/Herself for an hour Child and their ever-present array of Gaming Devices and/or DVD Players.
PhotoAmateur Dad always carries his Digicamera or Camcorder.
In fact, I think you'd be amazed at how many people DO NOT carry at least one Li-Ion battery in their carryon or on their person today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890641</id>
	<title>Re:Can't eliminate every hazard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256643840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>22 incidents over 10 years is enough to make you think, but when there are THOUSANDS of flights a day I would have to say it's one of the more minor problems that commercial airlines have to face and it seems like it can be solved by properly training crew members how to deal with that sort of fire.  </p></div><p>Fixed that for ya.  Drives the point home more, don't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>22 incidents over 10 years is enough to make you think , but when there are THOUSANDS of flights a day I would have to say it 's one of the more minor problems that commercial airlines have to face and it seems like it can be solved by properly training crew members how to deal with that sort of fire .
Fixed that for ya .
Drives the point home more , do n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>22 incidents over 10 years is enough to make you think, but when there are THOUSANDS of flights a day I would have to say it's one of the more minor problems that commercial airlines have to face and it seems like it can be solved by properly training crew members how to deal with that sort of fire.
Fixed that for ya.
Drives the point home more, don't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887317</id>
	<title>Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>Col. Klink (retired)</author>
	<datestamp>1256673540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I wonder if TSA agents are trained to actually take out and read the packaging/label of all batteries they come across as they rifle through your belongings.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Certainly.  They're trained to <a href="http://www.gadling.com/2008/10/10/tsa-agent-helped-himself-to-a-47-900-camera-and-more/" title="gadling.com">
take</a> [gadling.com] everything battery operated.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if TSA agents are trained to actually take out and read the packaging/label of all batteries they come across as they rifle through your belongings .
Certainly. They 're trained to take [ gadling.com ] everything battery operated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if TSA agents are trained to actually take out and read the packaging/label of all batteries they come across as they rifle through your belongings.
Certainly.  They're trained to 
take [gadling.com] everything battery operated.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888623</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256635800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand completely.  I used to fly regularly, and I'm as sheeple as the rest of 'em, because travel used to be part of my job and it was totally impractical to drive half way across the country every week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand completely .
I used to fly regularly , and I 'm as sheeple as the rest of 'em , because travel used to be part of my job and it was totally impractical to drive half way across the country every week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand completely.
I used to fly regularly, and I'm as sheeple as the rest of 'em, because travel used to be part of my job and it was totally impractical to drive half way across the country every week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887141</id>
	<title>Nickel Metal Hydride?</title>
	<author>reub2000</author>
	<datestamp>1256672880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're designing a device to be used by flight attendents, why wouldn't you make it use a NiMH battery? Seems safer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're designing a device to be used by flight attendents , why would n't you make it use a NiMH battery ?
Seems safer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're designing a device to be used by flight attendents, why wouldn't you make it use a NiMH battery?
Seems safer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887109</id>
	<title>Business business model</title>
	<author>carvalhao</author>
	<datestamp>1256672760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The type of customer regular airlines take the most profit from is the business customer. Now, let me see: I can take 4 hours by train to get there and get 4 hours of work in the meantime OR spend 30 minutes going through security check, spend 2 hours on flight with no laptop and work 1 and a half hours when I get there... Hummmmmmmmmmmm... It ain't going to happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The type of customer regular airlines take the most profit from is the business customer .
Now , let me see : I can take 4 hours by train to get there and get 4 hours of work in the meantime OR spend 30 minutes going through security check , spend 2 hours on flight with no laptop and work 1 and a half hours when I get there... Hummmmmmmmmmmm... It ai n't going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The type of customer regular airlines take the most profit from is the business customer.
Now, let me see: I can take 4 hours by train to get there and get 4 hours of work in the meantime OR spend 30 minutes going through security check, spend 2 hours on flight with no laptop and work 1 and a half hours when I get there... Hummmmmmmmmmmm... It ain't going to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887945</id>
	<title>A new revenue stream from flights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see it already... </p><p>TSA bans the carrying of batteries over a certain size (size is their "see, we thought this through and want to be reasonable" argument). They'll release a special video on YouTube showing exactly how big an explosion they can get from a common laptop battery, and the masses will be in awe that they ever boarded a plane with such a disaster waiting to happen. Mystbusters will also film an episode where they Confirm the "Exploding Laptop Battery" myth... the episode will when a laptop battery they stuffed with 11 pounds of C4, rolled in a coating of thermite, and dipped in ball bearings is used to destroy 4 decomissioned planes somewhere in the middle of the desert.</p><p>This ban will affect laptops, portable game systems, video players, etc... the things you actually use during the flight. You'll have to remove your battery at the ticket counter, and your airline will give it to TSA to put in a special fireproof container for the duration of the flight. </p><p>The airlines come in and say "We're on your side, travellers" and begin to retrofit planes with power outlets at the seats. Ticket prices will increase slightly to help cover this retrofitting on behalf of all travellers. </p><p>Of course, 110v will be "too dangerous" and 12V cigarette lighters will be "too big to fit", even though both would allow you to use things you probably already have in your laptop bag. </p><p>Instead, they fit the planes with 8.23 V outlets which require a special 103, 72, or 45.8 degree angle doohicky (depending on the aircraft manufacturer) with three and a half prongs, which is now the special "Saf-T-FlitePower" plug. You can buy cheap throwaway adapters on each flight for something like $25 (these fall into 23 pieces or short out after 3 uses), and travel accessory companies will start selling slightly better made adapters for $75-$150. Dell will add one to your laptop for $250 if you check the correct box on the 8th tab while building it online, but it's ok, because 67\% of the time the box will magically be checked by default (people who didn't mean to get one will wonder WTF this this with 3.5 plugs is when they open their UPS box and it will ride around in their laptop bag unused for 4 years). </p><p>Now, when you're on the plane, your outlet will be disabled, and it will take the flight attendant typing in a special code with your seat number to turn it on. You can buy one of these codes with your ticket, or may get one automatically if you purchase a certain fare class, and the reason for the whole thing is to cover the cost of the retrofitting (nevermind that they already increased the base cost of the ticket to help cover this, and the functionality which allows them to turn off individual outlets quadrupled the cost of the retrofit in the first place). Also, please be patient while the flight attendant enters your code... for safety reasons this has to be done after reaching cruising altitude, so on some flights you may be halfway through the flight before you even get power. (No kidding, if you've ever been on Frontier and gotten a DirecTV access code).</p><p>Once you get off the plane, you'll travel down to the baggage claim, where an avalanche of special fireproof containers will come tumbling down the little ramp. Have fun sorting them out with everyone else on the flight who had to check their battery. </p><p>Of course, those of us who don't check bags (I haven't checked a bag in over 10 years and fly 4 segments a week), will just be screwed, but luckily the SkyMall catalog will start selling a cool new device which allows you to pedal up some power for your laptop while in flight! (Eventually, there will be alternatives, such as The Wind Powered Laptop Energy Device" you attach to the overhead air duct, and The Solar Laptop Power Supply which you suction cup to your window and hope you have an AM flight with a starboard window seat on a flight headed due north.) </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see it already... TSA bans the carrying of batteries over a certain size ( size is their " see , we thought this through and want to be reasonable " argument ) .
They 'll release a special video on YouTube showing exactly how big an explosion they can get from a common laptop battery , and the masses will be in awe that they ever boarded a plane with such a disaster waiting to happen .
Mystbusters will also film an episode where they Confirm the " Exploding Laptop Battery " myth... the episode will when a laptop battery they stuffed with 11 pounds of C4 , rolled in a coating of thermite , and dipped in ball bearings is used to destroy 4 decomissioned planes somewhere in the middle of the desert.This ban will affect laptops , portable game systems , video players , etc... the things you actually use during the flight .
You 'll have to remove your battery at the ticket counter , and your airline will give it to TSA to put in a special fireproof container for the duration of the flight .
The airlines come in and say " We 're on your side , travellers " and begin to retrofit planes with power outlets at the seats .
Ticket prices will increase slightly to help cover this retrofitting on behalf of all travellers .
Of course , 110v will be " too dangerous " and 12V cigarette lighters will be " too big to fit " , even though both would allow you to use things you probably already have in your laptop bag .
Instead , they fit the planes with 8.23 V outlets which require a special 103 , 72 , or 45.8 degree angle doohicky ( depending on the aircraft manufacturer ) with three and a half prongs , which is now the special " Saf-T-FlitePower " plug .
You can buy cheap throwaway adapters on each flight for something like $ 25 ( these fall into 23 pieces or short out after 3 uses ) , and travel accessory companies will start selling slightly better made adapters for $ 75- $ 150 .
Dell will add one to your laptop for $ 250 if you check the correct box on the 8th tab while building it online , but it 's ok , because 67 \ % of the time the box will magically be checked by default ( people who did n't mean to get one will wonder WTF this this with 3.5 plugs is when they open their UPS box and it will ride around in their laptop bag unused for 4 years ) .
Now , when you 're on the plane , your outlet will be disabled , and it will take the flight attendant typing in a special code with your seat number to turn it on .
You can buy one of these codes with your ticket , or may get one automatically if you purchase a certain fare class , and the reason for the whole thing is to cover the cost of the retrofitting ( nevermind that they already increased the base cost of the ticket to help cover this , and the functionality which allows them to turn off individual outlets quadrupled the cost of the retrofit in the first place ) .
Also , please be patient while the flight attendant enters your code... for safety reasons this has to be done after reaching cruising altitude , so on some flights you may be halfway through the flight before you even get power .
( No kidding , if you 've ever been on Frontier and gotten a DirecTV access code ) .Once you get off the plane , you 'll travel down to the baggage claim , where an avalanche of special fireproof containers will come tumbling down the little ramp .
Have fun sorting them out with everyone else on the flight who had to check their battery .
Of course , those of us who do n't check bags ( I have n't checked a bag in over 10 years and fly 4 segments a week ) , will just be screwed , but luckily the SkyMall catalog will start selling a cool new device which allows you to pedal up some power for your laptop while in flight !
( Eventually , there will be alternatives , such as The Wind Powered Laptop Energy Device " you attach to the overhead air duct , and The Solar Laptop Power Supply which you suction cup to your window and hope you have an AM flight with a starboard window seat on a flight headed due north .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see it already... TSA bans the carrying of batteries over a certain size (size is their "see, we thought this through and want to be reasonable" argument).
They'll release a special video on YouTube showing exactly how big an explosion they can get from a common laptop battery, and the masses will be in awe that they ever boarded a plane with such a disaster waiting to happen.
Mystbusters will also film an episode where they Confirm the "Exploding Laptop Battery" myth... the episode will when a laptop battery they stuffed with 11 pounds of C4, rolled in a coating of thermite, and dipped in ball bearings is used to destroy 4 decomissioned planes somewhere in the middle of the desert.This ban will affect laptops, portable game systems, video players, etc... the things you actually use during the flight.
You'll have to remove your battery at the ticket counter, and your airline will give it to TSA to put in a special fireproof container for the duration of the flight.
The airlines come in and say "We're on your side, travellers" and begin to retrofit planes with power outlets at the seats.
Ticket prices will increase slightly to help cover this retrofitting on behalf of all travellers.
Of course, 110v will be "too dangerous" and 12V cigarette lighters will be "too big to fit", even though both would allow you to use things you probably already have in your laptop bag.
Instead, they fit the planes with 8.23 V outlets which require a special 103, 72, or 45.8 degree angle doohicky (depending on the aircraft manufacturer) with three and a half prongs, which is now the special "Saf-T-FlitePower" plug.
You can buy cheap throwaway adapters on each flight for something like $25 (these fall into 23 pieces or short out after 3 uses), and travel accessory companies will start selling slightly better made adapters for $75-$150.
Dell will add one to your laptop for $250 if you check the correct box on the 8th tab while building it online, but it's ok, because 67\% of the time the box will magically be checked by default (people who didn't mean to get one will wonder WTF this this with 3.5 plugs is when they open their UPS box and it will ride around in their laptop bag unused for 4 years).
Now, when you're on the plane, your outlet will be disabled, and it will take the flight attendant typing in a special code with your seat number to turn it on.
You can buy one of these codes with your ticket, or may get one automatically if you purchase a certain fare class, and the reason for the whole thing is to cover the cost of the retrofitting (nevermind that they already increased the base cost of the ticket to help cover this, and the functionality which allows them to turn off individual outlets quadrupled the cost of the retrofit in the first place).
Also, please be patient while the flight attendant enters your code... for safety reasons this has to be done after reaching cruising altitude, so on some flights you may be halfway through the flight before you even get power.
(No kidding, if you've ever been on Frontier and gotten a DirecTV access code).Once you get off the plane, you'll travel down to the baggage claim, where an avalanche of special fireproof containers will come tumbling down the little ramp.
Have fun sorting them out with everyone else on the flight who had to check their battery.
Of course, those of us who don't check bags (I haven't checked a bag in over 10 years and fly 4 segments a week), will just be screwed, but luckily the SkyMall catalog will start selling a cool new device which allows you to pedal up some power for your laptop while in flight!
(Eventually, there will be alternatives, such as The Wind Powered Laptop Energy Device" you attach to the overhead air duct, and The Solar Laptop Power Supply which you suction cup to your window and hope you have an AM flight with a starboard window seat on a flight headed due north.
) </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888035</id>
	<title>XKCD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XKCD did get it right.  I was cracking up at this comic just yesterday actually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XKCD did get it right .
I was cracking up at this comic just yesterday actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XKCD did get it right.
I was cracking up at this comic just yesterday actually.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892099</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256653020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course some of us bring laptops on planes not to entertain ourselves in the air, but to, I don't know, use it when we get where we are going.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course some of us bring laptops on planes not to entertain ourselves in the air , but to , I do n't know , use it when we get where we are going .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course some of us bring laptops on planes not to entertain ourselves in the air, but to, I don't know, use it when we get where we are going.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887381</id>
	<title>It's just money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256673780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Business travelers often have no option but to cough up whatever the airlines want to charge, so they probably make up a good chunk of the airlines' profits.  Business travelers probably have enough of a budget to pay $3 for water inside security, but they probably will not part with their laptop and cell phone batteries.<br>Security theater apparently doesn't hurt ticket sales (my feeble attempts at a boycott don't amount to much), and the cost is mostly in travelers' time.  If they were really worried about security, they could actually make laptop power widely available and restrict batteries.  But they're not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Business travelers often have no option but to cough up whatever the airlines want to charge , so they probably make up a good chunk of the airlines ' profits .
Business travelers probably have enough of a budget to pay $ 3 for water inside security , but they probably will not part with their laptop and cell phone batteries.Security theater apparently does n't hurt ticket sales ( my feeble attempts at a boycott do n't amount to much ) , and the cost is mostly in travelers ' time .
If they were really worried about security , they could actually make laptop power widely available and restrict batteries .
But they 're not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Business travelers often have no option but to cough up whatever the airlines want to charge, so they probably make up a good chunk of the airlines' profits.
Business travelers probably have enough of a budget to pay $3 for water inside security, but they probably will not part with their laptop and cell phone batteries.Security theater apparently doesn't hurt ticket sales (my feeble attempts at a boycott don't amount to much), and the cost is mostly in travelers' time.
If they were really worried about security, they could actually make laptop power widely available and restrict batteries.
But they're not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887257</id>
	<title>Re:Can't eliminate every hazard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256673300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree completely.</p><p>http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp#1</p><p>Roughly 28k/day commercial flights.  Round down to 25.  Roughly 9 million commercial flights per year.  10 years.  90 million commercial flights.</p><p>22 incidents?</p><p>If anyone is that worried over this, they shouldn't get in their car to drive to work.  I'm sure the accident rate is much higher</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely.http : //www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp # 1Roughly 28k/day commercial flights .
Round down to 25 .
Roughly 9 million commercial flights per year .
10 years .
90 million commercial flights.22 incidents ? If anyone is that worried over this , they should n't get in their car to drive to work .
I 'm sure the accident rate is much higher</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely.http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp#1Roughly 28k/day commercial flights.
Round down to 25.
Roughly 9 million commercial flights per year.
10 years.
90 million commercial flights.22 incidents?If anyone is that worried over this, they shouldn't get in their car to drive to work.
I'm sure the accident rate is much higher</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893221</id>
	<title>Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>Meski</author>
	<datestamp>1256664240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if they ban (lithium) laptop batteries?  We move to fuel-cell technology!  Let's see how they like methanol as a carry-on!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if they ban ( lithium ) laptop batteries ?
We move to fuel-cell technology !
Let 's see how they like methanol as a carry-on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if they ban (lithium) laptop batteries?
We move to fuel-cell technology!
Let's see how they like methanol as a carry-on!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887323</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>prozaker</author>
	<datestamp>1256673540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nude planes anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nude planes anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nude planes anyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887189</id>
	<title>Sloppy reporting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256673060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Per the summary:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years.</p></div><p>Why not just say, "12 fires have been started in planes in the last three years"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Per the summary : More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years.Why not just say , " 12 fires have been started in planes in the last three years " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Per the summary:More than half of the 22 battery fires in the cabin of passenger planes since 1999 have been in the last three years.Why not just say, "12 fires have been started in planes in the last three years"?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886383</id>
	<title>Liquids on planes</title>
	<author>the\_one(2)</author>
	<datestamp>1256669880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope that if they listen to Randall about the dangers of laptop batteries that they at least listens to his point about the relative dangers of liquids as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope that if they listen to Randall about the dangers of laptop batteries that they at least listens to his point about the relative dangers of liquids as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope that if they listen to Randall about the dangers of laptop batteries that they at least listens to his point about the relative dangers of liquids as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29897043</id>
	<title>Where does this mindset come from?</title>
	<author>e-scetic</author>
	<datestamp>1256743620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What produced the mindset that there must not be any blown up/hijacked/whatever planes no matter what?  This baffles me.
</p><p>
If lessening these ridiculous security measures means the occasional plane gets blown up or driven into some tower, I'm willing to take that risk. I recognize that, statistically, I'm more likely to accidentally drown in my own bathtub or get hit by a car while walking down the street.  And I don't know if this is just me, but the thought of being on one of those planes doesn't frighten me?  If it happens to me it happens to me, I'll do my best to fight the attackers and land the plane but if I die then so be it.   </p><p>In many places in the world this sort of thing goes on every day.  Hell, the US blows up a lot of ordinary and innocent people every day.</p><p>If most Americans were polled on this would they side with the increased security in return for giving up their rights and freedoms?  Has anyone actually polled them on this question? How is this happening?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What produced the mindset that there must not be any blown up/hijacked/whatever planes no matter what ?
This baffles me .
If lessening these ridiculous security measures means the occasional plane gets blown up or driven into some tower , I 'm willing to take that risk .
I recognize that , statistically , I 'm more likely to accidentally drown in my own bathtub or get hit by a car while walking down the street .
And I do n't know if this is just me , but the thought of being on one of those planes does n't frighten me ?
If it happens to me it happens to me , I 'll do my best to fight the attackers and land the plane but if I die then so be it .
In many places in the world this sort of thing goes on every day .
Hell , the US blows up a lot of ordinary and innocent people every day.If most Americans were polled on this would they side with the increased security in return for giving up their rights and freedoms ?
Has anyone actually polled them on this question ?
How is this happening ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What produced the mindset that there must not be any blown up/hijacked/whatever planes no matter what?
This baffles me.
If lessening these ridiculous security measures means the occasional plane gets blown up or driven into some tower, I'm willing to take that risk.
I recognize that, statistically, I'm more likely to accidentally drown in my own bathtub or get hit by a car while walking down the street.
And I don't know if this is just me, but the thought of being on one of those planes doesn't frighten me?
If it happens to me it happens to me, I'll do my best to fight the attackers and land the plane but if I die then so be it.
In many places in the world this sort of thing goes on every day.
Hell, the US blows up a lot of ordinary and innocent people every day.If most Americans were polled on this would they side with the increased security in return for giving up their rights and freedoms?
Has anyone actually polled them on this question?
How is this happening?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893627</id>
	<title>Re:Laptop Fires On Airplanes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256670120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.</p><p>The lighter ban was instituted because Washington geniuses who decided that IF AND ONLY IF the shoe bomber had tried to light the fuse with a lighter, he MIGHT have had slightly more success.</p><p>The lighter ban was nothing more than a knee-jerk, crack pipe smoking, hypothetical scenario dreamed up by our elected officials - the TSA even opposed it.</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24774-2005Feb14.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">citation</a> [washingtonpost.com] and <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-28-lighter-ban\_x.htm" title="usatoday.com" rel="nofollow"> citation </a> [usatoday.com]</p><p>I have lived overseas for 17 years, smoke, and fly internationally regularly.  Lighters have no problem with flying, pressure differentials, or any other such shit.  Morons make stuff like this up to make issues where there are none.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit.The lighter ban was instituted because Washington geniuses who decided that IF AND ONLY IF the shoe bomber had tried to light the fuse with a lighter , he MIGHT have had slightly more success.The lighter ban was nothing more than a knee-jerk , crack pipe smoking , hypothetical scenario dreamed up by our elected officials - the TSA even opposed it.citation [ washingtonpost.com ] and citation [ usatoday.com ] I have lived overseas for 17 years , smoke , and fly internationally regularly .
Lighters have no problem with flying , pressure differentials , or any other such shit .
Morons make stuff like this up to make issues where there are none .
           </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.The lighter ban was instituted because Washington geniuses who decided that IF AND ONLY IF the shoe bomber had tried to light the fuse with a lighter, he MIGHT have had slightly more success.The lighter ban was nothing more than a knee-jerk, crack pipe smoking, hypothetical scenario dreamed up by our elected officials - the TSA even opposed it.citation [washingtonpost.com] and  citation  [usatoday.com]I have lived overseas for 17 years, smoke, and fly internationally regularly.
Lighters have no problem with flying, pressure differentials, or any other such shit.
Morons make stuff like this up to make issues where there are none.
           </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887081</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>drummerboybac</author>
	<datestamp>1256672640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>its not just that they would not be on, its that you couldn't have them at all.  Banned from carry on, banned from checked.  Business travel that involves computers of any kind would be impossible.

Plus, what about those that get motion sick when reading. I think you'd take clickety click over a nice pile of chow in your lap</htmltext>
<tokenext>its not just that they would not be on , its that you could n't have them at all .
Banned from carry on , banned from checked .
Business travel that involves computers of any kind would be impossible .
Plus , what about those that get motion sick when reading .
I think you 'd take clickety click over a nice pile of chow in your lap</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its not just that they would not be on, its that you couldn't have them at all.
Banned from carry on, banned from checked.
Business travel that involves computers of any kind would be impossible.
Plus, what about those that get motion sick when reading.
I think you'd take clickety click over a nice pile of chow in your lap</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887515</id>
	<title>can never fully eliminate fire hazard</title>
	<author>dUN82</author>
	<datestamp>1256674320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> I was once given a portable DVD player on a flight that feature a 6 hr playback battery pack since the entertainment system on my seat failed ! I was much appreciate it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was once given a portable DVD player on a flight that feature a 6 hr playback battery pack since the entertainment system on my seat failed !
I was much appreciate it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I was once given a portable DVD player on a flight that feature a 6 hr playback battery pack since the entertainment system on my seat failed !
I was much appreciate it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886825</id>
	<title>22 fires out of how many?</title>
	<author>s31523</author>
	<datestamp>1256671620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>22 fires out of how many millions of flights, of which none resulted in any catastrophe..  I think I am more worried about pilots updating their facebook pages and overshooting their destination airport by 150 miles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>22 fires out of how many millions of flights , of which none resulted in any catastrophe.. I think I am more worried about pilots updating their facebook pages and overshooting their destination airport by 150 miles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>22 fires out of how many millions of flights, of which none resulted in any catastrophe..  I think I am more worried about pilots updating their facebook pages and overshooting their destination airport by 150 miles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29900901</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>xkcdFan1011011101111</author>
	<datestamp>1256759400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I keep waiting to see what new restrictions come out after a terrorist hijacks a plane using kung-fu.  Straightjackets for all passengers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep waiting to see what new restrictions come out after a terrorist hijacks a plane using kung-fu .
Straightjackets for all passengers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep waiting to see what new restrictions come out after a terrorist hijacks a plane using kung-fu.
Straightjackets for all passengers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888839</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>cfalcon</author>
	<datestamp>1256636520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?"</p><p>Said Urbanite is out four bucks, but gets to buy a second bottle on the other side.</p><p>"Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?"</p><p>Said mom is out four bucks, buying a drink on the other side.</p><p>"...guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner..."</p><p>This one actually sucks the most, imo, but at the end of the day, you still wear shoes on a plane.</p><p>If they told me I couldn't bring my laptop, then I can barely do my job.  Which is why I'm traveling to start with.  Many people *can't* do their job.  This is actually an area where it sucks SO much that they can't just ban it or swoosh around it with trickery.  Your examples, while annoying and I'll try to vote them away just as soon as someone runs who could fix it (read: never), aren't in the same category as "can't transport a laptop".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they could n't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane ?
" Said Urbanite is out four bucks , but gets to buy a second bottle on the other side .
" Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she could n't bring a box of apple juice for her kid ?
" Said mom is out four bucks , buying a drink on the other side .
" ...guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner... " This one actually sucks the most , imo , but at the end of the day , you still wear shoes on a plane.If they told me I could n't bring my laptop , then I can barely do my job .
Which is why I 'm traveling to start with .
Many people * ca n't * do their job .
This is actually an area where it sucks SO much that they ca n't just ban it or swoosh around it with trickery .
Your examples , while annoying and I 'll try to vote them away just as soon as someone runs who could fix it ( read : never ) , are n't in the same category as " ca n't transport a laptop " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Could you imagine what would happen if you told every urbanite that they couldn't bring a bottle of Evian on the plane?
"Said Urbanite is out four bucks, but gets to buy a second bottle on the other side.
"Could you imagine what would happen if you told ever Mom that she couldn't bring a box of apple juice for her kid?
"Said mom is out four bucks, buying a drink on the other side.
"...guy with the fancy cowboy boots or the woman wearing Prada shoes that they have to come off and go through the scanner..."This one actually sucks the most, imo, but at the end of the day, you still wear shoes on a plane.If they told me I couldn't bring my laptop, then I can barely do my job.
Which is why I'm traveling to start with.
Many people *can't* do their job.
This is actually an area where it sucks SO much that they can't just ban it or swoosh around it with trickery.
Your examples, while annoying and I'll try to vote them away just as soon as someone runs who could fix it (read: never), aren't in the same category as "can't transport a laptop".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888423</id>
	<title>Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1256634900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if passengers will actually make things easier and have the laptop and spare batteries ready for inspection.  Drives me nuts when someone stands in line for 15 minutes, makes no preparations to be searched, then complains about "security theater".  The last place on earth to lobby for looser security restrictions is in the damned airport!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if passengers will actually make things easier and have the laptop and spare batteries ready for inspection .
Drives me nuts when someone stands in line for 15 minutes , makes no preparations to be searched , then complains about " security theater " .
The last place on earth to lobby for looser security restrictions is in the damned airport !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if passengers will actually make things easier and have the laptop and spare batteries ready for inspection.
Drives me nuts when someone stands in line for 15 minutes, makes no preparations to be searched, then complains about "security theater".
The last place on earth to lobby for looser security restrictions is in the damned airport!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29891177</id>
	<title>Was the laptop's aim any good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256646540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Laptop Fires on Airplanes" - I hope the laptop didn't shoot any planes down!  The humanity!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Laptop Fires on Airplanes " - I hope the laptop did n't shoot any planes down !
The humanity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Laptop Fires on Airplanes" - I hope the laptop didn't shoot any planes down!
The humanity!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886925</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>metlin</author>
	<datestamp>1256672100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...The other alternative seems to be to go all the way in the other direction: all our luggage gets checked into an ultra-secure compartment, and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothes that can't be used to conceal anything in.</p></div></blockquote><p>Spandex?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-\</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...The other alternative seems to be to go all the way in the other direction : all our luggage gets checked into an ultra-secure compartment , and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothes that ca n't be used to conceal anything in.Spandex ?
: - \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...The other alternative seems to be to go all the way in the other direction: all our luggage gets checked into an ultra-secure compartment, and we have to turn in our clothes at the security checkpoint and be issued uniform form-fitting clothes that can't be used to conceal anything in.Spandex?
:-\
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886911</id>
	<title>Enough is enough!</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1256672040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have had it with these motherfucking batteries on this motherfucking plane!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have had it with these motherfucking batteries on this motherfucking plane !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have had it with these motherfucking batteries on this motherfucking plane!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886357</id>
	<title>FIRST</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256669760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887193</id>
	<title>Flying = Pain</title>
	<author>Azghoul</author>
	<datestamp>1256673060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just ban laptops from planes and make it EVEN MORE painful to fly?  There's almost zero reason to use an airplane any more as it is...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just ban laptops from planes and make it EVEN MORE painful to fly ?
There 's almost zero reason to use an airplane any more as it is.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just ban laptops from planes and make it EVEN MORE painful to fly?
There's almost zero reason to use an airplane any more as it is...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888017</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, yes.. the clicks of laptop keyboard keys and the faint sounds that escape from bad headphones.. these are the sounds that give you issues on an aircraft in flight?</p><p>And here I am, not concerned about such things because the constant engine noise and hiss from the air vents are the most constant and loud noises. I'm also okay with that, since the lack of that noise is not good news.</p><p>Maybe you just need some earplugs while you're reading your book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , yes.. the clicks of laptop keyboard keys and the faint sounds that escape from bad headphones.. these are the sounds that give you issues on an aircraft in flight ? And here I am , not concerned about such things because the constant engine noise and hiss from the air vents are the most constant and loud noises .
I 'm also okay with that , since the lack of that noise is not good news.Maybe you just need some earplugs while you 're reading your book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, yes.. the clicks of laptop keyboard keys and the faint sounds that escape from bad headphones.. these are the sounds that give you issues on an aircraft in flight?And here I am, not concerned about such things because the constant engine noise and hiss from the air vents are the most constant and loud noises.
I'm also okay with that, since the lack of that noise is not good news.Maybe you just need some earplugs while you're reading your book.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887823</id>
	<title>Re:They'll never outlaw batteries on planes</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1256675760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sir,</p><p>I represent a large American national airline.</p><p>Your razor sharp marketing sense, coupled with your genuine concern for passenger safety is EXACTLY what my client's company needs to continue to stay profitable in the 21st century.</p><p>Whatever Delta and Southwest are offering you, we'll double it...(Will you take stock options)?</p><p>Regards,</p><p>Schiester &amp; Smarmyham</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sir,I represent a large American national airline.Your razor sharp marketing sense , coupled with your genuine concern for passenger safety is EXACTLY what my client 's company needs to continue to stay profitable in the 21st century.Whatever Delta and Southwest are offering you , we 'll double it... ( Will you take stock options ) ? Regards,Schiester &amp; Smarmyham</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sir,I represent a large American national airline.Your razor sharp marketing sense, coupled with your genuine concern for passenger safety is EXACTLY what my client's company needs to continue to stay profitable in the 21st century.Whatever Delta and Southwest are offering you, we'll double it...(Will you take stock options)?Regards,Schiester &amp; Smarmyham</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889743</id>
	<title>Re:They can't ban them.</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1256640060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a shame really. If people actually did say I'd rather ride a bicycle there than be dehumanized by airport security the airlines would gang up and demand that the TSA get lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a shame really .
If people actually did say I 'd rather ride a bicycle there than be dehumanized by airport security the airlines would gang up and demand that the TSA get lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a shame really.
If people actually did say I'd rather ride a bicycle there than be dehumanized by airport security the airlines would gang up and demand that the TSA get lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886591</id>
	<title>Aren't ALL Lithium-ion batteries a risk?</title>
	<author>rotide</author>
	<datestamp>1256670600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm wrong here, but, isn't the problem with Lithium-ion batteries as a whole?  Not just laptop batteries?</p><p>Isn't the fire risk greatest with an overcharged and/or damaged battery?  If so, isn't the same risk associated with cell phones, PDA's, etc, etc (although, smaller battery, smaller kaboom/initial fire)?</p><p>And if \_any\_ Lithium-ion battery is a potential hazard then it wouldn't matter if it was in the cabin or in the hold underneath, it's still a fire/explosion risk.  Why would you allow them on a passenger aircraft, at all?</p><p>Now I'm not saying to ban them, or even restrict them, allow them all, that's fine, but if we're going to go all nuts over one type of Lithium-ion battery, we really need to realize they \_all\_ pose a danger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm wrong here , but , is n't the problem with Lithium-ion batteries as a whole ?
Not just laptop batteries ? Is n't the fire risk greatest with an overcharged and/or damaged battery ?
If so , is n't the same risk associated with cell phones , PDA 's , etc , etc ( although , smaller battery , smaller kaboom/initial fire ) ? And if \ _any \ _ Lithium-ion battery is a potential hazard then it would n't matter if it was in the cabin or in the hold underneath , it 's still a fire/explosion risk .
Why would you allow them on a passenger aircraft , at all ? Now I 'm not saying to ban them , or even restrict them , allow them all , that 's fine , but if we 're going to go all nuts over one type of Lithium-ion battery , we really need to realize they \ _all \ _ pose a danger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm wrong here, but, isn't the problem with Lithium-ion batteries as a whole?
Not just laptop batteries?Isn't the fire risk greatest with an overcharged and/or damaged battery?
If so, isn't the same risk associated with cell phones, PDA's, etc, etc (although, smaller battery, smaller kaboom/initial fire)?And if \_any\_ Lithium-ion battery is a potential hazard then it wouldn't matter if it was in the cabin or in the hold underneath, it's still a fire/explosion risk.
Why would you allow them on a passenger aircraft, at all?Now I'm not saying to ban them, or even restrict them, allow them all, that's fine, but if we're going to go all nuts over one type of Lithium-ion battery, we really need to realize they \_all\_ pose a danger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887221</id>
	<title>Oh yeah, the WORST offender for sure...</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256673180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes."</i></p><p>Really now? More of a hazard than lighters and matches?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard ' people can bring on airplanes .
" Really now ?
More of a hazard than lighters and matches ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One air safety expert suggested that these devices might be 'the last unrestricted fire hazard' people can bring on airplanes.
"Really now?
More of a hazard than lighters and matches?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889029</id>
	<title>Re:But what if the do ban laptop batteries?</title>
	<author>vikstar</author>
	<datestamp>1256637240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how is parent offtopic? stupid mod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how is parent offtopic ?
stupid mod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how is parent offtopic?
stupid mod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886719</id>
	<title>The airlines themselves won't let it happen</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1256671260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The airline industry makes too much money from business travelers - who are frequently carrying laptops and cell phones onto plates - to be willing to risk jeopardizing their customers.  Sure we all know that the airlines screw us individual travelers extra hard when we fly "home" for the holidays, but it is the traveling business sector that keeps the airline industry going.  If laptop batteries were banned there would be too much of an uproar, and if people started driving, traveling by train, or teleconferencing, instead of flying, then the airline death spiral would accelerate.  And the airlines themselves have more than enough say in the security theater to prevent that from happening.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The airline industry makes too much money from business travelers - who are frequently carrying laptops and cell phones onto plates - to be willing to risk jeopardizing their customers .
Sure we all know that the airlines screw us individual travelers extra hard when we fly " home " for the holidays , but it is the traveling business sector that keeps the airline industry going .
If laptop batteries were banned there would be too much of an uproar , and if people started driving , traveling by train , or teleconferencing , instead of flying , then the airline death spiral would accelerate .
And the airlines themselves have more than enough say in the security theater to prevent that from happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The airline industry makes too much money from business travelers - who are frequently carrying laptops and cell phones onto plates - to be willing to risk jeopardizing their customers.
Sure we all know that the airlines screw us individual travelers extra hard when we fly "home" for the holidays, but it is the traveling business sector that keeps the airline industry going.
If laptop batteries were banned there would be too much of an uproar, and if people started driving, traveling by train, or teleconferencing, instead of flying, then the airline death spiral would accelerate.
And the airlines themselves have more than enough say in the security theater to prevent that from happening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886787</id>
	<title>Re:Do we WANT them to ban laptops?</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1256671500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even a completely naked person has at least <a href="http://www.securityinfowatch.com/Homeland+Security/body-bombs-threats-and-detection-suicide-bombers" title="securityinfowatch.com">one place to conceal a bomb</a> [securityinfowatch.com]<p>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even a completely naked person has at least one place to conceal a bomb [ securityinfowatch.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even a completely naked person has at least one place to conceal a bomb [securityinfowatch.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29891419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887185
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29899291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29903079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29894525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29900901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1715200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887905
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886609
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887805
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29899291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890365
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887799
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888463
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889743
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886851
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29900901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887591
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29894525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887225
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888099
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888017
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887169
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886719
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29888363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886595
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892669
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29889431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893267
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29903079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29891419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886911
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29892549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29887189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29890279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29893171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1715200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1715200.29886905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
