<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_16_2111206</id>
	<title>Are There Affordable Low-DPI Large-Screen LCD Monitors?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1258363080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jtownatpunk.net writes <i>"As time goes by, I find myself supporting a greater number of users moving through their 40s and into their 50s (and beyond!).  I notice more and more of them are lowering the resolution of their displays in order to 'make it bigger.'  That was fine in the CRT days, but, quite frankly, LCDs look like crap when they're not displaying their native resolution.  My solution at home is to hook my computer up to a big, honkin' 1080p HDTV, but that's a bit of a political risk in an office environment.  'Why does Bill get a freakin' big screen TV?!'  Plus, it's a waste to be paying for the extra inputs (component, s-video, composite), remote, tuner, etc. that will never be used.  And a 37-47" display is a bit large for a desk. So here's my question:  Is there a source for 24-27" monitors running at 1366x768 that are affordable and don't have all of the 'TV' stuff?  Or is my only choice to just buy 27" HDTVs and admonish the users not to watch TV?  (And, no, just giving them big CRTs is not an option.  Most people would rather stare at a fuzzy LCD than 'go back' to a CRT.)"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jtownatpunk.net writes " As time goes by , I find myself supporting a greater number of users moving through their 40s and into their 50s ( and beyond ! ) .
I notice more and more of them are lowering the resolution of their displays in order to 'make it bigger .
' That was fine in the CRT days , but , quite frankly , LCDs look like crap when they 're not displaying their native resolution .
My solution at home is to hook my computer up to a big , honkin ' 1080p HDTV , but that 's a bit of a political risk in an office environment .
'Why does Bill get a freakin ' big screen TV ? !
' Plus , it 's a waste to be paying for the extra inputs ( component , s-video , composite ) , remote , tuner , etc .
that will never be used .
And a 37-47 " display is a bit large for a desk .
So here 's my question : Is there a source for 24-27 " monitors running at 1366x768 that are affordable and do n't have all of the 'TV ' stuff ?
Or is my only choice to just buy 27 " HDTVs and admonish the users not to watch TV ?
( And , no , just giving them big CRTs is not an option .
Most people would rather stare at a fuzzy LCD than 'go back ' to a CRT .
) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jtownatpunk.net writes "As time goes by, I find myself supporting a greater number of users moving through their 40s and into their 50s (and beyond!).
I notice more and more of them are lowering the resolution of their displays in order to 'make it bigger.
'  That was fine in the CRT days, but, quite frankly, LCDs look like crap when they're not displaying their native resolution.
My solution at home is to hook my computer up to a big, honkin' 1080p HDTV, but that's a bit of a political risk in an office environment.
'Why does Bill get a freakin' big screen TV?!
'  Plus, it's a waste to be paying for the extra inputs (component, s-video, composite), remote, tuner, etc.
that will never be used.
And a 37-47" display is a bit large for a desk.
So here's my question:  Is there a source for 24-27" monitors running at 1366x768 that are affordable and don't have all of the 'TV' stuff?
Or is my only choice to just buy 27" HDTVs and admonish the users not to watch TV?
(And, no, just giving them big CRTs is not an option.
Most people would rather stare at a fuzzy LCD than 'go back' to a CRT.
)"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123124</id>
	<title>Re:The good news is, "sharpness" isn't critical...</title>
	<author>Halo1</author>
	<datestamp>1258372260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The distortion by LCD's not running at their resolution are way worse than that. Hell, we even got a bug report from someone about <a href="http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=14648" title="freepascal.org">our graph unit supposedly being buggy</a> [freepascal.org] because text rendered in full screen mode was illegible, while the only problem was that he was using an 800x600 resolution on an LCD monitor with a different native size.</p><p>If you download the attachment to that bug report and unzip it, there's a picture of the screen inside. And in fact, it does look quite bad. Of course, there's nothing that we can do about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The distortion by LCD 's not running at their resolution are way worse than that .
Hell , we even got a bug report from someone about our graph unit supposedly being buggy [ freepascal.org ] because text rendered in full screen mode was illegible , while the only problem was that he was using an 800x600 resolution on an LCD monitor with a different native size.If you download the attachment to that bug report and unzip it , there 's a picture of the screen inside .
And in fact , it does look quite bad .
Of course , there 's nothing that we can do about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The distortion by LCD's not running at their resolution are way worse than that.
Hell, we even got a bug report from someone about our graph unit supposedly being buggy [freepascal.org] because text rendered in full screen mode was illegible, while the only problem was that he was using an 800x600 resolution on an LCD monitor with a different native size.If you download the attachment to that bug report and unzip it, there's a picture of the screen inside.
And in fact, it does look quite bad.
Of course, there's nothing that we can do about that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121888</id>
	<title>Change your font DPI/size</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1258367520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows supports multiple DPIs. Leave it at native resolution and use the lowest one you can find. This will make the fonts bigger and more readable. If that doesn't work set your base font settings higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows supports multiple DPIs .
Leave it at native resolution and use the lowest one you can find .
This will make the fonts bigger and more readable .
If that does n't work set your base font settings higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows supports multiple DPIs.
Leave it at native resolution and use the lowest one you can find.
This will make the fonts bigger and more readable.
If that doesn't work set your base font settings higher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126208</id>
	<title>Re:It comes down to manufacturing issues</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1258397820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that part of the problem here is that computers still approach all displays as if the pixel size is the same. Fonts are displayed at so many pixels, not so many mm for size. That really should be changed.
</p><p>I'd love to see smaller pixels: the smaller the pixels, the sharper the display becomes. Think of print, we consider 300 dpi normal quality for print. That looks nice and sharp to our eyes. But you are complaining here about a 128 dpi (ppi) monitor!
</p><p>The solution is of course proper scaling of the output on the display. If you have a say 60 ppi monitor show fonts in 8 pixels height. If you have a 120 ppi monitor use 16 pixels for the same font. You end up with the same height, but better readability due to sharper font outlines. All graphics would start to look better as well.
</p><p>From the comments here I read KDE4 is up to that task already, and Apple has been thinking about it (and didn't do it). Gnome no idea; and Windows also seems not up to it still. Pity. It's about time we get something better for our eyes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that part of the problem here is that computers still approach all displays as if the pixel size is the same .
Fonts are displayed at so many pixels , not so many mm for size .
That really should be changed .
I 'd love to see smaller pixels : the smaller the pixels , the sharper the display becomes .
Think of print , we consider 300 dpi normal quality for print .
That looks nice and sharp to our eyes .
But you are complaining here about a 128 dpi ( ppi ) monitor !
The solution is of course proper scaling of the output on the display .
If you have a say 60 ppi monitor show fonts in 8 pixels height .
If you have a 120 ppi monitor use 16 pixels for the same font .
You end up with the same height , but better readability due to sharper font outlines .
All graphics would start to look better as well .
From the comments here I read KDE4 is up to that task already , and Apple has been thinking about it ( and did n't do it ) .
Gnome no idea ; and Windows also seems not up to it still .
Pity. It 's about time we get something better for our eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that part of the problem here is that computers still approach all displays as if the pixel size is the same.
Fonts are displayed at so many pixels, not so many mm for size.
That really should be changed.
I'd love to see smaller pixels: the smaller the pixels, the sharper the display becomes.
Think of print, we consider 300 dpi normal quality for print.
That looks nice and sharp to our eyes.
But you are complaining here about a 128 dpi (ppi) monitor!
The solution is of course proper scaling of the output on the display.
If you have a say 60 ppi monitor show fonts in 8 pixels height.
If you have a 120 ppi monitor use 16 pixels for the same font.
You end up with the same height, but better readability due to sharper font outlines.
All graphics would start to look better as well.
From the comments here I read KDE4 is up to that task already, and Apple has been thinking about it (and didn't do it).
Gnome no idea; and Windows also seems not up to it still.
Pity. It's about time we get something better for our eyes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30127368</id>
	<title>Increase the Text Size</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258457940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just increase the text size. Win7 has this option under Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Display. And it's aptly titled "Make it easier to read what's on screen". Older versions of Windows have this option in Display Properties -&gt; Advanced Options. Mac and other OS must be having this option too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just increase the text size .
Win7 has this option under Control Panel \ All Control Panel Items \ Display .
And it 's aptly titled " Make it easier to read what 's on screen " .
Older versions of Windows have this option in Display Properties - &gt; Advanced Options .
Mac and other OS must be having this option too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just increase the text size.
Win7 has this option under Control Panel\All Control Panel Items\Display.
And it's aptly titled "Make it easier to read what's on screen".
Older versions of Windows have this option in Display Properties -&gt; Advanced Options.
Mac and other OS must be having this option too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121940</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>NitroWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258367640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are there any affordable High DPI monitors? Back in the day you used to be able to find 17" 1600x1200 crts, which were wonderful. My laptop is running at 1400x1050 @ 10", which is also very enjoyable. Are there any flat panel desktop displays out there with the same density? I'd love a 19-22" display running at 2560x1600.</p></div><p>I thought I would be pleased with the pixel density of my 1920x1200 15" screen, but I'm not overly pleased with it actually.  This surprised me... I use 2560x1600 displays at home at 30" and I figured a smaller screen with a decent resolution would make for a pleasant experience, but I've found that it just makes everything smaller and gives me a bit more screen real estate, but overall I almost prefer a lower resolution screen, since moving everything around on a 15" screen at that resolution just seems tedious for some reason.</p><p>I'm just sharing my first hand experience, since like you, I figured a higher density pixel monitor would be totally cool and worthwhile... come to find out it's not nearly as cool as I figured it would be sadly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any affordable High DPI monitors ?
Back in the day you used to be able to find 17 " 1600x1200 crts , which were wonderful .
My laptop is running at 1400x1050 @ 10 " , which is also very enjoyable .
Are there any flat panel desktop displays out there with the same density ?
I 'd love a 19-22 " display running at 2560x1600.I thought I would be pleased with the pixel density of my 1920x1200 15 " screen , but I 'm not overly pleased with it actually .
This surprised me... I use 2560x1600 displays at home at 30 " and I figured a smaller screen with a decent resolution would make for a pleasant experience , but I 've found that it just makes everything smaller and gives me a bit more screen real estate , but overall I almost prefer a lower resolution screen , since moving everything around on a 15 " screen at that resolution just seems tedious for some reason.I 'm just sharing my first hand experience , since like you , I figured a higher density pixel monitor would be totally cool and worthwhile... come to find out it 's not nearly as cool as I figured it would be sadly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any affordable High DPI monitors?
Back in the day you used to be able to find 17" 1600x1200 crts, which were wonderful.
My laptop is running at 1400x1050 @ 10", which is also very enjoyable.
Are there any flat panel desktop displays out there with the same density?
I'd love a 19-22" display running at 2560x1600.I thought I would be pleased with the pixel density of my 1920x1200 15" screen, but I'm not overly pleased with it actually.
This surprised me... I use 2560x1600 displays at home at 30" and I figured a smaller screen with a decent resolution would make for a pleasant experience, but I've found that it just makes everything smaller and gives me a bit more screen real estate, but overall I almost prefer a lower resolution screen, since moving everything around on a 15" screen at that resolution just seems tedious for some reason.I'm just sharing my first hand experience, since like you, I figured a higher density pixel monitor would be totally cool and worthwhile... come to find out it's not nearly as cool as I figured it would be sadly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126880</id>
	<title>Breadboard, Three colours of LEDs and TIME</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1258449720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make your own damn LCD monitor and stay off my lawn you damned kids!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make your own damn LCD monitor and stay off my lawn you damned kids ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make your own damn LCD monitor and stay off my lawn you damned kids!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122400</id>
	<title>Re:Fire the dead weight</title>
	<author>Isaac-1</author>
	<datestamp>1258369140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, the young so often speak with authority about things they do not understand.  The problem is not about vision correction, its about aging of the eye, loss of accommodation, etc.  On a side note, just remember when it comes to anything physical it is all down hill after you turn about 25, eyes, reaction speed, healing, stamina, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , the young so often speak with authority about things they do not understand .
The problem is not about vision correction , its about aging of the eye , loss of accommodation , etc .
On a side note , just remember when it comes to anything physical it is all down hill after you turn about 25 , eyes , reaction speed , healing , stamina , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, the young so often speak with authority about things they do not understand.
The problem is not about vision correction, its about aging of the eye, loss of accommodation, etc.
On a side note, just remember when it comes to anything physical it is all down hill after you turn about 25, eyes, reaction speed, healing, stamina, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121702</id>
	<title>Just use half resolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many monitors look good at exactly 1/2 resolution. Get a 20+" monitor with 1920x1080 resolution and run it at 960x540.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many monitors look good at exactly 1/2 resolution .
Get a 20 + " monitor with 1920x1080 resolution and run it at 960x540 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many monitors look good at exactly 1/2 resolution.
Get a 20+" monitor with 1920x1080 resolution and run it at 960x540.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124068</id>
	<title>Re:Is the problem really DPI?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258377180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small. Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Many of the websites are poorly designed in other ways, exacerbating the problem. For example, <b>slashdot's comment score review page</b> doesn't display correctly in 800 x 600 resolution. The boxes on the right side cover up the scores most of the time (depending on article title sizes). I have to press the browser's Ctrl-plus key combination to shrink it, giving me eye-kicking micro-fonts.</p><p>With netbooks, phone-browsers, etc. coming out, smaller screens may be making a come-back. Thus, they shouldn't be ignored. Aged-vision problems are only half the issue here.</p><p>(I suspect slashdot's problem wouldn't happen had they'd been using HTML tables instead of CSS. I've never seen tables do that, but happens fairly often in CSS-based sites. True, HTML tables go ugly in different ways, but not by overlapping.)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small .
Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point .
Many of the websites are poorly designed in other ways , exacerbating the problem .
For example , slashdot 's comment score review page does n't display correctly in 800 x 600 resolution .
The boxes on the right side cover up the scores most of the time ( depending on article title sizes ) .
I have to press the browser 's Ctrl-plus key combination to shrink it , giving me eye-kicking micro-fonts.With netbooks , phone-browsers , etc .
coming out , smaller screens may be making a come-back .
Thus , they should n't be ignored .
Aged-vision problems are only half the issue here .
( I suspect slashdot 's problem would n't happen had they 'd been using HTML tables instead of CSS .
I 've never seen tables do that , but happens fairly often in CSS-based sites .
True , HTML tables go ugly in different ways , but not by overlapping .
)      </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small.
Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point.
Many of the websites are poorly designed in other ways, exacerbating the problem.
For example, slashdot's comment score review page doesn't display correctly in 800 x 600 resolution.
The boxes on the right side cover up the scores most of the time (depending on article title sizes).
I have to press the browser's Ctrl-plus key combination to shrink it, giving me eye-kicking micro-fonts.With netbooks, phone-browsers, etc.
coming out, smaller screens may be making a come-back.
Thus, they shouldn't be ignored.
Aged-vision problems are only half the issue here.
(I suspect slashdot's problem wouldn't happen had they'd been using HTML tables instead of CSS.
I've never seen tables do that, but happens fairly often in CSS-based sites.
True, HTML tables go ugly in different ways, but not by overlapping.
)
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121642</id>
	<title>Get some glasses, grandpa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258366860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Goddamn aging baby boomers. Waaaah, my monitor is fuzzy but I'm too cool for eyeglasses or CRTs. Waaaah! Obama is going to send us off to death camps when we turn 50! Waaah!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Goddamn aging baby boomers .
Waaaah , my monitor is fuzzy but I 'm too cool for eyeglasses or CRTs .
Waaaah ! Obama is going to send us off to death camps when we turn 50 !
Waaah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goddamn aging baby boomers.
Waaaah, my monitor is fuzzy but I'm too cool for eyeglasses or CRTs.
Waaaah! Obama is going to send us off to death camps when we turn 50!
Waaah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124950</id>
	<title>Just buy a display that runs 2048 x 1536</title>
	<author>pivot\_enabled</author>
	<datestamp>1258384200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At half resolution (1024 x 768) it'll look great.  Sure its a little less desktop but you're accommodating their handicap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At half resolution ( 1024 x 768 ) it 'll look great .
Sure its a little less desktop but you 're accommodating their handicap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At half resolution (1024 x 768) it'll look great.
Sure its a little less desktop but you're accommodating their handicap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122782</id>
	<title>Re:Define "affordable"</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1258370760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I think any of <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=2102640411\%20138901997\%201288924672&amp;bop=And&amp;ShowDeactivatedMark=False&amp;ActiveSearchResult=True&amp;Order=PRICE" title="newegg.com">these displays are affordable</a> [newegg.com]. All of them come with HDMI input, which is fine for PCs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I think any of these displays are affordable [ newegg.com ] .
All of them come with HDMI input , which is fine for PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I think any of these displays are affordable [newegg.com].
All of them come with HDMI input, which is fine for PCs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124228</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258378140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except you generally don't, some kind of scaling gets applied so you don't infact get perfect sharp double size pixels in my experience.</p><p>Also, I haven't seen a 480p netbook in a long while? only the 7" models were that crap res, and pretty much been phased out long since. all the 9" ones are 1024x600</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except you generally do n't , some kind of scaling gets applied so you do n't infact get perfect sharp double size pixels in my experience.Also , I have n't seen a 480p netbook in a long while ?
only the 7 " models were that crap res , and pretty much been phased out long since .
all the 9 " ones are 1024x600</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except you generally don't, some kind of scaling gets applied so you don't infact get perfect sharp double size pixels in my experience.Also, I haven't seen a 480p netbook in a long while?
only the 7" models were that crap res, and pretty much been phased out long since.
all the 9" ones are 1024x600</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123822</id>
	<title>Re:Software?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258375740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actually the Control key you hold down, at least by default.  Works with trackpads too if your trackpad supports two finger scroll...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually the Control key you hold down , at least by default .
Works with trackpads too if your trackpad supports two finger scroll.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually the Control key you hold down, at least by default.
Works with trackpads too if your trackpad supports two finger scroll...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124974</id>
	<title>Re:I never did understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258384380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a pround buyer of two 22" 1680x1050 monitors, I must say that when I bought them, they were much cheaper than 24" 1920x1200. It was when 16:9 screens weren't popular (all computers LCD screens were 16:10). HD movies still look better than on a 720p laptop or HDTV, by the way. 20" screens had the same resolution, but I prefer lower DPI, larger 22".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a pround buyer of two 22 " 1680x1050 monitors , I must say that when I bought them , they were much cheaper than 24 " 1920x1200 .
It was when 16 : 9 screens were n't popular ( all computers LCD screens were 16 : 10 ) .
HD movies still look better than on a 720p laptop or HDTV , by the way .
20 " screens had the same resolution , but I prefer lower DPI , larger 22 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a pround buyer of two 22" 1680x1050 monitors, I must say that when I bought them, they were much cheaper than 24" 1920x1200.
It was when 16:9 screens weren't popular (all computers LCD screens were 16:10).
HD movies still look better than on a 720p laptop or HDTV, by the way.
20" screens had the same resolution, but I prefer lower DPI, larger 22".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123516</id>
	<title>Re:Non-problem?</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1258374120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It really is a non-problem. Just 10 mnutes ago, I set up two LCD monitors at just less than their native resolutions because everything looks too small. At this less-than native resolution, everything looks fine. There really isn't an issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It really is a non-problem .
Just 10 mnutes ago , I set up two LCD monitors at just less than their native resolutions because everything looks too small .
At this less-than native resolution , everything looks fine .
There really is n't an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really is a non-problem.
Just 10 mnutes ago, I set up two LCD monitors at just less than their native resolutions because everything looks too small.
At this less-than native resolution, everything looks fine.
There really isn't an issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125140</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1258386000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Samsung 2343BWX. That's 23", 2048x1152. Almost fits the bill.</p><p>And it'd be good for the original poster too, because it can be set to 1360x768.</p><p>What's your opinion on all those 800x480 2.8" LCDs popping up on mobile devices?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Samsung 2343BWX .
That 's 23 " , 2048x1152 .
Almost fits the bill.And it 'd be good for the original poster too , because it can be set to 1360x768.What 's your opinion on all those 800x480 2.8 " LCDs popping up on mobile devices ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Samsung 2343BWX.
That's 23", 2048x1152.
Almost fits the bill.And it'd be good for the original poster too, because it can be set to 1360x768.What's your opinion on all those 800x480 2.8" LCDs popping up on mobile devices?
:P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121836</id>
	<title>Watching TV not Possible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't install antennae on the TV, or connect them to cable.  It will then be impossible to watch TV on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't install antennae on the TV , or connect them to cable .
It will then be impossible to watch TV on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't install antennae on the TV, or connect them to cable.
It will then be impossible to watch TV on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122892</id>
	<title>Solution: NoSquint plugin for firefox</title>
	<author>ClintJCL</author>
	<datestamp>1258371180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everything I read is either in my 4NT command-line [which has different sized fonts to choose from], my text editor [which lets you choose how many pts to use for a font], or my web-browser.<p>

The web-browser solution? A little plugin called NoSquint. It remembers your customized zoom-level per domain, and lets you zoom text *and* images at *separate* percentages. Like I read slashdot and facebook at 170\% text/normal images, but gmail at 160\%, and IMDB at 100\% text/180\% images [due to their tiny images]. It's nice to have it remember, and not have to spend a lifetime zooming back and forth.</p><p>

My display? A sharp aquos 52-inch HDTV @ 1920x1080. I've been doing TV-out since 1995, and this is by far the best set-up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everything I read is either in my 4NT command-line [ which has different sized fonts to choose from ] , my text editor [ which lets you choose how many pts to use for a font ] , or my web-browser .
The web-browser solution ?
A little plugin called NoSquint .
It remembers your customized zoom-level per domain , and lets you zoom text * and * images at * separate * percentages .
Like I read slashdot and facebook at 170 \ % text/normal images , but gmail at 160 \ % , and IMDB at 100 \ % text/180 \ % images [ due to their tiny images ] .
It 's nice to have it remember , and not have to spend a lifetime zooming back and forth .
My display ?
A sharp aquos 52-inch HDTV @ 1920x1080 .
I 've been doing TV-out since 1995 , and this is by far the best set-up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everything I read is either in my 4NT command-line [which has different sized fonts to choose from], my text editor [which lets you choose how many pts to use for a font], or my web-browser.
The web-browser solution?
A little plugin called NoSquint.
It remembers your customized zoom-level per domain, and lets you zoom text *and* images at *separate* percentages.
Like I read slashdot and facebook at 170\% text/normal images, but gmail at 160\%, and IMDB at 100\% text/180\% images [due to their tiny images].
It's nice to have it remember, and not have to spend a lifetime zooming back and forth.
My display?
A sharp aquos 52-inch HDTV @ 1920x1080.
I've been doing TV-out since 1995, and this is by far the best set-up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123174</id>
	<title>Cheap HDTV</title>
	<author>Molochi</author>
	<datestamp>1258372440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of my friends and I have instinctively migrated to smallish "720P" LCD HDTVs for our computer monitors. By smallish I mean 27"-32" and by 720P I mean 1360x768 native resolution. You push them to the back of your desk to relieve farsightedness and regain the ability to use your desk. They have an ATSC tuner in them, to boot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of my friends and I have instinctively migrated to smallish " 720P " LCD HDTVs for our computer monitors .
By smallish I mean 27 " -32 " and by 720P I mean 1360x768 native resolution .
You push them to the back of your desk to relieve farsightedness and regain the ability to use your desk .
They have an ATSC tuner in them , to boot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of my friends and I have instinctively migrated to smallish "720P" LCD HDTVs for our computer monitors.
By smallish I mean 27"-32" and by 720P I mean 1360x768 native resolution.
You push them to the back of your desk to relieve farsightedness and regain the ability to use your desk.
They have an ATSC tuner in them, to boot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125014</id>
	<title>Re:Non-problem?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1258384680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It does when they then demand that you go over and replace their video card with one that isn't so blurry or demand that you get the monitor cleaned.<br> <br>

OTOH, allowing them to use their cup holder is known to create more time for a Sysadmin as that's less time that they have to load things from the CDROM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does when they then demand that you go over and replace their video card with one that is n't so blurry or demand that you get the monitor cleaned .
OTOH , allowing them to use their cup holder is known to create more time for a Sysadmin as that 's less time that they have to load things from the CDROM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does when they then demand that you go over and replace their video card with one that isn't so blurry or demand that you get the monitor cleaned.
OTOH, allowing them to use their cup holder is known to create more time for a Sysadmin as that's less time that they have to load things from the CDROM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30144876</id>
	<title>Or, you know...</title>
	<author>Sarreq Teryx</author>
	<datestamp>1257096060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...you could go into the display settings, find your WYSIWYG sliding ruler and set it to a larger DPI.  that'd take care of your problem quite cheaply and quickly</htmltext>
<tokenext>...you could go into the display settings , find your WYSIWYG sliding ruler and set it to a larger DPI .
that 'd take care of your problem quite cheaply and quickly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you could go into the display settings, find your WYSIWYG sliding ruler and set it to a larger DPI.
that'd take care of your problem quite cheaply and quickly</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125774</id>
	<title>Re:high dpi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258392900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My 3 year old 17" laptop is 1920x1200.  For longest time couldn't find high def screen for my desktop machine.</p><p>The solution isn't a low resolution monitor, its setting windows up properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My 3 year old 17 " laptop is 1920x1200 .
For longest time could n't find high def screen for my desktop machine.The solution is n't a low resolution monitor , its setting windows up properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 3 year old 17" laptop is 1920x1200.
For longest time couldn't find high def screen for my desktop machine.The solution isn't a low resolution monitor, its setting windows up properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123696</id>
	<title>Re:Is the problem really DPI?</title>
	<author>hondo77</author>
	<datestamp>1258374960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small. Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point.</p></div><p>Safari (in OS X, at least) has a preference in the Advanced tab that sets a lower limit on font sizes, regardless of what the website specifies. I have mine set to 10 and things are just fine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small .
Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point.Safari ( in OS X , at least ) has a preference in the Advanced tab that sets a lower limit on font sizes , regardless of what the website specifies .
I have mine set to 10 and things are just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small.
Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point.Safari (in OS X, at least) has a preference in the Advanced tab that sets a lower limit on font sizes, regardless of what the website specifies.
I have mine set to 10 and things are just fine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123014</id>
	<title>Re:Get some glasses, grandpa</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1258371780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not sure why this is a troll other than the obama comment.  I know several dozen 50-60 year olds who know they need glasses that reading glasses don't cut it anymore and refuse to go to an eye doctor for proper glasses.  They can barely drive, can't read signs, yet they refuse to go to the eye doctor as they might actually have to wear glasses.</p><p>fear of being uncool, is deeply ingrained in them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure why this is a troll other than the obama comment .
I know several dozen 50-60 year olds who know they need glasses that reading glasses do n't cut it anymore and refuse to go to an eye doctor for proper glasses .
They can barely drive , ca n't read signs , yet they refuse to go to the eye doctor as they might actually have to wear glasses.fear of being uncool , is deeply ingrained in them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure why this is a troll other than the obama comment.
I know several dozen 50-60 year olds who know they need glasses that reading glasses don't cut it anymore and refuse to go to an eye doctor for proper glasses.
They can barely drive, can't read signs, yet they refuse to go to the eye doctor as they might actually have to wear glasses.fear of being uncool, is deeply ingrained in them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122610</id>
	<title>Bigger fonts ?</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1258369920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I understand right, the issue is not so much DPI per se, but font size. Windows XP was notoriously bad at ramping it up across all OS apps/finctions and across all 3rd-party apps. I hear 7 is much better, as is Linux. I don't know about Macs. I konw for a fact that MS and Apple have an "accessibility" department, that mainly czters to disabled users but should be of tremendous help.</p><p>If I were you, I would investigate in that direction, instead of looking for a very expensive specialty monitor.</p><p>Or, on the contrary, you could play the multiples game, and try and test a 1900x1200 display @ 950x600 ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I understand right , the issue is not so much DPI per se , but font size .
Windows XP was notoriously bad at ramping it up across all OS apps/finctions and across all 3rd-party apps .
I hear 7 is much better , as is Linux .
I do n't know about Macs .
I konw for a fact that MS and Apple have an " accessibility " department , that mainly czters to disabled users but should be of tremendous help.If I were you , I would investigate in that direction , instead of looking for a very expensive specialty monitor.Or , on the contrary , you could play the multiples game , and try and test a 1900x1200 display @ 950x600 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I understand right, the issue is not so much DPI per se, but font size.
Windows XP was notoriously bad at ramping it up across all OS apps/finctions and across all 3rd-party apps.
I hear 7 is much better, as is Linux.
I don't know about Macs.
I konw for a fact that MS and Apple have an "accessibility" department, that mainly czters to disabled users but should be of tremendous help.If I were you, I would investigate in that direction, instead of looking for a very expensive specialty monitor.Or, on the contrary, you could play the multiples game, and try and test a 1900x1200 display @ 950x600 ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124470</id>
	<title>Re:I never did understand</title>
	<author>Daevad</author>
	<datestamp>1258379880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You insensitive clod!  Laptops don't have as many choices at 15.4"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You insensitive clod !
Laptops do n't have as many choices at 15.4 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You insensitive clod!
Laptops don't have as many choices at 15.4"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125396</id>
	<title>Use Google Chrome and press Ctrl+</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258388400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using the Google Chrome browser and pressing Ctrl+ to scale the font when needed might do the trick - if the main problem is with the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using the Google Chrome browser and pressing Ctrl + to scale the font when needed might do the trick - if the main problem is with the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using the Google Chrome browser and pressing Ctrl+ to scale the font when needed might do the trick - if the main problem is with the web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123866</id>
	<title>I know an unusual but nice solution:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258376040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just use a projector! ^^<br>No, seriously!<br>You can't go much more low-DPI than a projector, can you.</p><p>There are many geeky solutions, like projecting it on the back of a surface (e.g. using the paper that they use for those DIY multi-touch tables), lowering the brightness of the projector, etc.</p><p>I'm sure that way you can build yourself a nice giant screen with up to HD resolution, but very low DPI. It's entirely possible, that you can fill your whole viewing angle with it then.<br>Which should be really impressive in games!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D (IMAX effect)</p><p>One tip: Two half-HD projectors are (much) cheaper than one full-HD projector.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just use a projector !
^ ^ No , seriously ! You ca n't go much more low-DPI than a projector , can you.There are many geeky solutions , like projecting it on the back of a surface ( e.g .
using the paper that they use for those DIY multi-touch tables ) , lowering the brightness of the projector , etc.I 'm sure that way you can build yourself a nice giant screen with up to HD resolution , but very low DPI .
It 's entirely possible , that you can fill your whole viewing angle with it then.Which should be really impressive in games !
: D ( IMAX effect ) One tip : Two half-HD projectors are ( much ) cheaper than one full-HD projector .
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just use a projector!
^^No, seriously!You can't go much more low-DPI than a projector, can you.There are many geeky solutions, like projecting it on the back of a surface (e.g.
using the paper that they use for those DIY multi-touch tables), lowering the brightness of the projector, etc.I'm sure that way you can build yourself a nice giant screen with up to HD resolution, but very low DPI.
It's entirely possible, that you can fill your whole viewing angle with it then.Which should be really impressive in games!
:D (IMAX effect)One tip: Two half-HD projectors are (much) cheaper than one full-HD projector.
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126770</id>
	<title>Re:Get a 2560x1600 monitor and run at 1280x800</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258491480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that the model you mentioned (Dell 3007wfp) does not have image scaler. Thus, running it at 1280x800 resolution will not make things "bigger", it just leaves 3/4 of the picture area black. And that's not the only 30" LCD that comes (came, actually, as it's not manufactured anymore) without scaler, so you might want to check that feature when choosing display. The newer model (3008wfp) does have scaler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the model you mentioned ( Dell 3007wfp ) does not have image scaler .
Thus , running it at 1280x800 resolution will not make things " bigger " , it just leaves 3/4 of the picture area black .
And that 's not the only 30 " LCD that comes ( came , actually , as it 's not manufactured anymore ) without scaler , so you might want to check that feature when choosing display .
The newer model ( 3008wfp ) does have scaler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the model you mentioned (Dell 3007wfp) does not have image scaler.
Thus, running it at 1280x800 resolution will not make things "bigger", it just leaves 3/4 of the picture area black.
And that's not the only 30" LCD that comes (came, actually, as it's not manufactured anymore) without scaler, so you might want to check that feature when choosing display.
The newer model (3008wfp) does have scaler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124830</id>
	<title>Not a tech problem...</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1258383180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about arranging a decent vision plan for your employees so they can afford the glasses they need? Not to belabor the obvious, but if your employees are having trouble reading a 22" monitor two feet in front of their faces, the problem isn't the monitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about arranging a decent vision plan for your employees so they can afford the glasses they need ?
Not to belabor the obvious , but if your employees are having trouble reading a 22 " monitor two feet in front of their faces , the problem is n't the monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about arranging a decent vision plan for your employees so they can afford the glasses they need?
Not to belabor the obvious, but if your employees are having trouble reading a 22" monitor two feet in front of their faces, the problem isn't the monitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124310</id>
	<title>Re:Is the problem really DPI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258378680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For example, slashdot's comment score review page doesn't display correctly in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p><tt><br>We'll help you out by modding all your replies to -1. That way there's no point in checking your scores.</tt></p><p><tt>Thank You</tt></p><p><tt>-Slashdot Management<br></tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , slashdot 's comment score review page does n't display correctly in ...We 'll help you out by modding all your replies to -1 .
That way there 's no point in checking your scores.Thank You-Slashdot Management</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, slashdot's comment score review page doesn't display correctly in ...We'll help you out by modding all your replies to -1.
That way there's no point in checking your scores.Thank You-Slashdot Management
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122544</id>
	<title>Re:Software?</title>
	<author>fuzzylollipop</author>
	<datestamp>1258369620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you can do with the Accessiblity features of any major OS</htmltext>
<tokenext>you can do with the Accessiblity features of any major OS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can do with the Accessiblity features of any major OS</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125314</id>
	<title>Re:More like on hold, but still present</title>
	<author>foo fighter</author>
	<datestamp>1258387500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd add that Safari has the best web zooming of any browser I've tried in the past three months. It scales the entire page so it keeps its formatting. Text, images, and layout all scale up and down.</p><p>Safari is easily the best browser for couch-based surfing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd add that Safari has the best web zooming of any browser I 've tried in the past three months .
It scales the entire page so it keeps its formatting .
Text , images , and layout all scale up and down.Safari is easily the best browser for couch-based surfing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd add that Safari has the best web zooming of any browser I've tried in the past three months.
It scales the entire page so it keeps its formatting.
Text, images, and layout all scale up and down.Safari is easily the best browser for couch-based surfing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30161762</id>
	<title>Projectors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258663080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suggest they get glasses otherwise what you want is a called a standard multimedia projector. These will usually give 800x600 over 50 to 100 inches. That's pretty low DPI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest they get glasses otherwise what you want is a called a standard multimedia projector .
These will usually give 800x600 over 50 to 100 inches .
That 's pretty low DPI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest they get glasses otherwise what you want is a called a standard multimedia projector.
These will usually give 800x600 over 50 to 100 inches.
That's pretty low DPI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122078</id>
	<title>Increase your DPI</title>
	<author>Galestar</author>
	<datestamp>1258368000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And then start complaining to software vendors when they write crappy software that only supports the standard DPI.

There are plenty of technologies out there to help developers write UI's that scale properly with the Windows DPI setting (ie. WPF for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net devs out there).</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then start complaining to software vendors when they write crappy software that only supports the standard DPI .
There are plenty of technologies out there to help developers write UI 's that scale properly with the Windows DPI setting ( ie .
WPF for the .Net devs out there ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then start complaining to software vendors when they write crappy software that only supports the standard DPI.
There are plenty of technologies out there to help developers write UI's that scale properly with the Windows DPI setting (ie.
WPF for the .Net devs out there).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122290</id>
	<title>I run into this at work all the time...</title>
	<author>CannedTurkey</author>
	<datestamp>1258368780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just make the fonts bigger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just make the fonts bigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just make the fonts bigger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122958</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>islisis</author>
	<datestamp>1258371480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hmm just stumbled across this<br><a href="http://en.kioskea.net/guide/1161214-nec-ea241wm-black" title="kioskea.net" rel="nofollow">NEC EA241WM</a> [kioskea.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hmm just stumbled across thisNEC EA241WM [ kioskea.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hmm just stumbled across thisNEC EA241WM [kioskea.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122568</id>
	<title>Re:Software?</title>
	<author>Zen Hash</author>
	<datestamp>1258369680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can do this on most modern linux distros with compiz fusion and one of the zoom plugins.<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq1-k5XZ0\_I" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq1-k5XZ0\_I</a> [youtube.com] <br>
Just go to ubuntu.com, download a livecd, burn it and boot. Install the restricted drivers for your video card (if necessary) and compiz-config manager, then play around with it. Set it up for my parents a couple years ago, and now they're using the computer more than they ever did before. They haven't needed me to fix anything yet, either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can do this on most modern linux distros with compiz fusion and one of the zoom plugins .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Jq1-k5XZ0 \ _I [ youtube.com ] Just go to ubuntu.com , download a livecd , burn it and boot .
Install the restricted drivers for your video card ( if necessary ) and compiz-config manager , then play around with it .
Set it up for my parents a couple years ago , and now they 're using the computer more than they ever did before .
They have n't needed me to fix anything yet , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can do this on most modern linux distros with compiz fusion and one of the zoom plugins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq1-k5XZ0\_I [youtube.com] 
Just go to ubuntu.com, download a livecd, burn it and boot.
Install the restricted drivers for your video card (if necessary) and compiz-config manager, then play around with it.
Set it up for my parents a couple years ago, and now they're using the computer more than they ever did before.
They haven't needed me to fix anything yet, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124080</id>
	<title>Re:New Egg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258377300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I prefer a 4:3 ratio on my screens and those have become very hard to find.</p></div><p>I know your pain. I prefer 16:10 now, but I do miss being able to have the vertical height now that 16:9 monitors are becoming more common. The PPI on some monitors are also an issue, most supporting specific resolutions have a minimum size. My solution, sadly, was to buy the smallest (reasonably priced) 16:9 monitor I could find that did 1080p (21.5" Dell) and then clone a 1680x1050 resolution desktop on top of the native display without stretching. Resulting area is about 18.5", right about where I wanted it (between 17 and 19"... most in this size were sacrificing too much vertical resolution for me to use it otherwise.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I prefer a 4 : 3 ratio on my screens and those have become very hard to find.I know your pain .
I prefer 16 : 10 now , but I do miss being able to have the vertical height now that 16 : 9 monitors are becoming more common .
The PPI on some monitors are also an issue , most supporting specific resolutions have a minimum size .
My solution , sadly , was to buy the smallest ( reasonably priced ) 16 : 9 monitor I could find that did 1080p ( 21.5 " Dell ) and then clone a 1680x1050 resolution desktop on top of the native display without stretching .
Resulting area is about 18.5 " , right about where I wanted it ( between 17 and 19 " ... most in this size were sacrificing too much vertical resolution for me to use it otherwise .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I prefer a 4:3 ratio on my screens and those have become very hard to find.I know your pain.
I prefer 16:10 now, but I do miss being able to have the vertical height now that 16:9 monitors are becoming more common.
The PPI on some monitors are also an issue, most supporting specific resolutions have a minimum size.
My solution, sadly, was to buy the smallest (reasonably priced) 16:9 monitor I could find that did 1080p (21.5" Dell) and then clone a 1680x1050 resolution desktop on top of the native display without stretching.
Resulting area is about 18.5", right about where I wanted it (between 17 and 19"... most in this size were sacrificing too much vertical resolution for me to use it otherwise.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122006</id>
	<title>Native High DPI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Upgrade to Windows 7 and use the improved High DPI settings. It works wonders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Upgrade to Windows 7 and use the improved High DPI settings .
It works wonders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upgrade to Windows 7 and use the improved High DPI settings.
It works wonders.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122168</id>
	<title>It is called a cheap TV.</title>
	<author>Barryke</author>
	<datestamp>1258368300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you describe basicly is called a cheap TV.<br>These already have a DVI or HDMI or VGA or SVIDEO or COMPOSITE or ETHERNET input for use with a computer.</p><p>Shouldn't this do it? The cheap models often have a "low" resolution and carry some HD Ready sticker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you describe basicly is called a cheap TV.These already have a DVI or HDMI or VGA or SVIDEO or COMPOSITE or ETHERNET input for use with a computer.Should n't this do it ?
The cheap models often have a " low " resolution and carry some HD Ready sticker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you describe basicly is called a cheap TV.These already have a DVI or HDMI or VGA or SVIDEO or COMPOSITE or ETHERNET input for use with a computer.Shouldn't this do it?
The cheap models often have a "low" resolution and carry some HD Ready sticker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122384</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>diamondsw</author>
	<datestamp>1258369080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one has sold an 800x480 netbook in 18 months. All of them are 1024x600 or 1366x768.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one has sold an 800x480 netbook in 18 months .
All of them are 1024x600 or 1366x768 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one has sold an 800x480 netbook in 18 months.
All of them are 1024x600 or 1366x768.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122098</id>
	<title>More like on hold, but still present</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1258368120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Apple had at one point a plan to give OS X resolution-independent rendering, so that UI objects are always displayed at the specified physical size independently of resolution.</i></p><p>I think they still have that plan, but the engineering was delayed in shoring up the iPhone platoform...</p><p>However, you can use this today in most apps for OS X.   You install the development tools, and then run<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Developer/Applications/Graphics Tools/Quartz Debug.app - there's a menu option under Window for "UI Resolution" where you can set a scale.  Most OS X apps after a restart obey the set scale, since they are all using the Cocoa text rendering... it also works with images.</p><p>That may well be a good option for people who are having eyesight issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple had at one point a plan to give OS X resolution-independent rendering , so that UI objects are always displayed at the specified physical size independently of resolution.I think they still have that plan , but the engineering was delayed in shoring up the iPhone platoform...However , you can use this today in most apps for OS X. You install the development tools , and then run /Developer/Applications/Graphics Tools/Quartz Debug.app - there 's a menu option under Window for " UI Resolution " where you can set a scale .
Most OS X apps after a restart obey the set scale , since they are all using the Cocoa text rendering... it also works with images.That may well be a good option for people who are having eyesight issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple had at one point a plan to give OS X resolution-independent rendering, so that UI objects are always displayed at the specified physical size independently of resolution.I think they still have that plan, but the engineering was delayed in shoring up the iPhone platoform...However, you can use this today in most apps for OS X.   You install the development tools, and then run /Developer/Applications/Graphics Tools/Quartz Debug.app - there's a menu option under Window for "UI Resolution" where you can set a scale.
Most OS X apps after a restart obey the set scale, since they are all using the Cocoa text rendering... it also works with images.That may well be a good option for people who are having eyesight issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122154</id>
	<title>Mass produced = cheaper</title>
	<author>dazedNconfuzed</author>
	<datestamp>1258368240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because an HDTV has more stuff on it doesn't mean it's more expensive than a same-res same-size monitor without those things. Thanks to economy of scale, it costs more to <i>not</i> have the extra tuner, RGB, etc. stuff built in.</p><p>Buy the cheapest unit that does what you want. You can ignore what it has that you don't need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because an HDTV has more stuff on it does n't mean it 's more expensive than a same-res same-size monitor without those things .
Thanks to economy of scale , it costs more to not have the extra tuner , RGB , etc .
stuff built in.Buy the cheapest unit that does what you want .
You can ignore what it has that you do n't need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because an HDTV has more stuff on it doesn't mean it's more expensive than a same-res same-size monitor without those things.
Thanks to economy of scale, it costs more to not have the extra tuner, RGB, etc.
stuff built in.Buy the cheapest unit that does what you want.
You can ignore what it has that you don't need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124590</id>
	<title>Re:Age besets me</title>
	<author>dpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1258380660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found that with mild (1.0 - 1.25 diopter) readers I'm quite happy with a 20" 1600x1200 display.  I suspect that at least part of it is fine-tuning to match the hardening of my lenses.  I also suspect that part of it is that my eyes have tuned themselves to this distance and circumstance.  For distance, my bad eye is 20/20, it's just that I can't focus close any more, and the readers fix that.  I still have young whipper-snappers stop by and complain about my micro-fonts.  I happen to like having a lot of information on the screen at once.  (mid-50's, by the way)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found that with mild ( 1.0 - 1.25 diopter ) readers I 'm quite happy with a 20 " 1600x1200 display .
I suspect that at least part of it is fine-tuning to match the hardening of my lenses .
I also suspect that part of it is that my eyes have tuned themselves to this distance and circumstance .
For distance , my bad eye is 20/20 , it 's just that I ca n't focus close any more , and the readers fix that .
I still have young whipper-snappers stop by and complain about my micro-fonts .
I happen to like having a lot of information on the screen at once .
( mid-50 's , by the way )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found that with mild (1.0 - 1.25 diopter) readers I'm quite happy with a 20" 1600x1200 display.
I suspect that at least part of it is fine-tuning to match the hardening of my lenses.
I also suspect that part of it is that my eyes have tuned themselves to this distance and circumstance.
For distance, my bad eye is 20/20, it's just that I can't focus close any more, and the readers fix that.
I still have young whipper-snappers stop by and complain about my micro-fonts.
I happen to like having a lot of information on the screen at once.
(mid-50's, by the way)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126882</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258449720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most netbooks are 1024x600. My mobile phone is 800x480.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most netbooks are 1024x600 .
My mobile phone is 800x480 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most netbooks are 1024x600.
My mobile phone is 800x480.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122230</id>
	<title>Easy solution</title>
	<author>kramulous</author>
	<datestamp>1258368540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Sit closer?</p><p>PS I love my 30" monitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm ... Sit closer ? PS I love my 30 " monitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm ... Sit closer?PS I love my 30" monitors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124090</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>bhtooefr</author>
	<datestamp>1258377360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1400x1050 at 10"? What laptop?</p><p>Anyway, there's the IBM T221, if you know someone in Japan that regularly makes bulk shipments to the US, you can get one for around $400. 3840x2400, 22.2". It's the Bugatti Veyron of computer monitors.</p><p>Another option is the IDTech IAQX10 family. You can find IAQX10Ns for under $130, and then put them in a 15" 4:3 ThinkPad R60, R60e, R61, R61i, T60, or T60p, using the SXGA+/UXGA inverter, and a reflashed EDID ROM. (You can also swap a 14.1" 4:3 T61 or T61p motherboard into the T60/p chassis to build a 15" 4:3 T61/p machine. Or, if you're on an extreme budget, it will also work in an R50p (IBM actually sold that as a supported configuration,) although it requires a different LCD cable, and at least the UXGA inverter and hinges, with the QXGA parts recommended.) That'll give you 2048x1536 at 15".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1400x1050 at 10 " ?
What laptop ? Anyway , there 's the IBM T221 , if you know someone in Japan that regularly makes bulk shipments to the US , you can get one for around $ 400 .
3840x2400 , 22.2 " .
It 's the Bugatti Veyron of computer monitors.Another option is the IDTech IAQX10 family .
You can find IAQX10Ns for under $ 130 , and then put them in a 15 " 4 : 3 ThinkPad R60 , R60e , R61 , R61i , T60 , or T60p , using the SXGA + /UXGA inverter , and a reflashed EDID ROM .
( You can also swap a 14.1 " 4 : 3 T61 or T61p motherboard into the T60/p chassis to build a 15 " 4 : 3 T61/p machine .
Or , if you 're on an extreme budget , it will also work in an R50p ( IBM actually sold that as a supported configuration , ) although it requires a different LCD cable , and at least the UXGA inverter and hinges , with the QXGA parts recommended .
) That 'll give you 2048x1536 at 15 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1400x1050 at 10"?
What laptop?Anyway, there's the IBM T221, if you know someone in Japan that regularly makes bulk shipments to the US, you can get one for around $400.
3840x2400, 22.2".
It's the Bugatti Veyron of computer monitors.Another option is the IDTech IAQX10 family.
You can find IAQX10Ns for under $130, and then put them in a 15" 4:3 ThinkPad R60, R60e, R61, R61i, T60, or T60p, using the SXGA+/UXGA inverter, and a reflashed EDID ROM.
(You can also swap a 14.1" 4:3 T61 or T61p motherboard into the T60/p chassis to build a 15" 4:3 T61/p machine.
Or, if you're on an extreme budget, it will also work in an R50p (IBM actually sold that as a supported configuration,) although it requires a different LCD cable, and at least the UXGA inverter and hinges, with the QXGA parts recommended.
) That'll give you 2048x1536 at 15".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121818</id>
	<title>Age besets me</title>
	<author>xenoglossy</author>
	<datestamp>1258367340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finding myself in my mid 40's with a eye problem has affected work to a large extent.  20/20 all my life to end up with distorted vision in my right eye has led to a number of changes.  First, went back to the huge Mitsubishi 2070 CRT.  I find it clearer that the 19" LCD's.  Second, received glare reducing glasses from corporate HR (gunnars.com) which greatly help glare issues with my wonky eye.  Without the glasses I cannot work a full day.  Third,  installed a theme manager to try and darken the windows screen.  For the most part this works except for the inability to darken Outlook backgrounds and still be able to read email..  Fourth,  looking into a large LCD or similar which can display a high resolution (lots of real estate) with "large fonts"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finding myself in my mid 40 's with a eye problem has affected work to a large extent .
20/20 all my life to end up with distorted vision in my right eye has led to a number of changes .
First , went back to the huge Mitsubishi 2070 CRT .
I find it clearer that the 19 " LCD 's .
Second , received glare reducing glasses from corporate HR ( gunnars.com ) which greatly help glare issues with my wonky eye .
Without the glasses I can not work a full day .
Third , installed a theme manager to try and darken the windows screen .
For the most part this works except for the inability to darken Outlook backgrounds and still be able to read email.. Fourth , looking into a large LCD or similar which can display a high resolution ( lots of real estate ) with " large fonts " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finding myself in my mid 40's with a eye problem has affected work to a large extent.
20/20 all my life to end up with distorted vision in my right eye has led to a number of changes.
First, went back to the huge Mitsubishi 2070 CRT.
I find it clearer that the 19" LCD's.
Second, received glare reducing glasses from corporate HR (gunnars.com) which greatly help glare issues with my wonky eye.
Without the glasses I cannot work a full day.
Third,  installed a theme manager to try and darken the windows screen.
For the most part this works except for the inability to darken Outlook backgrounds and still be able to read email..  Fourth,  looking into a large LCD or similar which can display a high resolution (lots of real estate) with "large fonts"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30152822</id>
	<title>Re:Is the problem really DPI?</title>
	<author>atamido</author>
	<datestamp>1257094680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incredibly, Microsoft had this working in Windows Vista.  Granted, very few people know about it so they suffer through.  I had a 24" LCD and a 17" laptop screen both running at 1900x1200 in Vista.  Icons and windows had the exact same dimensions in centimeters between the two.</p><p>The downside is it depended on the application being built with support for the rendering, which I believe all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET apps had by default.  Older Windows applications that were hard coded for 96 DPI rendered as normal, and were zoomed by the OS, resulting in a slightly blurry look.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incredibly , Microsoft had this working in Windows Vista .
Granted , very few people know about it so they suffer through .
I had a 24 " LCD and a 17 " laptop screen both running at 1900x1200 in Vista .
Icons and windows had the exact same dimensions in centimeters between the two.The downside is it depended on the application being built with support for the rendering , which I believe all .NET apps had by default .
Older Windows applications that were hard coded for 96 DPI rendered as normal , and were zoomed by the OS , resulting in a slightly blurry look .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incredibly, Microsoft had this working in Windows Vista.
Granted, very few people know about it so they suffer through.
I had a 24" LCD and a 17" laptop screen both running at 1900x1200 in Vista.
Icons and windows had the exact same dimensions in centimeters between the two.The downside is it depended on the application being built with support for the rendering, which I believe all .NET apps had by default.
Older Windows applications that were hard coded for 96 DPI rendered as normal, and were zoomed by the OS, resulting in a slightly blurry look.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30137864</id>
	<title>Re:Free Solution</title>
	<author>lydic</author>
	<datestamp>1258465140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been visually impaired (not blind) for nearly 6 years.  Add a second monitor (still cheaper than the large 28" plus monitors), enable extended desktop, drag the magnifier onto the second monitor, an re-size to fit.  Leave the main monitor at a reasonable high resolution.  This allows relative positioning on the main screen, with the details on the magnified screen.<br>There are also some free and inexpensive text to speech programs available that can help.  I have several friends with great vision who use the TTS programs to quickly read larger documents.  No eye strain at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been visually impaired ( not blind ) for nearly 6 years .
Add a second monitor ( still cheaper than the large 28 " plus monitors ) , enable extended desktop , drag the magnifier onto the second monitor , an re-size to fit .
Leave the main monitor at a reasonable high resolution .
This allows relative positioning on the main screen , with the details on the magnified screen.There are also some free and inexpensive text to speech programs available that can help .
I have several friends with great vision who use the TTS programs to quickly read larger documents .
No eye strain at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been visually impaired (not blind) for nearly 6 years.
Add a second monitor (still cheaper than the large 28" plus monitors), enable extended desktop, drag the magnifier onto the second monitor, an re-size to fit.
Leave the main monitor at a reasonable high resolution.
This allows relative positioning on the main screen, with the details on the magnified screen.There are also some free and inexpensive text to speech programs available that can help.
I have several friends with great vision who use the TTS programs to quickly read larger documents.
No eye strain at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124796</id>
	<title>Re:Q&amp;A</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1258382760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And then you send him the link to the <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/" title="theregister.co.uk">BOFH</a> [theregister.co.uk] archives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And then you send him the link to the BOFH [ theregister.co.uk ] archives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then you send him the link to the BOFH [theregister.co.uk] archives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122254</id>
	<title>I have your fix for you</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1258368600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logan's Run will promptly remedy that issue!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logan 's Run will promptly remedy that issue !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logan's Run will promptly remedy that issue!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30228722</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>netbooks are 1024x600</p><p>some smartphones are 800x480</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>netbooks are 1024x600some smartphones are 800x480</tokentext>
<sentencetext>netbooks are 1024x600some smartphones are 800x480</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121962</id>
	<title>Re:Software?</title>
	<author>iMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1258367700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on Windows 7 (and vista) Win key and  '+'  together does exactly that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on Windows 7 ( and vista ) Win key and ' + ' together does exactly that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on Windows 7 (and vista) Win key and  '+'  together does exactly that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124360</id>
	<title>Re:Is the problem really DPI?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258378980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uum, with Linux you can configure the resolution freely, since the Icons mostly are SVG nowadays. And in Firefox there is a zoom anyway. So you pretty much get a resolution-independent desktop.<br>(Well, at least you can scale everything.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uum , with Linux you can configure the resolution freely , since the Icons mostly are SVG nowadays .
And in Firefox there is a zoom anyway .
So you pretty much get a resolution-independent desktop .
( Well , at least you can scale everything .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uum, with Linux you can configure the resolution freely, since the Icons mostly are SVG nowadays.
And in Firefox there is a zoom anyway.
So you pretty much get a resolution-independent desktop.
(Well, at least you can scale everything.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121792</id>
	<title>hate to say it</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1258367340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>But to solve this exact problem we bought an large screen iMac.  Use large system fonts, larger fonts in mail and safari.  The mouse can make things bigger and smaller, or simply magnify.
<p>
I have also solved this problem by using an LCD projector.  One day when I left my glasses at home, I spent the day reading off the wall instead of my laptop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But to solve this exact problem we bought an large screen iMac .
Use large system fonts , larger fonts in mail and safari .
The mouse can make things bigger and smaller , or simply magnify .
I have also solved this problem by using an LCD projector .
One day when I left my glasses at home , I spent the day reading off the wall instead of my laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But to solve this exact problem we bought an large screen iMac.
Use large system fonts, larger fonts in mail and safari.
The mouse can make things bigger and smaller, or simply magnify.
I have also solved this problem by using an LCD projector.
One day when I left my glasses at home, I spent the day reading off the wall instead of my laptop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122828</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>Mad Merlin</author>
	<datestamp>1258371000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Some of you will say that 840x525 is too small (resolution size, not physical display size)...</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, yes. But I'd say the same of 1680x1050...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of you will say that 840x525 is too small ( resolution size , not physical display size ) ...Well , yes .
But I 'd say the same of 1680x1050.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of you will say that 840x525 is too small (resolution size, not physical display size)...Well, yes.
But I'd say the same of 1680x1050...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121986</id>
	<title>So I suppose that....</title>
	<author>SwedishChef</author>
	<datestamp>1258367760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I suppose that a pair of $9.95 reading glasses from Wal-Mart is out of the question, huh? I use a 1.25x pair which is about perfect for looking at a computer screen (which is normally farther away than a book or magazine would be).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I suppose that a pair of $ 9.95 reading glasses from Wal-Mart is out of the question , huh ?
I use a 1.25x pair which is about perfect for looking at a computer screen ( which is normally farther away than a book or magazine would be ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I suppose that a pair of $9.95 reading glasses from Wal-Mart is out of the question, huh?
I use a 1.25x pair which is about perfect for looking at a computer screen (which is normally farther away than a book or magazine would be).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121894</id>
	<title>Re:Just use half resolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Beyond the fact that the Windows resolution dialog won't let you choose that whacky resolution, there's also the problem that 540 pixels is <b>not enough</b>.  Seriously, a <i>lot</i> of dialog boxes are not going to fit on that screen, probably even including the Windows display dialog box.

You're going to need a 1920x1200 display just to get a somewhat more usable 960x600 after you quarter (not half) the resolution.  A 2560x1600 would be better though, as you'd at least get 800 vertical pixels out of it, which is enough for small laptops and other inexpensive displays.  The problem is that such a display is likely to fall short in the "affordable" category.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Beyond the fact that the Windows resolution dialog wo n't let you choose that whacky resolution , there 's also the problem that 540 pixels is not enough .
Seriously , a lot of dialog boxes are not going to fit on that screen , probably even including the Windows display dialog box .
You 're going to need a 1920x1200 display just to get a somewhat more usable 960x600 after you quarter ( not half ) the resolution .
A 2560x1600 would be better though , as you 'd at least get 800 vertical pixels out of it , which is enough for small laptops and other inexpensive displays .
The problem is that such a display is likely to fall short in the " affordable " category .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beyond the fact that the Windows resolution dialog won't let you choose that whacky resolution, there's also the problem that 540 pixels is not enough.
Seriously, a lot of dialog boxes are not going to fit on that screen, probably even including the Windows display dialog box.
You're going to need a 1920x1200 display just to get a somewhat more usable 960x600 after you quarter (not half) the resolution.
A 2560x1600 would be better though, as you'd at least get 800 vertical pixels out of it, which is enough for small laptops and other inexpensive displays.
The problem is that such a display is likely to fall short in the "affordable" category.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122182</id>
	<title>Get a real computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258368300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I notice more and more of them are lowering the resolution of their displays in order to 'make it bigger.'</p></div> </blockquote><p>So don't do that.  Use high res and draw things bigger instead.  High-res is actually <em>easier</em> for people to see, not harder.  And everything's vectors these days anyway, so you <em>can</em> draw things bigger.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I notice more and more of them are lowering the resolution of their displays in order to 'make it bigger .
' So do n't do that .
Use high res and draw things bigger instead .
High-res is actually easier for people to see , not harder .
And everything 's vectors these days anyway , so you can draw things bigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I notice more and more of them are lowering the resolution of their displays in order to 'make it bigger.
' So don't do that.
Use high res and draw things bigger instead.
High-res is actually easier for people to see, not harder.
And everything's vectors these days anyway, so you can draw things bigger.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124156</id>
	<title>Re:Get a 2560x1600 monitor and run at 1280x800</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258377660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except you generally don't, some kind of scaling gets applied so you don't infact get perfect sharp double size pixels in my experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except you generally do n't , some kind of scaling gets applied so you do n't infact get perfect sharp double size pixels in my experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except you generally don't, some kind of scaling gets applied so you don't infact get perfect sharp double size pixels in my experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126130</id>
	<title>Lean Muscle X</title>
	<author>heybabes</author>
	<datestamp>1258396500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will either be display modes or graphics options. I haven't done it for awhile however I did use it on Windows XP. It automatically recognizes the screen and adjusts itself, but you have to right click on your main display and tell the computer what you want to do.

<a href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2215952" title="goarticles.com" rel="nofollow">Lean Muscle X</a> [goarticles.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will either be display modes or graphics options .
I have n't done it for awhile however I did use it on Windows XP .
It automatically recognizes the screen and adjusts itself , but you have to right click on your main display and tell the computer what you want to do .
Lean Muscle X [ goarticles.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will either be display modes or graphics options.
I haven't done it for awhile however I did use it on Windows XP.
It automatically recognizes the screen and adjusts itself, but you have to right click on your main display and tell the computer what you want to do.
Lean Muscle X [goarticles.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123674</id>
	<title>Re:Is the problem really DPI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258374900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Websites don't have the <strong>ability</strong> to "insist" on anything like that.  Your browser is your browser and is going to use whatever size it wants to, and there's not a damn thing any website operator can do about that.  Find a browser that serves you instead of them, and I think you'll be pretty happy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point .
Websites do n't have the ability to " insist " on anything like that .
Your browser is your browser and is going to use whatever size it wants to , and there 's not a damn thing any website operator can do about that .
Find a browser that serves you instead of them , and I think you 'll be pretty happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point.
Websites don't have the ability to "insist" on anything like that.
Your browser is your browser and is going to use whatever size it wants to, and there's not a damn thing any website operator can do about that.
Find a browser that serves you instead of them, and I think you'll be pretty happy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125376</id>
	<title>Christmas gift.shoes,handbags,ugg boot,Tshirts,</title>
	<author>coolforsale107</author>
	<datestamp>1258388100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]  Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God. Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Best quality , Best reputation , Best services Our commitment , customer is God .
Quality is our Dignity ; Service is our Lift .
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you !
Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]  Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God.
Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.
Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
Thank you!
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30127384</id>
	<title>19", 1680x1050</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258458180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might want to look at the Acer X193W+ - 19", 1680x1050. I have one, and it is pretty awesome - especially when looking at photographs or playing games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to look at the Acer X193W + - 19 " , 1680x1050 .
I have one , and it is pretty awesome - especially when looking at photographs or playing games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to look at the Acer X193W+ - 19", 1680x1050.
I have one, and it is pretty awesome - especially when looking at photographs or playing games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122582</id>
	<title>Re:hate to say it</title>
	<author>drunkenkatori</author>
	<datestamp>1258369740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no reason to hate to say it.  Apple did accessibility very very well.  We bought a 27" iMac for my Grandma with glaucoma and switched it to 800x600.  The mac scales it all quite well to fill the giant screen.</p><p>Then when it's time for maintenance, I switch it to full resolution for me and then back to low resolution for her.</p><p>Kinda how video games work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no reason to hate to say it .
Apple did accessibility very very well .
We bought a 27 " iMac for my Grandma with glaucoma and switched it to 800x600 .
The mac scales it all quite well to fill the giant screen.Then when it 's time for maintenance , I switch it to full resolution for me and then back to low resolution for her.Kinda how video games work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no reason to hate to say it.
Apple did accessibility very very well.
We bought a 27" iMac for my Grandma with glaucoma and switched it to 800x600.
The mac scales it all quite well to fill the giant screen.Then when it's time for maintenance, I switch it to full resolution for me and then back to low resolution for her.Kinda how video games work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121732</id>
	<title>30 seconds on Google</title>
	<author>fsterman</author>
	<datestamp>1258367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.google.com/products?q=27\%22+lcd+DVI&amp;hl=en&amp;price1=100.00&amp;price2=350.00&amp;lnk=prsugg" title="google.com">Yes</a> [google.com].  To bad there isn't a Google Shopping version of <a href="http://lmgtfy.com/" title="lmgtfy.com">lmgtfy.com</a> [lmgtfy.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes [ google.com ] .
To bad there is n't a Google Shopping version of lmgtfy.com [ lmgtfy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes [google.com].
To bad there isn't a Google Shopping version of lmgtfy.com [lmgtfy.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122536</id>
	<title>Seen your eye doctor lately?</title>
	<author>dmorelli</author>
	<datestamp>1258369560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may need glasses, my friend. This is what happened to me. Changing the res on monitors, trying to buy lower res LCDs. Finally went to the old eye doctor. And yep, you guessed it, time to start wearing glasses. All this bullshit magically stopped being a problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may need glasses , my friend .
This is what happened to me .
Changing the res on monitors , trying to buy lower res LCDs .
Finally went to the old eye doctor .
And yep , you guessed it , time to start wearing glasses .
All this bullshit magically stopped being a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may need glasses, my friend.
This is what happened to me.
Changing the res on monitors, trying to buy lower res LCDs.
Finally went to the old eye doctor.
And yep, you guessed it, time to start wearing glasses.
All this bullshit magically stopped being a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125864</id>
	<title>Re:It comes down to manufacturing issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258393620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, my laptop from 2002 has a 15" 1600x1200 screen.  Damn I wish my 20" screens had that pixel density.  I have never understood why we don't get screens with <i>more</i> pixel density.  You can always scale the screen, fonts, whatever, but you can never create a smooth image from giant rectangular 1" pixels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , my laptop from 2002 has a 15 " 1600x1200 screen .
Damn I wish my 20 " screens had that pixel density .
I have never understood why we do n't get screens with more pixel density .
You can always scale the screen , fonts , whatever , but you can never create a smooth image from giant rectangular 1 " pixels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, my laptop from 2002 has a 15" 1600x1200 screen.
Damn I wish my 20" screens had that pixel density.
I have never understood why we don't get screens with more pixel density.
You can always scale the screen, fonts, whatever, but you can never create a smooth image from giant rectangular 1" pixels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122020</id>
	<title>DPI  -  Won't a change to DPI provide the fix?</title>
	<author>renger</author>
	<datestamp>1258367880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they're running Windows, there's a "DPI" setting under DisplayProperties-&gt;Advanced-&gt;General.

This ostensibly scales the entire desktop.

Personally, I'd rather have a huge display, but your politics may preclude supplying them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're running Windows , there 's a " DPI " setting under DisplayProperties- &gt; Advanced- &gt; General .
This ostensibly scales the entire desktop .
Personally , I 'd rather have a huge display , but your politics may preclude supplying them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're running Windows, there's a "DPI" setting under DisplayProperties-&gt;Advanced-&gt;General.
This ostensibly scales the entire desktop.
Personally, I'd rather have a huge display, but your politics may preclude supplying them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121756</id>
	<title>Fresnel Lens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just put a Fresnel lens in front of the display. It worked for WALL-E.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just put a Fresnel lens in front of the display .
It worked for WALL-E .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just put a Fresnel lens in front of the display.
It worked for WALL-E.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126944</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258450680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If my parents could not read my screen sitting in my chair, I'd be asking for the keys to their car, permanantly, as they're no longer safe to have behind the wheel.</p></div><p>You ARE aware that inability to focus at half a meter doesn't necessarily mean you can't see sharply at, say, 2 meters or more?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If my parents could not read my screen sitting in my chair , I 'd be asking for the keys to their car , permanantly , as they 're no longer safe to have behind the wheel.You ARE aware that inability to focus at half a meter does n't necessarily mean you ca n't see sharply at , say , 2 meters or more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If my parents could not read my screen sitting in my chair, I'd be asking for the keys to their car, permanantly, as they're no longer safe to have behind the wheel.You ARE aware that inability to focus at half a meter doesn't necessarily mean you can't see sharply at, say, 2 meters or more?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30129914</id>
	<title>PEBCAK?</title>
	<author>Gaian-Orlanthii</author>
	<datestamp>1258477680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I'm 42 and for my games PC, graphics PC and general house PC I have a huge 21 inch CRT monitor, a 19 inch and a 17 inch respectively. I use them because they give a sharper more 'colour true' image and they use less power than a plasma TV. If your users won't 'go back' to a CRT because they're worried about their (status) image yet insist on struggling with fuzzy displays, why don't you stop wasting time with the display and focus on the user's stupidity/noobiness ?
 </p><p>Seriously, age isn't the issue for old PC users. It's inflexibility, conservatism, ego and basic overall stupidity. (It's also the issue for most other PC users as well, mind.) </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm 42 and for my games PC , graphics PC and general house PC I have a huge 21 inch CRT monitor , a 19 inch and a 17 inch respectively .
I use them because they give a sharper more 'colour true ' image and they use less power than a plasma TV .
If your users wo n't 'go back ' to a CRT because they 're worried about their ( status ) image yet insist on struggling with fuzzy displays , why do n't you stop wasting time with the display and focus on the user 's stupidity/noobiness ?
Seriously , age is n't the issue for old PC users .
It 's inflexibility , conservatism , ego and basic overall stupidity .
( It 's also the issue for most other PC users as well , mind .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I'm 42 and for my games PC, graphics PC and general house PC I have a huge 21 inch CRT monitor, a 19 inch and a 17 inch respectively.
I use them because they give a sharper more 'colour true' image and they use less power than a plasma TV.
If your users won't 'go back' to a CRT because they're worried about their (status) image yet insist on struggling with fuzzy displays, why don't you stop wasting time with the display and focus on the user's stupidity/noobiness ?
Seriously, age isn't the issue for old PC users.
It's inflexibility, conservatism, ego and basic overall stupidity.
(It's also the issue for most other PC users as well, mind.
) </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125874</id>
	<title>Samsung 2494HM</title>
	<author>LoneHighway</author>
	<datestamp>1258393680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A beautiful, matte screen 24" monitor with 1920x1080p, no TV.  Usually can be found for about $250.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A beautiful , matte screen 24 " monitor with 1920x1080p , no TV .
Usually can be found for about $ 250 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A beautiful, matte screen 24" monitor with 1920x1080p, no TV.
Usually can be found for about $250.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121766</id>
	<title>The good news is, "sharpness" isn't critical...</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1258367220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...because if your eyes can't focus on the screen, everything's going to be blurry regardless.  As long as the blurred area of an individual pixel on the rescaled display projects into an area smaller than the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle\_of\_confusion" title="wikipedia.org">circle of confusion</a> [wikipedia.org] on your retina, it won't affect your perception of the screen's overall sharpness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...because if your eyes ca n't focus on the screen , everything 's going to be blurry regardless .
As long as the blurred area of an individual pixel on the rescaled display projects into an area smaller than the circle of confusion [ wikipedia.org ] on your retina , it wo n't affect your perception of the screen 's overall sharpness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because if your eyes can't focus on the screen, everything's going to be blurry regardless.
As long as the blurred area of an individual pixel on the rescaled display projects into an area smaller than the circle of confusion [wikipedia.org] on your retina, it won't affect your perception of the screen's overall sharpness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122856</id>
	<title>So what if it has inputs that will never be used?</title>
	<author>Rudeboy777</author>
	<datestamp>1258371060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it not allowed to be a TV? 720p TVs are cheaper than large high-resolution monitors. From this week's Best Buy flyer:</p><p><a href="http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku\_id=0926INGFS10117350&amp;catid=23244&amp;logon=&amp;langid=EN" title="bestbuy.ca">http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku\_id=0926INGFS10117350&amp;catid=23244&amp;logon=&amp;langid=EN</a> [bestbuy.ca]</p><p>Is $300 higher than you have in mind? Isn't this exactly what you are asking for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it not allowed to be a TV ?
720p TVs are cheaper than large high-resolution monitors .
From this week 's Best Buy flyer : http : //www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp ? sku \ _id = 0926INGFS10117350&amp;catid = 23244&amp;logon = &amp;langid = EN [ bestbuy.ca ] Is $ 300 higher than you have in mind ?
Is n't this exactly what you are asking for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it not allowed to be a TV?
720p TVs are cheaper than large high-resolution monitors.
From this week's Best Buy flyer:http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku\_id=0926INGFS10117350&amp;catid=23244&amp;logon=&amp;langid=EN [bestbuy.ca]Is $300 higher than you have in mind?
Isn't this exactly what you are asking for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124740</id>
	<title>Re:I never did understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258382100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another point: why would you ever buy a 1680x1050 monitor? they cost practically the same as a 1920x1200 monitor but can't display HD at native resolution (1290x1080). Even if you currently don't think you'll ever need to watch HD, wouldn't it be sensible to cough up the extra 99 cents and buy a 1920x1200 just in case?</p></div><p>You'd buy a 1680x1050 because </p><p>a)  You didn't want to pay the extra, and/or someone had an awesome deal<br>b)  You don't care about watching HD content, because you just want the pixels for screen real estate<br>c)  They didn't manufacture 22" 1680x1050 panels when you bought yours, so you would have had to go up to a (then priced) double 24" monitor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another point : why would you ever buy a 1680x1050 monitor ?
they cost practically the same as a 1920x1200 monitor but ca n't display HD at native resolution ( 1290x1080 ) .
Even if you currently do n't think you 'll ever need to watch HD , would n't it be sensible to cough up the extra 99 cents and buy a 1920x1200 just in case ? You 'd buy a 1680x1050 because a ) You did n't want to pay the extra , and/or someone had an awesome dealb ) You do n't care about watching HD content , because you just want the pixels for screen real estatec ) They did n't manufacture 22 " 1680x1050 panels when you bought yours , so you would have had to go up to a ( then priced ) double 24 " monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another point: why would you ever buy a 1680x1050 monitor?
they cost practically the same as a 1920x1200 monitor but can't display HD at native resolution (1290x1080).
Even if you currently don't think you'll ever need to watch HD, wouldn't it be sensible to cough up the extra 99 cents and buy a 1920x1200 just in case?You'd buy a 1680x1050 because a)  You didn't want to pay the extra, and/or someone had an awesome dealb)  You don't care about watching HD content, because you just want the pixels for screen real estatec)  They didn't manufacture 22" 1680x1050 panels when you bought yours, so you would have had to go up to a (then priced) double 24" monitor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122924</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>Ixitar</author>
	<datestamp>1258371360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://microcenter.com/single\_product\_results.phtml?product\_id=0303355" title="microcenter.com">Samsung 2343BWX</a> [microcenter.com] for $199.99 at MicroCenter.  It is an excellent display.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Samsung 2343BWX [ microcenter.com ] for $ 199.99 at MicroCenter .
It is an excellent display .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Samsung 2343BWX [microcenter.com] for $199.99 at MicroCenter.
It is an excellent display.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121990</id>
	<title>cut off the tv ports</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or at least glue them up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or at least glue them up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or at least glue them up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123646</id>
	<title>Re:Is the problem really DPI?</title>
	<author>b1t r0t</author>
	<datestamp>1258374780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small.</p></div><p>It's not just software, it's also web pages. From the CSS used by slashdot: (<a href="http://a.fsdn.com/sd/core-tidied.css?T\_2\_5\_0\_279" title="fsdn.com" rel="nofollow">//a.fsdn.com/sd/core-tidied.css?T\_2\_5\_0\_279</a> [fsdn.com])
</p><p> <tt> <b>body</b>{min-width:680px;padding-bottom:15px;<b>color:#111;font:82\%</b>/150\% sans-serif;</tt>
</p><p>(I hope I got that right.)
</p><p>The problem is an epidemic with most CSS specifying a smaller than 100\% size for body text, rather than specifying a greater than 100\% size for headline text. Also, rendering it in less than 100\% black reduces readability for no good reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small.It 's not just software , it 's also web pages .
From the CSS used by slashdot : ( //a.fsdn.com/sd/core-tidied.css ? T \ _2 \ _5 \ _0 \ _279 [ fsdn.com ] ) body { min-width : 680px ; padding-bottom : 15px ; color : # 111 ; font : 82 \ % /150 \ % sans-serif ; ( I hope I got that right .
) The problem is an epidemic with most CSS specifying a smaller than 100 \ % size for body text , rather than specifying a greater than 100 \ % size for headline text .
Also , rendering it in less than 100 \ % black reduces readability for no good reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small.It's not just software, it's also web pages.
From the CSS used by slashdot: (//a.fsdn.com/sd/core-tidied.css?T\_2\_5\_0\_279 [fsdn.com])
  body{min-width:680px;padding-bottom:15px;color:#111;font:82\%/150\% sans-serif;
(I hope I got that right.
)
The problem is an epidemic with most CSS specifying a smaller than 100\% size for body text, rather than specifying a greater than 100\% size for headline text.
Also, rendering it in less than 100\% black reduces readability for no good reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124320</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258378680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, no. Maybe a used/refurbished IBM T221 (22.2" 3840&#215;2400), but they were discontinued a long time ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , no .
Maybe a used/refurbished IBM T221 ( 22.2 " 3840   2400 ) , but they were discontinued a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, no.
Maybe a used/refurbished IBM T221 (22.2" 3840×2400), but they were discontinued a long time ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125180</id>
	<title>Re:The good news is, "sharpness" isn't critical...</title>
	<author>scrib</author>
	<datestamp>1258386360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While seemingly logical, that's just not true. I had to help a friend's father get set up on a monitor and we had exactly the problem described by the original article. You see, the eye will try like crazy to focus to the best of its ability. The blurriness of a non-native resolution can leave weak eyes struggling constantly for better focus. Good eyes see the pixels and relax, bad eyes strain to get the focus they're used to. It can cause headaches or distraction. I'll second the "blind\_biker" comment, counter-intuitive as it is to someone with great vision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While seemingly logical , that 's just not true .
I had to help a friend 's father get set up on a monitor and we had exactly the problem described by the original article .
You see , the eye will try like crazy to focus to the best of its ability .
The blurriness of a non-native resolution can leave weak eyes struggling constantly for better focus .
Good eyes see the pixels and relax , bad eyes strain to get the focus they 're used to .
It can cause headaches or distraction .
I 'll second the " blind \ _biker " comment , counter-intuitive as it is to someone with great vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While seemingly logical, that's just not true.
I had to help a friend's father get set up on a monitor and we had exactly the problem described by the original article.
You see, the eye will try like crazy to focus to the best of its ability.
The blurriness of a non-native resolution can leave weak eyes struggling constantly for better focus.
Good eyes see the pixels and relax, bad eyes strain to get the focus they're used to.
It can cause headaches or distraction.
I'll second the "blind\_biker" comment, counter-intuitive as it is to someone with great vision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121774</id>
	<title>Re:Software?</title>
	<author>elrick\_the\_brave</author>
	<datestamp>1258367280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mac OS X Leopard or Snow Leopard...</p><p>Hold down the Apple key and scroll your mouse wheel.. voila.. instant zoom in/zoom out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac OS X Leopard or Snow Leopard...Hold down the Apple key and scroll your mouse wheel.. voila.. instant zoom in/zoom out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac OS X Leopard or Snow Leopard...Hold down the Apple key and scroll your mouse wheel.. voila.. instant zoom in/zoom out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123554</id>
	<title>Re:Age besets me</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1258374300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you try inverting the display colors? It's ugly but definitely dark.<br>
<br>
(BTW, someone should come up with an accessibility mode that just inverts the luminance while leaving satiration and hue alone.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you try inverting the display colors ?
It 's ugly but definitely dark .
( BTW , someone should come up with an accessibility mode that just inverts the luminance while leaving satiration and hue alone .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you try inverting the display colors?
It's ugly but definitely dark.
(BTW, someone should come up with an accessibility mode that just inverts the luminance while leaving satiration and hue alone.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124114</id>
	<title>how about this</title>
	<author>buddyglass</author>
	<datestamp>1258377480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Running LCDs at non-native resolutions only looks bad because it requires interpolation.  However, if the non-native resolution you choose is exactly divisible into the previous resolution, then there should be no need for interpolation.  So one solution would be to buy a very high-res monitor then run it at 1/2 resolution.  This isn't exactly affordable, but newegg has a 30" monitor w/ native resolution of 2560x1600 for $1200.  So you could run that at 1280 x 800.  Every "pixel" in 1280 x 800 mode would be made up of four native pixels.  They also have some 1920 x 1200 ones for about $290.  Those you'd have to run at 960 x 600, which might be too restrictive for normal use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Running LCDs at non-native resolutions only looks bad because it requires interpolation .
However , if the non-native resolution you choose is exactly divisible into the previous resolution , then there should be no need for interpolation .
So one solution would be to buy a very high-res monitor then run it at 1/2 resolution .
This is n't exactly affordable , but newegg has a 30 " monitor w/ native resolution of 2560x1600 for $ 1200 .
So you could run that at 1280 x 800 .
Every " pixel " in 1280 x 800 mode would be made up of four native pixels .
They also have some 1920 x 1200 ones for about $ 290 .
Those you 'd have to run at 960 x 600 , which might be too restrictive for normal use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running LCDs at non-native resolutions only looks bad because it requires interpolation.
However, if the non-native resolution you choose is exactly divisible into the previous resolution, then there should be no need for interpolation.
So one solution would be to buy a very high-res monitor then run it at 1/2 resolution.
This isn't exactly affordable, but newegg has a 30" monitor w/ native resolution of 2560x1600 for $1200.
So you could run that at 1280 x 800.
Every "pixel" in 1280 x 800 mode would be made up of four native pixels.
They also have some 1920 x 1200 ones for about $290.
Those you'd have to run at 960 x 600, which might be too restrictive for normal use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124330</id>
	<title>Re:Get a 2560x1600 monitor and run at 1280x800</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1258378800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I asked someone about this once and heard it actually scales terribly, somehow it still blurs the picture and doesn't simply use 4 pixels for every 1 virtual pixel - why I don't know.<br>Furthermoee the 30" is so goddamned expensive, he may as well buy the user a 37" LCD TV anyhow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I asked someone about this once and heard it actually scales terribly , somehow it still blurs the picture and does n't simply use 4 pixels for every 1 virtual pixel - why I do n't know.Furthermoee the 30 " is so goddamned expensive , he may as well buy the user a 37 " LCD TV anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I asked someone about this once and heard it actually scales terribly, somehow it still blurs the picture and doesn't simply use 4 pixels for every 1 virtual pixel - why I don't know.Furthermoee the 30" is so goddamned expensive, he may as well buy the user a 37" LCD TV anyhow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121718</id>
	<title>Get a 2560x1600 monitor and run at 1280x800</title>
	<author>pin0chet</author>
	<datestamp>1258367100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Easy. Get a 30" Desktop LCD like the Dell 3007wfp and run it at exactly 1/2 its native vertical and horizontal resolutions (1280x800). You essentially get the same quality as if it were the native resolution (well, one to one mapping at least) and none of that crazy TV stuff.
The best part is that if somebody with, well, "normal" eyes wants to use the monitor in its full 2560x1600 glory, they can simply switch the resolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy .
Get a 30 " Desktop LCD like the Dell 3007wfp and run it at exactly 1/2 its native vertical and horizontal resolutions ( 1280x800 ) .
You essentially get the same quality as if it were the native resolution ( well , one to one mapping at least ) and none of that crazy TV stuff .
The best part is that if somebody with , well , " normal " eyes wants to use the monitor in its full 2560x1600 glory , they can simply switch the resolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy.
Get a 30" Desktop LCD like the Dell 3007wfp and run it at exactly 1/2 its native vertical and horizontal resolutions (1280x800).
You essentially get the same quality as if it were the native resolution (well, one to one mapping at least) and none of that crazy TV stuff.
The best part is that if somebody with, well, "normal" eyes wants to use the monitor in its full 2560x1600 glory, they can simply switch the resolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122382</id>
	<title>Resolved: Why Ask Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258369080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when you can go to Circuit City ?</p><p>Yours In Astrakhan,<br>K.T.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when you can go to Circuit City ? Yours In Astrakhan,K.T .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when you can go to Circuit City ?Yours In Astrakhan,K.T.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125822</id>
	<title>Re:More like on hold, but still present</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258393200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah but it completely screws up Flash in Safari (though not in Firefox, interestingly).  The resize adjustments gets done twice, so you end up with every YouTube video cropped off 50\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but it completely screws up Flash in Safari ( though not in Firefox , interestingly ) .
The resize adjustments gets done twice , so you end up with every YouTube video cropped off 50 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but it completely screws up Flash in Safari (though not in Firefox, interestingly).
The resize adjustments gets done twice, so you end up with every YouTube video cropped off 50\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123896</id>
	<title>Extra inputs aren't a significant waste</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1258376280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Plus, it's a waste to be paying for the extra inputs (component, s-video, composite), remote, tuner, etc. that will never be used</p></div></blockquote><p>Most of the cost of a large LCD TV is the display panel, not the multiple video inputs. Besides, it's probably more efficient to manufacture just large-screen TV LCDs with low pixel density than manufacture them <i>and</i> large-screen computer LCDs with low pixel density and lacking consumer video inputs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus , it 's a waste to be paying for the extra inputs ( component , s-video , composite ) , remote , tuner , etc .
that will never be usedMost of the cost of a large LCD TV is the display panel , not the multiple video inputs .
Besides , it 's probably more efficient to manufacture just large-screen TV LCDs with low pixel density than manufacture them and large-screen computer LCDs with low pixel density and lacking consumer video inputs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus, it's a waste to be paying for the extra inputs (component, s-video, composite), remote, tuner, etc.
that will never be usedMost of the cost of a large LCD TV is the display panel, not the multiple video inputs.
Besides, it's probably more efficient to manufacture just large-screen TV LCDs with low pixel density than manufacture them and large-screen computer LCDs with low pixel density and lacking consumer video inputs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122550</id>
	<title>Fix with software</title>
	<author>Tetrarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1258369680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While they are not perfect, an easy fix for this is to change the DPI settings in the operating system.  This makes everything larger without compromising sharpness.  For windows, XP does support this, though it can be kinda crappy and not uniformly supported between programs.  However Vista/7 changed the video driver model to natively support these higher DPI settings and should work much better.  I would imagine OSX has similar support - and probably even linux though i've personally never checked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While they are not perfect , an easy fix for this is to change the DPI settings in the operating system .
This makes everything larger without compromising sharpness .
For windows , XP does support this , though it can be kinda crappy and not uniformly supported between programs .
However Vista/7 changed the video driver model to natively support these higher DPI settings and should work much better .
I would imagine OSX has similar support - and probably even linux though i 've personally never checked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While they are not perfect, an easy fix for this is to change the DPI settings in the operating system.
This makes everything larger without compromising sharpness.
For windows, XP does support this, though it can be kinda crappy and not uniformly supported between programs.
However Vista/7 changed the video driver model to natively support these higher DPI settings and should work much better.
I would imagine OSX has similar support - and probably even linux though i've personally never checked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122002</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>MoonBuggy</author>
	<datestamp>1258367820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The impression I get is that DPI is not a selling point, other than in particular (very expensive) niches like medical imaging. That's fairly understandable, I will admit, as I doubt it ever comes into most regular users' purchasing decisions.</p><p>What I find odd, however, is that I've never seen them selling standalone high-res LCDs even at a moderate markup. It'd be one thing if they weren't manufacturing the panels, but it's not too hard to find a laptop with a 17" screen at 1920x1200 - a very quick search shows full laptops (with those panels) selling at &pound;700, so they're not exactly ultra-premium products. Replacement panels alone seem to show up in the $300-400 range (aplogies for mixing currencies, but it was easier to find a US supplier). Even so, nobody decides to wrap a plastic case around the screen and slot in a DVI port, rather sticking them on a laptop, and make a bit of cash from the people who do happen to consider high DPI desirable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The impression I get is that DPI is not a selling point , other than in particular ( very expensive ) niches like medical imaging .
That 's fairly understandable , I will admit , as I doubt it ever comes into most regular users ' purchasing decisions.What I find odd , however , is that I 've never seen them selling standalone high-res LCDs even at a moderate markup .
It 'd be one thing if they were n't manufacturing the panels , but it 's not too hard to find a laptop with a 17 " screen at 1920x1200 - a very quick search shows full laptops ( with those panels ) selling at   700 , so they 're not exactly ultra-premium products .
Replacement panels alone seem to show up in the $ 300-400 range ( aplogies for mixing currencies , but it was easier to find a US supplier ) .
Even so , nobody decides to wrap a plastic case around the screen and slot in a DVI port , rather sticking them on a laptop , and make a bit of cash from the people who do happen to consider high DPI desirable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The impression I get is that DPI is not a selling point, other than in particular (very expensive) niches like medical imaging.
That's fairly understandable, I will admit, as I doubt it ever comes into most regular users' purchasing decisions.What I find odd, however, is that I've never seen them selling standalone high-res LCDs even at a moderate markup.
It'd be one thing if they weren't manufacturing the panels, but it's not too hard to find a laptop with a 17" screen at 1920x1200 - a very quick search shows full laptops (with those panels) selling at £700, so they're not exactly ultra-premium products.
Replacement panels alone seem to show up in the $300-400 range (aplogies for mixing currencies, but it was easier to find a US supplier).
Even so, nobody decides to wrap a plastic case around the screen and slot in a DVI port, rather sticking them on a laptop, and make a bit of cash from the people who do happen to consider high DPI desirable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123824</id>
	<title>Re:It comes down to manufacturing issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258375740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several omissions from your "exhaustive" list.</p><p>There are 23" 1920x1200 displays (Apple's original Cinema Display used one of these)</p><p>There are 26" and 27" 1920x1200 displays. These can be useful for people who want a slightly larger display.</p><p>There are 30" 2560x1600 displays (around 0.25mm)</p><p>And Apple's new 27" iMac uses an unusual 2560x1440 panel (16:9 instead of 16:10).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several omissions from your " exhaustive " list.There are 23 " 1920x1200 displays ( Apple 's original Cinema Display used one of these ) There are 26 " and 27 " 1920x1200 displays .
These can be useful for people who want a slightly larger display.There are 30 " 2560x1600 displays ( around 0.25mm ) And Apple 's new 27 " iMac uses an unusual 2560x1440 panel ( 16 : 9 instead of 16 : 10 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several omissions from your "exhaustive" list.There are 23" 1920x1200 displays (Apple's original Cinema Display used one of these)There are 26" and 27" 1920x1200 displays.
These can be useful for people who want a slightly larger display.There are 30" 2560x1600 displays (around 0.25mm)And Apple's new 27" iMac uses an unusual 2560x1440 panel (16:9 instead of 16:10).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124378</id>
	<title>dark screen is bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258379100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO, darkening your display is the wrong thing to do if you have bad eyes. You should just try to find the proper brightness that allows you to work with a mostly-light-grey background.</p><p>A dark background forces your eye to open up the iris, reducing depth of field, which in turn makes exacerbates focusing problems. Changing focus from the edge of the screen to the center becomes a problem in a dark environment. Don't believe me, take a photo of your screen with a digicam in both settings and see how well that works out.</p><p>Also I suspect that working in a dark environment throws off that thing in your brain that tells you when you should be sleeping or awake (it uses a pickup from the optic nerve, I forgot what it's called).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO , darkening your display is the wrong thing to do if you have bad eyes .
You should just try to find the proper brightness that allows you to work with a mostly-light-grey background.A dark background forces your eye to open up the iris , reducing depth of field , which in turn makes exacerbates focusing problems .
Changing focus from the edge of the screen to the center becomes a problem in a dark environment .
Do n't believe me , take a photo of your screen with a digicam in both settings and see how well that works out.Also I suspect that working in a dark environment throws off that thing in your brain that tells you when you should be sleeping or awake ( it uses a pickup from the optic nerve , I forgot what it 's called ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO, darkening your display is the wrong thing to do if you have bad eyes.
You should just try to find the proper brightness that allows you to work with a mostly-light-grey background.A dark background forces your eye to open up the iris, reducing depth of field, which in turn makes exacerbates focusing problems.
Changing focus from the edge of the screen to the center becomes a problem in a dark environment.
Don't believe me, take a photo of your screen with a digicam in both settings and see how well that works out.Also I suspect that working in a dark environment throws off that thing in your brain that tells you when you should be sleeping or awake (it uses a pickup from the optic nerve, I forgot what it's called).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724</id>
	<title>Is the problem really DPI?</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1258367100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small.  Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point.

</p><p>Apple had at one point a plan to give OS X resolution-independent rendering, so that UI objects are always displayed at the specified physical size independently of resolution.  That seems to have fallen by the wayside, but this is part of the correct solution--the other part is to alow the user to just say they want everything to be displayed larger at a specified ratio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small .
Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point .
Apple had at one point a plan to give OS X resolution-independent rendering , so that UI objects are always displayed at the specified physical size independently of resolution .
That seems to have fallen by the wayside , but this is part of the correct solution--the other part is to alow the user to just say they want everything to be displayed larger at a specified ratio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small.
Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point.
Apple had at one point a plan to give OS X resolution-independent rendering, so that UI objects are always displayed at the specified physical size independently of resolution.
That seems to have fallen by the wayside, but this is part of the correct solution--the other part is to alow the user to just say they want everything to be displayed larger at a specified ratio.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123518</id>
	<title>This is what TV magnifiers are for</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1258374120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google "TV Magnifier" and you'll get several options.  They're big flat magnifying lenses you can place in front of your monitor.  They might be awkward on your desk, but if not, they're much less than a custom LCD monitor.  They suck for multiple viewers, but at a workstation should be fine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google " TV Magnifier " and you 'll get several options .
They 're big flat magnifying lenses you can place in front of your monitor .
They might be awkward on your desk , but if not , they 're much less than a custom LCD monitor .
They suck for multiple viewers , but at a workstation should be fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google "TV Magnifier" and you'll get several options.
They're big flat magnifying lenses you can place in front of your monitor.
They might be awkward on your desk, but if not, they're much less than a custom LCD monitor.
They suck for multiple viewers, but at a workstation should be fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125250</id>
	<title>Re:Get some glasses, grandpa</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1258386960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey dude, I'm 43 and have far better eyesight than you or about 90\% of everyone in your age bracket.   I have 20/10 vision which makes me a prime candidate for jet pilot. Over the past years my eyesight degraded to 20/15 vision and I found a doctor that was able to correct my vision back to my eagle:eye 20/10 with a set of glasses.</p><p>Even in my degraded state I'm in the top 25 percentile.</p><p>Yet I have seen many 20 something fresh college grads that cant handle real screen resolutions and run a frigging 21" monitor at 1024X768.  The youth today are blind as bats.</p><p>On the other hand, I find it entertaining that nobody has said, "move the monitor closer"  What is it with the monitor phobias and everyone wanting it 3 feet away?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey dude , I 'm 43 and have far better eyesight than you or about 90 \ % of everyone in your age bracket .
I have 20/10 vision which makes me a prime candidate for jet pilot .
Over the past years my eyesight degraded to 20/15 vision and I found a doctor that was able to correct my vision back to my eagle : eye 20/10 with a set of glasses.Even in my degraded state I 'm in the top 25 percentile.Yet I have seen many 20 something fresh college grads that cant handle real screen resolutions and run a frigging 21 " monitor at 1024X768 .
The youth today are blind as bats.On the other hand , I find it entertaining that nobody has said , " move the monitor closer " What is it with the monitor phobias and everyone wanting it 3 feet away ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey dude, I'm 43 and have far better eyesight than you or about 90\% of everyone in your age bracket.
I have 20/10 vision which makes me a prime candidate for jet pilot.
Over the past years my eyesight degraded to 20/15 vision and I found a doctor that was able to correct my vision back to my eagle:eye 20/10 with a set of glasses.Even in my degraded state I'm in the top 25 percentile.Yet I have seen many 20 something fresh college grads that cant handle real screen resolutions and run a frigging 21" monitor at 1024X768.
The youth today are blind as bats.On the other hand, I find it entertaining that nobody has said, "move the monitor closer"  What is it with the monitor phobias and everyone wanting it 3 feet away?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123310</id>
	<title>I'd go the opposite way...</title>
	<author>bedroll</author>
	<datestamp>1258373040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get a display with the highest pixel density you can find then run it at a resolution that is lower than native, but still at the proper aspect ratio.</p><p>What I've seen from this with my coworkers is that they often are horrible at selecting an alternative resolution. If your monitor's aspect ratio is 16:10 then it will likely look like crap if you choose a 16:9 resolution and worse if you select 4:3, yet I see people do that. 1366x768 is junk and you'll be hard pressed to find a good monitor that will show that aspect ratio well.</p><p>I've found that a monitor with a native resolution of 1680x1050 is passable when running at 1440x900. Someone who doesn't have great eyesight to begin with probably won't notice any problems with the image on that setup. Likewise, I'd imagine that a monitor made to run 1920x1080 could probably run this or 1680x1050. I wouldn't use those resolutions, but I also don't want to rip my eyes out if I sit down at a computer setup like that for a few minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get a display with the highest pixel density you can find then run it at a resolution that is lower than native , but still at the proper aspect ratio.What I 've seen from this with my coworkers is that they often are horrible at selecting an alternative resolution .
If your monitor 's aspect ratio is 16 : 10 then it will likely look like crap if you choose a 16 : 9 resolution and worse if you select 4 : 3 , yet I see people do that .
1366x768 is junk and you 'll be hard pressed to find a good monitor that will show that aspect ratio well.I 've found that a monitor with a native resolution of 1680x1050 is passable when running at 1440x900 .
Someone who does n't have great eyesight to begin with probably wo n't notice any problems with the image on that setup .
Likewise , I 'd imagine that a monitor made to run 1920x1080 could probably run this or 1680x1050 .
I would n't use those resolutions , but I also do n't want to rip my eyes out if I sit down at a computer setup like that for a few minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get a display with the highest pixel density you can find then run it at a resolution that is lower than native, but still at the proper aspect ratio.What I've seen from this with my coworkers is that they often are horrible at selecting an alternative resolution.
If your monitor's aspect ratio is 16:10 then it will likely look like crap if you choose a 16:9 resolution and worse if you select 4:3, yet I see people do that.
1366x768 is junk and you'll be hard pressed to find a good monitor that will show that aspect ratio well.I've found that a monitor with a native resolution of 1680x1050 is passable when running at 1440x900.
Someone who doesn't have great eyesight to begin with probably won't notice any problems with the image on that setup.
Likewise, I'd imagine that a monitor made to run 1920x1080 could probably run this or 1680x1050.
I wouldn't use those resolutions, but I also don't want to rip my eyes out if I sit down at a computer setup like that for a few minutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123412</id>
	<title>Dremel</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1258373460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Step 1: Get a Dremel Moto-Tool and a few carbide cutting blades.</p><p>Step 2: Cut the antenna jack(s) off the back of the TV set.</p><p>Step 3: Watch people try and fail to pipe the DTV signal into the TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : Get a Dremel Moto-Tool and a few carbide cutting blades.Step 2 : Cut the antenna jack ( s ) off the back of the TV set.Step 3 : Watch people try and fail to pipe the DTV signal into the TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: Get a Dremel Moto-Tool and a few carbide cutting blades.Step 2: Cut the antenna jack(s) off the back of the TV set.Step 3: Watch people try and fail to pipe the DTV signal into the TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121802</id>
	<title>Fire the dead weight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If these people seriously can't read their monitors, they need to be fired for either incompetence, or laziness, since it takes a 10 minute eye exam and $100 to buy a cheap pair of glasses.</p><p>If your employees are too stupid and/or lazy to remedy their eyesight problems, your company would be best served getting rid of their whiny spoiled dead-weights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If these people seriously ca n't read their monitors , they need to be fired for either incompetence , or laziness , since it takes a 10 minute eye exam and $ 100 to buy a cheap pair of glasses.If your employees are too stupid and/or lazy to remedy their eyesight problems , your company would be best served getting rid of their whiny spoiled dead-weights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these people seriously can't read their monitors, they need to be fired for either incompetence, or laziness, since it takes a 10 minute eye exam and $100 to buy a cheap pair of glasses.If your employees are too stupid and/or lazy to remedy their eyesight problems, your company would be best served getting rid of their whiny spoiled dead-weights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121748</id>
	<title>Tweak the OS</title>
	<author>vekrander</author>
	<datestamp>1258367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're on a Windows box, you can achieve the same overall effect by increasing the size of your icons and fonts.  A quick tip for most internet browsers is that you can change the size of things on a web page by holding control and then using the scroll wheel on your mouse.  This works for almost everything in Microsoft office as well.  There are a lot of useability options rolled in there, believe it or not so I'd say take the 20 minutes to learn to tweak your OS and you can save the hundreds of $ you'd spend on a new monitor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're on a Windows box , you can achieve the same overall effect by increasing the size of your icons and fonts .
A quick tip for most internet browsers is that you can change the size of things on a web page by holding control and then using the scroll wheel on your mouse .
This works for almost everything in Microsoft office as well .
There are a lot of useability options rolled in there , believe it or not so I 'd say take the 20 minutes to learn to tweak your OS and you can save the hundreds of $ you 'd spend on a new monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're on a Windows box, you can achieve the same overall effect by increasing the size of your icons and fonts.
A quick tip for most internet browsers is that you can change the size of things on a web page by holding control and then using the scroll wheel on your mouse.
This works for almost everything in Microsoft office as well.
There are a lot of useability options rolled in there, believe it or not so I'd say take the 20 minutes to learn to tweak your OS and you can save the hundreds of $ you'd spend on a new monitor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123604</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>quercus.aeternam</author>
	<datestamp>1258374540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>800x480 is pretty close to a good phone's resolution...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>800x480 is pretty close to a good phone 's resolution.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>800x480 is pretty close to a good phone's resolution...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122698</id>
	<title>iMac 27"</title>
	<author>Cannelloni</author>
	<datestamp>1258370220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just get them iMac 27" machines and they will be happy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just get them iMac 27 " machines and they will be happy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just get them iMac 27" machines and they will be happy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121904</id>
	<title>Sure way to get a low cost, low DPI Large LCD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Go find a cliff or a bridge somewhere<br>2. Take your entire fucktarded family<br>3. Have all of them jump off to their deaths<br>4. Jump to your death</p><p>Then we won;t have to put up with whiny little fuckwads such as yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Go find a cliff or a bridge somewhere2 .
Take your entire fucktarded family3 .
Have all of them jump off to their deaths4 .
Jump to your deathThen we won ; t have to put up with whiny little fuckwads such as yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Go find a cliff or a bridge somewhere2.
Take your entire fucktarded family3.
Have all of them jump off to their deaths4.
Jump to your deathThen we won;t have to put up with whiny little fuckwads such as yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123660</id>
	<title>Projector?</title>
	<author>MartinSchou</author>
	<datestamp>1258374840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite a few have mentioned using a full HD tv and just throwing away the remote.</p><p>Why not go the distance and buy a full HD (or better) projector and just setting the screen size to something you like? Most of them can handle quite large angles when adjusting for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">keystone effect</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite a few have mentioned using a full HD tv and just throwing away the remote.Why not go the distance and buy a full HD ( or better ) projector and just setting the screen size to something you like ?
Most of them can handle quite large angles when adjusting for keystone effect [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite a few have mentioned using a full HD tv and just throwing away the remote.Why not go the distance and buy a full HD (or better) projector and just setting the screen size to something you like?
Most of them can handle quite large angles when adjusting for keystone effect [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123628</id>
	<title>Re:Non-problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258374720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I applaud this solution. Continued application of this answer will surely gain respect and credibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>      I applaud this solution .
Continued application of this answer will surely gain respect and credibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
      I applaud this solution.
Continued application of this answer will surely gain respect and credibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124210</id>
	<title>Hanns-G 27" LCD HDTV from CostCo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258377960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sitting in front of two 27" LCD HDTV's (3ms) from Hanns-G that I got from CostCo for $700 total including shipping.</p><p>I guess the real question is what is your idea of affordable?</p><p>My work will only typically spend $150 on a monitor, and generally only Planar at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sitting in front of two 27 " LCD HDTV 's ( 3ms ) from Hanns-G that I got from CostCo for $ 700 total including shipping.I guess the real question is what is your idea of affordable ? My work will only typically spend $ 150 on a monitor , and generally only Planar at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sitting in front of two 27" LCD HDTV's (3ms) from Hanns-G that I got from CostCo for $700 total including shipping.I guess the real question is what is your idea of affordable?My work will only typically spend $150 on a monitor, and generally only Planar at that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121928</id>
	<title>Re:Tweak the OS</title>
	<author>Moridineas</author>
	<datestamp>1258367580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is imho only a partial solution. You can enable larger font and icons, yet not everything scales properly. You will quickly run into applications that don't look right. Same goes (more so) for the DPI scaling--in Windows 7 display scaling operates differently from 149\% to 150\%, so &gt;= 150\% many programs don't look right. (additionally many 3d games lose their cursor when dpi scaling is &gt;= 150\%, at least with my nvidia card)</p><p>Zooming works well for many websites, but many pages just crap out and become garbled when you zoom in.</p><p>My best solution is to use a fairly small level of dpi scaling, manually pick some bigger fonts for menus, window titles, etc, and then a nice firefox extension I found that can remember a default zoom level, as well as different zoom levels for different domains. It's by no means perfect, but it's useable.</p><p>This is for a htpc/game box hooked up to an hdtv.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is imho only a partial solution .
You can enable larger font and icons , yet not everything scales properly .
You will quickly run into applications that do n't look right .
Same goes ( more so ) for the DPI scaling--in Windows 7 display scaling operates differently from 149 \ % to 150 \ % , so &gt; = 150 \ % many programs do n't look right .
( additionally many 3d games lose their cursor when dpi scaling is &gt; = 150 \ % , at least with my nvidia card ) Zooming works well for many websites , but many pages just crap out and become garbled when you zoom in.My best solution is to use a fairly small level of dpi scaling , manually pick some bigger fonts for menus , window titles , etc , and then a nice firefox extension I found that can remember a default zoom level , as well as different zoom levels for different domains .
It 's by no means perfect , but it 's useable.This is for a htpc/game box hooked up to an hdtv .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is imho only a partial solution.
You can enable larger font and icons, yet not everything scales properly.
You will quickly run into applications that don't look right.
Same goes (more so) for the DPI scaling--in Windows 7 display scaling operates differently from 149\% to 150\%, so &gt;= 150\% many programs don't look right.
(additionally many 3d games lose their cursor when dpi scaling is &gt;= 150\%, at least with my nvidia card)Zooming works well for many websites, but many pages just crap out and become garbled when you zoom in.My best solution is to use a fairly small level of dpi scaling, manually pick some bigger fonts for menus, window titles, etc, and then a nice firefox extension I found that can remember a default zoom level, as well as different zoom levels for different domains.
It's by no means perfect, but it's useable.This is for a htpc/game box hooked up to an hdtv.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30127046</id>
	<title>Change the dpi in your OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258452660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why dont you just buy any normal run of the mill high dpi monitor and adjust it in the OS. All modern OS:es have support to run the actual graphics in another dpi then the monitors dpi. Then you don't just get big pretty pictures, they are supersharp to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why dont you just buy any normal run of the mill high dpi monitor and adjust it in the OS .
All modern OS : es have support to run the actual graphics in another dpi then the monitors dpi .
Then you do n't just get big pretty pictures , they are supersharp to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why dont you just buy any normal run of the mill high dpi monitor and adjust it in the OS.
All modern OS:es have support to run the actual graphics in another dpi then the monitors dpi.
Then you don't just get big pretty pictures, they are supersharp to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124326</id>
	<title>Re:It comes down to manufacturing issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258378740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laptop displays. You won't find identical pitches in freestanding monitors. I have a 15.4" widescreen LCD in my laptop running at 1680x1050 native.</p><p>2 years later, I finally (through process of elimination) find out it's triggering most of my migraines. Finding 17-19" monitors in that resolution was nearly impossible until the last few months... and in the last few months 16:10 monitors have all but disappeared instores. Not wanting to deal with online store return policies (minimum of 6 or 8 stuck/dead pixels for exchange)... my only option was to get the smallest 1080p 16:9 (21.5") monitor I could find and matte the 1050 16:10 desktop on top of it without pixel stretching... giving me an area of 18.5" at 1680x1050. About right for me.</p><p>Then I'm finding 15" models of laptops with 1920x1080 displays. *OUCH!*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laptop displays .
You wo n't find identical pitches in freestanding monitors .
I have a 15.4 " widescreen LCD in my laptop running at 1680x1050 native.2 years later , I finally ( through process of elimination ) find out it 's triggering most of my migraines .
Finding 17-19 " monitors in that resolution was nearly impossible until the last few months... and in the last few months 16 : 10 monitors have all but disappeared instores .
Not wanting to deal with online store return policies ( minimum of 6 or 8 stuck/dead pixels for exchange ) ... my only option was to get the smallest 1080p 16 : 9 ( 21.5 " ) monitor I could find and matte the 1050 16 : 10 desktop on top of it without pixel stretching... giving me an area of 18.5 " at 1680x1050 .
About right for me.Then I 'm finding 15 " models of laptops with 1920x1080 displays .
* OUCH ! *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laptop displays.
You won't find identical pitches in freestanding monitors.
I have a 15.4" widescreen LCD in my laptop running at 1680x1050 native.2 years later, I finally (through process of elimination) find out it's triggering most of my migraines.
Finding 17-19" monitors in that resolution was nearly impossible until the last few months... and in the last few months 16:10 monitors have all but disappeared instores.
Not wanting to deal with online store return policies (minimum of 6 or 8 stuck/dead pixels for exchange)... my only option was to get the smallest 1080p 16:9 (21.5") monitor I could find and matte the 1050 16:10 desktop on top of it without pixel stretching... giving me an area of 18.5" at 1680x1050.
About right for me.Then I'm finding 15" models of laptops with 1920x1080 displays.
*OUCH!*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30128368</id>
	<title>Re:Get some glasses, grandpa</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1258470840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Move the monitor closer"?  Do you not understand what presbyopia <b>is</b>?  It means that the person <i>can't focus close</i>.  It is a natural tendency that begins in most people over the age of 40.  Enjoy your near-focus while you have it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Move the monitor closer " ?
Do you not understand what presbyopia is ?
It means that the person ca n't focus close .
It is a natural tendency that begins in most people over the age of 40 .
Enjoy your near-focus while you have it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Move the monitor closer"?
Do you not understand what presbyopia is?
It means that the person can't focus close.
It is a natural tendency that begins in most people over the age of 40.
Enjoy your near-focus while you have it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122272</id>
	<title>Cripple the TVs</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1258368660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell them if they have a doctor's note they can have a 27" TV, but the antenna port, HTMI ports, video input ports other than for the computer, etc. will all be epoxied over.</p><p>Internally, bill the cost to ADA-compliance.</p><p>OK, I realize this is a less than ideal solution but if someone gets pushy, that's a solution.</p><p>By the way, if the users aren't complaining about fuzzy monitors, don't worry about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell them if they have a doctor 's note they can have a 27 " TV , but the antenna port , HTMI ports , video input ports other than for the computer , etc .
will all be epoxied over.Internally , bill the cost to ADA-compliance.OK , I realize this is a less than ideal solution but if someone gets pushy , that 's a solution.By the way , if the users are n't complaining about fuzzy monitors , do n't worry about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell them if they have a doctor's note they can have a 27" TV, but the antenna port, HTMI ports, video input ports other than for the computer, etc.
will all be epoxied over.Internally, bill the cost to ADA-compliance.OK, I realize this is a less than ideal solution but if someone gets pushy, that's a solution.By the way, if the users aren't complaining about fuzzy monitors, don't worry about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30128046</id>
	<title>Re:Is the problem really DPI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258468080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also in the pipeline for GTK+.</p><p>http://blog.fubar.dk/?p=102</p><p>But it's a long, long pipeline (I'm not even sure if it's in GTK+ 3)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also in the pipeline for GTK + .http : //blog.fubar.dk/ ? p = 102But it 's a long , long pipeline ( I 'm not even sure if it 's in GTK + 3 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also in the pipeline for GTK+.http://blog.fubar.dk/?p=102But it's a long, long pipeline (I'm not even sure if it's in GTK+ 3)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126788</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>Kulilin</author>
	<datestamp>1258448520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To the best of my knowledge, most netbooks are 1024x600.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To the best of my knowledge , most netbooks are 1024x600 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the best of my knowledge, most netbooks are 1024x600.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126496</id>
	<title>Re:Is the problem really DPI?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258401180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm an accessibility-focused web developer, and I think its ridiculous the lengths that most designers will go to preserve their precious designs in the face of obvious accessibility problems.</p><p>That said, I definitely laugh every time someone brings this up. Seriously? The text is too small? Seriously? Every modern browser has a zoom feature...every OS has a magnifier feature...this entire thread is dedicated to a physical solution...</p><p>But, in the face of these and other solutions that would work for EVERY website you ever visit, you think that the best course of action is to suggest that every single web developer in the world eliminate the use of font sizes that the majority of their visitors find acceptable to accommodate your mild vision impairment...and basically they should do this because you're too lazy to use any of these other options?</p><p>Are you serious? Because I LOL'd. I seriously LOL'd, and I'm going to LOL every time a lazy schmoe suggests that this is somehow a sensible solution, or even really a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an accessibility-focused web developer , and I think its ridiculous the lengths that most designers will go to preserve their precious designs in the face of obvious accessibility problems.That said , I definitely laugh every time someone brings this up .
Seriously ? The text is too small ?
Seriously ? Every modern browser has a zoom feature...every OS has a magnifier feature...this entire thread is dedicated to a physical solution...But , in the face of these and other solutions that would work for EVERY website you ever visit , you think that the best course of action is to suggest that every single web developer in the world eliminate the use of font sizes that the majority of their visitors find acceptable to accommodate your mild vision impairment...and basically they should do this because you 're too lazy to use any of these other options ? Are you serious ?
Because I LOL 'd .
I seriously LOL 'd , and I 'm going to LOL every time a lazy schmoe suggests that this is somehow a sensible solution , or even really a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an accessibility-focused web developer, and I think its ridiculous the lengths that most designers will go to preserve their precious designs in the face of obvious accessibility problems.That said, I definitely laugh every time someone brings this up.
Seriously? The text is too small?
Seriously? Every modern browser has a zoom feature...every OS has a magnifier feature...this entire thread is dedicated to a physical solution...But, in the face of these and other solutions that would work for EVERY website you ever visit, you think that the best course of action is to suggest that every single web developer in the world eliminate the use of font sizes that the majority of their visitors find acceptable to accommodate your mild vision impairment...and basically they should do this because you're too lazy to use any of these other options?Are you serious?
Because I LOL'd.
I seriously LOL'd, and I'm going to LOL every time a lazy schmoe suggests that this is somehow a sensible solution, or even really a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124678</id>
	<title>Re:New Egg</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258381500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I ran into this problem today, but apparently Samsung stopped producing 4:3 19" monitors with both a DVI and VGA port.  Instead they just opted for a VGA port.  I was only able to find 1 Acer of semi-decent quality that had 4:3, 19", dual inputs, and 1280x1024 resolution.  Dell had one as well (P190S) but it wasn't available in the time frame I needed it.</p><p>With regards to the large monitors, I've purchased Westinghouse 37" monitors in the past.  From the 'egg it was between $800 and $900 with and without free shipping (it depended on when we purchased them).  These things are pretty much just displays, with 1980x1080 resolution, DVI, VGA, component, composite, and no tv tuner.  I bet if you dropped a size to the 32" you might be able to find a ~720p model with a slightly lesser price tag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ran into this problem today , but apparently Samsung stopped producing 4 : 3 19 " monitors with both a DVI and VGA port .
Instead they just opted for a VGA port .
I was only able to find 1 Acer of semi-decent quality that had 4 : 3 , 19 " , dual inputs , and 1280x1024 resolution .
Dell had one as well ( P190S ) but it was n't available in the time frame I needed it.With regards to the large monitors , I 've purchased Westinghouse 37 " monitors in the past .
From the 'egg it was between $ 800 and $ 900 with and without free shipping ( it depended on when we purchased them ) .
These things are pretty much just displays , with 1980x1080 resolution , DVI , VGA , component , composite , and no tv tuner .
I bet if you dropped a size to the 32 " you might be able to find a ~ 720p model with a slightly lesser price tag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I ran into this problem today, but apparently Samsung stopped producing 4:3 19" monitors with both a DVI and VGA port.
Instead they just opted for a VGA port.
I was only able to find 1 Acer of semi-decent quality that had 4:3, 19", dual inputs, and 1280x1024 resolution.
Dell had one as well (P190S) but it wasn't available in the time frame I needed it.With regards to the large monitors, I've purchased Westinghouse 37" monitors in the past.
From the 'egg it was between $800 and $900 with and without free shipping (it depended on when we purchased them).
These things are pretty much just displays, with 1980x1080 resolution, DVI, VGA, component, composite, and no tv tuner.
I bet if you dropped a size to the 32" you might be able to find a ~720p model with a slightly lesser price tag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123878</id>
	<title>Re:Age besets me</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1258376220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hope for cataracts, which are a great reason to have your eye lenses replaced!</p><p>The replacement lenses also reduced my other vision problems and are much better than my natural lenses ever were.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hope for cataracts , which are a great reason to have your eye lenses replaced ! The replacement lenses also reduced my other vision problems and are much better than my natural lenses ever were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hope for cataracts, which are a great reason to have your eye lenses replaced!The replacement lenses also reduced my other vision problems and are much better than my natural lenses ever were.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126784</id>
	<title>I'd suggest you ask the users if they care</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258448520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My father in law has been using an ugly display for a couple of years now. It's probably a result of an incompatibility between the VIA integrated graphics and the monitor's resolution. It bothers me a lot (when I need to service his PC), but he doesn't seem to care (I asked him). So even though to your eyes reducing the screen resolution on an LCD monitor is a travesty, I'd suggest that you ask the real users. You may be surprised to find out that they don't care. That will allow you to buy normal monitors. If you need to service them, just up the resolution to native.</p><p>Other thoughts:</p><p>Eyesight will vary between people, so I assume no single solution will be good for all. I think that getting users' opinions would be the best to get a feel for it. You might want to keep a couple of solutions at hand to show users and let them choose what's good for them.</p><p>I assume that for some the solution of working at quarter resolution (960x600 on an 1920x1200 screen) will be okay. While a height of 600 isn't optimal, it's become somewhat of a standard on netbooks, so it's apparently usable in some cases.</p><p>TV's are a good solution, and you may be able to get a service electrician to disable the TV tuner. I had that done once to a CRT TV, and it's probably possible to do on LCD's too, for someone already familiar with fixing them. Taking away the remote may be good enough, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My father in law has been using an ugly display for a couple of years now .
It 's probably a result of an incompatibility between the VIA integrated graphics and the monitor 's resolution .
It bothers me a lot ( when I need to service his PC ) , but he does n't seem to care ( I asked him ) .
So even though to your eyes reducing the screen resolution on an LCD monitor is a travesty , I 'd suggest that you ask the real users .
You may be surprised to find out that they do n't care .
That will allow you to buy normal monitors .
If you need to service them , just up the resolution to native.Other thoughts : Eyesight will vary between people , so I assume no single solution will be good for all .
I think that getting users ' opinions would be the best to get a feel for it .
You might want to keep a couple of solutions at hand to show users and let them choose what 's good for them.I assume that for some the solution of working at quarter resolution ( 960x600 on an 1920x1200 screen ) will be okay .
While a height of 600 is n't optimal , it 's become somewhat of a standard on netbooks , so it 's apparently usable in some cases.TV 's are a good solution , and you may be able to get a service electrician to disable the TV tuner .
I had that done once to a CRT TV , and it 's probably possible to do on LCD 's too , for someone already familiar with fixing them .
Taking away the remote may be good enough , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My father in law has been using an ugly display for a couple of years now.
It's probably a result of an incompatibility between the VIA integrated graphics and the monitor's resolution.
It bothers me a lot (when I need to service his PC), but he doesn't seem to care (I asked him).
So even though to your eyes reducing the screen resolution on an LCD monitor is a travesty, I'd suggest that you ask the real users.
You may be surprised to find out that they don't care.
That will allow you to buy normal monitors.
If you need to service them, just up the resolution to native.Other thoughts:Eyesight will vary between people, so I assume no single solution will be good for all.
I think that getting users' opinions would be the best to get a feel for it.
You might want to keep a couple of solutions at hand to show users and let them choose what's good for them.I assume that for some the solution of working at quarter resolution (960x600 on an 1920x1200 screen) will be okay.
While a height of 600 isn't optimal, it's become somewhat of a standard on netbooks, so it's apparently usable in some cases.TV's are a good solution, and you may be able to get a service electrician to disable the TV tuner.
I had that done once to a CRT TV, and it's probably possible to do on LCD's too, for someone already familiar with fixing them.
Taking away the remote may be good enough, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123454</id>
	<title>I never did understand</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1258373700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never did understand why many people cant grasp the concept that system font size is independent of screen resolution. You'd think they'd notice the stupidity of buying a 30" 2560x1600 monitor then running their whole desktop at 1366x768 but noooo....</p><p>Another point: why would you ever buy a 1680x1050 monitor? they cost practically the same as a 1920x1200 monitor but can't display HD at native resolution (1290x1080). Even if you currently don't think you'll ever need to watch HD, wouldn't it be sensible to cough up the extra 99 cents and buy a 1920x1200 just in case?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never did understand why many people cant grasp the concept that system font size is independent of screen resolution .
You 'd think they 'd notice the stupidity of buying a 30 " 2560x1600 monitor then running their whole desktop at 1366x768 but noooo....Another point : why would you ever buy a 1680x1050 monitor ?
they cost practically the same as a 1920x1200 monitor but ca n't display HD at native resolution ( 1290x1080 ) .
Even if you currently do n't think you 'll ever need to watch HD , would n't it be sensible to cough up the extra 99 cents and buy a 1920x1200 just in case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never did understand why many people cant grasp the concept that system font size is independent of screen resolution.
You'd think they'd notice the stupidity of buying a 30" 2560x1600 monitor then running their whole desktop at 1366x768 but noooo....Another point: why would you ever buy a 1680x1050 monitor?
they cost practically the same as a 1920x1200 monitor but can't display HD at native resolution (1290x1080).
Even if you currently don't think you'll ever need to watch HD, wouldn't it be sensible to cough up the extra 99 cents and buy a 1920x1200 just in case?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122646</id>
	<title>Re:How to force a modeline?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1258370040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can often force a resolution via the registry.  I had to do this once remotely (psexec &amp; reg.exe) when a machine booted up into a 320x240 res.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can often force a resolution via the registry .
I had to do this once remotely ( psexec &amp; reg.exe ) when a machine booted up into a 320x240 res .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can often force a resolution via the registry.
I had to do this once remotely (psexec &amp; reg.exe) when a machine booted up into a 320x240 res.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125828</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258393260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most netbooks these days are 1024x600 at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most netbooks these days are 1024x600 at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most netbooks these days are 1024x600 at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122066</id>
	<title>Re:Get a 2560x1600 monitor and run at 1280x800</title>
	<author>AmericanInKiev</author>
	<datestamp>1258368000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is of course the right answer.<br>So mod up people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is of course the right answer.So mod up people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is of course the right answer.So mod up people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125884</id>
	<title>Is it really a problem</title>
	<author>jacekjk</author>
	<datestamp>1258393740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In XP you could change the DPI setting of the screen in advanced settings. If I remember correctly, switch from 96DPI to 120 DPI was good enough. I did it many times for elderly friends and everything worked and looked nice (contrary to changing font and icon size preferences, and of course, setting screen resolution to anything but native).</htmltext>
<tokenext>In XP you could change the DPI setting of the screen in advanced settings .
If I remember correctly , switch from 96DPI to 120 DPI was good enough .
I did it many times for elderly friends and everything worked and looked nice ( contrary to changing font and icon size preferences , and of course , setting screen resolution to anything but native ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In XP you could change the DPI setting of the screen in advanced settings.
If I remember correctly, switch from 96DPI to 120 DPI was good enough.
I did it many times for elderly friends and everything worked and looked nice (contrary to changing font and icon size preferences, and of course, setting screen resolution to anything but native).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126860</id>
	<title>Re:hate to say it</title>
	<author>paul248</author>
	<datestamp>1258449420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple had really done accessibility well, then you wouldn't need to drop to a non-native resolution to increase the size of the UI elements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple had really done accessibility well , then you would n't need to drop to a non-native resolution to increase the size of the UI elements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple had really done accessibility well, then you wouldn't need to drop to a non-native resolution to increase the size of the UI elements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123374</id>
	<title>Re:It comes down to manufacturing issues</title>
	<author>Bourdain</author>
	<datestamp>1258373340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's called a migraine-pad -- I have the t60p and I can barely take the resolution (1600 by 1200) and I'm relatively young</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's called a migraine-pad -- I have the t60p and I can barely take the resolution ( 1600 by 1200 ) and I 'm relatively young</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's called a migraine-pad -- I have the t60p and I can barely take the resolution (1600 by 1200) and I'm relatively young</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30130486</id>
	<title>Re:It comes down to manufacturing issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258480380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My thinkpad is 15.4" with a resolution of 1920x1200...thank goodness I have the eyes of a 22 year old<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My thinkpad is 15.4 " with a resolution of 1920x1200...thank goodness I have the eyes of a 22 year old ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My thinkpad is 15.4" with a resolution of 1920x1200...thank goodness I have the eyes of a 22 year old ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121692</id>
	<title>Software?</title>
	<author>F34nor</author>
	<datestamp>1258366980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really this is an issue of software and appearance settings. On my Dad's windows Dell D680 the dot pitch is freaking tiny evenn for me but trying to leave that resolution at max and changing the font and icons sizes just doesn't work. I want a "zoom feature" for the OS. Hold ctrl-mouse wheel and resize EVERYTHING on the damn machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really this is an issue of software and appearance settings .
On my Dad 's windows Dell D680 the dot pitch is freaking tiny evenn for me but trying to leave that resolution at max and changing the font and icons sizes just does n't work .
I want a " zoom feature " for the OS .
Hold ctrl-mouse wheel and resize EVERYTHING on the damn machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really this is an issue of software and appearance settings.
On my Dad's windows Dell D680 the dot pitch is freaking tiny evenn for me but trying to leave that resolution at max and changing the font and icons sizes just doesn't work.
I want a "zoom feature" for the OS.
Hold ctrl-mouse wheel and resize EVERYTHING on the damn machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123216</id>
	<title>Dell 3008WFP set to 1280x800</title>
	<author>bhtooefr</author>
	<datestamp>1258372680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>30", not cheap, but... in theory, that'll perfectly scale.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>30 " , not cheap , but... in theory , that 'll perfectly scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>30", not cheap, but... in theory, that'll perfectly scale.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122386</id>
	<title>Its called Accessiblity people</title>
	<author>fuzzylollipop</author>
	<datestamp>1258369140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows and OSX both have extensive "Accessiblity" features that you really need to research.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows and OSX both have extensive " Accessiblity " features that you really need to research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows and OSX both have extensive "Accessiblity" features that you really need to research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123772</id>
	<title>Am Old,  Did this:   30" - $310</title>
	<author>fhage</author>
	<datestamp>1258375500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At 50, now I need reading glasses to work on my laptop. For my desk I purchased this 30".

<p> <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254026" title="newegg.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254026</a> [newegg.com] - $310 delivered.

</p><p> It's also very bright which helps with depth of focus. It's so nice I purchased two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At 50 , now I need reading glasses to work on my laptop .
For my desk I purchased this 30 " .
http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16824254026 [ newegg.com ] - $ 310 delivered .
It 's also very bright which helps with depth of focus .
It 's so nice I purchased two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At 50, now I need reading glasses to work on my laptop.
For my desk I purchased this 30".
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254026 [newegg.com] - $310 delivered.
It's also very bright which helps with depth of focus.
It's so nice I purchased two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123370</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258373280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but it's a bit larger than 800x480 which is what most netbooks are these days.</i></p><p>Wha-huh? Where do you buy netbooks?</p><p>I don't think I've ever seen any less than 1024x600.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but it 's a bit larger than 800x480 which is what most netbooks are these days.Wha-huh ?
Where do you buy netbooks ? I do n't think I 've ever seen any less than 1024x600 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it's a bit larger than 800x480 which is what most netbooks are these days.Wha-huh?
Where do you buy netbooks?I don't think I've ever seen any less than 1024x600.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30136398</id>
	<title>here you go</title>
	<author>globeadue</author>
	<datestamp>1258458000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You didn't really post what affordable is.
To me that's any screen sub $150 and right now there have been alot of offerings this month...
2 weeks ago there was a surge of 24inch viewsonics @ 149 ea.
last week I bought 2x 22 inch asus's for $133 each
this week i've seen a 24 inch for 199 viewsonic, and a 22 inch viewsonic for 149

watch newegg, zipzoomfly, tigerdirect, woot, slickdeals, bensbargains, fatwallet and life hackers gadget listings</htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't really post what affordable is .
To me that 's any screen sub $ 150 and right now there have been alot of offerings this month.. . 2 weeks ago there was a surge of 24inch viewsonics @ 149 ea .
last week I bought 2x 22 inch asus 's for $ 133 each this week i 've seen a 24 inch for 199 viewsonic , and a 22 inch viewsonic for 149 watch newegg , zipzoomfly , tigerdirect , woot , slickdeals , bensbargains , fatwallet and life hackers gadget listings</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't really post what affordable is.
To me that's any screen sub $150 and right now there have been alot of offerings this month...
2 weeks ago there was a surge of 24inch viewsonics @ 149 ea.
last week I bought 2x 22 inch asus's for $133 each
this week i've seen a 24 inch for 199 viewsonic, and a 22 inch viewsonic for 149

watch newegg, zipzoomfly, tigerdirect, woot, slickdeals, bensbargains, fatwallet and life hackers gadget listings</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126182</id>
	<title>PPI (pixels per inch) and large monitors</title>
	<author>redstar427</author>
	<datestamp>1258397520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You claim that you have a problem supporting the older users, with declining eye vision.  Yet, you seem to care more about office politics, instead of finding the best tool for the job.  The idea of having a large monitor in the office, is really just a mental block, especially by those that don't need one.  Chances are, if a person actually needs larger sizes, they could get a Doctor's note to support this.</p><p>I have declining vision, due to an eye disease.<br>I bought a HDTV/monitor 3 years ago, a 37" LCD monitor.  At first, it seemed gigantic, compared to the 19" LCD screen I had at the time. After a while, I realized how easy it was on my eyes, and to get work done. I no longer needed my monitor just inches away from my eyes, to see my computer desktop clearly.</p><p>A standard LCD monitor, up to 24", typically has approximately 100 PPI (pixels per inch), which is just fine for those with good vision.<br>The 37" LCD has 59 PPI, and my current 52" LCD monitor has 42 PPI, and is 4 feet from my eyes.  .<br>I was once advised to buy a 30" LCD screen, which cost $1200 at the time.  However, this is even worse for the money.  It is 120 PPI in native resolution of 2560x1600.  However, if used at 1280x800, it simulates 60 PPI, but a 37" is much cheaper.</p><p>There are a lot of different sizes of monitors, from 15" to 65" LCD.  The 37" seems like the best value for the money, and cost as lost as $500.<br>You can try other sizes, like a 28" for about $380.</p><p>Until the person who needs the larger monitor can see it with THEIR eyes, you won't know for sure.<br>After using the 37" 3 years ago, I will never go back.  Those that are too cheap to buy the proper size, can just live with lower resolution, or the strain on their eyes.<br>However, I warn you about not looking for the proper solution, just to avoid office politics.<br>There have been many lawsuits over ergonomics in the work place.  The monitor is part of that issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You claim that you have a problem supporting the older users , with declining eye vision .
Yet , you seem to care more about office politics , instead of finding the best tool for the job .
The idea of having a large monitor in the office , is really just a mental block , especially by those that do n't need one .
Chances are , if a person actually needs larger sizes , they could get a Doctor 's note to support this.I have declining vision , due to an eye disease.I bought a HDTV/monitor 3 years ago , a 37 " LCD monitor .
At first , it seemed gigantic , compared to the 19 " LCD screen I had at the time .
After a while , I realized how easy it was on my eyes , and to get work done .
I no longer needed my monitor just inches away from my eyes , to see my computer desktop clearly.A standard LCD monitor , up to 24 " , typically has approximately 100 PPI ( pixels per inch ) , which is just fine for those with good vision.The 37 " LCD has 59 PPI , and my current 52 " LCD monitor has 42 PPI , and is 4 feet from my eyes .
.I was once advised to buy a 30 " LCD screen , which cost $ 1200 at the time .
However , this is even worse for the money .
It is 120 PPI in native resolution of 2560x1600 .
However , if used at 1280x800 , it simulates 60 PPI , but a 37 " is much cheaper.There are a lot of different sizes of monitors , from 15 " to 65 " LCD .
The 37 " seems like the best value for the money , and cost as lost as $ 500.You can try other sizes , like a 28 " for about $ 380.Until the person who needs the larger monitor can see it with THEIR eyes , you wo n't know for sure.After using the 37 " 3 years ago , I will never go back .
Those that are too cheap to buy the proper size , can just live with lower resolution , or the strain on their eyes.However , I warn you about not looking for the proper solution , just to avoid office politics.There have been many lawsuits over ergonomics in the work place .
The monitor is part of that issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You claim that you have a problem supporting the older users, with declining eye vision.
Yet, you seem to care more about office politics, instead of finding the best tool for the job.
The idea of having a large monitor in the office, is really just a mental block, especially by those that don't need one.
Chances are, if a person actually needs larger sizes, they could get a Doctor's note to support this.I have declining vision, due to an eye disease.I bought a HDTV/monitor 3 years ago, a 37" LCD monitor.
At first, it seemed gigantic, compared to the 19" LCD screen I had at the time.
After a while, I realized how easy it was on my eyes, and to get work done.
I no longer needed my monitor just inches away from my eyes, to see my computer desktop clearly.A standard LCD monitor, up to 24", typically has approximately 100 PPI (pixels per inch), which is just fine for those with good vision.The 37" LCD has 59 PPI, and my current 52" LCD monitor has 42 PPI, and is 4 feet from my eyes.
.I was once advised to buy a 30" LCD screen, which cost $1200 at the time.
However, this is even worse for the money.
It is 120 PPI in native resolution of 2560x1600.
However, if used at 1280x800, it simulates 60 PPI, but a 37" is much cheaper.There are a lot of different sizes of monitors, from 15" to 65" LCD.
The 37" seems like the best value for the money, and cost as lost as $500.You can try other sizes, like a 28" for about $380.Until the person who needs the larger monitor can see it with THEIR eyes, you won't know for sure.After using the 37" 3 years ago, I will never go back.
Those that are too cheap to buy the proper size, can just live with lower resolution, or the strain on their eyes.However, I warn you about not looking for the proper solution, just to avoid office politics.There have been many lawsuits over ergonomics in the work place.
The monitor is part of that issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122326</id>
	<title>Re:Software?</title>
	<author>mamer-retrogamer</author>
	<datestamp>1258368900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or you can use Mac OS X's (incomplete and officially unsupported) Resolution Independence to scale the entire GUI. If you want your interface to be 25\% larger than normal, open up a Terminal and enter:</p><p>defaults write NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor 1.25</p><p>To get it back to normal, just enter:</p><p>defaults write NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor 1.00<br>defaults delete NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or you can use Mac OS X 's ( incomplete and officially unsupported ) Resolution Independence to scale the entire GUI .
If you want your interface to be 25 \ % larger than normal , open up a Terminal and enter : defaults write NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor 1.25To get it back to normal , just enter : defaults write NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor 1.00defaults delete NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or you can use Mac OS X's (incomplete and officially unsupported) Resolution Independence to scale the entire GUI.
If you want your interface to be 25\% larger than normal, open up a Terminal and enter:defaults write NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor 1.25To get it back to normal, just enter:defaults write NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor 1.00defaults delete NSGlobalDomain AppleDisplayScaleFactor</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125480</id>
	<title>Fresnel Lenses...</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1258389540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like in the movie Brazil!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like in the movie Brazil !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like in the movie Brazil!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125666</id>
	<title>Quick Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258391400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Control Panel &gt; Display &gt; Appearance<br>1. Font Size = Extra Large</p><p>Control Panel &gt; Display &gt; Appearance &gt; Advanced<br>1. Icon Size = 48<br>2. Font Size = 12, Bold<br>3. Icon Spacing(Horizontal,Vertical) = 64</p><p>"OK" &amp; "OK" and exit out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Control Panel &gt; Display &gt; Appearance1 .
Font Size = Extra LargeControl Panel &gt; Display &gt; Appearance &gt; Advanced1 .
Icon Size = 482 .
Font Size = 12 , Bold3 .
Icon Spacing ( Horizontal,Vertical ) = 64 " OK " &amp; " OK " and exit out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Control Panel &gt; Display &gt; Appearance1.
Font Size = Extra LargeControl Panel &gt; Display &gt; Appearance &gt; Advanced1.
Icon Size = 482.
Font Size = 12, Bold3.
Icon Spacing(Horizontal,Vertical) = 64"OK" &amp; "OK" and exit out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30127086</id>
	<title>Samsung 2693HM 25.5"</title>
	<author>JoeSilva</author>
	<datestamp>1258453440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've found the Samsung 2693HM 25.5" @1920x1200 to really help my tired old eyes. It comes out to around 88dpi /<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.29mm, was very noticeably easier to read than a top of the line 24" @1920x1200</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found the Samsung 2693HM 25.5 " @ 1920x1200 to really help my tired old eyes .
It comes out to around 88dpi / .29mm , was very noticeably easier to read than a top of the line 24 " @ 1920x1200</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found the Samsung 2693HM 25.5" @1920x1200 to really help my tired old eyes.
It comes out to around 88dpi / .29mm, was very noticeably easier to read than a top of the line 24" @1920x1200</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121978</id>
	<title>Q&amp;A</title>
	<author>clinko</author>
	<datestamp>1258367760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Q: "Why does Bill get a freaki'n big screen TV?!"</p><p>A: "Because Bill doesn't bother the IT guy with stupid questions like this one."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Q : " Why does Bill get a freaki'n big screen TV ? !
" A : " Because Bill does n't bother the IT guy with stupid questions like this one .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q: "Why does Bill get a freaki'n big screen TV?!
"A: "Because Bill doesn't bother the IT guy with stupid questions like this one.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125502</id>
	<title>Re:Non-problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258389720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do the users know there are other options? Usually not.</p><p>Let them be mildly annoyed at something they think they can't fix, or help them fix it? I'd say help them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do the users know there are other options ?
Usually not.Let them be mildly annoyed at something they think they ca n't fix , or help them fix it ?
I 'd say help them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do the users know there are other options?
Usually not.Let them be mildly annoyed at something they think they can't fix, or help them fix it?
I'd say help them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</id>
	<title>Set the computer to use half the native resolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say you have a 1680x1050 LCD monitor. Try to set the OS at 840x525. The monitor will use exactly four pixels to display each pixel from the computer, so you'll still get a razor-sharp image.</p><p>Some of you will say that 840x525 is too small (resolution size, not physical display size), but it's a bit larger than 800x480 which is what most netbooks are these days. And given the number of netbooks sold, more and more applications should try to support 800x480, which means they should be okay with 840x525.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say you have a 1680x1050 LCD monitor .
Try to set the OS at 840x525 .
The monitor will use exactly four pixels to display each pixel from the computer , so you 'll still get a razor-sharp image.Some of you will say that 840x525 is too small ( resolution size , not physical display size ) , but it 's a bit larger than 800x480 which is what most netbooks are these days .
And given the number of netbooks sold , more and more applications should try to support 800x480 , which means they should be okay with 840x525 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say you have a 1680x1050 LCD monitor.
Try to set the OS at 840x525.
The monitor will use exactly four pixels to display each pixel from the computer, so you'll still get a razor-sharp image.Some of you will say that 840x525 is too small (resolution size, not physical display size), but it's a bit larger than 800x480 which is what most netbooks are these days.
And given the number of netbooks sold, more and more applications should try to support 800x480, which means they should be okay with 840x525.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121780</id>
	<title>Apple Monitors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't know if the specs are good for you, but Apple has a couple of larger size monitors.  From my experience they seem to be pretty good at multiple resolutions with decent clarity.  Not sure if this is helpful, but it might be worth a look.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know if the specs are good for you , but Apple has a couple of larger size monitors .
From my experience they seem to be pretty good at multiple resolutions with decent clarity .
Not sure if this is helpful , but it might be worth a look .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know if the specs are good for you, but Apple has a couple of larger size monitors.
From my experience they seem to be pretty good at multiple resolutions with decent clarity.
Not sure if this is helpful, but it might be worth a look.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124962</id>
	<title>Re:Just use half resolution</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1258384260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The unit of resolution is lines per distance (or cycles per distance). 1920x1200 -&gt; 960x600 is half resolution, not quarter. Using pixels per area and calling it resolution is either the ignorant or the dishonest language of salesmen and marketers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The unit of resolution is lines per distance ( or cycles per distance ) .
1920x1200 - &gt; 960x600 is half resolution , not quarter .
Using pixels per area and calling it resolution is either the ignorant or the dishonest language of salesmen and marketers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The unit of resolution is lines per distance (or cycles per distance).
1920x1200 -&gt; 960x600 is half resolution, not quarter.
Using pixels per area and calling it resolution is either the ignorant or the dishonest language of salesmen and marketers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121640</id>
	<title>I know exactly what you need</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258366860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Euthanasia</htmltext>
<tokenext>Euthanasia</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Euthanasia</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122724</id>
	<title>Get a 23" 2048x1152 monitor!</title>
	<author>Per Wigren</author>
	<datestamp>1258370340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Samsung SyncMaster 2343BWX and Dell SP2309W are two very cheap (around $230) 23" monitors with 2048x1152 resolution.
You can run them at 1024x576 with razor-sharp picture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Samsung SyncMaster 2343BWX and Dell SP2309W are two very cheap ( around $ 230 ) 23 " monitors with 2048x1152 resolution .
You can run them at 1024x576 with razor-sharp picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Samsung SyncMaster 2343BWX and Dell SP2309W are two very cheap (around $230) 23" monitors with 2048x1152 resolution.
You can run them at 1024x576 with razor-sharp picture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30128002</id>
	<title>New glasses?</title>
	<author>Kakao</author>
	<datestamp>1258467660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about free regular ophthalmologist visits and glasses to those with blurry visions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about free regular ophthalmologist visits and glasses to those with blurry visions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about free regular ophthalmologist visits and glasses to those with blurry visions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122436</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258369260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 Unfortunately most LCDs max out at 1080p (1920x1080) or the slightly better 16:10 version, 1920x1200.</p><p>There are some exceptions:<br>
&nbsp; -Samsung 2343BWX, 23", 2048x1152, and pretty cheap for ~300$<br>
&nbsp; -30" LCDs from Dell, Apple, HP etc are 2560x1600 also usually &gt;1k$<br>
&nbsp; -Some professional high-end stuff that's probably very costly</p><p>I'd love to hear any other options out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Unfortunately most LCDs max out at 1080p ( 1920x1080 ) or the slightly better 16 : 10 version , 1920x1200.There are some exceptions :   -Samsung 2343BWX , 23 " , 2048x1152 , and pretty cheap for ~ 300 $   -30 " LCDs from Dell , Apple , HP etc are 2560x1600 also usually &gt; 1k $   -Some professional high-end stuff that 's probably very costlyI 'd love to hear any other options out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Unfortunately most LCDs max out at 1080p (1920x1080) or the slightly better 16:10 version, 1920x1200.There are some exceptions:
  -Samsung 2343BWX, 23", 2048x1152, and pretty cheap for ~300$
  -30" LCDs from Dell, Apple, HP etc are 2560x1600 also usually &gt;1k$
  -Some professional high-end stuff that's probably very costlyI'd love to hear any other options out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122710</id>
	<title>Re:It comes down to manufacturing issues</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1258370280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then there's the 15.4" Thinkpad display that is 1680x1050, that has really really small pixels (around 128ppi or 0.200mm).</p></div><p>What about 15.4" T61p that's 1920x1200?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then there 's the 15.4 " Thinkpad display that is 1680x1050 , that has really really small pixels ( around 128ppi or 0.200mm ) .What about 15.4 " T61p that 's 1920x1200 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then there's the 15.4" Thinkpad display that is 1680x1050, that has really really small pixels (around 128ppi or 0.200mm).What about 15.4" T61p that's 1920x1200?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122780</id>
	<title>Get an LCD "TV" without the tuner.</title>
	<author>ProKras</author>
	<datestamp>1258370700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the extra cost of a "TV" over a similar-spec "monitor" is not the extra connectors, its the cost of the NTSC/ATSC tuner. There are lots of units out there that are marketed as home television sets, but don't have any tuner (and therefore cannot legally be called "Televisions" or "TVs").  Without a cable box (or satellite box or external ATSC tuner) no television watching is possible. A lot of these units are fairly inexpensive; you may be able to find some at prices less than similar-sized LCD computer monitors, but you might need adapters to connect it (VGA to component or DVI to HDMI).
<br> <br>
As soon as others realize no TV-watching is possible on these sets they shouldn't complain about the old guy getting a "big-screen TV".  If people are going to complain simply based on size (because their own monitors aren't 24-27 inches) then you're going to hear complaints no matter what.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the extra cost of a " TV " over a similar-spec " monitor " is not the extra connectors , its the cost of the NTSC/ATSC tuner .
There are lots of units out there that are marketed as home television sets , but do n't have any tuner ( and therefore can not legally be called " Televisions " or " TVs " ) .
Without a cable box ( or satellite box or external ATSC tuner ) no television watching is possible .
A lot of these units are fairly inexpensive ; you may be able to find some at prices less than similar-sized LCD computer monitors , but you might need adapters to connect it ( VGA to component or DVI to HDMI ) .
As soon as others realize no TV-watching is possible on these sets they should n't complain about the old guy getting a " big-screen TV " .
If people are going to complain simply based on size ( because their own monitors are n't 24-27 inches ) then you 're going to hear complaints no matter what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the extra cost of a "TV" over a similar-spec "monitor" is not the extra connectors, its the cost of the NTSC/ATSC tuner.
There are lots of units out there that are marketed as home television sets, but don't have any tuner (and therefore cannot legally be called "Televisions" or "TVs").
Without a cable box (or satellite box or external ATSC tuner) no television watching is possible.
A lot of these units are fairly inexpensive; you may be able to find some at prices less than similar-sized LCD computer monitors, but you might need adapters to connect it (VGA to component or DVI to HDMI).
As soon as others realize no TV-watching is possible on these sets they shouldn't complain about the old guy getting a "big-screen TV".
If people are going to complain simply based on size (because their own monitors aren't 24-27 inches) then you're going to hear complaints no matter what.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122584</id>
	<title>Busted up experience with "large fonts"</title>
	<author>falloutboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258369800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somewhere in the Windows Vista control panel garbage is a setting for cranking up the size of fonts which includes buttons and dialogue boxes and stuff. I did this on my 40" LCD at home running in whatever-by-1080 resolution so that I can read text from the couch with a wireless keyboard and mouse.  It works mostly okay, but because software apps don't scale up with the increased font size, you end up with some really strange looking dialogue boxes and some other unexpected behavior.</p><p>The fancy buttons on the top of the Chrome browser window, for example, don't respond to clicking at all. Obviously they're expecting a click at some location on the screen and Windows is drawing the buttons in a totally different place. Its okay if you know keyboard shortcuts (like windows key + m to minimize), but still annoying. Would drive me nuts if it was my work PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhere in the Windows Vista control panel garbage is a setting for cranking up the size of fonts which includes buttons and dialogue boxes and stuff .
I did this on my 40 " LCD at home running in whatever-by-1080 resolution so that I can read text from the couch with a wireless keyboard and mouse .
It works mostly okay , but because software apps do n't scale up with the increased font size , you end up with some really strange looking dialogue boxes and some other unexpected behavior.The fancy buttons on the top of the Chrome browser window , for example , do n't respond to clicking at all .
Obviously they 're expecting a click at some location on the screen and Windows is drawing the buttons in a totally different place .
Its okay if you know keyboard shortcuts ( like windows key + m to minimize ) , but still annoying .
Would drive me nuts if it was my work PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhere in the Windows Vista control panel garbage is a setting for cranking up the size of fonts which includes buttons and dialogue boxes and stuff.
I did this on my 40" LCD at home running in whatever-by-1080 resolution so that I can read text from the couch with a wireless keyboard and mouse.
It works mostly okay, but because software apps don't scale up with the increased font size, you end up with some really strange looking dialogue boxes and some other unexpected behavior.The fancy buttons on the top of the Chrome browser window, for example, don't respond to clicking at all.
Obviously they're expecting a click at some location on the screen and Windows is drawing the buttons in a totally different place.
Its okay if you know keyboard shortcuts (like windows key + m to minimize), but still annoying.
Would drive me nuts if it was my work PC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122194</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>Deag</author>
	<datestamp>1258368360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am looking to buy a new laptop and it really seems difficult to find ones with decent resolution. ie greater than 1200 px in height. They all seem to be 800 high.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am looking to buy a new laptop and it really seems difficult to find ones with decent resolution .
ie greater than 1200 px in height .
They all seem to be 800 high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am looking to buy a new laptop and it really seems difficult to find ones with decent resolution.
ie greater than 1200 px in height.
They all seem to be 800 high.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30129234</id>
	<title>Cheap solution</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1258475160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go to your local grocery or drug store. Ask for "reading glasses". I hope this helps.</p><p>Yes, I use them. They're great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to your local grocery or drug store .
Ask for " reading glasses " .
I hope this helps.Yes , I use them .
They 're great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to your local grocery or drug store.
Ask for "reading glasses".
I hope this helps.Yes, I use them.
They're great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121650</id>
	<title>Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger fonts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258366860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it THAT hard to get Windows to use a larger font for everything?  Wouldn't that address the issue?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it THAT hard to get Windows to use a larger font for everything ?
Would n't that address the issue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it THAT hard to get Windows to use a larger font for everything?
Wouldn't that address the issue?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30136006</id>
	<title>You Can Do this in Windows</title>
	<author>speedplane</author>
	<datestamp>1258456500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is easy and requires no new hardware.

On Windows Vista:
1) Right Click on Desktop
2) Select Personalize
3) On the Left hand side, select "Adjust font size (DPI)"
4) Select a larger size and press ok (or you can use the button below to customize the DPI)

Now you can enjoy your high resolution and actually read everything!
There are other options to make the icons bigger, but the important thing is the font.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is easy and requires no new hardware .
On Windows Vista : 1 ) Right Click on Desktop 2 ) Select Personalize 3 ) On the Left hand side , select " Adjust font size ( DPI ) " 4 ) Select a larger size and press ok ( or you can use the button below to customize the DPI ) Now you can enjoy your high resolution and actually read everything !
There are other options to make the icons bigger , but the important thing is the font .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is easy and requires no new hardware.
On Windows Vista:
1) Right Click on Desktop
2) Select Personalize
3) On the Left hand side, select "Adjust font size (DPI)"
4) Select a larger size and press ok (or you can use the button below to customize the DPI)

Now you can enjoy your high resolution and actually read everything!
There are other options to make the icons bigger, but the important thing is the font.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126168</id>
	<title>am i still on /.?</title>
	<author>mxh83</author>
	<datestamp>1258397160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. everyone seems to be discussing "Windows" solutions? wtf

2. no one actually addressed the OP's request for hardware?</htmltext>
<tokenext>1. everyone seems to be discussing " Windows " solutions ?
wtf 2. no one actually addressed the OP 's request for hardware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. everyone seems to be discussing "Windows" solutions?
wtf

2. no one actually addressed the OP's request for hardware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</id>
	<title>But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>pwnies</author>
	<datestamp>1258366980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are there any affordable High DPI monitors? Back in the day you used to be able to find 17" 1600x1200 crts, which were wonderful. My laptop is running at 1400x1050 @ 10", which is also very enjoyable. Are there any flat panel desktop displays out there with the same density? I'd love a 19-22" display running at 2560x1600.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any affordable High DPI monitors ?
Back in the day you used to be able to find 17 " 1600x1200 crts , which were wonderful .
My laptop is running at 1400x1050 @ 10 " , which is also very enjoyable .
Are there any flat panel desktop displays out there with the same density ?
I 'd love a 19-22 " display running at 2560x1600 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any affordable High DPI monitors?
Back in the day you used to be able to find 17" 1600x1200 crts, which were wonderful.
My laptop is running at 1400x1050 @ 10", which is also very enjoyable.
Are there any flat panel desktop displays out there with the same density?
I'd love a 19-22" display running at 2560x1600.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30130732</id>
	<title>28" LCD from I-Inc</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258481520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I-Inc makes a  28" HDMI/DVI LCD  that's 1920x1200; great for my aging eyesight: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000WOL3B4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I-Inc makes a 28 " HDMI/DVI LCD that 's 1920x1200 ; great for my aging eyesight : http : //www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000WOL3B4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I-Inc makes a  28" HDMI/DVI LCD  that's 1920x1200; great for my aging eyesight: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000WOL3B4.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122138</id>
	<title>You change the things that matter</title>
	<author>CoffeePlease</author>
	<datestamp>1258368180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You change the things that matter, not the resolution. Change the font size, icon size, and widget sizes where possible.
I wrote a post on making OS X usable for my father, but the same types of mods and more are possible on Windows. You just have to locate them all. For my own vision problems, I just insisted on a 30" monitor, set at its native HIGH resolution, and increase fonts and icon sizes as necessary. Get a pair of glasses set to the correct distance - in my case 26" from my face to the monitor.

<a href="http://thedesignspace.net/MT2archives/000185.html" title="thedesignspace.net" rel="nofollow">Making OS X more usable for seniors</a> [thedesignspace.net]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You change the things that matter , not the resolution .
Change the font size , icon size , and widget sizes where possible .
I wrote a post on making OS X usable for my father , but the same types of mods and more are possible on Windows .
You just have to locate them all .
For my own vision problems , I just insisted on a 30 " monitor , set at its native HIGH resolution , and increase fonts and icon sizes as necessary .
Get a pair of glasses set to the correct distance - in my case 26 " from my face to the monitor .
Making OS X more usable for seniors [ thedesignspace.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You change the things that matter, not the resolution.
Change the font size, icon size, and widget sizes where possible.
I wrote a post on making OS X usable for my father, but the same types of mods and more are possible on Windows.
You just have to locate them all.
For my own vision problems, I just insisted on a 30" monitor, set at its native HIGH resolution, and increase fonts and icon sizes as necessary.
Get a pair of glasses set to the correct distance - in my case 26" from my face to the monitor.
Making OS X more usable for seniors [thedesignspace.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121834</id>
	<title>How to force a modeline?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1258367400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many monitors look good at exactly 1/2 resolution. Get a 20+" monitor with 1920x1080 resolution and run it at 960x540.</p></div><p>If Windows' Display Properties doesn't automatically show a modeline for 960x540, how can I force this res?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many monitors look good at exactly 1/2 resolution .
Get a 20 + " monitor with 1920x1080 resolution and run it at 960x540.If Windows ' Display Properties does n't automatically show a modeline for 960x540 , how can I force this res ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many monitors look good at exactly 1/2 resolution.
Get a 20+" monitor with 1920x1080 resolution and run it at 960x540.If Windows' Display Properties doesn't automatically show a modeline for 960x540, how can I force this res?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121844</id>
	<title>The problem is with the OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem here is that the DPI is <em>wrong</em> not that the DPI is too high. Fonts are measured in "points", a point is 1/72 of an inch &mdash; yes a physical measure other than pixels. If the monitors DPI is wrong (or even better, you use Windows where the DPI is locked at 96 regardless of the monitor size) then it gets hard to read.</p><p>I have a 19' LCD at 1280x1024 in Linux which according to xdpyinfo has a DPI 85x85 so 10/72 of an inch is actually 10/72 of an inch on the screen.</p><p>---<br>Since I'm going to assume getting a Mac or Linux system is unacceptable. You really are going to need to look at small televisions rather than monitors. Monitors will generally be designed to higher resolution (Again, right DPI means that a 19' 2560x2048 would be <em>easier</em> to read then a 1280x1024 due to nice clean curves and less antialiasing distortion) so you need TVs which are generally big and low resolution, can't really help with that though. On the other hand, you might be able to pick up some software that stretches the picture to native resolution (I know nVidia's drivers offer a software scaler to zoom low-res up to native but I found that looked more crappy then the one builtin to the monitor itself personally).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is that the DPI is wrong not that the DPI is too high .
Fonts are measured in " points " , a point is 1/72 of an inch    yes a physical measure other than pixels .
If the monitors DPI is wrong ( or even better , you use Windows where the DPI is locked at 96 regardless of the monitor size ) then it gets hard to read.I have a 19 ' LCD at 1280x1024 in Linux which according to xdpyinfo has a DPI 85x85 so 10/72 of an inch is actually 10/72 of an inch on the screen.---Since I 'm going to assume getting a Mac or Linux system is unacceptable .
You really are going to need to look at small televisions rather than monitors .
Monitors will generally be designed to higher resolution ( Again , right DPI means that a 19 ' 2560x2048 would be easier to read then a 1280x1024 due to nice clean curves and less antialiasing distortion ) so you need TVs which are generally big and low resolution , ca n't really help with that though .
On the other hand , you might be able to pick up some software that stretches the picture to native resolution ( I know nVidia 's drivers offer a software scaler to zoom low-res up to native but I found that looked more crappy then the one builtin to the monitor itself personally ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is that the DPI is wrong not that the DPI is too high.
Fonts are measured in "points", a point is 1/72 of an inch — yes a physical measure other than pixels.
If the monitors DPI is wrong (or even better, you use Windows where the DPI is locked at 96 regardless of the monitor size) then it gets hard to read.I have a 19' LCD at 1280x1024 in Linux which according to xdpyinfo has a DPI 85x85 so 10/72 of an inch is actually 10/72 of an inch on the screen.---Since I'm going to assume getting a Mac or Linux system is unacceptable.
You really are going to need to look at small televisions rather than monitors.
Monitors will generally be designed to higher resolution (Again, right DPI means that a 19' 2560x2048 would be easier to read then a 1280x1024 due to nice clean curves and less antialiasing distortion) so you need TVs which are generally big and low resolution, can't really help with that though.
On the other hand, you might be able to pick up some software that stretches the picture to native resolution (I know nVidia's drivers offer a software scaler to zoom low-res up to native but I found that looked more crappy then the one builtin to the monitor itself personally).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123548</id>
	<title>A bit expensive, but...</title>
	<author>BlueBlade</author>
	<datestamp>1258374240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your best bet might be buying a more expensive monitor that has a really high resolution, and then cut it to 1/4. For example, my 30" has 2560x1800. If you set it to 1/4 (ie, you won't lose any precision due to pixels not fitting), you can do 1280x800, which is pretty close to what you'd like. To lose so much resolution makes me cringe inside though. As other posters already mentionned, Windows 7 will scale all apps when you adjust DPI, and for example, my Firefox is set to a default zoom of 130\%. This is because otherwise most sites are a thin 20\% bar in the middle of the screen!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your best bet might be buying a more expensive monitor that has a really high resolution , and then cut it to 1/4 .
For example , my 30 " has 2560x1800 .
If you set it to 1/4 ( ie , you wo n't lose any precision due to pixels not fitting ) , you can do 1280x800 , which is pretty close to what you 'd like .
To lose so much resolution makes me cringe inside though .
As other posters already mentionned , Windows 7 will scale all apps when you adjust DPI , and for example , my Firefox is set to a default zoom of 130 \ % .
This is because otherwise most sites are a thin 20 \ % bar in the middle of the screen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your best bet might be buying a more expensive monitor that has a really high resolution, and then cut it to 1/4.
For example, my 30" has 2560x1800.
If you set it to 1/4 (ie, you won't lose any precision due to pixels not fitting), you can do 1280x800, which is pretty close to what you'd like.
To lose so much resolution makes me cringe inside though.
As other posters already mentionned, Windows 7 will scale all apps when you adjust DPI, and for example, my Firefox is set to a default zoom of 130\%.
This is because otherwise most sites are a thin 20\% bar in the middle of the screen!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125772</id>
	<title>Custom resolutions...</title>
	<author>WoTG</author>
	<datestamp>1258392840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that recent NVidia drivers all support custom screen resolutions.  I would guess that ATI drives do as well.  I had to do this once when a customer had an early widescreen LCD whose resolution didn't match any VESA standard, at least, not a common one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that recent NVidia drivers all support custom screen resolutions .
I would guess that ATI drives do as well .
I had to do this once when a customer had an early widescreen LCD whose resolution did n't match any VESA standard , at least , not a common one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that recent NVidia drivers all support custom screen resolutions.
I would guess that ATI drives do as well.
I had to do this once when a customer had an early widescreen LCD whose resolution didn't match any VESA standard, at least, not a common one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122680</id>
	<title>We need better-scaling desktops.</title>
	<author>SWestrup</author>
	<datestamp>1258370160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I'm dealing with just this problem lately. Its not so much that my eyes are going (although now that I'm 45, I find I do prefer larger text) its that I am working on a project that is supposed to be used from across a room. There is a very large set of program in both the Windows and Linux worlds that are incapable of working on a desktop running at 640x480 or even 800x600 resolutions. I've even found ones that can't be used at 1024x768.</p><p>One might think that the answer would be to go to a much higher resolution and then tweak all of the various menu- and font-size settings to make things large enough to read. This also doesn't work as those exact same programs often seem to have hard-coded assumptions as to font sizes and one regularly discovers menus which only show the first 3 characters of each entry. Plus, many windowing systems don't seem to provide the kind of user settings needed to configure things for this kind of environment.</p><p>While one can (and I do) blame the authors of these program for sloppy coding, there are a very large number of such programs, which can only lead me to think that the OS APIs for handling this stuff in a clean way are far too cumbersome to use correctly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 'm dealing with just this problem lately .
Its not so much that my eyes are going ( although now that I 'm 45 , I find I do prefer larger text ) its that I am working on a project that is supposed to be used from across a room .
There is a very large set of program in both the Windows and Linux worlds that are incapable of working on a desktop running at 640x480 or even 800x600 resolutions .
I 've even found ones that ca n't be used at 1024x768.One might think that the answer would be to go to a much higher resolution and then tweak all of the various menu- and font-size settings to make things large enough to read .
This also does n't work as those exact same programs often seem to have hard-coded assumptions as to font sizes and one regularly discovers menus which only show the first 3 characters of each entry .
Plus , many windowing systems do n't seem to provide the kind of user settings needed to configure things for this kind of environment.While one can ( and I do ) blame the authors of these program for sloppy coding , there are a very large number of such programs , which can only lead me to think that the OS APIs for handling this stuff in a clean way are far too cumbersome to use correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I'm dealing with just this problem lately.
Its not so much that my eyes are going (although now that I'm 45, I find I do prefer larger text) its that I am working on a project that is supposed to be used from across a room.
There is a very large set of program in both the Windows and Linux worlds that are incapable of working on a desktop running at 640x480 or even 800x600 resolutions.
I've even found ones that can't be used at 1024x768.One might think that the answer would be to go to a much higher resolution and then tweak all of the various menu- and font-size settings to make things large enough to read.
This also doesn't work as those exact same programs often seem to have hard-coded assumptions as to font sizes and one regularly discovers menus which only show the first 3 characters of each entry.
Plus, many windowing systems don't seem to provide the kind of user settings needed to configure things for this kind of environment.While one can (and I do) blame the authors of these program for sloppy coding, there are a very large number of such programs, which can only lead me to think that the OS APIs for handling this stuff in a clean way are far too cumbersome to use correctly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121830</id>
	<title>this is disability discrimination by OS makers</title>
	<author>dyshexic</author>
	<datestamp>1258367400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the standard solution I use is to change font sizes, icons etc, however this runs into problems on the web which aren't coded properly

it would be very useful if the various OS's would have a range of themes with larger fonts, icons etc and some meta data that can be read by sites to adjust their output.

this is an issue that is going to become ever more important</htmltext>
<tokenext>the standard solution I use is to change font sizes , icons etc , however this runs into problems on the web which are n't coded properly it would be very useful if the various OS 's would have a range of themes with larger fonts , icons etc and some meta data that can be read by sites to adjust their output .
this is an issue that is going to become ever more important</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the standard solution I use is to change font sizes, icons etc, however this runs into problems on the web which aren't coded properly

it would be very useful if the various OS's would have a range of themes with larger fonts, icons etc and some meta data that can be read by sites to adjust their output.
this is an issue that is going to become ever more important</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123624</id>
	<title>Re:Fresnel Lens</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258374660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fail for coming so close, and yet missing the obvious Brazil reference. WALL-E, sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fail for coming so close , and yet missing the obvious Brazil reference .
WALL-E , sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fail for coming so close, and yet missing the obvious Brazil reference.
WALL-E, sheesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122224</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>FrankSchwab</author>
	<datestamp>1258368480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn whippersnappers!  I've got 1440x1050 on this damned Thinkpad, and by the end of a long day, I'm wishing for the same pixels on twice the screen real estate.
<br>
We'll ask you again in about 34 years when you get to be 50, and see what you think at that time...Now get offa my lawn!
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/frank</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn whippersnappers !
I 've got 1440x1050 on this damned Thinkpad , and by the end of a long day , I 'm wishing for the same pixels on twice the screen real estate .
We 'll ask you again in about 34 years when you get to be 50 , and see what you think at that time...Now get offa my lawn !
/frank</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn whippersnappers!
I've got 1440x1050 on this damned Thinkpad, and by the end of a long day, I'm wishing for the same pixels on twice the screen real estate.
We'll ask you again in about 34 years when you get to be 50, and see what you think at that time...Now get offa my lawn!
/frank</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121854</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>AmericanInKiev</author>
	<datestamp>1258367460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me,<br>At the Whitehouse Photolab (the taxpayer one) they purchased very nice super high res monitors (Dell IIRC) on the tax dime, but then lowered the resolution to 1040*760</p><p>Typical, i guess. They looked like crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me,At the Whitehouse Photolab ( the taxpayer one ) they purchased very nice super high res monitors ( Dell IIRC ) on the tax dime , but then lowered the resolution to 1040 * 760Typical , i guess .
They looked like crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me,At the Whitehouse Photolab (the taxpayer one) they purchased very nice super high res monitors (Dell IIRC) on the tax dime, but then lowered the resolution to 1040*760Typical, i guess.
They looked like crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30130132</id>
	<title>Re:hate to say it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258478700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The really cool thing is that Apple's success with accessibility (their ability to do it so well) is largely a side effect of forward-thinking design that benefits everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The really cool thing is that Apple 's success with accessibility ( their ability to do it so well ) is largely a side effect of forward-thinking design that benefits everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The really cool thing is that Apple's success with accessibility (their ability to do it so well) is largely a side effect of forward-thinking design that benefits everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124492</id>
	<title>Is $720 affordable for a 32"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258380000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If so:</p><p>SAMSUNG 320MP-2 Black 32" 8ms HDMI Large Format Monitor 1366 x 768 450 cd/m2 4000:1 - Retail</p><p>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001328</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If so : SAMSUNG 320MP-2 Black 32 " 8ms HDMI Large Format Monitor 1366 x 768 450 cd/m2 4000 : 1 - Retailhttp : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16824001328</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If so:SAMSUNG 320MP-2 Black 32" 8ms HDMI Large Format Monitor 1366 x 768 450 cd/m2 4000:1 - Retailhttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001328</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123202</id>
	<title>Re:Get some glasses, grandpa</title>
	<author>hawk16zz</author>
	<datestamp>1258372620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you rather be sent to "Carrousel?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you rather be sent to " Carrousel ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you rather be sent to "Carrousel?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121706</id>
	<title>You are not asking the right question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258367040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question you should ask is "How do I change the size of fonts and icons on my computer?". Or, "How do I access the accessibility features of my operating system, specifically pertaining to visual settings?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question you should ask is " How do I change the size of fonts and icons on my computer ? " .
Or , " How do I access the accessibility features of my operating system , specifically pertaining to visual settings ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question you should ask is "How do I change the size of fonts and icons on my computer?".
Or, "How do I access the accessibility features of my operating system, specifically pertaining to visual settings?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122404</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>Shrubbman</author>
	<datestamp>1258369200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Some of you will say that 840x525 is too small (resolution size, not physical display size), but it's a bit larger than 800x480 which is what most netbooks are these days.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well actually, most netbooks run at 1024x600, at least the ones with a ~9" or ~10" screen size. Some of the newer ones with ~11" screens are even 1366x768. Only the very earliest netbooks with the nigh-unusable 7" screens had the puny 800x480 resolution.</p><p>That's not to say 840x525 wouldn't be a workable display size, but personally I know I find any display with less than 1024 pixels across rather irritating to try to use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of you will say that 840x525 is too small ( resolution size , not physical display size ) , but it 's a bit larger than 800x480 which is what most netbooks are these days.Well actually , most netbooks run at 1024x600 , at least the ones with a ~ 9 " or ~ 10 " screen size .
Some of the newer ones with ~ 11 " screens are even 1366x768 .
Only the very earliest netbooks with the nigh-unusable 7 " screens had the puny 800x480 resolution.That 's not to say 840x525 would n't be a workable display size , but personally I know I find any display with less than 1024 pixels across rather irritating to try to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of you will say that 840x525 is too small (resolution size, not physical display size), but it's a bit larger than 800x480 which is what most netbooks are these days.Well actually, most netbooks run at 1024x600, at least the ones with a ~9" or ~10" screen size.
Some of the newer ones with ~11" screens are even 1366x768.
Only the very earliest netbooks with the nigh-unusable 7" screens had the puny 800x480 resolution.That's not to say 840x525 wouldn't be a workable display size, but personally I know I find any display with less than 1024 pixels across rather irritating to try to use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122460</id>
	<title>Use 2x2 the native resolution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258369380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For instance, get a 27 inch at 2560x1440 and set the resolution to 1380x720, thus every pixel on the screen takes 2x2 pixels on the monitor. This gives you a sharp picture at resolution that is easy to handle for aging eyes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For instance , get a 27 inch at 2560x1440 and set the resolution to 1380x720 , thus every pixel on the screen takes 2x2 pixels on the monitor .
This gives you a sharp picture at resolution that is easy to handle for aging eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For instance, get a 27 inch at 2560x1440 and set the resolution to 1380x720, thus every pixel on the screen takes 2x2 pixels on the monitor.
This gives you a sharp picture at resolution that is easy to handle for aging eyes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125120</id>
	<title>Holy scollfest, Batman!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258385760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last time I had to use 800x600 or even 1024x768 to fix a broken machine it was non-stop scrolling, both axes, just trying to get to some websites and troubleshoot and change settings at that resolution.</p><p>You say apps "should try to" support 800x480? Well, I say they don't, and neither do websites without massive scrolling. One day vector graphics will be ubiquitous and this will be a non-issue, but we're not there yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time I had to use 800x600 or even 1024x768 to fix a broken machine it was non-stop scrolling , both axes , just trying to get to some websites and troubleshoot and change settings at that resolution.You say apps " should try to " support 800x480 ?
Well , I say they do n't , and neither do websites without massive scrolling .
One day vector graphics will be ubiquitous and this will be a non-issue , but we 're not there yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time I had to use 800x600 or even 1024x768 to fix a broken machine it was non-stop scrolling, both axes, just trying to get to some websites and troubleshoot and change settings at that resolution.You say apps "should try to" support 800x480?
Well, I say they don't, and neither do websites without massive scrolling.
One day vector graphics will be ubiquitous and this will be a non-issue, but we're not there yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125618</id>
	<title>Re:Software?</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1258391040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also works in OS X 10.4.11 (Tiger). CTRL-scroll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also works in OS X 10.4.11 ( Tiger ) .
CTRL-scroll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also works in OS X 10.4.11 (Tiger).
CTRL-scroll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166</id>
	<title>Non-problem?</title>
	<author>mewsenews</author>
	<datestamp>1258368300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've noticed this option doesn't cross the minds of some IT guys, but how about letting the users do what they want?</p><p>If they want to look at an awful non-native resolution on their LCD, why don't you shed your single tear about the waste of technology and let them go about their business? Does it actually affect you in the slightest?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've noticed this option does n't cross the minds of some IT guys , but how about letting the users do what they want ? If they want to look at an awful non-native resolution on their LCD , why do n't you shed your single tear about the waste of technology and let them go about their business ?
Does it actually affect you in the slightest ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've noticed this option doesn't cross the minds of some IT guys, but how about letting the users do what they want?If they want to look at an awful non-native resolution on their LCD, why don't you shed your single tear about the waste of technology and let them go about their business?
Does it actually affect you in the slightest?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125996</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>athlon02</author>
	<datestamp>1258394880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually wouldn't mind a 12.1" LCD on a laptop running 2560x1600<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... when coding it helps A LOT to have as much real estate as possible w/o having a massive laptop to lug around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually would n't mind a 12.1 " LCD on a laptop running 2560x1600 ... when coding it helps A LOT to have as much real estate as possible w/o having a massive laptop to lug around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually wouldn't mind a 12.1" LCD on a laptop running 2560x1600 ... when coding it helps A LOT to have as much real estate as possible w/o having a massive laptop to lug around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123236</id>
	<title>And Affordable High-DPI Small Screen LCD monitors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258372680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have the opposite problem - servers located on various off site locations, and often no monitors around, so I have to bring my own when needing console access - I really wish there was some cheap small VGA/DVI monitors around I could bring, or even better - a usb dongle with VGA/DVI+keyboard/mouse input, and some app to turn my eeepc into a console - why havent anyone done this yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the opposite problem - servers located on various off site locations , and often no monitors around , so I have to bring my own when needing console access - I really wish there was some cheap small VGA/DVI monitors around I could bring , or even better - a usb dongle with VGA/DVI + keyboard/mouse input , and some app to turn my eeepc into a console - why havent anyone done this yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the opposite problem - servers located on various off site locations, and often no monitors around, so I have to bring my own when needing console access - I really wish there was some cheap small VGA/DVI monitors around I could bring, or even better - a usb dongle with VGA/DVI+keyboard/mouse input, and some app to turn my eeepc into a console - why havent anyone done this yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124442</id>
	<title>Re:I never did understand</title>
	<author>oasisbob</author>
	<datestamp>1258379700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I never did understand why many people cant grasp the concept that system font size is independent of screen resolution. You'd think they'd notice the stupidity of buying a 30" 2560x1600 monitor then running their whole desktop at 1366x768 but noooo....</p></div></blockquote><p>I thought the same thing: at $DAYJOB, we have a policy to run all 4:3 monitors at 1024x768 because of readability issues. One of the first things I did was to try and change the font sizes instead, hilarity ensued. Not a single business-critical app we used handled the setting correctly. Some ignored it, while some scaled their text up within a fixed-size (x by y pixels) area, which cropped the text on the right edge.</p><p>Support for this feature in applications is awful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never did understand why many people cant grasp the concept that system font size is independent of screen resolution .
You 'd think they 'd notice the stupidity of buying a 30 " 2560x1600 monitor then running their whole desktop at 1366x768 but noooo....I thought the same thing : at $ DAYJOB , we have a policy to run all 4 : 3 monitors at 1024x768 because of readability issues .
One of the first things I did was to try and change the font sizes instead , hilarity ensued .
Not a single business-critical app we used handled the setting correctly .
Some ignored it , while some scaled their text up within a fixed-size ( x by y pixels ) area , which cropped the text on the right edge.Support for this feature in applications is awful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never did understand why many people cant grasp the concept that system font size is independent of screen resolution.
You'd think they'd notice the stupidity of buying a 30" 2560x1600 monitor then running their whole desktop at 1366x768 but noooo....I thought the same thing: at $DAYJOB, we have a policy to run all 4:3 monitors at 1024x768 because of readability issues.
One of the first things I did was to try and change the font sizes instead, hilarity ensued.
Not a single business-critical app we used handled the setting correctly.
Some ignored it, while some scaled their text up within a fixed-size (x by y pixels) area, which cropped the text on the right edge.Support for this feature in applications is awful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123454</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124376</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>bhtooefr</author>
	<datestamp>1258379100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except most netbooks are 1024x600, and many are 1366x768.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except most netbooks are 1024x600 , and many are 1366x768 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except most netbooks are 1024x600, and many are 1366x768.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122504</id>
	<title>32" TV</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1258369440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>32 inch TVs with 1920 x 1080 resolution are available for under $500. I don't think they will play any TV without an antenna, so that's nothing to worry about. Only problem is that in the cheap price range, you only get VGA (poor quality) or HDMI, so you might need a DVI-HDMI adapter on top. <br> <br>
Otherwise, Dell has a nice 27 inch 1920 x 1200.</htmltext>
<tokenext>32 inch TVs with 1920 x 1080 resolution are available for under $ 500 .
I do n't think they will play any TV without an antenna , so that 's nothing to worry about .
Only problem is that in the cheap price range , you only get VGA ( poor quality ) or HDMI , so you might need a DVI-HDMI adapter on top .
Otherwise , Dell has a nice 27 inch 1920 x 1200 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>32 inch TVs with 1920 x 1080 resolution are available for under $500.
I don't think they will play any TV without an antenna, so that's nothing to worry about.
Only problem is that in the cheap price range, you only get VGA (poor quality) or HDMI, so you might need a DVI-HDMI adapter on top.
Otherwise, Dell has a nice 27 inch 1920 x 1200.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30128400</id>
	<title>An attempt to actually be helpful</title>
	<author>managerialslime</author>
	<datestamp>1258471020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The poster asked a simple question: <i> Is there a source for 24-27" monitors running at 1366x768 that are affordable and don't have all of the 'TV' stuff? </i>

<p>
I then read more than 200 reply posts about changing font size in Word, Safari, and Firefox along with non-specific posts telling the poster to go out and "buy something," but not saying what. Unbelievable.

</p><p>
Here's my best shot at answering the question as asked:
</p><p>

Research the Hanns*G 28" monitor for about $336.  (with 3-yr warranty)
</p><p>

If you set the monitor at 1280*1024, the "stretchiness" of characters at 28" may give you the visual result you sought when requesting 1366*768.
</p><p>

Source:
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hanns-G-HG281DPB-Widescreen-LCD-Monitor/dp/B000TJV9KW/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=electronics&amp;qid=1258467065&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/Hanns-G-HG281DPB-Widescreen-LCD-Monitor/dp/B000TJV9KW/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=electronics&amp;qid=1258467065&amp;sr=8-1</a> [amazon.com]
</p><p>

Good luck</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The poster asked a simple question : Is there a source for 24-27 " monitors running at 1366x768 that are affordable and do n't have all of the 'TV ' stuff ?
I then read more than 200 reply posts about changing font size in Word , Safari , and Firefox along with non-specific posts telling the poster to go out and " buy something , " but not saying what .
Unbelievable . Here 's my best shot at answering the question as asked : Research the Hanns * G 28 " monitor for about $ 336 .
( with 3-yr warranty ) If you set the monitor at 1280 * 1024 , the " stretchiness " of characters at 28 " may give you the visual result you sought when requesting 1366 * 768 .
Source : http : //www.amazon.com/Hanns-G-HG281DPB-Widescreen-LCD-Monitor/dp/B000TJV9KW/ref = sr \ _1 \ _1 ? ie = UTF8&amp;s = electronics&amp;qid = 1258467065&amp;sr = 8-1 [ amazon.com ] Good luck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The poster asked a simple question:  Is there a source for 24-27" monitors running at 1366x768 that are affordable and don't have all of the 'TV' stuff?
I then read more than 200 reply posts about changing font size in Word, Safari, and Firefox along with non-specific posts telling the poster to go out and "buy something," but not saying what.
Unbelievable.


Here's my best shot at answering the question as asked:


Research the Hanns*G 28" monitor for about $336.
(with 3-yr warranty)


If you set the monitor at 1280*1024, the "stretchiness" of characters at 28" may give you the visual result you sought when requesting 1366*768.
Source:
http://www.amazon.com/Hanns-G-HG281DPB-Widescreen-LCD-Monitor/dp/B000TJV9KW/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=electronics&amp;qid=1258467065&amp;sr=8-1 [amazon.com]


Good luck</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122322</id>
	<title>Free Solution</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1258368900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Start / All Programs / Accessories / Accessibility / Magnifier</p><p>This will magnify the area around your mouse without too much impact on everything else.  Best case scenario:  No need for a new monitor.  (Maybe a second monitor just for the magnification?)  Worst case scenario: It does nothing to help you and you've spent no money to find that out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Start / All Programs / Accessories / Accessibility / MagnifierThis will magnify the area around your mouse without too much impact on everything else .
Best case scenario : No need for a new monitor .
( Maybe a second monitor just for the magnification ?
) Worst case scenario : It does nothing to help you and you 've spent no money to find that out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start / All Programs / Accessories / Accessibility / MagnifierThis will magnify the area around your mouse without too much impact on everything else.
Best case scenario:  No need for a new monitor.
(Maybe a second monitor just for the magnification?
)  Worst case scenario: It does nothing to help you and you've spent no money to find that out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123336</id>
	<title>Re:The good news is, "sharpness" isn't critical...</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1258373160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone with a visual impairment (which cannot be completely fixed with glasses, and which causes partially blurred vision similar to myopia), I have to say that <b>sharpness is absolutely critical</b>. Non-sharp features cause a huge deal of discomfort. In fact, basically unbearable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone with a visual impairment ( which can not be completely fixed with glasses , and which causes partially blurred vision similar to myopia ) , I have to say that sharpness is absolutely critical .
Non-sharp features cause a huge deal of discomfort .
In fact , basically unbearable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone with a visual impairment (which cannot be completely fixed with glasses, and which causes partially blurred vision similar to myopia), I have to say that sharpness is absolutely critical.
Non-sharp features cause a huge deal of discomfort.
In fact, basically unbearable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121974</id>
	<title>New Egg</title>
	<author>NewWorldDan</author>
	<datestamp>1258367760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As usual, it's New Egg to the rescue.  You can search monitors according to pixel size.  The largest pixel sizes give you a resolution of 1920x1080 at 28" (~$370).  There are also some even larger screens at lower resolution, but I don't know how big you want to go.  They have large format screens - 32" at 1366x768, but those seem to be quite a bit more expensive (~$950).</p><p><a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254043" title="newegg.com">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254043</a> [newegg.com]<br><a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889252035" title="newegg.com">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889252035</a> [newegg.com]</p><p>Personally, I prefer a 4:3 ratio on my screens and those have become very hard to find.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual , it 's New Egg to the rescue .
You can search monitors according to pixel size .
The largest pixel sizes give you a resolution of 1920x1080 at 28 " ( ~ $ 370 ) .
There are also some even larger screens at lower resolution , but I do n't know how big you want to go .
They have large format screens - 32 " at 1366x768 , but those seem to be quite a bit more expensive ( ~ $ 950 ) .http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16824254043 [ newegg.com ] http : //www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx ? Item = N82E16889252035 [ newegg.com ] Personally , I prefer a 4 : 3 ratio on my screens and those have become very hard to find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual, it's New Egg to the rescue.
You can search monitors according to pixel size.
The largest pixel sizes give you a resolution of 1920x1080 at 28" (~$370).
There are also some even larger screens at lower resolution, but I don't know how big you want to go.
They have large format screens - 32" at 1366x768, but those seem to be quite a bit more expensive (~$950).http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254043 [newegg.com]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889252035 [newegg.com]Personally, I prefer a 4:3 ratio on my screens and those have become very hard to find.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124408</id>
	<title>Re:Non-problem?</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1258379460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've clearly never worked in support.<br>"It's too blurry!"<br>"It's too small"<br>"It's too blurry!"<br>"It's too small"</p><p>Goes back and forth with the users when you try to help them with a new LCD - every time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've clearly never worked in support .
" It 's too blurry !
" " It 's too small " " It 's too blurry !
" " It 's too small " Goes back and forth with the users when you try to help them with a new LCD - every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've clearly never worked in support.
"It's too blurry!
""It's too small""It's too blurry!
""It's too small"Goes back and forth with the users when you try to help them with a new LCD - every time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122514</id>
	<title>Re:But for those of us who are young...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258369500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Are there any affordable High DPI monitors? Back in the day you used to be able to find 17" 1600x1200 crts, which were wonderful.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Are you kidding. I dumped a 21" 1600x1200 crt on someone earlier this year because I sure as heck didn't want it.
</p><p>
Spend $500, get a quality 1920x1200 screen, and be done with it for the next 5 years.  If you use it 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, that's 3 cents an hour over the next decade.  At that price get two - one for each eye.  Your eyes are worth it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any affordable High DPI monitors ?
Back in the day you used to be able to find 17 " 1600x1200 crts , which were wonderful .
Are you kidding .
I dumped a 21 " 1600x1200 crt on someone earlier this year because I sure as heck did n't want it .
Spend $ 500 , get a quality 1920x1200 screen , and be done with it for the next 5 years .
If you use it 7 hours a day , 5 days a week , 50 weeks a year , that 's 3 cents an hour over the next decade .
At that price get two - one for each eye .
Your eyes are worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any affordable High DPI monitors?
Back in the day you used to be able to find 17" 1600x1200 crts, which were wonderful.
Are you kidding.
I dumped a 21" 1600x1200 crt on someone earlier this year because I sure as heck didn't want it.
Spend $500, get a quality 1920x1200 screen, and be done with it for the next 5 years.
If you use it 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, that's 3 cents an hour over the next decade.
At that price get two - one for each eye.
Your eyes are worth it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121960</id>
	<title>Re:Tweak the OS</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1258367700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A quick tip for most internet browsers is that you can change the size of things on a web page by holding control and then using the scroll wheel on your mouse.</p></div><p>Having that go off when trying to control-clicking things in Firefox to bring up a new tab has made me absolutely loath that feature. I really should turn it off someday rather than swearing every time it happens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick tip for most internet browsers is that you can change the size of things on a web page by holding control and then using the scroll wheel on your mouse.Having that go off when trying to control-clicking things in Firefox to bring up a new tab has made me absolutely loath that feature .
I really should turn it off someday rather than swearing every time it happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick tip for most internet browsers is that you can change the size of things on a web page by holding control and then using the scroll wheel on your mouse.Having that go off when trying to control-clicking things in Firefox to bring up a new tab has made me absolutely loath that feature.
I really should turn it off someday rather than swearing every time it happens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122346</id>
	<title>Increase DPI setting in Display settings?!</title>
	<author>An anonymous Frank</author>
	<datestamp>1258368960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Control Panel<br>Display (Properties)<br>Settings<br>Advanced<br>General (tab)<br>Display (section)<br>DPI Setting</p><p>"If your screen resolution makes screen items too small to view comfortably, you can increase the DPI to compensate.  To change font sizes only, click Cancel and go to the Appearance tab."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Control PanelDisplay ( Properties ) SettingsAdvancedGeneral ( tab ) Display ( section ) DPI Setting " If your screen resolution makes screen items too small to view comfortably , you can increase the DPI to compensate .
To change font sizes only , click Cancel and go to the Appearance tab .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Control PanelDisplay (Properties)SettingsAdvancedGeneral (tab)Display (section)DPI Setting"If your screen resolution makes screen items too small to view comfortably, you can increase the DPI to compensate.
To change font sizes only, click Cancel and go to the Appearance tab.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30137232</id>
	<title>Re:Non-problem?</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1258461780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't check slashdot yesterday and look what I missed.</p><p>Okay.  First of all, the "now it's too small, now it's too blurry" conversation is real.  Tho it doesn't happen often.  Most users have no comprehension of resolutions, scaling, and such.  They don't understand the situation at all.  They may not even understand that anything is wrong because so many assume that "this is just the way it is".</p><p>They complain to a coworker that things are to small so the coworker drops their resolution.  Hey!  Now everything's big.  But they don't even comprehend that the display is now scaling and that it's not producing the best image possible.  There's a little bug in the back of their head that notices the blurriness but maybe that's just their tired eyes.  They don't KNOW anything is wrong because they just plain don't understand display technology so they don't understand that this is something that can be fixed.  So they work week in and week out, month in and month out, year in and year out tolerating this fuzzy, scaled display because they don't know that it can be better.</p><p>If I can swap out their 22" monitor running at a scaled 1366x768 with one running at non-scaled 1366x768, it would be like giving them a new pair of eyeballs.  I'm sure 99.44 percent of the people around here know what it's like to get a new pair of glasses/contacts with a fresh prescription.  "Holy, crap!  How did I put up with that for so long?"  Then I've got happy users.</p><p>So if there's an affordable way I can do that, why wouldn't I do it?.  If I'm going to spend $150 on a 22" monitor, I should get the one that will provide the best possible user experience.  For some people, that will be 1920x1080.  For others, 1366x768.  Unfortunately, I haven't found anything like that.  So I guess I'll have to keep recommending 27 inch "720p" televisions with VGA and HDMI/DVI inputs.  And keep getting shot down because nobody wants to deal with the political fallout of providing televisions to employees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't check slashdot yesterday and look what I missed.Okay .
First of all , the " now it 's too small , now it 's too blurry " conversation is real .
Tho it does n't happen often .
Most users have no comprehension of resolutions , scaling , and such .
They do n't understand the situation at all .
They may not even understand that anything is wrong because so many assume that " this is just the way it is " .They complain to a coworker that things are to small so the coworker drops their resolution .
Hey ! Now everything 's big .
But they do n't even comprehend that the display is now scaling and that it 's not producing the best image possible .
There 's a little bug in the back of their head that notices the blurriness but maybe that 's just their tired eyes .
They do n't KNOW anything is wrong because they just plain do n't understand display technology so they do n't understand that this is something that can be fixed .
So they work week in and week out , month in and month out , year in and year out tolerating this fuzzy , scaled display because they do n't know that it can be better.If I can swap out their 22 " monitor running at a scaled 1366x768 with one running at non-scaled 1366x768 , it would be like giving them a new pair of eyeballs .
I 'm sure 99.44 percent of the people around here know what it 's like to get a new pair of glasses/contacts with a fresh prescription .
" Holy , crap !
How did I put up with that for so long ?
" Then I 've got happy users.So if there 's an affordable way I can do that , why would n't I do it ? .
If I 'm going to spend $ 150 on a 22 " monitor , I should get the one that will provide the best possible user experience .
For some people , that will be 1920x1080 .
For others , 1366x768 .
Unfortunately , I have n't found anything like that .
So I guess I 'll have to keep recommending 27 inch " 720p " televisions with VGA and HDMI/DVI inputs .
And keep getting shot down because nobody wants to deal with the political fallout of providing televisions to employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't check slashdot yesterday and look what I missed.Okay.
First of all, the "now it's too small, now it's too blurry" conversation is real.
Tho it doesn't happen often.
Most users have no comprehension of resolutions, scaling, and such.
They don't understand the situation at all.
They may not even understand that anything is wrong because so many assume that "this is just the way it is".They complain to a coworker that things are to small so the coworker drops their resolution.
Hey!  Now everything's big.
But they don't even comprehend that the display is now scaling and that it's not producing the best image possible.
There's a little bug in the back of their head that notices the blurriness but maybe that's just their tired eyes.
They don't KNOW anything is wrong because they just plain don't understand display technology so they don't understand that this is something that can be fixed.
So they work week in and week out, month in and month out, year in and year out tolerating this fuzzy, scaled display because they don't know that it can be better.If I can swap out their 22" monitor running at a scaled 1366x768 with one running at non-scaled 1366x768, it would be like giving them a new pair of eyeballs.
I'm sure 99.44 percent of the people around here know what it's like to get a new pair of glasses/contacts with a fresh prescription.
"Holy, crap!
How did I put up with that for so long?
"  Then I've got happy users.So if there's an affordable way I can do that, why wouldn't I do it?.
If I'm going to spend $150 on a 22" monitor, I should get the one that will provide the best possible user experience.
For some people, that will be 1920x1080.
For others, 1366x768.
Unfortunately, I haven't found anything like that.
So I guess I'll have to keep recommending 27 inch "720p" televisions with VGA and HDMI/DVI inputs.
And keep getting shot down because nobody wants to deal with the political fallout of providing televisions to employees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121998</id>
	<title>TVs are cheaper then monitors...</title>
	<author>Kenja</author>
	<datestamp>1258367760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're not paying extra for the connectors, you're paying less for the lower resolution. Just get a TV like the Insignia NS-L37Q-10A.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not paying extra for the connectors , you 're paying less for the lower resolution .
Just get a TV like the Insignia NS-L37Q-10A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not paying extra for the connectors, you're paying less for the lower resolution.
Just get a TV like the Insignia NS-L37Q-10A.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180</id>
	<title>It comes down to manufacturing issues</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1258368300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's really only a few pixel densities manufactured today.<br>
<br>
<b>0.282mm to 0.285mm</b> (19" 1440x900 or 22" 1680x1050)<br>
<br>
<b>0.270mm</b> (seen in 24" 1920x1200 displays)<br>
<br>
<b>0.243mm to 0.248mm</b> (19" 1680x1050 or 22" 1920x1080)<br>
<br>
Personally, I find the 0.245mm pixels to be too small, with the 0.285mm pixels to be just about perfect for me.  Then there's the 15.4" Thinkpad display that is 1680x1050, that has really really small pixels (around 128ppi or 0.200mm).<br>
<br>
There is an Acer 27" that is 2048x1152 with reportedly 0.291mm pixels.<br>
<br>
Basically, when monitor shopping, you need to look at a particular resolution (such as 1680x1050) and then make sure to buy the displays that are the upper end of the size range.  The 1680x1050 glass is currently sold in sizes that range from 19" to 22".  Your older users will be a lot happier with the 22" 1680x1050.<br>
<br>
Or you could go looking for 24-26" 720p TV sets which are typically 1360x768 and have very large pixels.  Of course, the small resolution will quickly become a bane to future users.<br>
<br>
All of the smaller 1080p TV sets are all 24", which is only a pixel size of around 0.270mm.  So the 22" 1680x1050 displays with 0.285mm pixels are a better choice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's really only a few pixel densities manufactured today .
0.282mm to 0.285mm ( 19 " 1440x900 or 22 " 1680x1050 ) 0.270mm ( seen in 24 " 1920x1200 displays ) 0.243mm to 0.248mm ( 19 " 1680x1050 or 22 " 1920x1080 ) Personally , I find the 0.245mm pixels to be too small , with the 0.285mm pixels to be just about perfect for me .
Then there 's the 15.4 " Thinkpad display that is 1680x1050 , that has really really small pixels ( around 128ppi or 0.200mm ) .
There is an Acer 27 " that is 2048x1152 with reportedly 0.291mm pixels .
Basically , when monitor shopping , you need to look at a particular resolution ( such as 1680x1050 ) and then make sure to buy the displays that are the upper end of the size range .
The 1680x1050 glass is currently sold in sizes that range from 19 " to 22 " .
Your older users will be a lot happier with the 22 " 1680x1050 .
Or you could go looking for 24-26 " 720p TV sets which are typically 1360x768 and have very large pixels .
Of course , the small resolution will quickly become a bane to future users .
All of the smaller 1080p TV sets are all 24 " , which is only a pixel size of around 0.270mm .
So the 22 " 1680x1050 displays with 0.285mm pixels are a better choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's really only a few pixel densities manufactured today.
0.282mm to 0.285mm (19" 1440x900 or 22" 1680x1050)

0.270mm (seen in 24" 1920x1200 displays)

0.243mm to 0.248mm (19" 1680x1050 or 22" 1920x1080)

Personally, I find the 0.245mm pixels to be too small, with the 0.285mm pixels to be just about perfect for me.
Then there's the 15.4" Thinkpad display that is 1680x1050, that has really really small pixels (around 128ppi or 0.200mm).
There is an Acer 27" that is 2048x1152 with reportedly 0.291mm pixels.
Basically, when monitor shopping, you need to look at a particular resolution (such as 1680x1050) and then make sure to buy the displays that are the upper end of the size range.
The 1680x1050 glass is currently sold in sizes that range from 19" to 22".
Your older users will be a lot happier with the 22" 1680x1050.
Or you could go looking for 24-26" 720p TV sets which are typically 1360x768 and have very large pixels.
Of course, the small resolution will quickly become a bane to future users.
All of the smaller 1080p TV sets are all 24", which is only a pixel size of around 0.270mm.
So the 22" 1680x1050 displays with 0.285mm pixels are a better choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123250</id>
	<title>Software solution, no hardware required</title>
	<author>solid\_liq</author>
	<datestamp>1258372740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's easy!  Switch them to Linux, where the devs weren't too shortsighted to realize that it would be a good idea to make everything on the desktop scalable.  I run at my native resolution, which would make things a bit small for me, but all I have to do is set the monitor DPI to a higher value than actual, and everything appears at a nice, easily readable size.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's easy !
Switch them to Linux , where the devs were n't too shortsighted to realize that it would be a good idea to make everything on the desktop scalable .
I run at my native resolution , which would make things a bit small for me , but all I have to do is set the monitor DPI to a higher value than actual , and everything appears at a nice , easily readable size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's easy!
Switch them to Linux, where the devs weren't too shortsighted to realize that it would be a good idea to make everything on the desktop scalable.
I run at my native resolution, which would make things a bit small for me, but all I have to do is set the monitor DPI to a higher value than actual, and everything appears at a nice, easily readable size.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126752</id>
	<title>19" LCDs</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1258491120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found 19" LCDs filled this niche quite well - the Philips 190 series, for example, had the exact same native 5:4 resolution as the 17" 170 series - 1280x1024.  This very low resolution gave a wonderfully cheap solution to some clients who were in the senior demographic.</p><p>Though it might not work for you as these don't meet your size nor aspect ratio requirements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found 19 " LCDs filled this niche quite well - the Philips 190 series , for example , had the exact same native 5 : 4 resolution as the 17 " 170 series - 1280x1024 .
This very low resolution gave a wonderfully cheap solution to some clients who were in the senior demographic.Though it might not work for you as these do n't meet your size nor aspect ratio requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found 19" LCDs filled this niche quite well - the Philips 190 series, for example, had the exact same native 5:4 resolution as the 17" 170 series - 1280x1024.
This very low resolution gave a wonderfully cheap solution to some clients who were in the senior demographic.Though it might not work for you as these don't meet your size nor aspect ratio requirements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121730</id>
	<title>Link above the article</title>
	<author>Dareth</author>
	<datestamp>1258367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The link above the article was for LCD monitors.<br>This one looks nice, <a href="http://www.lge.com/us/computer-products/monitors/LG-led-monitor-W2486L.jsp" title="lge.com">http://www.lge.com/us/computer-products/monitors/LG-led-monitor-W2486L.jsp</a> [lge.com]</p><p>It is an LG, so a bit pricey and I have seen similar size HD TV with HDMI in at a lower cost.</p><p>For more models and pricing there is always <a href="http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&amp;N=2010190020\%2050001623\%201309821328&amp;name=LG\%20ELECTRONICS" title="newegg.com">New Egg</a> [newegg.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The link above the article was for LCD monitors.This one looks nice , http : //www.lge.com/us/computer-products/monitors/LG-led-monitor-W2486L.jsp [ lge.com ] It is an LG , so a bit pricey and I have seen similar size HD TV with HDMI in at a lower cost.For more models and pricing there is always New Egg [ newegg.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The link above the article was for LCD monitors.This one looks nice, http://www.lge.com/us/computer-products/monitors/LG-led-monitor-W2486L.jsp [lge.com]It is an LG, so a bit pricey and I have seen similar size HD TV with HDMI in at a lower cost.For more models and pricing there is always New Egg [newegg.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122744</id>
	<title>Projector?</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1258370520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm the first post to suggest a projector?</p><p>Its really not that expensive, compared to salaries, ADA lawsuits, etc.</p><p>Also, you may need one for yourself, for "evaluation" purposes (not lan parties and lunchtime movie theatre, no not that)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the first post to suggest a projector ? Its really not that expensive , compared to salaries , ADA lawsuits , etc.Also , you may need one for yourself , for " evaluation " purposes ( not lan parties and lunchtime movie theatre , no not that )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the first post to suggest a projector?Its really not that expensive, compared to salaries, ADA lawsuits, etc.Also, you may need one for yourself, for "evaluation" purposes (not lan parties and lunchtime movie theatre, no not that)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124060</id>
	<title>The issue is LCD technology...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258377120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a few things missing from this argument. Everyone seems to focus on wide-screen monitors. Agreed it is an issue, with new laptops running extremely high resolutions. Our company (very large user base) purchases 4:3 ratio laptops. 1400x1050 and above are sometimes too small.</p><p>The real issue is with our call centre. We run dual-head with 19" HP LCD screens, which are native 1280x1024. For a majority of users (who are over 40 years old) this is too small. Most have great eyesight, however for the length of time and work they perform this can become tiring. So most of the time each screen is running at 1024x768, we all know how fuzzy this can look. At the end of the day I find this fuzziness more tiring than a higher resolution, but that's me.</p><p>Using very large wide-screen monitors is not an option. It yields less working space and once again the overall resolution is too high. I would love for there to be a lower resolution 19" or 20" monitor on HP catalogue but that's not a reality. We have some 17" monitors but once again these are 1280x1024 and are being phased out.</p><p>I loved my old 17" CRT. It would run any resolution up to 1280x1024. 1152x864 was where it was happiest and that was the perfect resolution for my eyes and the screen size. Every resolution was sharp - I understand the mechanical differences between CRT and LCD - I just wish it weren't so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a few things missing from this argument .
Everyone seems to focus on wide-screen monitors .
Agreed it is an issue , with new laptops running extremely high resolutions .
Our company ( very large user base ) purchases 4 : 3 ratio laptops .
1400x1050 and above are sometimes too small.The real issue is with our call centre .
We run dual-head with 19 " HP LCD screens , which are native 1280x1024 .
For a majority of users ( who are over 40 years old ) this is too small .
Most have great eyesight , however for the length of time and work they perform this can become tiring .
So most of the time each screen is running at 1024x768 , we all know how fuzzy this can look .
At the end of the day I find this fuzziness more tiring than a higher resolution , but that 's me.Using very large wide-screen monitors is not an option .
It yields less working space and once again the overall resolution is too high .
I would love for there to be a lower resolution 19 " or 20 " monitor on HP catalogue but that 's not a reality .
We have some 17 " monitors but once again these are 1280x1024 and are being phased out.I loved my old 17 " CRT .
It would run any resolution up to 1280x1024 .
1152x864 was where it was happiest and that was the perfect resolution for my eyes and the screen size .
Every resolution was sharp - I understand the mechanical differences between CRT and LCD - I just wish it were n't so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a few things missing from this argument.
Everyone seems to focus on wide-screen monitors.
Agreed it is an issue, with new laptops running extremely high resolutions.
Our company (very large user base) purchases 4:3 ratio laptops.
1400x1050 and above are sometimes too small.The real issue is with our call centre.
We run dual-head with 19" HP LCD screens, which are native 1280x1024.
For a majority of users (who are over 40 years old) this is too small.
Most have great eyesight, however for the length of time and work they perform this can become tiring.
So most of the time each screen is running at 1024x768, we all know how fuzzy this can look.
At the end of the day I find this fuzziness more tiring than a higher resolution, but that's me.Using very large wide-screen monitors is not an option.
It yields less working space and once again the overall resolution is too high.
I would love for there to be a lower resolution 19" or 20" monitor on HP catalogue but that's not a reality.
We have some 17" monitors but once again these are 1280x1024 and are being phased out.I loved my old 17" CRT.
It would run any resolution up to 1280x1024.
1152x864 was where it was happiest and that was the perfect resolution for my eyes and the screen size.
Every resolution was sharp - I understand the mechanical differences between CRT and LCD - I just wish it weren't so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121684</id>
	<title>Define "affordable"</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1258366980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Affordable to you may be unfordable for me or unaffordable to you is perfectly affordable to Donald Trump.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Affordable to you may be unfordable for me or unaffordable to you is perfectly affordable to Donald Trump .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Affordable to you may be unfordable for me or unaffordable to you is perfectly affordable to Donald Trump.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122068</id>
	<title>Re:Is the problem really DPI?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1258368000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean like how you can simply scroll and get everything zoomed in in OS X Leopard and Snow Leopard?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like how you can simply scroll and get everything zoomed in in OS X Leopard and Snow Leopard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like how you can simply scroll and get everything zoomed in in OS X Leopard and Snow Leopard?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122558</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1258369680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a display adapter that actually provides 840x525 resolution?  And an LCD that will sync to it?  In theory it should be possible, but I have never seen that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a display adapter that actually provides 840x525 resolution ?
And an LCD that will sync to it ?
In theory it should be possible , but I have never seen that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a display adapter that actually provides 840x525 resolution?
And an LCD that will sync to it?
In theory it should be possible, but I have never seen that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121694</id>
	<title>larger fonts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258366980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about using the native resolution of one of the standard displays, but setting the default fonts larger?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about using the native resolution of one of the standard displays , but setting the default fonts larger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about using the native resolution of one of the standard displays, but setting the default fonts larger?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122052</id>
	<title>Really, get some glasses</title>
	<author>Teun</author>
	<datestamp>1258367940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm in that age bracket and since about 6 years I need reading glasses.<p>
It was in the office at the computer I noticed one morning I couldn't properly focus any more when close up to the computer screen.<br>
That same day I went to the supermarket and got some 5 Euro reading glasses and everything is back in focus.</p><p>

We use 15.4" laptops with a HD screen, yes the pitch is small but with the right glasses it's no problem what so ever.<br>
As a matter of fact, decreasing the resolution might make the font large enough for me to read but I'd still suffer a very uncomfortable loss of focus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in that age bracket and since about 6 years I need reading glasses .
It was in the office at the computer I noticed one morning I could n't properly focus any more when close up to the computer screen .
That same day I went to the supermarket and got some 5 Euro reading glasses and everything is back in focus .
We use 15.4 " laptops with a HD screen , yes the pitch is small but with the right glasses it 's no problem what so ever .
As a matter of fact , decreasing the resolution might make the font large enough for me to read but I 'd still suffer a very uncomfortable loss of focus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in that age bracket and since about 6 years I need reading glasses.
It was in the office at the computer I noticed one morning I couldn't properly focus any more when close up to the computer screen.
That same day I went to the supermarket and got some 5 Euro reading glasses and everything is back in focus.
We use 15.4" laptops with a HD screen, yes the pitch is small but with the right glasses it's no problem what so ever.
As a matter of fact, decreasing the resolution might make the font large enough for me to read but I'd still suffer a very uncomfortable loss of focus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30127410</id>
	<title>Re:Age besets me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258458660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not 40 yet and already noticing loss of eyesight. Luckily no wonky stuff (yet, hope not), just trouble focusing. Too many nights hacking by less light than a candle, I guess. Personally I've always abhorred black-on-wite or even white-on-blue text, so I use white-on-black (or yellow-on-black or green-on-black). But then, I'm free to choose my email client, so I use mutt in an xterm set to "huge" font giving me 80 columns by 35 lines (768 pixel screen height, using 40 lines if it's more) in which to navigate, read, and write email, with a reasonably large and easy to read font.</p><p>My point? Email isn't paper, so no need to stick to black-on-white. Unrelatedly, it would be nice if people put at least as much effort into writing an email as they did with a formal letter, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not 40 yet and already noticing loss of eyesight .
Luckily no wonky stuff ( yet , hope not ) , just trouble focusing .
Too many nights hacking by less light than a candle , I guess .
Personally I 've always abhorred black-on-wite or even white-on-blue text , so I use white-on-black ( or yellow-on-black or green-on-black ) .
But then , I 'm free to choose my email client , so I use mutt in an xterm set to " huge " font giving me 80 columns by 35 lines ( 768 pixel screen height , using 40 lines if it 's more ) in which to navigate , read , and write email , with a reasonably large and easy to read font.My point ?
Email is n't paper , so no need to stick to black-on-white .
Unrelatedly , it would be nice if people put at least as much effort into writing an email as they did with a formal letter , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not 40 yet and already noticing loss of eyesight.
Luckily no wonky stuff (yet, hope not), just trouble focusing.
Too many nights hacking by less light than a candle, I guess.
Personally I've always abhorred black-on-wite or even white-on-blue text, so I use white-on-black (or yellow-on-black or green-on-black).
But then, I'm free to choose my email client, so I use mutt in an xterm set to "huge" font giving me 80 columns by 35 lines (768 pixel screen height, using 40 lines if it's more) in which to navigate, read, and write email, with a reasonably large and easy to read font.My point?
Email isn't paper, so no need to stick to black-on-white.
Unrelatedly, it would be nice if people put at least as much effort into writing an email as they did with a formal letter, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121946</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1258367640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, you can change these things, but most apps are meant to be run at a typical resolution and don't look nearly as good otherwise. You also spend half your day fiddling with the resolution to get it just right.</p><p>I use this with Firefox on my "primary" laptop, which has a 15" screen and a 1920x1200 resolution. It's cool that FF remembers the setting for each page. It's annoying to have to set each page. Sadly, when I dock at work, I use a 24" monitor and then everything has to get set back (thank goodness for ctrl-0).</p><p>I used to complain about Macs connecting monitors only at a given resolution (CRTs)...it's clear they just favored old people.  Now that I'm old I see the logic, not that I agree with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , you can change these things , but most apps are meant to be run at a typical resolution and do n't look nearly as good otherwise .
You also spend half your day fiddling with the resolution to get it just right.I use this with Firefox on my " primary " laptop , which has a 15 " screen and a 1920x1200 resolution .
It 's cool that FF remembers the setting for each page .
It 's annoying to have to set each page .
Sadly , when I dock at work , I use a 24 " monitor and then everything has to get set back ( thank goodness for ctrl-0 ) .I used to complain about Macs connecting monitors only at a given resolution ( CRTs ) ...it 's clear they just favored old people .
Now that I 'm old I see the logic , not that I agree with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, you can change these things, but most apps are meant to be run at a typical resolution and don't look nearly as good otherwise.
You also spend half your day fiddling with the resolution to get it just right.I use this with Firefox on my "primary" laptop, which has a 15" screen and a 1920x1200 resolution.
It's cool that FF remembers the setting for each page.
It's annoying to have to set each page.
Sadly, when I dock at work, I use a 24" monitor and then everything has to get set back (thank goodness for ctrl-0).I used to complain about Macs connecting monitors only at a given resolution (CRTs)...it's clear they just favored old people.
Now that I'm old I see the logic, not that I agree with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121920</id>
	<title>Re:Fresnel Lens</title>
	<author>mmkkbb</author>
	<datestamp>1258367580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It worked in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/" title="imdb.com">Brazil</a> [imdb.com] first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It worked in Brazil [ imdb.com ] first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It worked in Brazil [imdb.com] first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121930</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1258367580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are SO many assistance applications, magnifiers, and Os adjustments that asking for a lower resolution screen in a given size simply isn't required.</p><p>Also, telling someone to simply get a better pair of glasses is often a cheaper and simpler answer.  Also, moving the screen closer to the user and using a smalle r screen also works (as the REASOn for a bigger screen is NOT making things bigger, it's to have more stuff on it!)</p><p>At the proper distance, a 17" LCS at 1024x768 is the same physical size as a 24" screen about 1.5 feet further away.  Tell them to save $200, but a 19" screen, and see their eye doctor.  They'll break even, and be able to read everything else better too!</p><p>If they're eyesight has fallen THAT far, then bigger print is not so much a concern, and it really is time to turn on the "assistance" features.  (someone who's only 50 and can't read 1024x768 at arms length on a 19" screen wearing glasses or contacts also likely can't pass their state's eyesight requirements for DRIVING.  I'm holding the daily paper up against my 22" screen (running 1200 vertical lines) and the text at arms length is BIGGER than the text in the newspaper as held at a standard reading distance (arms bent), and therefore even at the much higher resolution, should actually be EASIER to read than print...  The text on my iPhone is less than half this size!  If my parents could not read my screen sitting in my chair, I'd be asking for the keys to their car, permanantly, as they're no longer safe to have behind the wheel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are SO many assistance applications , magnifiers , and Os adjustments that asking for a lower resolution screen in a given size simply is n't required.Also , telling someone to simply get a better pair of glasses is often a cheaper and simpler answer .
Also , moving the screen closer to the user and using a smalle r screen also works ( as the REASOn for a bigger screen is NOT making things bigger , it 's to have more stuff on it !
) At the proper distance , a 17 " LCS at 1024x768 is the same physical size as a 24 " screen about 1.5 feet further away .
Tell them to save $ 200 , but a 19 " screen , and see their eye doctor .
They 'll break even , and be able to read everything else better too ! If they 're eyesight has fallen THAT far , then bigger print is not so much a concern , and it really is time to turn on the " assistance " features .
( someone who 's only 50 and ca n't read 1024x768 at arms length on a 19 " screen wearing glasses or contacts also likely ca n't pass their state 's eyesight requirements for DRIVING .
I 'm holding the daily paper up against my 22 " screen ( running 1200 vertical lines ) and the text at arms length is BIGGER than the text in the newspaper as held at a standard reading distance ( arms bent ) , and therefore even at the much higher resolution , should actually be EASIER to read than print... The text on my iPhone is less than half this size !
If my parents could not read my screen sitting in my chair , I 'd be asking for the keys to their car , permanantly , as they 're no longer safe to have behind the wheel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are SO many assistance applications, magnifiers, and Os adjustments that asking for a lower resolution screen in a given size simply isn't required.Also, telling someone to simply get a better pair of glasses is often a cheaper and simpler answer.
Also, moving the screen closer to the user and using a smalle r screen also works (as the REASOn for a bigger screen is NOT making things bigger, it's to have more stuff on it!
)At the proper distance, a 17" LCS at 1024x768 is the same physical size as a 24" screen about 1.5 feet further away.
Tell them to save $200, but a 19" screen, and see their eye doctor.
They'll break even, and be able to read everything else better too!If they're eyesight has fallen THAT far, then bigger print is not so much a concern, and it really is time to turn on the "assistance" features.
(someone who's only 50 and can't read 1024x768 at arms length on a 19" screen wearing glasses or contacts also likely can't pass their state's eyesight requirements for DRIVING.
I'm holding the daily paper up against my 22" screen (running 1200 vertical lines) and the text at arms length is BIGGER than the text in the newspaper as held at a standard reading distance (arms bent), and therefore even at the much higher resolution, should actually be EASIER to read than print...  The text on my iPhone is less than half this size!
If my parents could not read my screen sitting in my chair, I'd be asking for the keys to their car, permanantly, as they're no longer safe to have behind the wheel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122328</id>
	<title>Joke</title>
	<author>Slash.Poop</author>
	<datestamp>1258368900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does the Pope shit in the woods?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the Pope shit in the woods ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the Pope shit in the woods?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122258</id>
	<title>Wrong question implying the wrong solution</title>
	<author>proxima</author>
	<datestamp>1258368600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wanting a low DPI monitor is the absolute wrong answer to an important question - how do we make our computers easier to read if we don't have good eyesight?</p><p>Sure, low DPI monitors will make everything look large, but the correct solution is a vector-scalable desktop environment.  I want more DPI crammed into my desktop (to make it closer to my laptop), not less.  The higher the DPI, the less we depend on hacks like antialiasing and sub-pixel font rendering to make our fonts appear smooth.</p><p>Once you obtain a monitor of appropriate physical size and reasonably large DPI, the problem is entirely within software.  Windows XP had somewhat limited options, though you can play with font DPIs and such.  Older versions of KDE and GNOME used bitmapped images for icons, making them ugly if you scale them.  Newer versions (at least of KDE) use SVG everywhere.  Then it's a matter of finding themes with sufficiently large buttons, scroll wheels, etc.  A little work, but relatively do-able in Linux.   Hopefully newer versions of Windows also provide more flexibility here, or perhaps with some add-on software. I haven't tried messing with Mac OS X's accessibility options too much.</p><p>That said, there are always issues.  Emacs for me doesn't grab the DPI setting from GNOME to set its font size, so when I dock my laptop and X reports a DPI change, my fonts also change.  I have some code in my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.emacs file to detect the system DPI and set the font to something reasonable, but I haven't yet tested it in docked mode yet.</p><p>But the bottom line is that we've reached about the limit of reasonable desktop screen sizes.  These screens are also pretty cheap (much cheaper than similarly-sized CRTs ever were).  That means that the source of improvement is in native resolution, viewing angle, color accuracy, etc.  I'd absolutely love a 300 dpi monitor and have antialiasing need to do little or nothing to make my fonts look spectacular.  Phone screens are getting there, then will come laptop screens, and hopefully in a few years we'll have 200 dpi+ monitors as the OSes will all support scaling everything appropriately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wanting a low DPI monitor is the absolute wrong answer to an important question - how do we make our computers easier to read if we do n't have good eyesight ? Sure , low DPI monitors will make everything look large , but the correct solution is a vector-scalable desktop environment .
I want more DPI crammed into my desktop ( to make it closer to my laptop ) , not less .
The higher the DPI , the less we depend on hacks like antialiasing and sub-pixel font rendering to make our fonts appear smooth.Once you obtain a monitor of appropriate physical size and reasonably large DPI , the problem is entirely within software .
Windows XP had somewhat limited options , though you can play with font DPIs and such .
Older versions of KDE and GNOME used bitmapped images for icons , making them ugly if you scale them .
Newer versions ( at least of KDE ) use SVG everywhere .
Then it 's a matter of finding themes with sufficiently large buttons , scroll wheels , etc .
A little work , but relatively do-able in Linux .
Hopefully newer versions of Windows also provide more flexibility here , or perhaps with some add-on software .
I have n't tried messing with Mac OS X 's accessibility options too much.That said , there are always issues .
Emacs for me does n't grab the DPI setting from GNOME to set its font size , so when I dock my laptop and X reports a DPI change , my fonts also change .
I have some code in my .emacs file to detect the system DPI and set the font to something reasonable , but I have n't yet tested it in docked mode yet.But the bottom line is that we 've reached about the limit of reasonable desktop screen sizes .
These screens are also pretty cheap ( much cheaper than similarly-sized CRTs ever were ) .
That means that the source of improvement is in native resolution , viewing angle , color accuracy , etc .
I 'd absolutely love a 300 dpi monitor and have antialiasing need to do little or nothing to make my fonts look spectacular .
Phone screens are getting there , then will come laptop screens , and hopefully in a few years we 'll have 200 dpi + monitors as the OSes will all support scaling everything appropriately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wanting a low DPI monitor is the absolute wrong answer to an important question - how do we make our computers easier to read if we don't have good eyesight?Sure, low DPI monitors will make everything look large, but the correct solution is a vector-scalable desktop environment.
I want more DPI crammed into my desktop (to make it closer to my laptop), not less.
The higher the DPI, the less we depend on hacks like antialiasing and sub-pixel font rendering to make our fonts appear smooth.Once you obtain a monitor of appropriate physical size and reasonably large DPI, the problem is entirely within software.
Windows XP had somewhat limited options, though you can play with font DPIs and such.
Older versions of KDE and GNOME used bitmapped images for icons, making them ugly if you scale them.
Newer versions (at least of KDE) use SVG everywhere.
Then it's a matter of finding themes with sufficiently large buttons, scroll wheels, etc.
A little work, but relatively do-able in Linux.
Hopefully newer versions of Windows also provide more flexibility here, or perhaps with some add-on software.
I haven't tried messing with Mac OS X's accessibility options too much.That said, there are always issues.
Emacs for me doesn't grab the DPI setting from GNOME to set its font size, so when I dock my laptop and X reports a DPI change, my fonts also change.
I have some code in my .emacs file to detect the system DPI and set the font to something reasonable, but I haven't yet tested it in docked mode yet.But the bottom line is that we've reached about the limit of reasonable desktop screen sizes.
These screens are also pretty cheap (much cheaper than similarly-sized CRTs ever were).
That means that the source of improvement is in native resolution, viewing angle, color accuracy, etc.
I'd absolutely love a 300 dpi monitor and have antialiasing need to do little or nothing to make my fonts look spectacular.
Phone screens are getting there, then will come laptop screens, and hopefully in a few years we'll have 200 dpi+ monitors as the OSes will all support scaling everything appropriately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125192</id>
	<title>Re:Set the computer to use half the native resolut</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1258386420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't work in for all OS/GPU/Monitor combos. I tried setting a custom resolution in XP, and my videocard got quite grumpy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>But yes, that's perfect, in theory. I've often thought games should have that option(half-size), so people with horrible videocards can play in 1024x768 -&gt; <b>512x384</b> glory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't work in for all OS/GPU/Monitor combos .
I tried setting a custom resolution in XP , and my videocard got quite grumpy .
: PBut yes , that 's perfect , in theory .
I 've often thought games should have that option ( half-size ) , so people with horrible videocards can play in 1024x768 - &gt; 512x384 glory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't work in for all OS/GPU/Monitor combos.
I tried setting a custom resolution in XP, and my videocard got quite grumpy.
:PBut yes, that's perfect, in theory.
I've often thought games should have that option(half-size), so people with horrible videocards can play in 1024x768 -&gt; 512x384 glory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30127594</id>
	<title>Re:New Egg</title>
	<author>Acer500</author>
	<datestamp>1258461960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I prefer a 4:3 ratio on my screens and those have become very hard to find.</p></div><p>Amen to that. My father and I also prefer that ratio, and he has resorted to buying secondhand 17' and 19' , but there are no larger LCDs with that ratio unfortunately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I prefer a 4 : 3 ratio on my screens and those have become very hard to find.Amen to that .
My father and I also prefer that ratio , and he has resorted to buying secondhand 17 ' and 19 ' , but there are no larger LCDs with that ratio unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I prefer a 4:3 ratio on my screens and those have become very hard to find.Amen to that.
My father and I also prefer that ratio, and he has resorted to buying secondhand 17' and 19' , but there are no larger LCDs with that ratio unfortunately.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121974</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30128046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30137232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30130486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30128368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30127384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30127410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30127594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30228722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30130132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30137864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_16_2111206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30152822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123518
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30137864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125250
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30128368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30127384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30137232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30127410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125618
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126784
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30128046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30152822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30127594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30130486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30228722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30124330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30122582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30126860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30130132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_16_2111206.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30121766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30123336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_16_2111206.30125180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
