<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_20_1341256</id>
	<title>Response To California's Large-Screen TV Regulation</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258732500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"It's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy, but when they <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/182653/california\_energy\_commission\_rule\_to\_impact\_hdtv\_industry.html">target your big-screen TVs for elimination</a>, consumers and manufacturers are apt to declare war. CEDIA and the CEA are up in arms over this. Audioholics has an interesting response that involves <a href="http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/cedia-bashes-ca-ruling-big-tvs">setting the TVs in 'SCAM' mode</a> to meet the energy criteria technically without having to add additional cost or increase costs to consumers. 'In this mode, the display brightness/contrast settings would be set a few clicks to the right of zero, audio would be disabled and backlighting would be set to minimum. The power consumption should be measured in this mode much like an A/V receiver power consumption is measured with one channel driven at full rated power and the other channels at 1/8th power.' This is an example of an <a href="http://hometheater.about.com/b/2009/11/18/california-energy-commissions-approves-tv-efficiency-regulations.htm">impending train wreck</a> of unintended consequences, and many are grabbing the popcorn and pulling up chairs to watch."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " It 's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy , but when they target your big-screen TVs for elimination , consumers and manufacturers are apt to declare war .
CEDIA and the CEA are up in arms over this .
Audioholics has an interesting response that involves setting the TVs in 'SCAM ' mode to meet the energy criteria technically without having to add additional cost or increase costs to consumers .
'In this mode , the display brightness/contrast settings would be set a few clicks to the right of zero , audio would be disabled and backlighting would be set to minimum .
The power consumption should be measured in this mode much like an A/V receiver power consumption is measured with one channel driven at full rated power and the other channels at 1/8th power .
' This is an example of an impending train wreck of unintended consequences , and many are grabbing the popcorn and pulling up chairs to watch .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "It's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy, but when they target your big-screen TVs for elimination, consumers and manufacturers are apt to declare war.
CEDIA and the CEA are up in arms over this.
Audioholics has an interesting response that involves setting the TVs in 'SCAM' mode to meet the energy criteria technically without having to add additional cost or increase costs to consumers.
'In this mode, the display brightness/contrast settings would be set a few clicks to the right of zero, audio would be disabled and backlighting would be set to minimum.
The power consumption should be measured in this mode much like an A/V receiver power consumption is measured with one channel driven at full rated power and the other channels at 1/8th power.
' This is an example of an impending train wreck of unintended consequences, and many are grabbing the popcorn and pulling up chairs to watch.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173392</id>
	<title>Re:...sadly, still no regulation to require RTFA.</title>
	<author>CityZen</author>
	<datestamp>1258741620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.  Presentation on the law: <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009\_tvregs/documents/2009-10-13\_hearing/2009-10-13\_STAFF\_PRESENTATION.PDF" title="ca.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009\_tvregs/documents/2009-10-13\_hearing/2009-10-13\_STAFF\_PRESENTATION.PDF</a> [ca.gov]</p><p>Test Method:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Tests the luminance of televisions in both its default/home mode and the retail or brightest (aka torch) selectable mode.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Also, both technology and the desire to reduce manufacturing costs have been driving down TV power consumption already.  It's cheaper to make smaller power supplies and have smaller heatsinks and heat shields, and if adding a 3M film to the panel increases light output 30\%, you need that much less backlight power.</p><p>Still, it would probably be a better idea if the law just required TV makers/retailers to put a sticker on the front of each set indicating the power consumption in dollars and cents (units people understand).  Indeed, they should do this for everything with a plug.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Presentation on the law : http : //www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009 \ _tvregs/documents/2009-10-13 \ _hearing/2009-10-13 \ _STAFF \ _PRESENTATION.PDF [ ca.gov ] Test Method : ...Tests the luminance of televisions in both its default/home mode and the retail or brightest ( aka torch ) selectable mode .
...Also , both technology and the desire to reduce manufacturing costs have been driving down TV power consumption already .
It 's cheaper to make smaller power supplies and have smaller heatsinks and heat shields , and if adding a 3M film to the panel increases light output 30 \ % , you need that much less backlight power.Still , it would probably be a better idea if the law just required TV makers/retailers to put a sticker on the front of each set indicating the power consumption in dollars and cents ( units people understand ) .
Indeed , they should do this for everything with a plug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Presentation on the law: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009\_tvregs/documents/2009-10-13\_hearing/2009-10-13\_STAFF\_PRESENTATION.PDF [ca.gov]Test Method: ...Tests the luminance of televisions in both its default/home mode and the retail or brightest (aka torch) selectable mode.
...Also, both technology and the desire to reduce manufacturing costs have been driving down TV power consumption already.
It's cheaper to make smaller power supplies and have smaller heatsinks and heat shields, and if adding a 3M film to the panel increases light output 30\%, you need that much less backlight power.Still, it would probably be a better idea if the law just required TV makers/retailers to put a sticker on the front of each set indicating the power consumption in dollars and cents (units people understand).
Indeed, they should do this for everything with a plug.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>Wrath0fb0b</author>
	<datestamp>1258738020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Who this hurts is those who have bet on Plasma technology, as plasma can effectively not meet these requirements, but plasma is dying anyway, as LCD screens keep getting bigger and faster reacting while being cheaper than plasma TVs.</p> </div><p> You can pry my plasma from my cold dead hands, because I appreciate things like dark blacks, bright whites, color fidelity and blur free motion. LCDs are a lot better than they were at these things, but 1000:1 contrast (DNC is a lie) is still a deal breaker.</p><p>I gladly pay for every watt that my plasma draws, so if you think that I'm not paying my fair share, I invite you to find a rate that you think is more fair (of course, remember that you'll have to pay that rate for your fridge too -- a KWH is the same irrespective of what use). Moreover, my energy use is median for my area, so I'm not using more than my neighbor even if my TV uses more than his TV -- I save energy in other ways.</p><p>Finally, I have no problem driving up to Oregon (bonus: no sales tax) to buy my next TV. It's quite ironic that a measure intended to cut energy use would encourage such insanely wasteful behavior -- TV energy use pales in comparison to a few hundred miles on my (30mpg) vehicle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who this hurts is those who have bet on Plasma technology , as plasma can effectively not meet these requirements , but plasma is dying anyway , as LCD screens keep getting bigger and faster reacting while being cheaper than plasma TVs .
You can pry my plasma from my cold dead hands , because I appreciate things like dark blacks , bright whites , color fidelity and blur free motion .
LCDs are a lot better than they were at these things , but 1000 : 1 contrast ( DNC is a lie ) is still a deal breaker.I gladly pay for every watt that my plasma draws , so if you think that I 'm not paying my fair share , I invite you to find a rate that you think is more fair ( of course , remember that you 'll have to pay that rate for your fridge too -- a KWH is the same irrespective of what use ) .
Moreover , my energy use is median for my area , so I 'm not using more than my neighbor even if my TV uses more than his TV -- I save energy in other ways.Finally , I have no problem driving up to Oregon ( bonus : no sales tax ) to buy my next TV .
It 's quite ironic that a measure intended to cut energy use would encourage such insanely wasteful behavior -- TV energy use pales in comparison to a few hundred miles on my ( 30mpg ) vehicle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Who this hurts is those who have bet on Plasma technology, as plasma can effectively not meet these requirements, but plasma is dying anyway, as LCD screens keep getting bigger and faster reacting while being cheaper than plasma TVs.
You can pry my plasma from my cold dead hands, because I appreciate things like dark blacks, bright whites, color fidelity and blur free motion.
LCDs are a lot better than they were at these things, but 1000:1 contrast (DNC is a lie) is still a deal breaker.I gladly pay for every watt that my plasma draws, so if you think that I'm not paying my fair share, I invite you to find a rate that you think is more fair (of course, remember that you'll have to pay that rate for your fridge too -- a KWH is the same irrespective of what use).
Moreover, my energy use is median for my area, so I'm not using more than my neighbor even if my TV uses more than his TV -- I save energy in other ways.Finally, I have no problem driving up to Oregon (bonus: no sales tax) to buy my next TV.
It's quite ironic that a measure intended to cut energy use would encourage such insanely wasteful behavior -- TV energy use pales in comparison to a few hundred miles on my (30mpg) vehicle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172332</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>Thavilden</author>
	<datestamp>1258738020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LED backlit LCDs are not cheaper than plasmas. They still cost almost 50\% more. This is comparing a top of the line Panasonic plasma to a top of the line Sony LCD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>LED backlit LCDs are not cheaper than plasmas .
They still cost almost 50 \ % more .
This is comparing a top of the line Panasonic plasma to a top of the line Sony LCD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LED backlit LCDs are not cheaper than plasmas.
They still cost almost 50\% more.
This is comparing a top of the line Panasonic plasma to a top of the line Sony LCD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173470</id>
	<title>Re:Why the uproar?</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1258741920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, I don't have nearly enough room for a 50" plus sized screen either.</p></div><p>You don't have a wall in your home over 4 feet long? Where do you live, a closet? Hell, even my closet is longer than 4 feet...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , I do n't have nearly enough room for a 50 " plus sized screen either.You do n't have a wall in your home over 4 feet long ?
Where do you live , a closet ?
Hell , even my closet is longer than 4 feet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, I don't have nearly enough room for a 50" plus sized screen either.You don't have a wall in your home over 4 feet long?
Where do you live, a closet?
Hell, even my closet is longer than 4 feet...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172492</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>thrillseeker</author>
	<datestamp>1258738620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>subsidize: v: making someone else pay for my choices</htmltext>
<tokenext>subsidize : v : making someone else pay for my choices</tokentext>
<sentencetext>subsidize: v: making someone else pay for my choices</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176530</id>
	<title>Re:Suicide State?</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1258709280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How will more efficient TVs even result in suffering of any kind, let alone "suicide".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How will more efficient TVs even result in suffering of any kind , let alone " suicide " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will more efficient TVs even result in suffering of any kind, let alone "suicide".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172342</id>
	<title>Re:It's surprising how much power new TV's use.</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1258738020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That seems especially bad compared to this, never mind LCD or Plasma:</p><p><a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>(but those numbers are for the TVs as they come out of the box, so who knows)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems especially bad compared to this , never mind LCD or Plasma : http : //reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/ [ cnet.com ] ( but those numbers are for the TVs as they come out of the box , so who knows )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems especially bad compared to this, never mind LCD or Plasma:http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/ [cnet.com](but those numbers are for the TVs as they come out of the box, so who knows)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173996</id>
	<title>Re:Trying to save the planet</title>
	<author>e\_hu\_man</author>
	<datestamp>1258743840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We are <b>not</b> going back.</p></div><p>
i think the planet may have something to say about this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are not going back .
i think the planet may have something to say about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are not going back.
i think the planet may have something to say about this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173178</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>wannabegeek2</author>
	<datestamp>1258740900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I absolutely agree! I assume by your comment then that you'll be doing your part to reduce the overpopulation and finding a way to excise yourself from humanity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I absolutely agree !
I assume by your comment then that you 'll be doing your part to reduce the overpopulation and finding a way to excise yourself from humanity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I absolutely agree!
I assume by your comment then that you'll be doing your part to reduce the overpopulation and finding a way to excise yourself from humanity?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173912</id>
	<title>Re:...sadly, still no regulation to require RTFA.</title>
	<author>5KVGhost</author>
	<datestamp>1258743600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize that Energy Star guidelines do not have the force of law, right?</p><p>"That California's regulations are mandatory, and not voluntary--like the Energy Star spec--appears to be the biggest distinction between the two, and appears to be the big sticking point for the industry. But California's mandate will reach much farther than the Golden State's borders."</p><p>But, as you said, there's no regulation to require reading the RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that Energy Star guidelines do not have the force of law , right ?
" That California 's regulations are mandatory , and not voluntary--like the Energy Star spec--appears to be the biggest distinction between the two , and appears to be the big sticking point for the industry .
But California 's mandate will reach much farther than the Golden State 's borders .
" But , as you said , there 's no regulation to require reading the RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that Energy Star guidelines do not have the force of law, right?
"That California's regulations are mandatory, and not voluntary--like the Energy Star spec--appears to be the biggest distinction between the two, and appears to be the big sticking point for the industry.
But California's mandate will reach much farther than the Golden State's borders.
"But, as you said, there's no regulation to require reading the RTFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172904</id>
	<title>Re:...sadly, still no regulation to require RTFA.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258739820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Governator is not coming to steal your teevees.</i></p><p>That is good to hear. Considering he has already come to steal 15\% of my wages through furloughs, I wouldn't be surprised at anything the Governator does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Governator is not coming to steal your teevees.That is good to hear .
Considering he has already come to steal 15 \ % of my wages through furloughs , I would n't be surprised at anything the Governator does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Governator is not coming to steal your teevees.That is good to hear.
Considering he has already come to steal 15\% of my wages through furloughs, I wouldn't be surprised at anything the Governator does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173982</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1258743840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is unless your house is HUGE a huge CRT isn't very practical. LCDs and plasmas OTOH can be wall mounted and therefore take up much less space for a given screen size.</p><p>I'm in the uk where afacit our rooms are smaller than is typical in the USA but until recently 30 inch would have been considered very big for a TV (living room TVs were usually somewhere in the low 20s) but all the big box stores are now pushing massive TVs.</p><p>And then there is the whole widescreen thing, at least until recently (it seems to be slowly changing now) the extra space at the side of a widescreen was mostly filled with fluff so to get the important parts of the picture at the same size on your new widescreen it needs to be bigger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is unless your house is HUGE a huge CRT is n't very practical .
LCDs and plasmas OTOH can be wall mounted and therefore take up much less space for a given screen size.I 'm in the uk where afacit our rooms are smaller than is typical in the USA but until recently 30 inch would have been considered very big for a TV ( living room TVs were usually somewhere in the low 20s ) but all the big box stores are now pushing massive TVs.And then there is the whole widescreen thing , at least until recently ( it seems to be slowly changing now ) the extra space at the side of a widescreen was mostly filled with fluff so to get the important parts of the picture at the same size on your new widescreen it needs to be bigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is unless your house is HUGE a huge CRT isn't very practical.
LCDs and plasmas OTOH can be wall mounted and therefore take up much less space for a given screen size.I'm in the uk where afacit our rooms are smaller than is typical in the USA but until recently 30 inch would have been considered very big for a TV (living room TVs were usually somewhere in the low 20s) but all the big box stores are now pushing massive TVs.And then there is the whole widescreen thing, at least until recently (it seems to be slowly changing now) the extra space at the side of a widescreen was mostly filled with fluff so to get the important parts of the picture at the same size on your new widescreen it needs to be bigger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30178254</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1258714980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Mazda3 hatchback swallowed up my 52" Sony...I think my Mazda gets 30mpg?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Mazda3 hatchback swallowed up my 52 " Sony...I think my Mazda gets 30mpg ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Mazda3 hatchback swallowed up my 52" Sony...I think my Mazda gets 30mpg?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172800</id>
	<title>Re:This whole thing is BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258739460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"my Sony 36" CRT uses less electricity (76 watts at full brightness/full volume)"</p><p>Really? I just fired-up and checked at my spare Sony 15" CRT monitor and it's using 140 watts.  And by your reasoning cars should be limited to achieving no more than maybe 10 mpg in order to enhance tax revenues on gasoline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" my Sony 36 " CRT uses less electricity ( 76 watts at full brightness/full volume ) " Really ?
I just fired-up and checked at my spare Sony 15 " CRT monitor and it 's using 140 watts .
And by your reasoning cars should be limited to achieving no more than maybe 10 mpg in order to enhance tax revenues on gasoline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"my Sony 36" CRT uses less electricity (76 watts at full brightness/full volume)"Really?
I just fired-up and checked at my spare Sony 15" CRT monitor and it's using 140 watts.
And by your reasoning cars should be limited to achieving no more than maybe 10 mpg in order to enhance tax revenues on gasoline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175070</id>
	<title>Worst summary ever</title>
	<author>richmaine</author>
	<datestamp>1258747320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, ok, not really the worst, but only because the competition for worst slashdot summary is pretty intense. I don't think I'll bother to comment on the merits of the actual proposal. The summary says more about whoever wrote the summary than about the proposal.</p><p>No, the regulation does not "target your big-screen TVs for elimination." Those few who RFTA will note that it doesn't say anything close to that. I note that the summary says nothing about what the proposal actually does say.</p><p>And I see that the poster makes sure to throw in spurious knee-jerk words like "unelected bureaucrats" because that certainly constructively contributes to the debate. Why would one want to debate issues when you can instead throw epithets? Going to claim they are child molesters as well?</p><p>Anyone who starts out like this summary isn't worth arguing with. When you start by blatantly misstating the most basic of facts in the matter and then continue by using irrelevant epithets in hope of getting knee-jerk agreement, I don't think you are looking for reasoned debate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , ok , not really the worst , but only because the competition for worst slashdot summary is pretty intense .
I do n't think I 'll bother to comment on the merits of the actual proposal .
The summary says more about whoever wrote the summary than about the proposal.No , the regulation does not " target your big-screen TVs for elimination .
" Those few who RFTA will note that it does n't say anything close to that .
I note that the summary says nothing about what the proposal actually does say.And I see that the poster makes sure to throw in spurious knee-jerk words like " unelected bureaucrats " because that certainly constructively contributes to the debate .
Why would one want to debate issues when you can instead throw epithets ?
Going to claim they are child molesters as well ? Anyone who starts out like this summary is n't worth arguing with .
When you start by blatantly misstating the most basic of facts in the matter and then continue by using irrelevant epithets in hope of getting knee-jerk agreement , I do n't think you are looking for reasoned debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, ok, not really the worst, but only because the competition for worst slashdot summary is pretty intense.
I don't think I'll bother to comment on the merits of the actual proposal.
The summary says more about whoever wrote the summary than about the proposal.No, the regulation does not "target your big-screen TVs for elimination.
" Those few who RFTA will note that it doesn't say anything close to that.
I note that the summary says nothing about what the proposal actually does say.And I see that the poster makes sure to throw in spurious knee-jerk words like "unelected bureaucrats" because that certainly constructively contributes to the debate.
Why would one want to debate issues when you can instead throw epithets?
Going to claim they are child molesters as well?Anyone who starts out like this summary isn't worth arguing with.
When you start by blatantly misstating the most basic of facts in the matter and then continue by using irrelevant epithets in hope of getting knee-jerk agreement, I don't think you are looking for reasoned debate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173936</id>
	<title>Re:Trying to save the planet</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1258743720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you miss the point.  If we can conserve on electricity to the point where the coal plants are no longer necessary, then we have won.  The end goal is a bit further than you imagine, you just have to stretch out a bit further in your comprehension.</p><p>Of course, this is like trying to refill a dry lake by not drinking.  But it is clearly the agenda at work.</p><p>There have been no new large-scale generating facilities built in the US since sometime in the 1970s.  We overbuilt back in the 1950s to support growth and we have skated by on that excess capacity since then.  Nobody is building anything today.  Asking any environmentalist where it would be good to put a new power plant will get you an answer of "Nowhere."  Until we figure out a way around the roadblock put up against construction, we aren't going anywhere.</p><p>And anything that uses electricity is evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you miss the point .
If we can conserve on electricity to the point where the coal plants are no longer necessary , then we have won .
The end goal is a bit further than you imagine , you just have to stretch out a bit further in your comprehension.Of course , this is like trying to refill a dry lake by not drinking .
But it is clearly the agenda at work.There have been no new large-scale generating facilities built in the US since sometime in the 1970s .
We overbuilt back in the 1950s to support growth and we have skated by on that excess capacity since then .
Nobody is building anything today .
Asking any environmentalist where it would be good to put a new power plant will get you an answer of " Nowhere .
" Until we figure out a way around the roadblock put up against construction , we are n't going anywhere.And anything that uses electricity is evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you miss the point.
If we can conserve on electricity to the point where the coal plants are no longer necessary, then we have won.
The end goal is a bit further than you imagine, you just have to stretch out a bit further in your comprehension.Of course, this is like trying to refill a dry lake by not drinking.
But it is clearly the agenda at work.There have been no new large-scale generating facilities built in the US since sometime in the 1970s.
We overbuilt back in the 1950s to support growth and we have skated by on that excess capacity since then.
Nobody is building anything today.
Asking any environmentalist where it would be good to put a new power plant will get you an answer of "Nowhere.
"  Until we figure out a way around the roadblock put up against construction, we aren't going anywhere.And anything that uses electricity is evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173742</id>
	<title>Re:Trying to save the planet</title>
	<author>pla</author>
	<datestamp>1258743060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Trying to save the planet by reducing energy usage is like trying to save a river by not drinking.</i> <br>
<br>
Half true, but you ignore one important historical fact...<br>
<br>
From the early 1900s until the 1960s, "energy" cost a pittance and no one worried about emissions.  You can see the
consequences of this in home designs from that period - They leak like a sieve because, well, "just burn more oil".
Older heating systems (including wood) have <i>insane</i> particulate outputs, simply because no one cared.  If
you compare almost identical houses built in the 60s vs the 80s (and not substantially renovated since), you'll
find that the former has literally <b>2-3 times</b> the HVAC costs of the latter.<br>
<br>
Thus the DoE's big push to get people to <i>do</i> those energy saving renovations... Get better insulation, get
better HVAC systems, get double-glazed low-E windows, and they'll <i>pay</i> people to do this because it literally
pays itself back to the US economy within a year or two (it also pays itself back to the homeowner, but most people
can't afford to blow $10k on replacing all their windows without some sort of incentive).<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>We need to start rolling out more sensible power generation facilities.</i> <br>
<br>
I agree with you completely that we desperately need to solve our dirty and nonrenewable generation issues... But
these form two sides of the same coin.  If we can at least hold our energy use constant for 20 years, we can slowly replace
older capacity with cleaner sources.  If we keep using more and more and more, we might add in renewable capacity but we'll
just end up keeping 80YO coal plants online despite the "improvements".<br>
<br>
Nothing wrong with pruning your your orchard for a better harvest next year, but don't ignore the existing low-hanging fruit you
already have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to save the planet by reducing energy usage is like trying to save a river by not drinking .
Half true , but you ignore one important historical fact.. . From the early 1900s until the 1960s , " energy " cost a pittance and no one worried about emissions .
You can see the consequences of this in home designs from that period - They leak like a sieve because , well , " just burn more oil " .
Older heating systems ( including wood ) have insane particulate outputs , simply because no one cared .
If you compare almost identical houses built in the 60s vs the 80s ( and not substantially renovated since ) , you 'll find that the former has literally 2-3 times the HVAC costs of the latter .
Thus the DoE 's big push to get people to do those energy saving renovations... Get better insulation , get better HVAC systems , get double-glazed low-E windows , and they 'll pay people to do this because it literally pays itself back to the US economy within a year or two ( it also pays itself back to the homeowner , but most people ca n't afford to blow $ 10k on replacing all their windows without some sort of incentive ) .
We need to start rolling out more sensible power generation facilities .
I agree with you completely that we desperately need to solve our dirty and nonrenewable generation issues... But these form two sides of the same coin .
If we can at least hold our energy use constant for 20 years , we can slowly replace older capacity with cleaner sources .
If we keep using more and more and more , we might add in renewable capacity but we 'll just end up keeping 80YO coal plants online despite the " improvements " .
Nothing wrong with pruning your your orchard for a better harvest next year , but do n't ignore the existing low-hanging fruit you already have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to save the planet by reducing energy usage is like trying to save a river by not drinking.
Half true, but you ignore one important historical fact...

From the early 1900s until the 1960s, "energy" cost a pittance and no one worried about emissions.
You can see the
consequences of this in home designs from that period - They leak like a sieve because, well, "just burn more oil".
Older heating systems (including wood) have insane particulate outputs, simply because no one cared.
If
you compare almost identical houses built in the 60s vs the 80s (and not substantially renovated since), you'll
find that the former has literally 2-3 times the HVAC costs of the latter.
Thus the DoE's big push to get people to do those energy saving renovations... Get better insulation, get
better HVAC systems, get double-glazed low-E windows, and they'll pay people to do this because it literally
pays itself back to the US economy within a year or two (it also pays itself back to the homeowner, but most people
can't afford to blow $10k on replacing all their windows without some sort of incentive).
We need to start rolling out more sensible power generation facilities.
I agree with you completely that we desperately need to solve our dirty and nonrenewable generation issues... But
these form two sides of the same coin.
If we can at least hold our energy use constant for 20 years, we can slowly replace
older capacity with cleaner sources.
If we keep using more and more and more, we might add in renewable capacity but we'll
just end up keeping 80YO coal plants online despite the "improvements".
Nothing wrong with pruning your your orchard for a better harvest next year, but don't ignore the existing low-hanging fruit you
already have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30180664</id>
	<title>CRT FTW!</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1258726680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frak no! I love CRTs for their colors. Yeah, they're huge, heavy, power hogger, etc. But their colors and blackness can't beat LCDs and others so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frak no !
I love CRTs for their colors .
Yeah , they 're huge , heavy , power hogger , etc .
But their colors and blackness ca n't beat LCDs and others so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frak no!
I love CRTs for their colors.
Yeah, they're huge, heavy, power hogger, etc.
But their colors and blackness can't beat LCDs and others so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032</id>
	<title>Why the uproar?</title>
	<author>hawguy</author>
	<datestamp>1258737000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about? THe PC World article says that the new CEC requirements aren't much different than the Energy Star regulations that most manufacturers  seem to be embracing. Is it that EnergyStar is voluntary and CEC is required? With the price of electricity in California, I know I look for the Energy Star label, so perhaps non of this uproar applies to me. Of course, I don't have nearly enough room for a 50" plus sized screen either.

From the article:<p><div class="quote"><p>Today, the Energy Star 3.0 spec limits active power consumption for a 32-inch HDTV to 120 watts; the impending Energy Star 4.0 spec, which goes into effect in May 2010, drops that to 78W; and the spec for Energy Star 5.0 (due in May 2012) is 55W. For a 50-inch set, the current Energy Star 3.0 spec limits power consumption to 353W; for Energy Star 4, that drops to 153W; and for Energy Star 5.0, that drops to 108W.
</p><p>
The mandatory Tier 1 CEC spec for 2011 says a 32-inch HDTV's maximum power consumption must be no more than 116W for a 32-inch model; the Tier 2 spec for 2013 drops that to 75W--higher than the Energy Star 5.0 spec, which will be introduced six months earlier. For a 50-inch HDTV, the Tier 1 CEC spec will require the maximum power consumption to be at 245W; the Tier 2 CEC spec drops that to 153W.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about ?
THe PC World article says that the new CEC requirements are n't much different than the Energy Star regulations that most manufacturers seem to be embracing .
Is it that EnergyStar is voluntary and CEC is required ?
With the price of electricity in California , I know I look for the Energy Star label , so perhaps non of this uproar applies to me .
Of course , I do n't have nearly enough room for a 50 " plus sized screen either .
From the article : Today , the Energy Star 3.0 spec limits active power consumption for a 32-inch HDTV to 120 watts ; the impending Energy Star 4.0 spec , which goes into effect in May 2010 , drops that to 78W ; and the spec for Energy Star 5.0 ( due in May 2012 ) is 55W .
For a 50-inch set , the current Energy Star 3.0 spec limits power consumption to 353W ; for Energy Star 4 , that drops to 153W ; and for Energy Star 5.0 , that drops to 108W .
The mandatory Tier 1 CEC spec for 2011 says a 32-inch HDTV 's maximum power consumption must be no more than 116W for a 32-inch model ; the Tier 2 spec for 2013 drops that to 75W--higher than the Energy Star 5.0 spec , which will be introduced six months earlier .
For a 50-inch HDTV , the Tier 1 CEC spec will require the maximum power consumption to be at 245W ; the Tier 2 CEC spec drops that to 153W .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about?
THe PC World article says that the new CEC requirements aren't much different than the Energy Star regulations that most manufacturers  seem to be embracing.
Is it that EnergyStar is voluntary and CEC is required?
With the price of electricity in California, I know I look for the Energy Star label, so perhaps non of this uproar applies to me.
Of course, I don't have nearly enough room for a 50" plus sized screen either.
From the article:Today, the Energy Star 3.0 spec limits active power consumption for a 32-inch HDTV to 120 watts; the impending Energy Star 4.0 spec, which goes into effect in May 2010, drops that to 78W; and the spec for Energy Star 5.0 (due in May 2012) is 55W.
For a 50-inch set, the current Energy Star 3.0 spec limits power consumption to 353W; for Energy Star 4, that drops to 153W; and for Energy Star 5.0, that drops to 108W.
The mandatory Tier 1 CEC spec for 2011 says a 32-inch HDTV's maximum power consumption must be no more than 116W for a 32-inch model; the Tier 2 spec for 2013 drops that to 75W--higher than the Energy Star 5.0 spec, which will be introduced six months earlier.
For a 50-inch HDTV, the Tier 1 CEC spec will require the maximum power consumption to be at 245W; the Tier 2 CEC spec drops that to 153W.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176474</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>jafac</author>
	<datestamp>1258709040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well - I guess it's likely that Malthus was wrong, and geometric population growth will hit limiting factors, and there will be some sort of depopulation event (or events).  In all likelihood, given that human beings are VERY hearty creatures, we'll persist in some form, in greatly diminished numbers.  The fact that we have not been able to self-regulate, does not mean that Nature won't do for us what Nature has done for every other population in the history of Life on this planet.</p><p>Reminds me of my Freshman biology experiment with yeast in a test tube.  We grew yeast, we sampled populations over time. They grew at an exponential rate until they drowned in their own waste products (alcohol).  Afterwards, you could still find the odd living cell here and there, if you looked really hard. Mostly isolated inside chunks of nutrient, out of contact with the alcohol. Easily 99.99\% done up and died.  Tragic.  We were all crying and writing sympathy cards.</p><p>What would be great is; when Earth is depopulated, the remaining humans are the ones who do not retain the genetic trait of the tendency to believe in a mythology of divine commandments to reproduce, consume, and produce waste infinitely in a closed, finite system.  (I don't think that all "divine mythology" is necessarily bad.  Just the stuff that causes us to self-destruct like this).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well - I guess it 's likely that Malthus was wrong , and geometric population growth will hit limiting factors , and there will be some sort of depopulation event ( or events ) .
In all likelihood , given that human beings are VERY hearty creatures , we 'll persist in some form , in greatly diminished numbers .
The fact that we have not been able to self-regulate , does not mean that Nature wo n't do for us what Nature has done for every other population in the history of Life on this planet.Reminds me of my Freshman biology experiment with yeast in a test tube .
We grew yeast , we sampled populations over time .
They grew at an exponential rate until they drowned in their own waste products ( alcohol ) .
Afterwards , you could still find the odd living cell here and there , if you looked really hard .
Mostly isolated inside chunks of nutrient , out of contact with the alcohol .
Easily 99.99 \ % done up and died .
Tragic. We were all crying and writing sympathy cards.What would be great is ; when Earth is depopulated , the remaining humans are the ones who do not retain the genetic trait of the tendency to believe in a mythology of divine commandments to reproduce , consume , and produce waste infinitely in a closed , finite system .
( I do n't think that all " divine mythology " is necessarily bad .
Just the stuff that causes us to self-destruct like this ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well - I guess it's likely that Malthus was wrong, and geometric population growth will hit limiting factors, and there will be some sort of depopulation event (or events).
In all likelihood, given that human beings are VERY hearty creatures, we'll persist in some form, in greatly diminished numbers.
The fact that we have not been able to self-regulate, does not mean that Nature won't do for us what Nature has done for every other population in the history of Life on this planet.Reminds me of my Freshman biology experiment with yeast in a test tube.
We grew yeast, we sampled populations over time.
They grew at an exponential rate until they drowned in their own waste products (alcohol).
Afterwards, you could still find the odd living cell here and there, if you looked really hard.
Mostly isolated inside chunks of nutrient, out of contact with the alcohol.
Easily 99.99\% done up and died.
Tragic.  We were all crying and writing sympathy cards.What would be great is; when Earth is depopulated, the remaining humans are the ones who do not retain the genetic trait of the tendency to believe in a mythology of divine commandments to reproduce, consume, and produce waste infinitely in a closed, finite system.
(I don't think that all "divine mythology" is necessarily bad.
Just the stuff that causes us to self-destruct like this).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175476</id>
	<title>Re:Just cut us off already</title>
	<author>Adaeniel</author>
	<datestamp>1258748640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will do wonders for the old and infirm that need heating in the worst of winter.  Why don't we just go ahead and kill them off so they stop using any power at all?  Sounds like a swell plan to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will do wonders for the old and infirm that need heating in the worst of winter .
Why do n't we just go ahead and kill them off so they stop using any power at all ?
Sounds like a swell plan to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will do wonders for the old and infirm that need heating in the worst of winter.
Why don't we just go ahead and kill them off so they stop using any power at all?
Sounds like a swell plan to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173016</id>
	<title>Next up...</title>
	<author>ddusza</author>
	<datestamp>1258740240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The next regulation target will be for all large SUV owners to make them more efficient by replacing the big V-8s with 4-cylinder engines out of worn out Ford Escorts.  LOL</htmltext>
<tokenext>The next regulation target will be for all large SUV owners to make them more efficient by replacing the big V-8s with 4-cylinder engines out of worn out Ford Escorts .
LOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next regulation target will be for all large SUV owners to make them more efficient by replacing the big V-8s with 4-cylinder engines out of worn out Ford Escorts.
LOL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174104</id>
	<title>Re:Why the uproar?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1258744260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about?</p></div><p>It drives up cost in exchange for furthering some delusional cause. Why shouldn't they be up in arms?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about ? It drives up cost in exchange for furthering some delusional cause .
Why should n't they be up in arms ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about?It drives up cost in exchange for furthering some delusional cause.
Why shouldn't they be up in arms?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172222</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>BlackCreek</author>
	<datestamp>1258737660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did say the disease is the life style of relentless consumption that we see nowadays in most of the industrialized world.</p><p>The biggest problem is that the pollution bill is footed by everyone in the planet. People buying (and throwing away) stuff should be forced to also pay for the pollution produced by the waste and manufacturing of the goods.</p><p>Kyoto was a first attempt at trying to get handle of that. It didn't go very far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did say the disease is the life style of relentless consumption that we see nowadays in most of the industrialized world.The biggest problem is that the pollution bill is footed by everyone in the planet .
People buying ( and throwing away ) stuff should be forced to also pay for the pollution produced by the waste and manufacturing of the goods.Kyoto was a first attempt at trying to get handle of that .
It did n't go very far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did say the disease is the life style of relentless consumption that we see nowadays in most of the industrialized world.The biggest problem is that the pollution bill is footed by everyone in the planet.
People buying (and throwing away) stuff should be forced to also pay for the pollution produced by the waste and manufacturing of the goods.Kyoto was a first attempt at trying to get handle of that.
It didn't go very far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172304</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>jDeepbeep</author>
	<datestamp>1258737960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The disease is overpopulation</p></div><p> <tt>[Citation needed]</tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The disease is overpopulation [ Citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The disease is overpopulation [Citation needed]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173126</id>
	<title>Re:...sadly, still no regulation to require RTFA.</title>
	<author>jwiegley</author>
	<datestamp>1258740660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yes.. Blame the Governor (and with a thinly veiled naming insult to boot).</p><p>Look, the governor does not propose legislation. It is the legislators that do. All 120 of them trying to finagle the system the get the most money for their district and their pockets.</p><p>And, yes... to get re-elected in their district they will steal the teevees from, and screw, all the other districts in any way they can.</p><p>So for the love of all that is good... stop looking to the governor to solve our problems. Start kicking out the bozos in legislation who are creating the problems in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yes.. Blame the Governor ( and with a thinly veiled naming insult to boot ) .Look , the governor does not propose legislation .
It is the legislators that do .
All 120 of them trying to finagle the system the get the most money for their district and their pockets.And , yes... to get re-elected in their district they will steal the teevees from , and screw , all the other districts in any way they can.So for the love of all that is good... stop looking to the governor to solve our problems .
Start kicking out the bozos in legislation who are creating the problems in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yes.. Blame the Governor (and with a thinly veiled naming insult to boot).Look, the governor does not propose legislation.
It is the legislators that do.
All 120 of them trying to finagle the system the get the most money for their district and their pockets.And, yes... to get re-elected in their district they will steal the teevees from, and screw, all the other districts in any way they can.So for the love of all that is good... stop looking to the governor to solve our problems.
Start kicking out the bozos in legislation who are creating the problems in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30177970</id>
	<title>Re:Why the uproar?</title>
	<author>terraformer</author>
	<datestamp>1258714020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup. And the mandatory nature of it as well.</p><p>Look at gun laws in the states and the nightmare that most mfgs don't even bother with MA and CA and you will see what they are worried about. If this spreads, then there will be a whole metric crap ton of stupid, contradictory regs for them to follow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
And the mandatory nature of it as well.Look at gun laws in the states and the nightmare that most mfgs do n't even bother with MA and CA and you will see what they are worried about .
If this spreads , then there will be a whole metric crap ton of stupid , contradictory regs for them to follow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
And the mandatory nature of it as well.Look at gun laws in the states and the nightmare that most mfgs don't even bother with MA and CA and you will see what they are worried about.
If this spreads, then there will be a whole metric crap ton of stupid, contradictory regs for them to follow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172462</id>
	<title>Power consumption?</title>
	<author>userw014</author>
	<datestamp>1258738500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought that the issue with these devices (and other electronic devices) is that the power consumption when these devices are "off" (standby) is so much greater and isn't reflected in the EnergyStar ratings.</p><p>Frankly, I wish my home electronic devices wouldn't require reconfiguring when I really remove power from them.</p><p>And as a side note - aren't large screen / HDTVs the Hummer equivalent of home entertainment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought that the issue with these devices ( and other electronic devices ) is that the power consumption when these devices are " off " ( standby ) is so much greater and is n't reflected in the EnergyStar ratings.Frankly , I wish my home electronic devices would n't require reconfiguring when I really remove power from them.And as a side note - are n't large screen / HDTVs the Hummer equivalent of home entertainment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought that the issue with these devices (and other electronic devices) is that the power consumption when these devices are "off" (standby) is so much greater and isn't reflected in the EnergyStar ratings.Frankly, I wish my home electronic devices wouldn't require reconfiguring when I really remove power from them.And as a side note - aren't large screen / HDTVs the Hummer equivalent of home entertainment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173318</id>
	<title>Re:...sadly, still no regulation to require RTFA.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258741380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One is a voluntary program and one involves millions of tax dollars spent on retarded government BS to enforce something that is "ultimately not any more stringent".</p><p>Sounds pretty f'ing straightforward to me, unless you're a huge fan of horseshit bureaucracy.  I mean it's not like California, of all places, doesn't have enough of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One is a voluntary program and one involves millions of tax dollars spent on retarded government BS to enforce something that is " ultimately not any more stringent " .Sounds pretty f'ing straightforward to me , unless you 're a huge fan of horseshit bureaucracy .
I mean it 's not like California , of all places , does n't have enough of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One is a voluntary program and one involves millions of tax dollars spent on retarded government BS to enforce something that is "ultimately not any more stringent".Sounds pretty f'ing straightforward to me, unless you're a huge fan of horseshit bureaucracy.
I mean it's not like California, of all places, doesn't have enough of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172166</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there's just too many people on planet earth</p></div><p>So the only way to cure the planet is to kill the people. You'd best do the honourable thing: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku#Ritual" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku#Ritual</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Let me know how that works out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's just too many people on planet earthSo the only way to cure the planet is to kill the people .
You 'd best do the honourable thing : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku # Ritual [ wikipedia.org ] Let me know how that works out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's just too many people on planet earthSo the only way to cure the planet is to kill the people.
You'd best do the honourable thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku#Ritual [wikipedia.org]Let me know how that works out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172328</id>
	<title>No geometric population growth in developed world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZPG to slight depopulation once you get some money.</p><p>I think all our depopulation efforts should be focused on the world's poor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZPG to slight depopulation once you get some money.I think all our depopulation efforts should be focused on the world 's poor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZPG to slight depopulation once you get some money.I think all our depopulation efforts should be focused on the world's poor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171942</id>
	<title>Tax</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1258736640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because they have a huge budget shortfall and they want to get rid of the big screen TVs, why not tax the shit out of them? It won't get rid of the TVs but it will really curtail their consumption. <p>Yeah, I know, there the issues of a black market or keep folks from crossing over to another state to buy them....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they have a huge budget shortfall and they want to get rid of the big screen TVs , why not tax the shit out of them ?
It wo n't get rid of the TVs but it will really curtail their consumption .
Yeah , I know , there the issues of a black market or keep folks from crossing over to another state to buy them... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they have a huge budget shortfall and they want to get rid of the big screen TVs, why not tax the shit out of them?
It won't get rid of the TVs but it will really curtail their consumption.
Yeah, I know, there the issues of a black market or keep folks from crossing over to another state to buy them....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175032</id>
	<title>Missing The Point</title>
	<author>VPaul583</author>
	<datestamp>1258747260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This article is serving as a catalyst for an entirely different conversation than the matter at hand. The point is: a consumer WON'T. SEE. ANY. DIFFERENCE. PERIOD. As an electrical engineer designing power supplies, I can tell you that the only people who this will affect is other engineers who now must innovate (i.e. not be lazy) to make their products consume less power when they're plugged into the wall but not turned on (or in standby mode). Cell phone chargers have been regulated by the CEC for years, and yet you don't see a difference in your cell phone performance... in fact you probably didn't even know that CEC regulations are one of the main reasons your new cell phone didn't come with a wall wart charger thats weighs 5 lbs. This type of innovation has an impact on your wallet as well: a wall wart charger plugged into the wall 24/7 will cost you about $1 per year. Multiply that by every charger plugged in at your house, and you're talking serious cash.)
<br>
<br>
Ultimately, this regulation is PRO-consumer. Otherwise, engineers will design products that don't even spin down the hard disk when they're not in use; as happens in most DVRs on the market, causing them to consume more than 60 W even when sitting idle. That's $60/year it's costing you because some engineer knows that you won't know the difference.
<br>
<br>
Overall, this kind of regulation will take almost a decade to fully kick in, as it doesn't require anyone to throw their old CRTs out the window. But it is a step in the right direction. Wanton waste of energy by consumer devices is a huge problem, and fixing it is one of the fastest ways to help the energy crisis within the next couple of year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is serving as a catalyst for an entirely different conversation than the matter at hand .
The point is : a consumer WO N'T .
SEE. ANY .
DIFFERENCE. PERIOD .
As an electrical engineer designing power supplies , I can tell you that the only people who this will affect is other engineers who now must innovate ( i.e .
not be lazy ) to make their products consume less power when they 're plugged into the wall but not turned on ( or in standby mode ) .
Cell phone chargers have been regulated by the CEC for years , and yet you do n't see a difference in your cell phone performance... in fact you probably did n't even know that CEC regulations are one of the main reasons your new cell phone did n't come with a wall wart charger thats weighs 5 lbs .
This type of innovation has an impact on your wallet as well : a wall wart charger plugged into the wall 24/7 will cost you about $ 1 per year .
Multiply that by every charger plugged in at your house , and you 're talking serious cash .
) Ultimately , this regulation is PRO-consumer .
Otherwise , engineers will design products that do n't even spin down the hard disk when they 're not in use ; as happens in most DVRs on the market , causing them to consume more than 60 W even when sitting idle .
That 's $ 60/year it 's costing you because some engineer knows that you wo n't know the difference .
Overall , this kind of regulation will take almost a decade to fully kick in , as it does n't require anyone to throw their old CRTs out the window .
But it is a step in the right direction .
Wanton waste of energy by consumer devices is a huge problem , and fixing it is one of the fastest ways to help the energy crisis within the next couple of year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is serving as a catalyst for an entirely different conversation than the matter at hand.
The point is: a consumer WON'T.
SEE. ANY.
DIFFERENCE. PERIOD.
As an electrical engineer designing power supplies, I can tell you that the only people who this will affect is other engineers who now must innovate (i.e.
not be lazy) to make their products consume less power when they're plugged into the wall but not turned on (or in standby mode).
Cell phone chargers have been regulated by the CEC for years, and yet you don't see a difference in your cell phone performance... in fact you probably didn't even know that CEC regulations are one of the main reasons your new cell phone didn't come with a wall wart charger thats weighs 5 lbs.
This type of innovation has an impact on your wallet as well: a wall wart charger plugged into the wall 24/7 will cost you about $1 per year.
Multiply that by every charger plugged in at your house, and you're talking serious cash.
)


Ultimately, this regulation is PRO-consumer.
Otherwise, engineers will design products that don't even spin down the hard disk when they're not in use; as happens in most DVRs on the market, causing them to consume more than 60 W even when sitting idle.
That's $60/year it's costing you because some engineer knows that you won't know the difference.
Overall, this kind of regulation will take almost a decade to fully kick in, as it doesn't require anyone to throw their old CRTs out the window.
But it is a step in the right direction.
Wanton waste of energy by consumer devices is a huge problem, and fixing it is one of the fastest ways to help the energy crisis within the next couple of year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174694</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1258746120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> The disease is overpopulation</p></div></blockquote><p>No, the problems are overconsumption and overproduction of waste. Population, of course, is to an extent a driver of both of those, but the fact that consumption of resources and production of waste are higher per capita than they have been in the past is a factor, as well. Technology is a driver in that, in that the easiest, cheapest (in the short-run) way to realize improvements in quality of life from technology is to use it in ways which require consuming more resources and producing more waste.</p><blockquote><div><p>and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.</p></div></blockquote><p>Population growth isn't geometric. In organisms which don't progressively develop technology (e.g., everything but humans) growth that is roughly logistic (fairly similar to geometric initially, but slowing when reaching a resource or other constraint) seems to be pretty common, human population growth seems to follow a descriptively similar trend, with some models suggesting logistic growth, and some suggesting that it grew at a more rapidly accelerating rate before nearing constraints, approximating hyperbolic growth through the 1970s, and gradually slowing thereafter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The disease is overpopulationNo , the problems are overconsumption and overproduction of waste .
Population , of course , is to an extent a driver of both of those , but the fact that consumption of resources and production of waste are higher per capita than they have been in the past is a factor , as well .
Technology is a driver in that , in that the easiest , cheapest ( in the short-run ) way to realize improvements in quality of life from technology is to use it in ways which require consuming more resources and producing more waste.and even if you do cut back energy usage , you ca n't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.Population growth is n't geometric .
In organisms which do n't progressively develop technology ( e.g. , everything but humans ) growth that is roughly logistic ( fairly similar to geometric initially , but slowing when reaching a resource or other constraint ) seems to be pretty common , human population growth seems to follow a descriptively similar trend , with some models suggesting logistic growth , and some suggesting that it grew at a more rapidly accelerating rate before nearing constraints , approximating hyperbolic growth through the 1970s , and gradually slowing thereafter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The disease is overpopulationNo, the problems are overconsumption and overproduction of waste.
Population, of course, is to an extent a driver of both of those, but the fact that consumption of resources and production of waste are higher per capita than they have been in the past is a factor, as well.
Technology is a driver in that, in that the easiest, cheapest (in the short-run) way to realize improvements in quality of life from technology is to use it in ways which require consuming more resources and producing more waste.and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.Population growth isn't geometric.
In organisms which don't progressively develop technology (e.g., everything but humans) growth that is roughly logistic (fairly similar to geometric initially, but slowing when reaching a resource or other constraint) seems to be pretty common, human population growth seems to follow a descriptively similar trend, with some models suggesting logistic growth, and some suggesting that it grew at a more rapidly accelerating rate before nearing constraints, approximating hyperbolic growth through the 1970s, and gradually slowing thereafter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174716</id>
	<title>Re:Trying to save the planet</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1258746180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Careful there. You're bringing a well reasoned and rational argument to the environmental debate. If you've dealt with these fuckwits you should know by now that this is not allowed. You're suppose to bleat like a sheep every time they bring in a new measure that means you have to sacrifice, while someone else profits in the name of the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Careful there .
You 're bringing a well reasoned and rational argument to the environmental debate .
If you 've dealt with these fuckwits you should know by now that this is not allowed .
You 're suppose to bleat like a sheep every time they bring in a new measure that means you have to sacrifice , while someone else profits in the name of the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Careful there.
You're bringing a well reasoned and rational argument to the environmental debate.
If you've dealt with these fuckwits you should know by now that this is not allowed.
You're suppose to bleat like a sheep every time they bring in a new measure that means you have to sacrifice, while someone else profits in the name of the environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30180336</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1258724460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>While LCDs do get better, Plasma is the TV for the true videophile. </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>SED is for the videophile.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While LCDs do get better , Plasma is the TV for the true videophile .
SED is for the videophile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> While LCDs do get better, Plasma is the TV for the true videophile.
SED is for the videophile.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172498</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1258738680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hello?  The 70's are calling and wants its bugaboo-de-jour back.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Seriously, population isn't growing geometrically or even close to geometrically.  The rate of increase has steadily been trending down for a decade or more, and (at least in the industrialized West) it looks as if population will top out around 2050 or so (IIRC).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The disease is overpopulation - there 's just too many people on planet earth , and even if you do cut back energy usage , you ca n't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.Hello ?
The 70 's are calling and wants its bugaboo-de-jour back .
  Seriously , population is n't growing geometrically or even close to geometrically .
The rate of increase has steadily been trending down for a decade or more , and ( at least in the industrialized West ) it looks as if population will top out around 2050 or so ( IIRC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.Hello?
The 70's are calling and wants its bugaboo-de-jour back.
  Seriously, population isn't growing geometrically or even close to geometrically.
The rate of increase has steadily been trending down for a decade or more, and (at least in the industrialized West) it looks as if population will top out around 2050 or so (IIRC).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172640</id>
	<title>Re:Just cut us off already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258739040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(I mean I don't live in the States, let alone in California)</p><p>But if the Government wants to get serious about energy consumption, just put a system in place that gives users a fixed amount of Energy for the day. Give me a 1 hour warning that my juice is almost up - and I'll know to finish my round of Halo, go take a shower, and either go to bed or read a book with a flashlight.</p><p>I mean, my hot water tank won't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after another, but its not like its a such a huge inconvenience that I can't survive. The same could go for energy.</p></div><p>In Soviet America... How about just stop making rich CEO's richer by scamming the shit out of the consumer, use the company profits to expand infrastructure instead of fatten CxO pockets, and let the consumers consume by their own volition. If the government starts cutting off power supply it would start the same kind of riots and bloodshed in the streets as if they cut off the water supply. Like it or not, 1st world citizens NEED to consume energy. The very moment you strip away the object of need you will erode us back into a 3rd world country, like pretty much everyone was before the Industrial Revolution. Good luck with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( I mean I do n't live in the States , let alone in California ) But if the Government wants to get serious about energy consumption , just put a system in place that gives users a fixed amount of Energy for the day .
Give me a 1 hour warning that my juice is almost up - and I 'll know to finish my round of Halo , go take a shower , and either go to bed or read a book with a flashlight.I mean , my hot water tank wo n't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after another , but its not like its a such a huge inconvenience that I ca n't survive .
The same could go for energy.In Soviet America... How about just stop making rich CEO 's richer by scamming the shit out of the consumer , use the company profits to expand infrastructure instead of fatten CxO pockets , and let the consumers consume by their own volition .
If the government starts cutting off power supply it would start the same kind of riots and bloodshed in the streets as if they cut off the water supply .
Like it or not , 1st world citizens NEED to consume energy .
The very moment you strip away the object of need you will erode us back into a 3rd world country , like pretty much everyone was before the Industrial Revolution .
Good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I mean I don't live in the States, let alone in California)But if the Government wants to get serious about energy consumption, just put a system in place that gives users a fixed amount of Energy for the day.
Give me a 1 hour warning that my juice is almost up - and I'll know to finish my round of Halo, go take a shower, and either go to bed or read a book with a flashlight.I mean, my hot water tank won't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after another, but its not like its a such a huge inconvenience that I can't survive.
The same could go for energy.In Soviet America... How about just stop making rich CEO's richer by scamming the shit out of the consumer, use the company profits to expand infrastructure instead of fatten CxO pockets, and let the consumers consume by their own volition.
If the government starts cutting off power supply it would start the same kind of riots and bloodshed in the streets as if they cut off the water supply.
Like it or not, 1st world citizens NEED to consume energy.
The very moment you strip away the object of need you will erode us back into a 3rd world country, like pretty much everyone was before the Industrial Revolution.
Good luck with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172818</id>
	<title>Tell us how you really feel...</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1258739520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
As opposed to elected bureaucrats, that usually only clamor about whatever will get them re-elected - sigh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy , .. . As opposed to elected bureaucrats , that usually only clamor about whatever will get them re-elected - sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy, ...

As opposed to elected bureaucrats, that usually only clamor about whatever will get them re-elected - sigh.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30188456</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1258802220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can haul a lot of stuff into a hatchback.  I remember hauling the old 60-70's style console TVs in a Geo Metro.  Kind of a bummer that the hatchback is not popular in the states, must be too practical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can haul a lot of stuff into a hatchback .
I remember hauling the old 60-70 's style console TVs in a Geo Metro .
Kind of a bummer that the hatchback is not popular in the states , must be too practical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can haul a lot of stuff into a hatchback.
I remember hauling the old 60-70's style console TVs in a Geo Metro.
Kind of a bummer that the hatchback is not popular in the states, must be too practical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174622</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258745940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not necessarily true.  Last year I put a kill-a-watt meter on all of my tv's.  The lowest energy use was my 14 year old magnavox 54" crt rear projection set.  A current model samsung 45" rear projection crt took slightly more.  A 55" DLP rear projection set took 25\% more than the magnavox.  A 32" LCD set only a little less than that.  All of them over 200 watts.</p><p>The CRT energy use was pretty well optimized.  Many newer sets...not so much.  I think thats what they were trying to target here, was the range of very inefficient television sets when a few more dollars of production and end unit cost would cut the energy usage significantly.</p><p>I think 99\% of the outrage is the government legislating a choice so that the 50\% of the population not smart enough or not willing to make a good choice dont have that option, that the money on this could be better spent elsewhere, or it could simply be assessed as a tax.</p><p>Considering that the only solutions to those issues are to educate millions on how to pick an efficient television (after seeing the analog to digital conversion fiasco, good luck with that), spend all money on the highest common denominator social programs (good luck agreeing on that), and further complicate our ridiculous tax code I think I'll take the simple legislation that makes tv manufacturers use better, more efficient parts in the tv's we buy.</p><p>Actually, the most interesting piece of this dialog is watching the anti government "I'll make my own bad choices, thank you" crowd get into bed with the folks who want to solve this though further government taxation.</p><p>Everything else seems to be the slippery-slope argument and a bunch of strawmen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not necessarily true .
Last year I put a kill-a-watt meter on all of my tv 's .
The lowest energy use was my 14 year old magnavox 54 " crt rear projection set .
A current model samsung 45 " rear projection crt took slightly more .
A 55 " DLP rear projection set took 25 \ % more than the magnavox .
A 32 " LCD set only a little less than that .
All of them over 200 watts.The CRT energy use was pretty well optimized .
Many newer sets...not so much .
I think thats what they were trying to target here , was the range of very inefficient television sets when a few more dollars of production and end unit cost would cut the energy usage significantly.I think 99 \ % of the outrage is the government legislating a choice so that the 50 \ % of the population not smart enough or not willing to make a good choice dont have that option , that the money on this could be better spent elsewhere , or it could simply be assessed as a tax.Considering that the only solutions to those issues are to educate millions on how to pick an efficient television ( after seeing the analog to digital conversion fiasco , good luck with that ) , spend all money on the highest common denominator social programs ( good luck agreeing on that ) , and further complicate our ridiculous tax code I think I 'll take the simple legislation that makes tv manufacturers use better , more efficient parts in the tv 's we buy.Actually , the most interesting piece of this dialog is watching the anti government " I 'll make my own bad choices , thank you " crowd get into bed with the folks who want to solve this though further government taxation.Everything else seems to be the slippery-slope argument and a bunch of strawmen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not necessarily true.
Last year I put a kill-a-watt meter on all of my tv's.
The lowest energy use was my 14 year old magnavox 54" crt rear projection set.
A current model samsung 45" rear projection crt took slightly more.
A 55" DLP rear projection set took 25\% more than the magnavox.
A 32" LCD set only a little less than that.
All of them over 200 watts.The CRT energy use was pretty well optimized.
Many newer sets...not so much.
I think thats what they were trying to target here, was the range of very inefficient television sets when a few more dollars of production and end unit cost would cut the energy usage significantly.I think 99\% of the outrage is the government legislating a choice so that the 50\% of the population not smart enough or not willing to make a good choice dont have that option, that the money on this could be better spent elsewhere, or it could simply be assessed as a tax.Considering that the only solutions to those issues are to educate millions on how to pick an efficient television (after seeing the analog to digital conversion fiasco, good luck with that), spend all money on the highest common denominator social programs (good luck agreeing on that), and further complicate our ridiculous tax code I think I'll take the simple legislation that makes tv manufacturers use better, more efficient parts in the tv's we buy.Actually, the most interesting piece of this dialog is watching the anti government "I'll make my own bad choices, thank you" crowd get into bed with the folks who want to solve this though further government taxation.Everything else seems to be the slippery-slope argument and a bunch of strawmen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30177128</id>
	<title>Re:Why the uproar?</title>
	<author>lowrydr310</author>
	<datestamp>1258711200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have time to look up links right now and provide all the input, but doesn't (or didn't) California already have their own separate regulatory structure in place for vehicle emissions? The market in CA for vehicles is so great that the manufacturers will give into their demands so as to not lose a large market.
<p>
Offroad motorcycles are a big hobby of mine, and CA has a wonderful regulatory organization called C.A.R.B. which has significantly impacted the manufacturers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have time to look up links right now and provide all the input , but does n't ( or did n't ) California already have their own separate regulatory structure in place for vehicle emissions ?
The market in CA for vehicles is so great that the manufacturers will give into their demands so as to not lose a large market .
Offroad motorcycles are a big hobby of mine , and CA has a wonderful regulatory organization called C.A.R.B .
which has significantly impacted the manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have time to look up links right now and provide all the input, but doesn't (or didn't) California already have their own separate regulatory structure in place for vehicle emissions?
The market in CA for vehicles is so great that the manufacturers will give into their demands so as to not lose a large market.
Offroad motorcycles are a big hobby of mine, and CA has a wonderful regulatory organization called C.A.R.B.
which has significantly impacted the manufacturers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176192</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you are correct.  I can think of something you could do right now to help the problem.  You can use any flavor of kool-aid you want to help it go down easier.  We all thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you are correct .
I can think of something you could do right now to help the problem .
You can use any flavor of kool-aid you want to help it go down easier .
We all thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you are correct.
I can think of something you could do right now to help the problem.
You can use any flavor of kool-aid you want to help it go down easier.
We all thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172268</id>
	<title>"SCAM" mode?</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1258737900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With that name, I'm amazed the politicians didn't come up with the idea themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With that name , I 'm amazed the politicians did n't come up with the idea themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With that name, I'm amazed the politicians didn't come up with the idea themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172516</id>
	<title>Hello!? - how much more regulation can you have?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really!? Regulate the size of your TV?</p><p>How about how many doughnuts you can eat in a day? I'm sure fat people generate more co2 than a thin person. Plus they radiate more heat. Should we regulate that? How about a government controlled bedtime? If everyone was forced to go to bed at sundown we could save lots of energy.</p><p>Um.... toilet paper rationing? Do you really need more than a square per squat? (except fat people who would be TAXED for additional squares)</p><p>Water conservation! -regulate the number of showers per week!</p><p>Seriously, how much government are we (THE PEOPLE) going to allow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ! ?
Regulate the size of your TV ? How about how many doughnuts you can eat in a day ?
I 'm sure fat people generate more co2 than a thin person .
Plus they radiate more heat .
Should we regulate that ?
How about a government controlled bedtime ?
If everyone was forced to go to bed at sundown we could save lots of energy.Um.... toilet paper rationing ?
Do you really need more than a square per squat ?
( except fat people who would be TAXED for additional squares ) Water conservation !
-regulate the number of showers per week ! Seriously , how much government are we ( THE PEOPLE ) going to allow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really!?
Regulate the size of your TV?How about how many doughnuts you can eat in a day?
I'm sure fat people generate more co2 than a thin person.
Plus they radiate more heat.
Should we regulate that?
How about a government controlled bedtime?
If everyone was forced to go to bed at sundown we could save lots of energy.Um.... toilet paper rationing?
Do you really need more than a square per squat?
(except fat people who would be TAXED for additional squares)Water conservation!
-regulate the number of showers per week!Seriously, how much government are we (THE PEOPLE) going to allow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174132</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258744380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plasma sucks compared to OLED's, in every category.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plasma sucks compared to OLED 's , in every category .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plasma sucks compared to OLED's, in every category.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254</id>
	<title>Just cut us off already</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1258737840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(I mean I don't live in the States, let alone in California)</p><p>But if the Government wants to get serious about energy consumption, just put a system in place that gives users a fixed amount of Energy for the day. Give me a 1 hour warning that my juice is almost up - and I'll know to finish my round of Halo, go take a shower, and either go to bed or read a book with a flashlight.</p><p>I mean, my hot water tank won't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after another, but its not like its a such a huge inconvenience that I can't survive. The same could go for energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( I mean I do n't live in the States , let alone in California ) But if the Government wants to get serious about energy consumption , just put a system in place that gives users a fixed amount of Energy for the day .
Give me a 1 hour warning that my juice is almost up - and I 'll know to finish my round of Halo , go take a shower , and either go to bed or read a book with a flashlight.I mean , my hot water tank wo n't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after another , but its not like its a such a huge inconvenience that I ca n't survive .
The same could go for energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(I mean I don't live in the States, let alone in California)But if the Government wants to get serious about energy consumption, just put a system in place that gives users a fixed amount of Energy for the day.
Give me a 1 hour warning that my juice is almost up - and I'll know to finish my round of Halo, go take a shower, and either go to bed or read a book with a flashlight.I mean, my hot water tank won't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after another, but its not like its a such a huge inconvenience that I can't survive.
The same could go for energy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30188648</id>
	<title>Re:This whole thing is BS</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1258803600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I found that the power draw from a CRT depends on both the refresh and the resolution, with faster refresh rates and higher resolutions drawing more power.  For example, my 19" Trinitron draws about 100W at 1360x1024 at 85Hz, but 800x600 at 60Hz is about 65W or so.  Since most CRT TVs are SD sets, that means 486 lines of resolution at 30Hz, so the power draw can be fairly low when compared to computer monitors.  On my 13" Daewoo TV, I measure about 30W draw, though you can tack on an extra 7W for the DTV converter box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I found that the power draw from a CRT depends on both the refresh and the resolution , with faster refresh rates and higher resolutions drawing more power .
For example , my 19 " Trinitron draws about 100W at 1360x1024 at 85Hz , but 800x600 at 60Hz is about 65W or so .
Since most CRT TVs are SD sets , that means 486 lines of resolution at 30Hz , so the power draw can be fairly low when compared to computer monitors .
On my 13 " Daewoo TV , I measure about 30W draw , though you can tack on an extra 7W for the DTV converter box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found that the power draw from a CRT depends on both the refresh and the resolution, with faster refresh rates and higher resolutions drawing more power.
For example, my 19" Trinitron draws about 100W at 1360x1024 at 85Hz, but 800x600 at 60Hz is about 65W or so.
Since most CRT TVs are SD sets, that means 486 lines of resolution at 30Hz, so the power draw can be fairly low when compared to computer monitors.
On my 13" Daewoo TV, I measure about 30W draw, though you can tack on an extra 7W for the DTV converter box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172800</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172114</id>
	<title>You elected them....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what do you expect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what do you expect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what do you expect?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30177262</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>scrout</author>
	<datestamp>1258711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, Kyoto was an attempt to put the US economy at a artificial disadvantage to every other country on earth for a problem that has not existed for 10 years, namely, global warming and CO2 crap....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , Kyoto was an attempt to put the US economy at a artificial disadvantage to every other country on earth for a problem that has not existed for 10 years , namely , global warming and CO2 crap... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, Kyoto was an attempt to put the US economy at a artificial disadvantage to every other country on earth for a problem that has not existed for 10 years, namely, global warming and CO2 crap....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172650</id>
	<title>Time to open up shop..</title>
	<author>scorp1us</author>
	<datestamp>1258739100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just buy you TVs in Oregon, Nevada or Arizona...</p><p>Unlike cars, which have to be titled in the state, wherein the titling carries specific safety and emissions requirements, there are no titlign or registration requirements for TVs. This is totally unenforceable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just buy you TVs in Oregon , Nevada or Arizona...Unlike cars , which have to be titled in the state , wherein the titling carries specific safety and emissions requirements , there are no titlign or registration requirements for TVs .
This is totally unenforceable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just buy you TVs in Oregon, Nevada or Arizona...Unlike cars, which have to be titled in the state, wherein the titling carries specific safety and emissions requirements, there are no titlign or registration requirements for TVs.
This is totally unenforceable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175006</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1258747140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have 2 37" LCD TVs.  1 is a 3 year old westinghouse, uses 290w on (only 3 when  off) and is 720p/1080i, and is made from 47lbs of materials.  The other is an insignia from this year, uses only 200w (3 when off), and is full 1080p with higher brigthness and more powerful internal peakers, and only weighs 33lbs.</p><p>My 27" CRT TV only uses 180w by comarrison, and even my desktop LCD (22") uses nearly that.  LCD is NOT generally lower power than CRT.  in fact, often LCD (especially bigger sets) are far less energy efficint that projection TVs and older CRTs (though CRTs over 42" were real rare).</p><p>What IS lower power are LED backlit sets, and upcoming OLED TVs.  Those use not only less power, are even lighter on materials.</p><p>Noone's going to subsidize it.  noone's saying "you must replace your TV".  We're not even saying you can't sell the current TVs (over 1,000 sets in the category ALREADY MEET the 2011 specs, and 300 meet the stricter 2013 specs!!!)  Most current TVs to be replaced are not dramatically lower power than today's TVs, however, the state sees great disparity in current sets, having as much as 150w diffeences in power draw for TVs with the same base statistics.  THAT has to change...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have 2 37 " LCD TVs .
1 is a 3 year old westinghouse , uses 290w on ( only 3 when off ) and is 720p/1080i , and is made from 47lbs of materials .
The other is an insignia from this year , uses only 200w ( 3 when off ) , and is full 1080p with higher brigthness and more powerful internal peakers , and only weighs 33lbs.My 27 " CRT TV only uses 180w by comarrison , and even my desktop LCD ( 22 " ) uses nearly that .
LCD is NOT generally lower power than CRT .
in fact , often LCD ( especially bigger sets ) are far less energy efficint that projection TVs and older CRTs ( though CRTs over 42 " were real rare ) .What IS lower power are LED backlit sets , and upcoming OLED TVs .
Those use not only less power , are even lighter on materials.Noone 's going to subsidize it .
noone 's saying " you must replace your TV " .
We 're not even saying you ca n't sell the current TVs ( over 1,000 sets in the category ALREADY MEET the 2011 specs , and 300 meet the stricter 2013 specs ! ! !
) Most current TVs to be replaced are not dramatically lower power than today 's TVs , however , the state sees great disparity in current sets , having as much as 150w diffeences in power draw for TVs with the same base statistics .
THAT has to change.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have 2 37" LCD TVs.
1 is a 3 year old westinghouse, uses 290w on (only 3 when  off) and is 720p/1080i, and is made from 47lbs of materials.
The other is an insignia from this year, uses only 200w (3 when off), and is full 1080p with higher brigthness and more powerful internal peakers, and only weighs 33lbs.My 27" CRT TV only uses 180w by comarrison, and even my desktop LCD (22") uses nearly that.
LCD is NOT generally lower power than CRT.
in fact, often LCD (especially bigger sets) are far less energy efficint that projection TVs and older CRTs (though CRTs over 42" were real rare).What IS lower power are LED backlit sets, and upcoming OLED TVs.
Those use not only less power, are even lighter on materials.Noone's going to subsidize it.
noone's saying "you must replace your TV".
We're not even saying you can't sell the current TVs (over 1,000 sets in the category ALREADY MEET the 2011 specs, and 300 meet the stricter 2013 specs!!!
)  Most current TVs to be replaced are not dramatically lower power than today's TVs, however, the state sees great disparity in current sets, having as much as 150w diffeences in power draw for TVs with the same base statistics.
THAT has to change...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173720</id>
	<title>"Are you transporting any fresh fruit, vegetables,</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1258743000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>plants, or large screen televisions?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>plants , or large screen televisions ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>plants, or large screen televisions?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172138</id>
	<title>This whole thing is BS</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1258737420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is People's Republik of Kalifornia banning these things?</p><p>It will NOT save the state of California millions every year. Utilities are taxed. By decreasing electricity consumption, they are actually DECREASING tax revenue - something People's Republik of Kalifornia cannot afford at this time.</p><p>If Joe Sixpack wants to spend money on a plasma television, they ought to let them. The consumers pay for the electricity they use.<br>Hell if they wanted to save power, they would ban LCDs as well - my Sony 36" CRT uses less electricity (76 watts at full brightness/full volume) than my Samsung 32" television (calibrated screen, "average" volume - I was curious and compared the CRT worst-case to LCD normal use, according to my kill-a-watt meter.  I don't remember what the power factor measured at but it was similar for each - close enough to not be a significant variable. Incidentally, I might be replacing the CRT with a surplus 65" plasma screen, but the plasma screen is so heavy I'm not sure I'm going to take it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is People 's Republik of Kalifornia banning these things ? It will NOT save the state of California millions every year .
Utilities are taxed .
By decreasing electricity consumption , they are actually DECREASING tax revenue - something People 's Republik of Kalifornia can not afford at this time.If Joe Sixpack wants to spend money on a plasma television , they ought to let them .
The consumers pay for the electricity they use.Hell if they wanted to save power , they would ban LCDs as well - my Sony 36 " CRT uses less electricity ( 76 watts at full brightness/full volume ) than my Samsung 32 " television ( calibrated screen , " average " volume - I was curious and compared the CRT worst-case to LCD normal use , according to my kill-a-watt meter .
I do n't remember what the power factor measured at but it was similar for each - close enough to not be a significant variable .
Incidentally , I might be replacing the CRT with a surplus 65 " plasma screen , but the plasma screen is so heavy I 'm not sure I 'm going to take it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is People's Republik of Kalifornia banning these things?It will NOT save the state of California millions every year.
Utilities are taxed.
By decreasing electricity consumption, they are actually DECREASING tax revenue - something People's Republik of Kalifornia cannot afford at this time.If Joe Sixpack wants to spend money on a plasma television, they ought to let them.
The consumers pay for the electricity they use.Hell if they wanted to save power, they would ban LCDs as well - my Sony 36" CRT uses less electricity (76 watts at full brightness/full volume) than my Samsung 32" television (calibrated screen, "average" volume - I was curious and compared the CRT worst-case to LCD normal use, according to my kill-a-watt meter.
I don't remember what the power factor measured at but it was similar for each - close enough to not be a significant variable.
Incidentally, I might be replacing the CRT with a surplus 65" plasma screen, but the plasma screen is so heavy I'm not sure I'm going to take it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176156</id>
	<title>Re:What's the big deal?</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1258707900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>TV's are using enough power to warrant government intervention? I doubt that highly.</p></div></blockquote><p>TVs are one of the biggest consumers of household energy, and in case you hadn't been paying attention CA does have serious problems with energy production and distribution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TV 's are using enough power to warrant government intervention ?
I doubt that highly.TVs are one of the biggest consumers of household energy , and in case you had n't been paying attention CA does have serious problems with energy production and distribution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TV's are using enough power to warrant government intervention?
I doubt that highly.TVs are one of the biggest consumers of household energy, and in case you hadn't been paying attention CA does have serious problems with energy production and distribution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174382</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>mrdoogee</author>
	<datestamp>1258745160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The trouble is that the population doesn't grow at a linear rate. It grows at a much faster rate. Currently the population growth rate is at roughly 1.3\%, which doesn't sound bad, but that works out to a "doubling time" of only <a href="http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzworldgrowth.htm" title="about.com">54 years</a> [about.com].<br>So in 2064, we'll have met or exceeded the theoretical max you cited. I'd say that's cause for alarm.</p><p>I'm mostly just being the Devil's advocate here. I'm no statistician, just a guy with the internet and a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The trouble is that the population does n't grow at a linear rate .
It grows at a much faster rate .
Currently the population growth rate is at roughly 1.3 \ % , which does n't sound bad , but that works out to a " doubling time " of only 54 years [ about.com ] .So in 2064 , we 'll have met or exceeded the theoretical max you cited .
I 'd say that 's cause for alarm.I 'm mostly just being the Devil 's advocate here .
I 'm no statistician , just a guy with the internet and a / .
account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trouble is that the population doesn't grow at a linear rate.
It grows at a much faster rate.
Currently the population growth rate is at roughly 1.3\%, which doesn't sound bad, but that works out to a "doubling time" of only 54 years [about.com].So in 2064, we'll have met or exceeded the theoretical max you cited.
I'd say that's cause for alarm.I'm mostly just being the Devil's advocate here.
I'm no statistician, just a guy with the internet and a /.
account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173074</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1258740480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much energy does it take to make the new TVs?  I'm betting it's less than than you'd save by switching TVs.</p><p>It's the same problem with Cash for Clunkers.  The energy you save by switching to a more efficient vehicle doesn't come close to paying for the resources it takes to make a new vehicle.</p><p>Also, as an enthusiast of old computing and video game hardware, you can pry my CRTs from my cold dead hands.  Have you seen what Apple II composite color artifacting looks like on an LCD?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much energy does it take to make the new TVs ?
I 'm betting it 's less than than you 'd save by switching TVs.It 's the same problem with Cash for Clunkers .
The energy you save by switching to a more efficient vehicle does n't come close to paying for the resources it takes to make a new vehicle.Also , as an enthusiast of old computing and video game hardware , you can pry my CRTs from my cold dead hands .
Have you seen what Apple II composite color artifacting looks like on an LCD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much energy does it take to make the new TVs?
I'm betting it's less than than you'd save by switching TVs.It's the same problem with Cash for Clunkers.
The energy you save by switching to a more efficient vehicle doesn't come close to paying for the resources it takes to make a new vehicle.Also, as an enthusiast of old computing and video game hardware, you can pry my CRTs from my cold dead hands.
Have you seen what Apple II composite color artifacting looks like on an LCD?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30206436</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1258972800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Humans in the forest live just fine.  </p></div><p>Not if they're packed into the forest with the same density that we do in our big cities.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans in the forest live just fine .
Not if they 're packed into the forest with the same density that we do in our big cities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans in the forest live just fine.
Not if they're packed into the forest with the same density that we do in our big cities.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30178208</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1258714800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm from Oregon, but when I lived in California, they'd tax you anyway if you drove to Oregon to buy a car then try to register it in California. I imagine they'd come up with some sort of tv licensing scheme that allowed them to do the same thing for tv's as they do cars now (well, then...1990s when I lived there).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm from Oregon , but when I lived in California , they 'd tax you anyway if you drove to Oregon to buy a car then try to register it in California .
I imagine they 'd come up with some sort of tv licensing scheme that allowed them to do the same thing for tv 's as they do cars now ( well , then...1990s when I lived there ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm from Oregon, but when I lived in California, they'd tax you anyway if you drove to Oregon to buy a car then try to register it in California.
I imagine they'd come up with some sort of tv licensing scheme that allowed them to do the same thing for tv's as they do cars now (well, then...1990s when I lived there).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172458</id>
	<title>SCAM Mode Vs Vivid Mode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From my understanding, the power consumption of LCD TVs are calculated based on the maximum power usage. That would be OK if it weren't for the fact that most have this God awful "Vivid" (power draining) setting that seems to be the default. I bought a new 42 inch LCD a couple weeks ago, as soon as something came on with a white background, I looked like a vampire in the sunlight. It was just way to bright. After fiddling with the settings, I found that I get the best picture with the backlight turned down. When I'm watching SD broadcasts, I get the best picture with the backlight turned WAY down. I don't know if others have the same experience, but if most of us are turning our backlights down, it would seem like manufacturers are just shooting themselves in the foot by offering an energy hungry vivid mode that most people don't use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From my understanding , the power consumption of LCD TVs are calculated based on the maximum power usage .
That would be OK if it were n't for the fact that most have this God awful " Vivid " ( power draining ) setting that seems to be the default .
I bought a new 42 inch LCD a couple weeks ago , as soon as something came on with a white background , I looked like a vampire in the sunlight .
It was just way to bright .
After fiddling with the settings , I found that I get the best picture with the backlight turned down .
When I 'm watching SD broadcasts , I get the best picture with the backlight turned WAY down .
I do n't know if others have the same experience , but if most of us are turning our backlights down , it would seem like manufacturers are just shooting themselves in the foot by offering an energy hungry vivid mode that most people do n't use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my understanding, the power consumption of LCD TVs are calculated based on the maximum power usage.
That would be OK if it weren't for the fact that most have this God awful "Vivid" (power draining) setting that seems to be the default.
I bought a new 42 inch LCD a couple weeks ago, as soon as something came on with a white background, I looked like a vampire in the sunlight.
It was just way to bright.
After fiddling with the settings, I found that I get the best picture with the backlight turned down.
When I'm watching SD broadcasts, I get the best picture with the backlight turned WAY down.
I don't know if others have the same experience, but if most of us are turning our backlights down, it would seem like manufacturers are just shooting themselves in the foot by offering an energy hungry vivid mode that most people don't use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173174</id>
	<title>Non-issue; I wrote about it on my blog.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258740840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://frognog.livejournal.com/</p><p>Standard "sky-is-falling" complaints.  Note this would transfer money from the power companies to the electronic parts companies (if the TVs are more expensive but use less electricity).  Could be a non-issue for the consumer, too, if the money saved in electricity exactly matches the increase in TV price.  And not all "innovative features" used by televisions require a high power consumption.</p><p>I agree with the earlier post about "all rant, no facts".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //frognog.livejournal.com/Standard " sky-is-falling " complaints .
Note this would transfer money from the power companies to the electronic parts companies ( if the TVs are more expensive but use less electricity ) .
Could be a non-issue for the consumer , too , if the money saved in electricity exactly matches the increase in TV price .
And not all " innovative features " used by televisions require a high power consumption.I agree with the earlier post about " all rant , no facts " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://frognog.livejournal.com/Standard "sky-is-falling" complaints.
Note this would transfer money from the power companies to the electronic parts companies (if the TVs are more expensive but use less electricity).
Could be a non-issue for the consumer, too, if the money saved in electricity exactly matches the increase in TV price.
And not all "innovative features" used by televisions require a high power consumption.I agree with the earlier post about "all rant, no facts".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173098</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258740540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the problem is overconsumption by certain populations. The US has what, 1/21 of of the worlds population but consumes 1/4 of the resources? The earth could easily support 20-30 biliion people if we all lived as hunters and gatherers. The world is overpopulated with India alone if global consumption is at the wasteful US level. There is no need for electricity to keep up with geometric growth, because the US population is barely growing, and reproduction has nothing to do with it. Following the example of Anchorage, we could probably reduce our national energy consumption by 1/4 in a few days if need be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the problem is overconsumption by certain populations .
The US has what , 1/21 of of the worlds population but consumes 1/4 of the resources ?
The earth could easily support 20-30 biliion people if we all lived as hunters and gatherers .
The world is overpopulated with India alone if global consumption is at the wasteful US level .
There is no need for electricity to keep up with geometric growth , because the US population is barely growing , and reproduction has nothing to do with it .
Following the example of Anchorage , we could probably reduce our national energy consumption by 1/4 in a few days if need be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the problem is overconsumption by certain populations.
The US has what, 1/21 of of the worlds population but consumes 1/4 of the resources?
The earth could easily support 20-30 biliion people if we all lived as hunters and gatherers.
The world is overpopulated with India alone if global consumption is at the wasteful US level.
There is no need for electricity to keep up with geometric growth, because the US population is barely growing, and reproduction has nothing to do with it.
Following the example of Anchorage, we could probably reduce our national energy consumption by 1/4 in a few days if need be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042</id>
	<title>Article is BS...</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1258737060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The standards are not only necessary (its a suprisingly large fraction of the household power consumption in CA), but imminently doable.</p><p>Roughly 25\% of the TVs on the market ALREADY meet the 2013 specification, with 50\% meeting the 2011 specification.</p><p>The key is "LCD with LED backlight".  Such TVs easily meet the spec and are of good quality.</p><p>LCD's with conventional backlights needs to change the backlight technology, but they are doing this anyway: LED backlights are better for longevity as well as power consumption.</p><p>Who this hurts is those who have bet on Plasma technology, as plasma can effectively not meet these requirements, but plasma is dying anyway, as LCD screens keep getting bigger and faster reacting while being cheaper than plasma TVs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The standards are not only necessary ( its a suprisingly large fraction of the household power consumption in CA ) , but imminently doable.Roughly 25 \ % of the TVs on the market ALREADY meet the 2013 specification , with 50 \ % meeting the 2011 specification.The key is " LCD with LED backlight " .
Such TVs easily meet the spec and are of good quality.LCD 's with conventional backlights needs to change the backlight technology , but they are doing this anyway : LED backlights are better for longevity as well as power consumption.Who this hurts is those who have bet on Plasma technology , as plasma can effectively not meet these requirements , but plasma is dying anyway , as LCD screens keep getting bigger and faster reacting while being cheaper than plasma TVs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The standards are not only necessary (its a suprisingly large fraction of the household power consumption in CA), but imminently doable.Roughly 25\% of the TVs on the market ALREADY meet the 2013 specification, with 50\% meeting the 2011 specification.The key is "LCD with LED backlight".
Such TVs easily meet the spec and are of good quality.LCD's with conventional backlights needs to change the backlight technology, but they are doing this anyway: LED backlights are better for longevity as well as power consumption.Who this hurts is those who have bet on Plasma technology, as plasma can effectively not meet these requirements, but plasma is dying anyway, as LCD screens keep getting bigger and faster reacting while being cheaper than plasma TVs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172768</id>
	<title>CA Large Power Supply Regulation</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1258739400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thought Experiment:

CA passes a law limiting the purchase of computers to machines that use no larger than a 250w power supply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thought Experiment : CA passes a law limiting the purchase of computers to machines that use no larger than a 250w power supply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thought Experiment:

CA passes a law limiting the purchase of computers to machines that use no larger than a 250w power supply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172478</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, my name is Anyone, and I've been thinking that it's deckchair arranging since before you likely even had the thought.  It doesn't stop here, though: what about the antics of the Sierra Club?  They collect millions of $$$ and waste it fighting the symptoms of the real problem.  The Sierra Club gives official lip service to overpopulation, acknowledges it, but then completely ignores it.</p><p>As long as this 800-pound gorilla is still roaming free and unchained, does it really do much good to clean up after him?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , my name is Anyone , and I 've been thinking that it 's deckchair arranging since before you likely even had the thought .
It does n't stop here , though : what about the antics of the Sierra Club ?
They collect millions of $ $ $ and waste it fighting the symptoms of the real problem .
The Sierra Club gives official lip service to overpopulation , acknowledges it , but then completely ignores it.As long as this 800-pound gorilla is still roaming free and unchained , does it really do much good to clean up after him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, my name is Anyone, and I've been thinking that it's deckchair arranging since before you likely even had the thought.
It doesn't stop here, though: what about the antics of the Sierra Club?
They collect millions of $$$ and waste it fighting the symptoms of the real problem.
The Sierra Club gives official lip service to overpopulation, acknowledges it, but then completely ignores it.As long as this 800-pound gorilla is still roaming free and unchained, does it really do much good to clean up after him?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173012</id>
	<title>Re:It's surprising how much power new TV's use.</title>
	<author>Painted</author>
	<datestamp>1258740240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A quick search shows that Sony's Bravia 52" TVs (quick and dirty comparison, I know) draw between 320-180W max rated draw), for a slightly larger screen.
<br> <br>
So, no, LCD's don't consume anywhere near the power your plasma does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A quick search shows that Sony 's Bravia 52 " TVs ( quick and dirty comparison , I know ) draw between 320-180W max rated draw ) , for a slightly larger screen .
So , no , LCD 's do n't consume anywhere near the power your plasma does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quick search shows that Sony's Bravia 52" TVs (quick and dirty comparison, I know) draw between 320-180W max rated draw), for a slightly larger screen.
So, no, LCD's don't consume anywhere near the power your plasma does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172622</id>
	<title>Why not restrict viewing time?</title>
	<author>BetterSense</author>
	<datestamp>1258738980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do not watch TV at all, and I watch maybe 2 hours of movies per week. Why should I not be able to have a giant, inefficient TV, when with my viewing habits, I'm still using less power than many people who leave there 2* inch HD sets on 24-7? What about people that have 3 TVs in their house? Why can't I have one giant one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not watch TV at all , and I watch maybe 2 hours of movies per week .
Why should I not be able to have a giant , inefficient TV , when with my viewing habits , I 'm still using less power than many people who leave there 2 * inch HD sets on 24-7 ?
What about people that have 3 TVs in their house ?
Why ca n't I have one giant one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not watch TV at all, and I watch maybe 2 hours of movies per week.
Why should I not be able to have a giant, inefficient TV, when with my viewing habits, I'm still using less power than many people who leave there 2* inch HD sets on 24-7?
What about people that have 3 TVs in their house?
Why can't I have one giant one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173762</id>
	<title>Re:Just cut us off already</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1258743120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>my hot water tank won't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after another</p></div><p>A problem no doubt exacerbated by the propensity of various local California governments to regulate the maximum flow of shower heads sold in their jurisdictions or mandate "low flow" shower heads (as immortalized in the <i>Seinfeld</i> episode <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Shower\_Head" title="wikipedia.org"> <i>The Shower Head</i> </a> [wikipedia.org]). Low flow just means that people just take longer showers because it takes longer to rinse the shampoo out of one's hair. So not only does it NOT save water (longer showers), but it wastes more energy heating up the water (smaller droplets from the low flow head lose heat more quickly as they fly through the air, causing people to bump up the heat a few notches to get the same feeling that they would have with lower heat and larger droplets from a "regular" shower head). If you want people to conserve scarce resources then <b>quit regulating the size of my shower head or television</b> and remove, or at least raise, the price ceilings on electricity so that people don't waste it because the underlying commodity is too cheap to care.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my hot water tank wo n't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after anotherA problem no doubt exacerbated by the propensity of various local California governments to regulate the maximum flow of shower heads sold in their jurisdictions or mandate " low flow " shower heads ( as immortalized in the Seinfeld episode The Shower Head [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
Low flow just means that people just take longer showers because it takes longer to rinse the shampoo out of one 's hair .
So not only does it NOT save water ( longer showers ) , but it wastes more energy heating up the water ( smaller droplets from the low flow head lose heat more quickly as they fly through the air , causing people to bump up the heat a few notches to get the same feeling that they would have with lower heat and larger droplets from a " regular " shower head ) .
If you want people to conserve scarce resources then quit regulating the size of my shower head or television and remove , or at least raise , the price ceilings on electricity so that people do n't waste it because the underlying commodity is too cheap to care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my hot water tank won't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after anotherA problem no doubt exacerbated by the propensity of various local California governments to regulate the maximum flow of shower heads sold in their jurisdictions or mandate "low flow" shower heads (as immortalized in the Seinfeld episode  The Shower Head  [wikipedia.org]).
Low flow just means that people just take longer showers because it takes longer to rinse the shampoo out of one's hair.
So not only does it NOT save water (longer showers), but it wastes more energy heating up the water (smaller droplets from the low flow head lose heat more quickly as they fly through the air, causing people to bump up the heat a few notches to get the same feeling that they would have with lower heat and larger droplets from a "regular" shower head).
If you want people to conserve scarce resources then quit regulating the size of my shower head or television and remove, or at least raise, the price ceilings on electricity so that people don't waste it because the underlying commodity is too cheap to care.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173542</id>
	<title>Re:CA Large Power Supply Regulation</title>
	<author>springbox</author>
	<datestamp>1258742220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the point of that? The rating on a power supply is only the maximum overall power that it's supposed to be capable of delivering. My computer uses a power supply rated at 450W but only sometimes draws a maximum of 168W because of my choice of components.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the point of that ?
The rating on a power supply is only the maximum overall power that it 's supposed to be capable of delivering .
My computer uses a power supply rated at 450W but only sometimes draws a maximum of 168W because of my choice of components .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the point of that?
The rating on a power supply is only the maximum overall power that it's supposed to be capable of delivering.
My computer uses a power supply rated at 450W but only sometimes draws a maximum of 168W because of my choice of components.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173878</id>
	<title>Re:People will just buy their TV's out of state</title>
	<author>CarlDenny</author>
	<datestamp>1258743480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I suspect CA is a big enough market that all manufacturers will meet the requirements and no one will notice the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I suspect CA is a big enough market that all manufacturers will meet the requirements and no one will notice the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I suspect CA is a big enough market that all manufacturers will meet the requirements and no one will notice the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173238</id>
	<title>It's none of their business!</title>
	<author>prozac79</author>
	<datestamp>1258741080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm reading a lot of posts about the effectiveness of this new regulation -- how doable it will be, overpopulation, manufacturing costs, etc.  But I think many of you are missing one large point.  That is, it's none of the government's business how a television set is made!  I feel like today everyone is running around asking whether we <b>can</b> do something that we forget to ask whether we <b>should</b> do it.  I know, it's a stupid television.  But it's just one more step in the over-regulation of our lives and the loss of our freedoms.</p><p>Look, if this is really such an issue then a television manufacturer could just release low-energy models of their products.  If people think they are a good deal then they will buy them.  I know that if I saw two equal television sets but one said that I will save $50/year on energy costs then I would be tempted to buy it.  If the manufacturers sell enough then perhaps they will make more low-energy models or convert their entire line to it.  It's how a free market works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm reading a lot of posts about the effectiveness of this new regulation -- how doable it will be , overpopulation , manufacturing costs , etc .
But I think many of you are missing one large point .
That is , it 's none of the government 's business how a television set is made !
I feel like today everyone is running around asking whether we can do something that we forget to ask whether we should do it .
I know , it 's a stupid television .
But it 's just one more step in the over-regulation of our lives and the loss of our freedoms.Look , if this is really such an issue then a television manufacturer could just release low-energy models of their products .
If people think they are a good deal then they will buy them .
I know that if I saw two equal television sets but one said that I will save $ 50/year on energy costs then I would be tempted to buy it .
If the manufacturers sell enough then perhaps they will make more low-energy models or convert their entire line to it .
It 's how a free market works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm reading a lot of posts about the effectiveness of this new regulation -- how doable it will be, overpopulation, manufacturing costs, etc.
But I think many of you are missing one large point.
That is, it's none of the government's business how a television set is made!
I feel like today everyone is running around asking whether we can do something that we forget to ask whether we should do it.
I know, it's a stupid television.
But it's just one more step in the over-regulation of our lives and the loss of our freedoms.Look, if this is really such an issue then a television manufacturer could just release low-energy models of their products.
If people think they are a good deal then they will buy them.
I know that if I saw two equal television sets but one said that I will save $50/year on energy costs then I would be tempted to buy it.
If the manufacturers sell enough then perhaps they will make more low-energy models or convert their entire line to it.
It's how a free market works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173046</id>
	<title>F U D</title>
	<author>cyberspittle</author>
	<datestamp>1258740360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Technology already exists to reduce TV energy usage. Most manufacturers are already introducing LED LCDs, which use less energy than the flourescent tube in traditional LCDs. On a side-note, most DLPs are energy star compliant (at least my 70" Hitachi from Costco is). LED DLPs use less energy than mine. No need to pass laws that are already techichly obsolete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technology already exists to reduce TV energy usage .
Most manufacturers are already introducing LED LCDs , which use less energy than the flourescent tube in traditional LCDs .
On a side-note , most DLPs are energy star compliant ( at least my 70 " Hitachi from Costco is ) .
LED DLPs use less energy than mine .
No need to pass laws that are already techichly obsolete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technology already exists to reduce TV energy usage.
Most manufacturers are already introducing LED LCDs, which use less energy than the flourescent tube in traditional LCDs.
On a side-note, most DLPs are energy star compliant (at least my 70" Hitachi from Costco is).
LED DLPs use less energy than mine.
No need to pass laws that are already techichly obsolete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</id>
	<title>Hilarious</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258736700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New TVs, whether plasma or LCD, consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTs. My TV is one of the old ones, a 42 inch Trinitron that uses over 200 watts of energy, probably over four times as much as an LCD of the same size.</p><p>Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New TVs , whether plasma or LCD , consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTs .
My TV is one of the old ones , a 42 inch Trinitron that uses over 200 watts of energy , probably over four times as much as an LCD of the same size.Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New TVs, whether plasma or LCD, consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTs.
My TV is one of the old ones, a 42 inch Trinitron that uses over 200 watts of energy, probably over four times as much as an LCD of the same size.Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172176</id>
	<title>Doesn't apply to sets larger than 58"</title>
	<author>pedropolis</author>
	<datestamp>1258737540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Should be noted that this regulation doesn't apply to sets larger than 58" and the reg about using 1 watt during standby is something that should have been done with all electronics years ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should be noted that this regulation does n't apply to sets larger than 58 " and the reg about using 1 watt during standby is something that should have been done with all electronics years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should be noted that this regulation doesn't apply to sets larger than 58" and the reg about using 1 watt during standby is something that should have been done with all electronics years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176124</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258707780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My house isn't huge, in fact it's quite small, but the footprint of my 42 inch Trinitron isn't any bigger than the 27 inch console I used to have. I have a book shelf that's much bigger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My house is n't huge , in fact it 's quite small , but the footprint of my 42 inch Trinitron is n't any bigger than the 27 inch console I used to have .
I have a book shelf that 's much bigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My house isn't huge, in fact it's quite small, but the footprint of my 42 inch Trinitron isn't any bigger than the 27 inch console I used to have.
I have a book shelf that's much bigger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172840</id>
	<title>Re:Just cut us off already</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1258739640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alternatively, build another power plant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatively , build another power plant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatively, build another power plant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172084</id>
	<title>Suicide State?</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1258737240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>California sure is hell bent on strangling itself in regulations. I don't get the mentality. I consider myself green because I don't even own a car and ride a bicycle, hence my carbon footprint is very low. But I'm not buying into the "Opus Dei" mentality that is the modern green movement: self-punishment in the name of mother earth, our new god, and we deserve to suffer (by we I mean all of you).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>California sure is hell bent on strangling itself in regulations .
I do n't get the mentality .
I consider myself green because I do n't even own a car and ride a bicycle , hence my carbon footprint is very low .
But I 'm not buying into the " Opus Dei " mentality that is the modern green movement : self-punishment in the name of mother earth , our new god , and we deserve to suffer ( by we I mean all of you ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>California sure is hell bent on strangling itself in regulations.
I don't get the mentality.
I consider myself green because I don't even own a car and ride a bicycle, hence my carbon footprint is very low.
But I'm not buying into the "Opus Dei" mentality that is the modern green movement: self-punishment in the name of mother earth, our new god, and we deserve to suffer (by we I mean all of you).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173906</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258743600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>New TVs, whether plasma or LCD, consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTs</p></div><p>I thought the same as you did at the time I bought my 40 inch LCD TV, but when I plugged it in I was astonished to find it draws 150 watts!  That's almost twice the draw of my old 27 inch CRT.  Maybe fiddling with the brightness would knock off a few watts, but probably not much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>New TVs , whether plasma or LCD , consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTsI thought the same as you did at the time I bought my 40 inch LCD TV , but when I plugged it in I was astonished to find it draws 150 watts !
That 's almost twice the draw of my old 27 inch CRT .
Maybe fiddling with the brightness would knock off a few watts , but probably not much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New TVs, whether plasma or LCD, consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTsI thought the same as you did at the time I bought my 40 inch LCD TV, but when I plugged it in I was astonished to find it draws 150 watts!
That's almost twice the draw of my old 27 inch CRT.
Maybe fiddling with the brightness would knock off a few watts, but probably not much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172726</id>
	<title>Set the TV to 'SCAM' mode?</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1258739280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Set my TV to "SCAM" mode?  I'm not going to fall for that one!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Set my TV to " SCAM " mode ?
I 'm not going to fall for that one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Set my TV to "SCAM" mode?
I'm not going to fall for that one!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173156</id>
	<title>Re:Suicide State?</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1258740780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. It's much better that we wait until it's too late, and get to reap what we sow:<p>
<a href="http://news.discovery.com/earth/carbon-dioxide-sources-outpacing-sinks.html" title="discovery.com">http://news.discovery.com/earth/carbon-dioxide-sources-outpacing-sinks.html</a> [discovery.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Galloping increases in human fossil fuel emissions now appear to be outrunning the ability of the world's oceans to absorb them. The first year-by-year accounting of the oceans' role as a carbon sink shows that, even as they soak up record amounts, the seas are absorbing a smaller proportion of the rising total.</p></div><p>But hey, you have a right to chew through as much power you want with whatever inefficient device you have, consequences be damned, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
It 's much better that we wait until it 's too late , and get to reap what we sow : http : //news.discovery.com/earth/carbon-dioxide-sources-outpacing-sinks.html [ discovery.com ] Galloping increases in human fossil fuel emissions now appear to be outrunning the ability of the world 's oceans to absorb them .
The first year-by-year accounting of the oceans ' role as a carbon sink shows that , even as they soak up record amounts , the seas are absorbing a smaller proportion of the rising total.But hey , you have a right to chew through as much power you want with whatever inefficient device you have , consequences be damned , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
It's much better that we wait until it's too late, and get to reap what we sow:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/carbon-dioxide-sources-outpacing-sinks.html [discovery.com] Galloping increases in human fossil fuel emissions now appear to be outrunning the ability of the world's oceans to absorb them.
The first year-by-year accounting of the oceans' role as a carbon sink shows that, even as they soak up record amounts, the seas are absorbing a smaller proportion of the rising total.But hey, you have a right to chew through as much power you want with whatever inefficient device you have, consequences be damned, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174736</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258746300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't remember who said it first or who I'm quoting, but population problems have a horrible way of correcting themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember who said it first or who I 'm quoting , but population problems have a horrible way of correcting themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember who said it first or who I'm quoting, but population problems have a horrible way of correcting themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172094</id>
	<title>What's the big deal?</title>
	<author>cromar</author>
	<datestamp>1258737300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the big deal with large TV's anyway.  12" CRT TV owner, and proud of it.  And... seriously?  TV's are using enough power to warrant government intervention?  I doubt that highly.  Another great idea from The Land of Fruits and Nuts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the big deal with large TV 's anyway .
12 " CRT TV owner , and proud of it .
And... seriously ?
TV 's are using enough power to warrant government intervention ?
I doubt that highly .
Another great idea from The Land of Fruits and Nuts ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the big deal with large TV's anyway.
12" CRT TV owner, and proud of it.
And... seriously?
TV's are using enough power to warrant government intervention?
I doubt that highly.
Another great idea from The Land of Fruits and Nuts ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30206326</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1258972320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>there's just too many people on planet earth</p></div><p>So the only way to cure the planet is to kill the people. You'd best do the honourable thing: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku#Ritual" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku#Ritual</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>Let me know how that works out.</p></div><p>Oh, but he's enlightened. The world needs enlightened people, it just needs fewer unenlightened ones.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's just too many people on planet earthSo the only way to cure the planet is to kill the people .
You 'd best do the honourable thing : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku # Ritual [ wikipedia.org ] Let me know how that works out.Oh , but he 's enlightened .
The world needs enlightened people , it just needs fewer unenlightened ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's just too many people on planet earthSo the only way to cure the planet is to kill the people.
You'd best do the honourable thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku#Ritual [wikipedia.org] Let me know how that works out.Oh, but he's enlightened.
The world needs enlightened people, it just needs fewer unenlightened ones.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175468</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258748640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ford Ranger with a 4 cyl engine...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ford Ranger with a 4 cyl engine.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ford Ranger with a 4 cyl engine...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176304</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1258708440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, radical changes in technology (forcing LED backighting, or OLED displays) is not even necessary.  Simply controlling MAX contrast and brightness we can solve half this issue(the settings they overinflate to rediculous levels - that are unwatchable and in many cases could cause permanant eye damage to watch at those settings - just to advertise a higher contrast ratio).  Additionally, removing "ambilight" and other frils that make TV's "feel" bigger helps.  Additionally, removing the internal speakers and "simulated surround" is not a bad idea (afterall, who buys a 47" TV and uses the built in speakers anyway?)</p><p>That said, I do think TVs is actually the wrong place to start.  SO MANY other home appliances waste rediculous amounts of power.  For staters: stereos, DVRs, game consoles, and more, often use similar if not identical power draw when idle as when on.  My DVR for example (of which we have 2) uses 90w 24x7, and in fact turning it off is FORBIDDEN by the sattelite company.  The XBox360 uses over 200w if I remember WHEN OFF!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , radical changes in technology ( forcing LED backighting , or OLED displays ) is not even necessary .
Simply controlling MAX contrast and brightness we can solve half this issue ( the settings they overinflate to rediculous levels - that are unwatchable and in many cases could cause permanant eye damage to watch at those settings - just to advertise a higher contrast ratio ) .
Additionally , removing " ambilight " and other frils that make TV 's " feel " bigger helps .
Additionally , removing the internal speakers and " simulated surround " is not a bad idea ( afterall , who buys a 47 " TV and uses the built in speakers anyway ?
) That said , I do think TVs is actually the wrong place to start .
SO MANY other home appliances waste rediculous amounts of power .
For staters : stereos , DVRs , game consoles , and more , often use similar if not identical power draw when idle as when on .
My DVR for example ( of which we have 2 ) uses 90w 24x7 , and in fact turning it off is FORBIDDEN by the sattelite company .
The XBox360 uses over 200w if I remember WHEN OFF !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, radical changes in technology (forcing LED backighting, or OLED displays) is not even necessary.
Simply controlling MAX contrast and brightness we can solve half this issue(the settings they overinflate to rediculous levels - that are unwatchable and in many cases could cause permanant eye damage to watch at those settings - just to advertise a higher contrast ratio).
Additionally, removing "ambilight" and other frils that make TV's "feel" bigger helps.
Additionally, removing the internal speakers and "simulated surround" is not a bad idea (afterall, who buys a 47" TV and uses the built in speakers anyway?
)That said, I do think TVs is actually the wrong place to start.
SO MANY other home appliances waste rediculous amounts of power.
For staters: stereos, DVRs, game consoles, and more, often use similar if not identical power draw when idle as when on.
My DVR for example (of which we have 2) uses 90w 24x7, and in fact turning it off is FORBIDDEN by the sattelite company.
The XBox360 uses over 200w if I remember WHEN OFF!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175684</id>
	<title>Could this article be more trollish?</title>
	<author>An Onerous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1258749240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Unelected bureaucrats" "target[ing] your big screen for elimination?"  Sounds oooh so scary.  The California Energy Commission isn't an elected body, but they are appointed by people Californians elected.  And the very story that "target for elimination" links to indicates the following:</p><p>* The proposed regulations aren't particularly stringent.  They're about on par with the EnergyStar guidelines.<br>* Many popular models of HDTV already meet the proposed regulations.<br>* The regulations are technology neutral.<br>* The regulations are probably only going to slightly accelerate a shift that consumers are already demanding.</p><p>The other link, aside from being puerile, childish, and unthinkingly parroting the talking points of an industry astroturf group, proposes a solution too stupid to count as satire.</p><p>Put this in context: California has long regulated many categories of appliances this way.  In most every case, manufacturers have found it much cheaper to make every appliance conform to the California standards than to make separate products for other states.  So the price differential cannot be all that great.</p><p>I expect that, as usual, industry's screams of doom and terror are detached from reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Unelected bureaucrats " " target [ ing ] your big screen for elimination ?
" Sounds oooh so scary .
The California Energy Commission is n't an elected body , but they are appointed by people Californians elected .
And the very story that " target for elimination " links to indicates the following : * The proposed regulations are n't particularly stringent .
They 're about on par with the EnergyStar guidelines .
* Many popular models of HDTV already meet the proposed regulations .
* The regulations are technology neutral .
* The regulations are probably only going to slightly accelerate a shift that consumers are already demanding.The other link , aside from being puerile , childish , and unthinkingly parroting the talking points of an industry astroturf group , proposes a solution too stupid to count as satire.Put this in context : California has long regulated many categories of appliances this way .
In most every case , manufacturers have found it much cheaper to make every appliance conform to the California standards than to make separate products for other states .
So the price differential can not be all that great.I expect that , as usual , industry 's screams of doom and terror are detached from reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Unelected bureaucrats" "target[ing] your big screen for elimination?
"  Sounds oooh so scary.
The California Energy Commission isn't an elected body, but they are appointed by people Californians elected.
And the very story that "target for elimination" links to indicates the following:* The proposed regulations aren't particularly stringent.
They're about on par with the EnergyStar guidelines.
* Many popular models of HDTV already meet the proposed regulations.
* The regulations are technology neutral.
* The regulations are probably only going to slightly accelerate a shift that consumers are already demanding.The other link, aside from being puerile, childish, and unthinkingly parroting the talking points of an industry astroturf group, proposes a solution too stupid to count as satire.Put this in context: California has long regulated many categories of appliances this way.
In most every case, manufacturers have found it much cheaper to make every appliance conform to the California standards than to make separate products for other states.
So the price differential cannot be all that great.I expect that, as usual, industry's screams of doom and terror are detached from reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175932</id>
	<title>Selfish geeks</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1258750080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're all for being sensible and doing what's needed to face challenges... unless you threaten *our* toys. We don't even need to be a jerk to bend over backwards to protect the jerks we might become!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all for being sensible and doing what 's needed to face challenges... unless you threaten * our * toys .
We do n't even need to be a jerk to bend over backwards to protect the jerks we might become !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all for being sensible and doing what's needed to face challenges... unless you threaten *our* toys.
We don't even need to be a jerk to bend over backwards to protect the jerks we might become!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176466</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>acohen1</author>
	<datestamp>1258708980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you need to check your numbers. Most LCDs use roughly the same amount of power, ~180 watts. Plasmas are way worse, My 42" Panasonic is close to 500 watts. Meanwhile, I once used a 57" CRT projection HDTV that was only 11 watts. That was less than the digital cable box at 35 watts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you need to check your numbers .
Most LCDs use roughly the same amount of power , ~ 180 watts .
Plasmas are way worse , My 42 " Panasonic is close to 500 watts .
Meanwhile , I once used a 57 " CRT projection HDTV that was only 11 watts .
That was less than the digital cable box at 35 watts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you need to check your numbers.
Most LCDs use roughly the same amount of power, ~180 watts.
Plasmas are way worse, My 42" Panasonic is close to 500 watts.
Meanwhile, I once used a 57" CRT projection HDTV that was only 11 watts.
That was less than the digital cable box at 35 watts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171894</id>
	<title>Hooray!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258736400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's about time the government focuses on <b>real</b> issues, like how big your television screen is. I mean, if California was facing one of the worst financial crises in history or something, it would be totally absurd theater meant to detract from the fact that our legislative body has failed us deplorably. But since California is in fine shape, with no farmers in the Central Valley going without water, without widespread corruption, brutality, and incarceration - well, there's no reason <b>not</b> to focus on such an important and substantial issue.<br> <br>
Hey Sacramento - if I want a bigger television, I'll drive out of state to get it and <b>you</b> won't get any tax money out of it. Suckas!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time the government focuses on real issues , like how big your television screen is .
I mean , if California was facing one of the worst financial crises in history or something , it would be totally absurd theater meant to detract from the fact that our legislative body has failed us deplorably .
But since California is in fine shape , with no farmers in the Central Valley going without water , without widespread corruption , brutality , and incarceration - well , there 's no reason not to focus on such an important and substantial issue .
Hey Sacramento - if I want a bigger television , I 'll drive out of state to get it and you wo n't get any tax money out of it .
Suckas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time the government focuses on real issues, like how big your television screen is.
I mean, if California was facing one of the worst financial crises in history or something, it would be totally absurd theater meant to detract from the fact that our legislative body has failed us deplorably.
But since California is in fine shape, with no farmers in the Central Valley going without water, without widespread corruption, brutality, and incarceration - well, there's no reason not to focus on such an important and substantial issue.
Hey Sacramento - if I want a bigger television, I'll drive out of state to get it and you won't get any tax money out of it.
Suckas!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173970</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic bureaucrats</title>
	<author>pla</author>
	<datestamp>1258743840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>what would stop someone from driving to AZ, NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state?</i> <br>
<br>
Same reason that most cars sold in the US pass CA emissions regs (the toughest in the country) - It costs less
to manufacture to meet CA's rules than to support two (or more) separate products.<br>
<br>
California has enough economic pull to basically force their standards on the entire country.  So they don't
worry about people driving to a neighboring state, because the neighboring states will have the exact same
energy-efficient models.  And personally, I thank them for that (though their stance on passenger diesels
just makes me scratch my head).<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>And what's next, TV police vans, like the UK has?</i> <br>
<br>
Don't go getting all paranoid...  No one will send the energy enforcement goons around to collect your TVs and 2-stroke lawnmowers
and 100W incandescent bulbs.  Those things all have finite lifespans, and eventually you'll have to replace them of your own
free will.  For that matter, in most cases* the environmental cost of replacing something before it breaks, exceeds the savings
of replacing it early - So they wouldn't even <i>want</i> you to run out and get a new TV.  But next time you do, hey, lookit
that, your electric bill went down by a few bucks a month.<br>
<br>
<br>
* for larger appliances like furnaces and refrigerators, you may do well to replace it if over 10 years old regardless of
whether or not it still works, but that only applies to a very small number of large-draw devices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what would stop someone from driving to AZ , NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state ?
Same reason that most cars sold in the US pass CA emissions regs ( the toughest in the country ) - It costs less to manufacture to meet CA 's rules than to support two ( or more ) separate products .
California has enough economic pull to basically force their standards on the entire country .
So they do n't worry about people driving to a neighboring state , because the neighboring states will have the exact same energy-efficient models .
And personally , I thank them for that ( though their stance on passenger diesels just makes me scratch my head ) .
And what 's next , TV police vans , like the UK has ?
Do n't go getting all paranoid... No one will send the energy enforcement goons around to collect your TVs and 2-stroke lawnmowers and 100W incandescent bulbs .
Those things all have finite lifespans , and eventually you 'll have to replace them of your own free will .
For that matter , in most cases * the environmental cost of replacing something before it breaks , exceeds the savings of replacing it early - So they would n't even want you to run out and get a new TV .
But next time you do , hey , lookit that , your electric bill went down by a few bucks a month .
* for larger appliances like furnaces and refrigerators , you may do well to replace it if over 10 years old regardless of whether or not it still works , but that only applies to a very small number of large-draw devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what would stop someone from driving to AZ, NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state?
Same reason that most cars sold in the US pass CA emissions regs (the toughest in the country) - It costs less
to manufacture to meet CA's rules than to support two (or more) separate products.
California has enough economic pull to basically force their standards on the entire country.
So they don't
worry about people driving to a neighboring state, because the neighboring states will have the exact same
energy-efficient models.
And personally, I thank them for that (though their stance on passenger diesels
just makes me scratch my head).
And what's next, TV police vans, like the UK has?
Don't go getting all paranoid...  No one will send the energy enforcement goons around to collect your TVs and 2-stroke lawnmowers
and 100W incandescent bulbs.
Those things all have finite lifespans, and eventually you'll have to replace them of your own
free will.
For that matter, in most cases* the environmental cost of replacing something before it breaks, exceeds the savings
of replacing it early - So they wouldn't even want you to run out and get a new TV.
But next time you do, hey, lookit
that, your electric bill went down by a few bucks a month.
* for larger appliances like furnaces and refrigerators, you may do well to replace it if over 10 years old regardless of
whether or not it still works, but that only applies to a very small number of large-draw devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172898</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>Kagato</author>
	<datestamp>1258739820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While LCDs do get better, Plasma is the TV for the true videophile.  LCD can't match it for colors, and LCDs still haven't fully solved problems with black level, light bleed and bright spots.</p><p>Oh sure, there are high end LCD TVs out there that can turn off certain segments of the LED backlight.  But those segments are actually quite large, so you get a light halo around object that appear on a black background.  While LCD is getting better, but in order to match plasma you would need a LED backlight that's lined up pixel for pixel. That's going to be quite expensive.</p><p>Bottom line is Plasma is still the best for video.  Will this kill the cheap plasma market?  Most certainly.  And that might be a good thing.  Those generic Chinese make Plasmas are crap and no one is sorry to see them go.  But CA should have allowed an exception for high end plasma TVs from Pioneer and Panasonic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While LCDs do get better , Plasma is the TV for the true videophile .
LCD ca n't match it for colors , and LCDs still have n't fully solved problems with black level , light bleed and bright spots.Oh sure , there are high end LCD TVs out there that can turn off certain segments of the LED backlight .
But those segments are actually quite large , so you get a light halo around object that appear on a black background .
While LCD is getting better , but in order to match plasma you would need a LED backlight that 's lined up pixel for pixel .
That 's going to be quite expensive.Bottom line is Plasma is still the best for video .
Will this kill the cheap plasma market ?
Most certainly .
And that might be a good thing .
Those generic Chinese make Plasmas are crap and no one is sorry to see them go .
But CA should have allowed an exception for high end plasma TVs from Pioneer and Panasonic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While LCDs do get better, Plasma is the TV for the true videophile.
LCD can't match it for colors, and LCDs still haven't fully solved problems with black level, light bleed and bright spots.Oh sure, there are high end LCD TVs out there that can turn off certain segments of the LED backlight.
But those segments are actually quite large, so you get a light halo around object that appear on a black background.
While LCD is getting better, but in order to match plasma you would need a LED backlight that's lined up pixel for pixel.
That's going to be quite expensive.Bottom line is Plasma is still the best for video.
Will this kill the cheap plasma market?
Most certainly.
And that might be a good thing.
Those generic Chinese make Plasmas are crap and no one is sorry to see them go.
But CA should have allowed an exception for high end plasma TVs from Pioneer and Panasonic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174838</id>
	<title>Very misleading summary</title>
	<author>Edmund Blackadder</author>
	<datestamp>1258746600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This regulation only applies to NEW TVs that are to be offered for sale after 2011. So nobody is going to take your TV away. Also, most existing flat screen TVs on sale already pass the regulation.</p><p>By the completely pointless and irrelevant discussion of how one can comply with the regulations by decreasing the brightness and backlighting and removing the sound creates the erroneous impression that you have to do something to your existing TV to comply. This is not true only new TVs are covered, your existing TV will be completely fine regardless of what your brightness is.</p><p>Also the the reference to the train wreck of unintended consequences links to an article that does not actually mention a single unintended consequence.</p><p>So basically this article is just a hit piece produced by some PR flack that has been taken verbatim by slashdot editors. I thought slashdot editors were smarter than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This regulation only applies to NEW TVs that are to be offered for sale after 2011 .
So nobody is going to take your TV away .
Also , most existing flat screen TVs on sale already pass the regulation.By the completely pointless and irrelevant discussion of how one can comply with the regulations by decreasing the brightness and backlighting and removing the sound creates the erroneous impression that you have to do something to your existing TV to comply .
This is not true only new TVs are covered , your existing TV will be completely fine regardless of what your brightness is.Also the the reference to the train wreck of unintended consequences links to an article that does not actually mention a single unintended consequence.So basically this article is just a hit piece produced by some PR flack that has been taken verbatim by slashdot editors .
I thought slashdot editors were smarter than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This regulation only applies to NEW TVs that are to be offered for sale after 2011.
So nobody is going to take your TV away.
Also, most existing flat screen TVs on sale already pass the regulation.By the completely pointless and irrelevant discussion of how one can comply with the regulations by decreasing the brightness and backlighting and removing the sound creates the erroneous impression that you have to do something to your existing TV to comply.
This is not true only new TVs are covered, your existing TV will be completely fine regardless of what your brightness is.Also the the reference to the train wreck of unintended consequences links to an article that does not actually mention a single unintended consequence.So basically this article is just a hit piece produced by some PR flack that has been taken verbatim by slashdot editors.
I thought slashdot editors were smarter than that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172194</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Malthusian, depopulate yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Malthusian , depopulate yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Malthusian, depopulate yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172974</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Capt James McCarthy</author>
	<datestamp>1258740060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone else think that all this conservation, recycling, reduced pollution stuff is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, basically just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? I mean, it's trying to treat the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself. The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.</p></div><p>I don't think there is just one root cause to the changes we are seeing. Yes, population at a high level will use more resources and should there be a drop of say 3 billion people due to some rouge virus or asteroid, then conservation would go out the window. But then there would be other issues with reduction of population, some good, some not so good. What do you do with all the extra food animals running around? Let nature take it's course with them? The planet will warm if we want it to or not. If humans are at fault is not a big concern either. The real question with all of these changes (natural  or otherwise) is how much the human species can adapt to these changes. That's the challenge. When humans decide that the sun is going to burn out, or the Earth's core is going cold, what then? Yes a question for future generations, but if they decide to leave this rock (if possible), are they going to take all the animals with them ala Noah? I don't think so. I say let nature take it's own course, it will adapt, with or without us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else think that all this conservation , recycling , reduced pollution stuff is ... well , basically just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic ?
I mean , it 's trying to treat the symptoms of the disease , not the disease itself .
The disease is overpopulation - there 's just too many people on planet earth , and even if you do cut back energy usage , you ca n't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.I do n't think there is just one root cause to the changes we are seeing .
Yes , population at a high level will use more resources and should there be a drop of say 3 billion people due to some rouge virus or asteroid , then conservation would go out the window .
But then there would be other issues with reduction of population , some good , some not so good .
What do you do with all the extra food animals running around ?
Let nature take it 's course with them ?
The planet will warm if we want it to or not .
If humans are at fault is not a big concern either .
The real question with all of these changes ( natural or otherwise ) is how much the human species can adapt to these changes .
That 's the challenge .
When humans decide that the sun is going to burn out , or the Earth 's core is going cold , what then ?
Yes a question for future generations , but if they decide to leave this rock ( if possible ) , are they going to take all the animals with them ala Noah ?
I do n't think so .
I say let nature take it 's own course , it will adapt , with or without us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else think that all this conservation, recycling, reduced pollution stuff is ... well, basically just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic?
I mean, it's trying to treat the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself.
The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.I don't think there is just one root cause to the changes we are seeing.
Yes, population at a high level will use more resources and should there be a drop of say 3 billion people due to some rouge virus or asteroid, then conservation would go out the window.
But then there would be other issues with reduction of population, some good, some not so good.
What do you do with all the extra food animals running around?
Let nature take it's course with them?
The planet will warm if we want it to or not.
If humans are at fault is not a big concern either.
The real question with all of these changes (natural  or otherwise) is how much the human species can adapt to these changes.
That's the challenge.
When humans decide that the sun is going to burn out, or the Earth's core is going cold, what then?
Yes a question for future generations, but if they decide to leave this rock (if possible), are they going to take all the animals with them ala Noah?
I don't think so.
I say let nature take it's own course, it will adapt, with or without us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172684</id>
	<title>The Fox News crowd is out in force today.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1258739220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers.  All rant, no facts.
</p><p>
First, <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009\_tvregs/index.html" title="ca.gov" rel="nofollow">here are the actual regulations.</a> [ca.gov]  All comments submitted (including e-mail rants) are on-line.  Some of the better ones:
</p><ul>
<li>Best Buy <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009\_tvregs/documents/comments/TN\%2053943\%2011-02-09\%20Best\%20Buy\%20Supplemental\%20Comments\%20on\%20CECs\%20Proposed\%20Rulemaking\_1.pdf" title="ca.gov" rel="nofollow">did comment</a> [ca.gov].  What bothers Best Buy is that consumers might be able to purchase non-compliant TVs from out of state over the Internet, making Best Buy look non-competitive.  They're also complaining about the label placement requirement.</li>
<li>Sony <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009\_tvregs/documents/comments/TN\%2053939\%2011-2-09\%20Sony\%20Electronics\%20Inc\%20Comments.pdf" title="ca.gov" rel="nofollow"> has a long list of complaints.</a> [ca.gov]  An amusing one is that the power requirements at standby prohibit TVs from doing background processing ("download acquisition") when turned off.  They also complain about the requirement for power factor correction in power supplies on large units.</li>
<li>Panasonic <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009\_tvregs/documents/comments/TN\%2053899\%2010-30-09\%20Panasonics\%20Preliminary\%20Comments.pdf" title="ca.gov" rel="nofollow">wants the measurement procedures harmonized with the Federal standard.</a> [ca.gov]  They have no other complaints.</li>
<li>Sharp <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009\_tvregs/documents/comments/TN\%2053909\%2010-30-09\%20SHARP\%20Comments\%20on\%20Notice\%20of\%20Proposed\%20Action.pdf" title="ca.gov" rel="nofollow">is concerned about hotel TVs.</a> [ca.gov] "Hotel TVs maintain a 24/7 link to the server". (Sending what data, one wonders.)  So they have trouble with the standby power limit.</li>
<li>The Consumer Electronics Retailer Coalition <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009\_tvregs/documents/comments/TN\%2053838\%2010-21-09\%20Comments\%20from\%20Consumer\%20Electronics\%20RetailerCoalition\%20and\%20California\%20Retailers\%20Association\%20Regarding\%20Proposed\%20Rulemaking\%20on\%20Television\%20Efficiency\%20Standards.pdf" title="ca.gov" rel="nofollow">wants a six-month delay</a> [ca.gov] because the product cycle for TVs changes models at mid-year, and the regulations change at January 1.</li>
</ul><p>
Other than Sony, most of the big players don't seem to have major problems with the requirements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers .
All rant , no facts .
First , here are the actual regulations .
[ ca.gov ] All comments submitted ( including e-mail rants ) are on-line .
Some of the better ones : Best Buy did comment [ ca.gov ] .
What bothers Best Buy is that consumers might be able to purchase non-compliant TVs from out of state over the Internet , making Best Buy look non-competitive .
They 're also complaining about the label placement requirement .
Sony has a long list of complaints .
[ ca.gov ] An amusing one is that the power requirements at standby prohibit TVs from doing background processing ( " download acquisition " ) when turned off .
They also complain about the requirement for power factor correction in power supplies on large units .
Panasonic wants the measurement procedures harmonized with the Federal standard .
[ ca.gov ] They have no other complaints .
Sharp is concerned about hotel TVs .
[ ca.gov ] " Hotel TVs maintain a 24/7 link to the server " .
( Sending what data , one wonders .
) So they have trouble with the standby power limit .
The Consumer Electronics Retailer Coalition wants a six-month delay [ ca.gov ] because the product cycle for TVs changes models at mid-year , and the regulations change at January 1 .
Other than Sony , most of the big players do n't seem to have major problems with the requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers.
All rant, no facts.
First, here are the actual regulations.
[ca.gov]  All comments submitted (including e-mail rants) are on-line.
Some of the better ones:

Best Buy did comment [ca.gov].
What bothers Best Buy is that consumers might be able to purchase non-compliant TVs from out of state over the Internet, making Best Buy look non-competitive.
They're also complaining about the label placement requirement.
Sony  has a long list of complaints.
[ca.gov]  An amusing one is that the power requirements at standby prohibit TVs from doing background processing ("download acquisition") when turned off.
They also complain about the requirement for power factor correction in power supplies on large units.
Panasonic wants the measurement procedures harmonized with the Federal standard.
[ca.gov]  They have no other complaints.
Sharp is concerned about hotel TVs.
[ca.gov] "Hotel TVs maintain a 24/7 link to the server".
(Sending what data, one wonders.
)  So they have trouble with the standby power limit.
The Consumer Electronics Retailer Coalition wants a six-month delay [ca.gov] because the product cycle for TVs changes models at mid-year, and the regulations change at January 1.
Other than Sony, most of the big players don't seem to have major problems with the requirements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173266</id>
	<title>Not sure what people are moaning about</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1258741200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These power restrictions aren't especially stringent and most TVs already pass so what is the problem? Many TVs even pass the tighter 2013 levels.  The regulation is clearly there to weed out the most inefficient sets and push the industry in the direction of better consumption. There is no reason whatsoever in this day and age that TVs need to burn 400W+ to produce a picture and its good to see regulation to that effect.
<p>
Europe is going one better and requiring sets show an energy efficiency rating. There is an additional incentive on manufacturers to get their act together because a D rated set isn't going to look so attractive to consumers when its close to an A+ rated one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These power restrictions are n't especially stringent and most TVs already pass so what is the problem ?
Many TVs even pass the tighter 2013 levels .
The regulation is clearly there to weed out the most inefficient sets and push the industry in the direction of better consumption .
There is no reason whatsoever in this day and age that TVs need to burn 400W + to produce a picture and its good to see regulation to that effect .
Europe is going one better and requiring sets show an energy efficiency rating .
There is an additional incentive on manufacturers to get their act together because a D rated set is n't going to look so attractive to consumers when its close to an A + rated one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These power restrictions aren't especially stringent and most TVs already pass so what is the problem?
Many TVs even pass the tighter 2013 levels.
The regulation is clearly there to weed out the most inefficient sets and push the industry in the direction of better consumption.
There is no reason whatsoever in this day and age that TVs need to burn 400W+ to produce a picture and its good to see regulation to that effect.
Europe is going one better and requiring sets show an energy efficiency rating.
There is an additional incentive on manufacturers to get their act together because a D rated set isn't going to look so attractive to consumers when its close to an A+ rated one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172826</id>
	<title>Re:What's the big deal?</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1258739580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the big deal with large TV's anyway.</p><p>Call me crazy, but I enjoy actually being able to see the picture...otherwise, why not just go back to radio shows?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the big deal with large TV 's anyway.Call me crazy , but I enjoy actually being able to see the picture...otherwise , why not just go back to radio shows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the big deal with large TV's anyway.Call me crazy, but I enjoy actually being able to see the picture...otherwise, why not just go back to radio shows?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175002</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>dthx1138</author>
	<datestamp>1258747140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only there was some sort of service whereby the TV could be delivered to your doorstep for much less money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only there was some sort of service whereby the TV could be delivered to your doorstep for much less money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only there was some sort of service whereby the TV could be delivered to your doorstep for much less money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172420</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>p&gt;Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs?</p></div><p>California is in no condition to subsidize anything.<br>Maybe some of those butt-in-ski actors should subsidize their home state of California.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>p &gt; Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs ? California is in no condition to subsidize anything.Maybe some of those butt-in-ski actors should subsidize their home state of California .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>p&gt;Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs?California is in no condition to subsidize anything.Maybe some of those butt-in-ski actors should subsidize their home state of California.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172214</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would never dare to claim that the world is overpopulated; I'll let nature and economics make that decision.</p><p>But you have so wisely declared that the world <b>is</b> currently overpopulated, so why don't you <b>kill yourself</b> now, and decrease the surplice population.<br>Ok, ok you can be allowed to live, but only if you agree to government mandated <b>forced sterilization</b></p><p>Malthusian fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would never dare to claim that the world is overpopulated ; I 'll let nature and economics make that decision.But you have so wisely declared that the world is currently overpopulated , so why do n't you kill yourself now , and decrease the surplice population.Ok , ok you can be allowed to live , but only if you agree to government mandated forced sterilizationMalthusian fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would never dare to claim that the world is overpopulated; I'll let nature and economics make that decision.But you have so wisely declared that the world is currently overpopulated, so why don't you kill yourself now, and decrease the surplice population.Ok, ok you can be allowed to live, but only if you agree to government mandated forced sterilizationMalthusian fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174470</id>
	<title>Study your history before you panic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258745460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You people opposing this clearly buying industry FUD and unaware of how California has effectively lead the nation in getting manufacturers to make more energy efficient appliances, cars, etc.</p><p>About 30 years ago the same thing happened with refrigerators. They used to suck up about 10x as much electricity. California set extremely agressive energy efficiency standards. Manufacturers were up in arms (gnashing their teeth, predicting doom and gloom, etc). CA stuck to its guns, and refrigerator manufacturers figured it out. Fridges went from one of the worst energy suckers in your house to one of the best/most efficient - and everyone benefited. In fact, it actually spurred more fridge sales.</p><p>CA has applied this same type of energy regulatory framework more aggressively than other states, which is why their per capita energy use has actually dropped 30\% over the last 30 years while the rest of the US (on average) has stayed the same or gone up.</p><p>Frankly, every regulation in the world is like this - manufacturers oppose anything that appears like a "cost" to them - and spread FUD about how it will "kill innovation" and "stifle demand". Rarely does that happen, and in the few cases it does, society still benefits (i.e. we want to stifle demand for wasteful things).</p><p>I'm shocked that the open source and net neutrality folks here can't recognize industry FUD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You people opposing this clearly buying industry FUD and unaware of how California has effectively lead the nation in getting manufacturers to make more energy efficient appliances , cars , etc.About 30 years ago the same thing happened with refrigerators .
They used to suck up about 10x as much electricity .
California set extremely agressive energy efficiency standards .
Manufacturers were up in arms ( gnashing their teeth , predicting doom and gloom , etc ) .
CA stuck to its guns , and refrigerator manufacturers figured it out .
Fridges went from one of the worst energy suckers in your house to one of the best/most efficient - and everyone benefited .
In fact , it actually spurred more fridge sales.CA has applied this same type of energy regulatory framework more aggressively than other states , which is why their per capita energy use has actually dropped 30 \ % over the last 30 years while the rest of the US ( on average ) has stayed the same or gone up.Frankly , every regulation in the world is like this - manufacturers oppose anything that appears like a " cost " to them - and spread FUD about how it will " kill innovation " and " stifle demand " .
Rarely does that happen , and in the few cases it does , society still benefits ( i.e .
we want to stifle demand for wasteful things ) .I 'm shocked that the open source and net neutrality folks here ca n't recognize industry FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You people opposing this clearly buying industry FUD and unaware of how California has effectively lead the nation in getting manufacturers to make more energy efficient appliances, cars, etc.About 30 years ago the same thing happened with refrigerators.
They used to suck up about 10x as much electricity.
California set extremely agressive energy efficiency standards.
Manufacturers were up in arms (gnashing their teeth, predicting doom and gloom, etc).
CA stuck to its guns, and refrigerator manufacturers figured it out.
Fridges went from one of the worst energy suckers in your house to one of the best/most efficient - and everyone benefited.
In fact, it actually spurred more fridge sales.CA has applied this same type of energy regulatory framework more aggressively than other states, which is why their per capita energy use has actually dropped 30\% over the last 30 years while the rest of the US (on average) has stayed the same or gone up.Frankly, every regulation in the world is like this - manufacturers oppose anything that appears like a "cost" to them - and spread FUD about how it will "kill innovation" and "stifle demand".
Rarely does that happen, and in the few cases it does, society still benefits (i.e.
we want to stifle demand for wasteful things).I'm shocked that the open source and net neutrality folks here can't recognize industry FUD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172224</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks to me like these regulations are being put in place to make sure that the manufacturers don't cut corners and erase any of those gains.</p><p>But I like your idea of pushing California further into debt to encourage consumerism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks to me like these regulations are being put in place to make sure that the manufacturers do n't cut corners and erase any of those gains.But I like your idea of pushing California further into debt to encourage consumerism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks to me like these regulations are being put in place to make sure that the manufacturers don't cut corners and erase any of those gains.But I like your idea of pushing California further into debt to encourage consumerism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172306</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>rotide</author>
	<datestamp>1258737960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it's overpopulation, per se.  I think it is simply a matter of how much energy each human uses over their lifetime.</p><p>Think about it.  Tribes in the forest use next to zero energy.  They use rudimentary tools and what little carbon they create/release (breathing/fires) is easily absorbed by the environment.</p><p>The issue really is when you look to "civilized" society where we have cars (and all the manufacturing to make/sustain them), houses, "things", and simple energy usage to power tv's and other electronics.</p><p>Humans in the forest live just fine.  At least in the sense of being born, living a happy contributing life (at least to their tribe), procreating and then passing on.  The rest of us basically do the same thing, but we fill every gap in between with "things" to make life "better".</p><p>I'm no tree hugger and frankly I love my computer, tv, house, car, etc, etc, etc.  I don't want to give up those things for a loincloth and a hut in the Amazon.  But that is our basic problem as a species.  We soak up so much more than we need to survive.</p><p>What can we do about it?  Well, now we can't shut the box we've opened for ourselves.  We can't just ask everyone to turn off everything, stop manufacturing anything besides huts/basic tools and start living as the natives do.  We just can't go back now.</p><p>So now we're stuck finding a technological solution to a technological problem.  We have things and we now need more things to fix the damage our current things are doing.  Is this possible?  I have no idea.  Frankly, if we find some technological, easy, cheap way to create energy to reduce our footprint, I'd argue we'll just take advantage of it and make more things for ourselves and use more energy.  No matter how much energy we make, I can guarantee you we'll, as a species, find a way to use it until we need more.</p><p>I have a feeling, we'll never "fix" our basic issues.  We will never have a clean planet.  We'll find a way to fix the current problem enough to keep living and then we'll do it again, and again.  I hope I'm wrong, however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's overpopulation , per se .
I think it is simply a matter of how much energy each human uses over their lifetime.Think about it .
Tribes in the forest use next to zero energy .
They use rudimentary tools and what little carbon they create/release ( breathing/fires ) is easily absorbed by the environment.The issue really is when you look to " civilized " society where we have cars ( and all the manufacturing to make/sustain them ) , houses , " things " , and simple energy usage to power tv 's and other electronics.Humans in the forest live just fine .
At least in the sense of being born , living a happy contributing life ( at least to their tribe ) , procreating and then passing on .
The rest of us basically do the same thing , but we fill every gap in between with " things " to make life " better " .I 'm no tree hugger and frankly I love my computer , tv , house , car , etc , etc , etc .
I do n't want to give up those things for a loincloth and a hut in the Amazon .
But that is our basic problem as a species .
We soak up so much more than we need to survive.What can we do about it ?
Well , now we ca n't shut the box we 've opened for ourselves .
We ca n't just ask everyone to turn off everything , stop manufacturing anything besides huts/basic tools and start living as the natives do .
We just ca n't go back now.So now we 're stuck finding a technological solution to a technological problem .
We have things and we now need more things to fix the damage our current things are doing .
Is this possible ?
I have no idea .
Frankly , if we find some technological , easy , cheap way to create energy to reduce our footprint , I 'd argue we 'll just take advantage of it and make more things for ourselves and use more energy .
No matter how much energy we make , I can guarantee you we 'll , as a species , find a way to use it until we need more.I have a feeling , we 'll never " fix " our basic issues .
We will never have a clean planet .
We 'll find a way to fix the current problem enough to keep living and then we 'll do it again , and again .
I hope I 'm wrong , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's overpopulation, per se.
I think it is simply a matter of how much energy each human uses over their lifetime.Think about it.
Tribes in the forest use next to zero energy.
They use rudimentary tools and what little carbon they create/release (breathing/fires) is easily absorbed by the environment.The issue really is when you look to "civilized" society where we have cars (and all the manufacturing to make/sustain them), houses, "things", and simple energy usage to power tv's and other electronics.Humans in the forest live just fine.
At least in the sense of being born, living a happy contributing life (at least to their tribe), procreating and then passing on.
The rest of us basically do the same thing, but we fill every gap in between with "things" to make life "better".I'm no tree hugger and frankly I love my computer, tv, house, car, etc, etc, etc.
I don't want to give up those things for a loincloth and a hut in the Amazon.
But that is our basic problem as a species.
We soak up so much more than we need to survive.What can we do about it?
Well, now we can't shut the box we've opened for ourselves.
We can't just ask everyone to turn off everything, stop manufacturing anything besides huts/basic tools and start living as the natives do.
We just can't go back now.So now we're stuck finding a technological solution to a technological problem.
We have things and we now need more things to fix the damage our current things are doing.
Is this possible?
I have no idea.
Frankly, if we find some technological, easy, cheap way to create energy to reduce our footprint, I'd argue we'll just take advantage of it and make more things for ourselves and use more energy.
No matter how much energy we make, I can guarantee you we'll, as a species, find a way to use it until we need more.I have a feeling, we'll never "fix" our basic issues.
We will never have a clean planet.
We'll find a way to fix the current problem enough to keep living and then we'll do it again, and again.
I hope I'm wrong, however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175126</id>
	<title>rtfa THAT YOU SUBMITTED</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1258747500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy, but when they target your big-screen TVs for elimination</p></div><p>Why did you submit this article? You obviously didn't read it. There's nothing about banning big screen TVs, just a bit about tightening up energy requirements a tad.</p><p>My guess is that you saw an angry, ignorant rant on somebody's blog and are now parroting it. You're an illiterate fool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy , but when they target your big-screen TVs for eliminationWhy did you submit this article ?
You obviously did n't read it .
There 's nothing about banning big screen TVs , just a bit about tightening up energy requirements a tad.My guess is that you saw an angry , ignorant rant on somebody 's blog and are now parroting it .
You 're an illiterate fool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy, but when they target your big-screen TVs for eliminationWhy did you submit this article?
You obviously didn't read it.
There's nothing about banning big screen TVs, just a bit about tightening up energy requirements a tad.My guess is that you saw an angry, ignorant rant on somebody's blog and are now parroting it.
You're an illiterate fool.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172398</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are wrong.</p><p>For small displays (i.e. monitor sized) LCDs are much more efficient than CRTs. But at larger sizes plasmas in particular and even some LCDs can be less efficient than comparably sized CRTs.</p><p>Sources:<br><a href="http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/energyeff/tv.pdf" title="nrdc.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/energyeff/tv.pdf</a> [nrdc.org] (page 17)<br><a href="http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/redirector.jspx?action=ref&amp;cc=CN&amp;lc=chi&amp;ckey=1484550&amp;cname=AGILENT\_EDITORIAL" title="agilent.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/redirector.jspx?action=ref&amp;cc=CN&amp;lc=chi&amp;ckey=1484550&amp;cname=AGILENT\_EDITORIAL</a> [agilent.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong.For small displays ( i.e .
monitor sized ) LCDs are much more efficient than CRTs .
But at larger sizes plasmas in particular and even some LCDs can be less efficient than comparably sized CRTs.Sources : http : //www.nrdc.org/air/energy/energyeff/tv.pdf [ nrdc.org ] ( page 17 ) http : //www.home.agilent.com/agilent/redirector.jspx ? action = ref&amp;cc = CN&amp;lc = chi&amp;ckey = 1484550&amp;cname = AGILENT \ _EDITORIAL [ agilent.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong.For small displays (i.e.
monitor sized) LCDs are much more efficient than CRTs.
But at larger sizes plasmas in particular and even some LCDs can be less efficient than comparably sized CRTs.Sources:http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/energyeff/tv.pdf [nrdc.org] (page 17)http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/redirector.jspx?action=ref&amp;cc=CN&amp;lc=chi&amp;ckey=1484550&amp;cname=AGILENT\_EDITORIAL [agilent.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173842</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>5KVGhost</author>
	<datestamp>1258743360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth."</p><p>The inevitable collapse from overpopulation is always just around the corner. And we face dire consequences (this time for sure!) unless we immediately institute arbitrary and draconian measures to control even the most basic human actions.</p><p>Your premise is based on two incorrect assumptions:</p><p>- Available resources are in constant decline<br>- Population always increases geometrically</p><p>Both are wrong. They've been wrong since Malthus proposed them. They've been shown to be wrong so many times that it's difficult to understand why otherwise intelligent people keep repeating them uncritically as though they're unassailable facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The disease is overpopulation - there 's just too many people on planet earth , and even if you do cut back energy usage , you ca n't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth .
" The inevitable collapse from overpopulation is always just around the corner .
And we face dire consequences ( this time for sure !
) unless we immediately institute arbitrary and draconian measures to control even the most basic human actions.Your premise is based on two incorrect assumptions : - Available resources are in constant decline- Population always increases geometricallyBoth are wrong .
They 've been wrong since Malthus proposed them .
They 've been shown to be wrong so many times that it 's difficult to understand why otherwise intelligent people keep repeating them uncritically as though they 're unassailable facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.
"The inevitable collapse from overpopulation is always just around the corner.
And we face dire consequences (this time for sure!
) unless we immediately institute arbitrary and draconian measures to control even the most basic human actions.Your premise is based on two incorrect assumptions:- Available resources are in constant decline- Population always increases geometricallyBoth are wrong.
They've been wrong since Malthus proposed them.
They've been shown to be wrong so many times that it's difficult to understand why otherwise intelligent people keep repeating them uncritically as though they're unassailable facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30180990</id>
	<title>Re:Now is not the time.</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1258729080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, right. And there never will be a time when the environment hurts enough, now won't there. Just because you want a power hungry expensive TV to educate your children. The children! can somebody<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/please/ think of the children?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , right .
And there never will be a time when the environment hurts enough , now wo n't there .
Just because you want a power hungry expensive TV to educate your children .
The children !
can somebody /please/ think of the children ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, right.
And there never will be a time when the environment hurts enough, now won't there.
Just because you want a power hungry expensive TV to educate your children.
The children!
can somebody /please/ think of the children?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174494</id>
	<title>Re:Now is not the time.</title>
	<author>Elder Entropist</author>
	<datestamp>1258745520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't start to take effect for 2 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't start to take effect for 2 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't start to take effect for 2 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172464</id>
	<title>Cui sonny bono?</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1258738500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>LCD's with conventional backlights needs to change the backlight technology, but they are doing this anyway: LED backlights are better for longevity</p></div><p>As long as the thing lasts for the entire 12-month limited warranty, manufacturers could give a care.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>as well as power consumption.</p></div><p>True, but who owns the patent on putting LEDs behind an LCD? Royalties could offset any power consumption gains or any increased customer demand from offering a longer warranty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>LCD 's with conventional backlights needs to change the backlight technology , but they are doing this anyway : LED backlights are better for longevityAs long as the thing lasts for the entire 12-month limited warranty , manufacturers could give a care.as well as power consumption.True , but who owns the patent on putting LEDs behind an LCD ?
Royalties could offset any power consumption gains or any increased customer demand from offering a longer warranty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LCD's with conventional backlights needs to change the backlight technology, but they are doing this anyway: LED backlights are better for longevityAs long as the thing lasts for the entire 12-month limited warranty, manufacturers could give a care.as well as power consumption.True, but who owns the patent on putting LEDs behind an LCD?
Royalties could offset any power consumption gains or any increased customer demand from offering a longer warranty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174842</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258746600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Humans in the forest live just fine.</p></div><p>No they don't. They're doomed to extinction unless the rest of us build a space-faring civilization before it's too late. So while we're responsible for spreading every form of life off this rock, pardon the odd plasma TV. Your forest people are an evolutionary dead end, the kind that will get us all killed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans in the forest live just fine.No they do n't .
They 're doomed to extinction unless the rest of us build a space-faring civilization before it 's too late .
So while we 're responsible for spreading every form of life off this rock , pardon the odd plasma TV .
Your forest people are an evolutionary dead end , the kind that will get us all killed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans in the forest live just fine.No they don't.
They're doomed to extinction unless the rest of us build a space-faring civilization before it's too late.
So while we're responsible for spreading every form of life off this rock, pardon the odd plasma TV.
Your forest people are an evolutionary dead end, the kind that will get us all killed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173080</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258740480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>New TVs, whether plasma or LCD, consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTs</i></p><p>Absolute nonsense! A typical small (42") plasma will draw a good 150-300W depending on settings and content. 50" plasmas are 220-500W! LCDs fair better, but the images are pretty poor in low power mode. LED LCD panels are an intermediate step while we wait for OLED's energy efficiency, and by the time non-miniscule OLED panels are available in 5-10 years, there'll probably be a better technology over the horizon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New TVs , whether plasma or LCD , consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTsAbsolute nonsense !
A typical small ( 42 " ) plasma will draw a good 150-300W depending on settings and content .
50 " plasmas are 220-500W !
LCDs fair better , but the images are pretty poor in low power mode .
LED LCD panels are an intermediate step while we wait for OLED 's energy efficiency , and by the time non-miniscule OLED panels are available in 5-10 years , there 'll probably be a better technology over the horizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New TVs, whether plasma or LCD, consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTsAbsolute nonsense!
A typical small (42") plasma will draw a good 150-300W depending on settings and content.
50" plasmas are 220-500W!
LCDs fair better, but the images are pretty poor in low power mode.
LED LCD panels are an intermediate step while we wait for OLED's energy efficiency, and by the time non-miniscule OLED panels are available in 5-10 years, there'll probably be a better technology over the horizon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174514</id>
	<title>special interest group?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258745580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to jump to the conclusion that this guy has swallowed the propaganda from a special interest group (CEDIA) and is unhappy that the manufacturers who enable the Home Theater Installation profession (WTF, can't install your own TV?) will be inconvenienced by the new regulations.</p><p>The car companies are always whining about emissions standards, time to share the pain.</p><p>As for all the folks whining about people emigrating from California, perhaps that is a good thing.  How many episodes of Modern Marvels are dedicated to impressive feats of engineering required to let people live in that desert?  Maybe that will save them some money that would otherwise be required to upgrade their infrastructure to support an otherwise increasing population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to jump to the conclusion that this guy has swallowed the propaganda from a special interest group ( CEDIA ) and is unhappy that the manufacturers who enable the Home Theater Installation profession ( WTF , ca n't install your own TV ?
) will be inconvenienced by the new regulations.The car companies are always whining about emissions standards , time to share the pain.As for all the folks whining about people emigrating from California , perhaps that is a good thing .
How many episodes of Modern Marvels are dedicated to impressive feats of engineering required to let people live in that desert ?
Maybe that will save them some money that would otherwise be required to upgrade their infrastructure to support an otherwise increasing population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to jump to the conclusion that this guy has swallowed the propaganda from a special interest group (CEDIA) and is unhappy that the manufacturers who enable the Home Theater Installation profession (WTF, can't install your own TV?
) will be inconvenienced by the new regulations.The car companies are always whining about emissions standards, time to share the pain.As for all the folks whining about people emigrating from California, perhaps that is a good thing.
How many episodes of Modern Marvels are dedicated to impressive feats of engineering required to let people live in that desert?
Maybe that will save them some money that would otherwise be required to upgrade their infrastructure to support an otherwise increasing population.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076</id>
	<title>It's surprising how much power new TV's use.</title>
	<author>djdbass</author>
	<datestamp>1258737180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got a 50" plasma about 6 months ago. I researched all the specs to make sure I got a great tv - and I did. But what I hadn't paid any attention to was power consumption. I was pretty surprised when I learned my new TV uses 690W. <br> <br>

If you look at the back of a plasma tv they have fans on the back. The screen itself gets warm enough you can feel the heat on the back of your hand 3" or 4" away.<br> <br>

Do LCD's of this size use this much power?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a 50 " plasma about 6 months ago .
I researched all the specs to make sure I got a great tv - and I did .
But what I had n't paid any attention to was power consumption .
I was pretty surprised when I learned my new TV uses 690W .
If you look at the back of a plasma tv they have fans on the back .
The screen itself gets warm enough you can feel the heat on the back of your hand 3 " or 4 " away .
Do LCD 's of this size use this much power ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a 50" plasma about 6 months ago.
I researched all the specs to make sure I got a great tv - and I did.
But what I hadn't paid any attention to was power consumption.
I was pretty surprised when I learned my new TV uses 690W.
If you look at the back of a plasma tv they have fans on the back.
The screen itself gets warm enough you can feel the heat on the back of your hand 3" or 4" away.
Do LCD's of this size use this much power?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175666</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258749180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A 20" LCD is smaller than a 20" CRT, due to the aspect ratio shift.  Also, I didn't replace my 20" CRT (45W) a couple years ago with a 20" LCD, but with a 40" LCD (220W).  Factoring in the area, I'm not even sure it IS an improvement.  My energy usage did go down that year, though, due to replacing a 30 year old refrigerator that averaged 350W with a larger fridge that averages 50W according to my kill-a-watt (stupid thing has a pair of 25W incandescent appliance bulbs for lighting instead of a small bank of 1W LEDs for some reason, though)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A 20 " LCD is smaller than a 20 " CRT , due to the aspect ratio shift .
Also , I did n't replace my 20 " CRT ( 45W ) a couple years ago with a 20 " LCD , but with a 40 " LCD ( 220W ) .
Factoring in the area , I 'm not even sure it IS an improvement .
My energy usage did go down that year , though , due to replacing a 30 year old refrigerator that averaged 350W with a larger fridge that averages 50W according to my kill-a-watt ( stupid thing has a pair of 25W incandescent appliance bulbs for lighting instead of a small bank of 1W LEDs for some reason , though )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 20" LCD is smaller than a 20" CRT, due to the aspect ratio shift.
Also, I didn't replace my 20" CRT (45W) a couple years ago with a 20" LCD, but with a 40" LCD (220W).
Factoring in the area, I'm not even sure it IS an improvement.
My energy usage did go down that year, though, due to replacing a 30 year old refrigerator that averaged 350W with a larger fridge that averages 50W according to my kill-a-watt (stupid thing has a pair of 25W incandescent appliance bulbs for lighting instead of a small bank of 1W LEDs for some reason, though)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173110</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>pla</author>
	<datestamp>1258740540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The disease is overpopulation</i> <br>
<br>
Although I agree with you completely in that regard, I also consider basic conservation and recycling more a matter
of simple common sense than "just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic".<br>
<br>
Yes, too many humans exist; Eventually, we will discover how much we depend on a terrifyingly small number of sources
of phosphate for fertilizer, and have a massive die-off due to global famine.  Until then, however, we <i>don't</i> need
to suffer for want of energy or various recyclable metals.<br>
<br>
This month's SciAm
(unfortunately that link doesn't have the full article - I'd recommend picking up this month's issue for that alone, if
you have any interest in renewable energy) has a nice breakdown of how we can <i>realistically</i> satisfy the world's
energy demands using 100\% renewable and zero-emission sources.  It gives some eye-opening numbers that one the one hand
make even a staunch fan of renewables wonder if we can really do it, while at the same time throwing down a gauntlet in
that we <i>won't</i> get there with our current half-assed approach.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The disease is overpopulation Although I agree with you completely in that regard , I also consider basic conservation and recycling more a matter of simple common sense than " just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic " .
Yes , too many humans exist ; Eventually , we will discover how much we depend on a terrifyingly small number of sources of phosphate for fertilizer , and have a massive die-off due to global famine .
Until then , however , we do n't need to suffer for want of energy or various recyclable metals .
This month 's SciAm ( unfortunately that link does n't have the full article - I 'd recommend picking up this month 's issue for that alone , if you have any interest in renewable energy ) has a nice breakdown of how we can realistically satisfy the world 's energy demands using 100 \ % renewable and zero-emission sources .
It gives some eye-opening numbers that one the one hand make even a staunch fan of renewables wonder if we can really do it , while at the same time throwing down a gauntlet in that we wo n't get there with our current half-assed approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The disease is overpopulation 

Although I agree with you completely in that regard, I also consider basic conservation and recycling more a matter
of simple common sense than "just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic".
Yes, too many humans exist; Eventually, we will discover how much we depend on a terrifyingly small number of sources
of phosphate for fertilizer, and have a massive die-off due to global famine.
Until then, however, we don't need
to suffer for want of energy or various recyclable metals.
This month's SciAm
(unfortunately that link doesn't have the full article - I'd recommend picking up this month's issue for that alone, if
you have any interest in renewable energy) has a nice breakdown of how we can realistically satisfy the world's
energy demands using 100\% renewable and zero-emission sources.
It gives some eye-opening numbers that one the one hand
make even a staunch fan of renewables wonder if we can really do it, while at the same time throwing down a gauntlet in
that we won't get there with our current half-assed approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30180310</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1258724340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>Roughly 25\% of the TVs on the market ALREADY meet the 2013 specification, with 50\% meeting the 2011 specification.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>The trick is the other 50\% which either have to be entering production now for the 2011 deadline or are just off the market.</p><p>What they don't really consider is the power requirements of earning the extra $4-600 to upgrade to more efficient technology in the market.  Hey, maybe SED will find a niche.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Roughly 25 \ % of the TVs on the market ALREADY meet the 2013 specification , with 50 \ % meeting the 2011 specification .
The trick is the other 50 \ % which either have to be entering production now for the 2011 deadline or are just off the market.What they do n't really consider is the power requirements of earning the extra $ 4-600 to upgrade to more efficient technology in the market .
Hey , maybe SED will find a niche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Roughly 25\% of the TVs on the market ALREADY meet the 2013 specification, with 50\% meeting the 2011 specification.
The trick is the other 50\% which either have to be entering production now for the 2011 deadline or are just off the market.What they don't really consider is the power requirements of earning the extra $4-600 to upgrade to more efficient technology in the market.
Hey, maybe SED will find a niche.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173634</id>
	<title>Aliens on our planet?</title>
	<author>blue\_teeth</author>
	<datestamp>1258742580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think what you call "people" are like aliens from outer space.  Consuming earth's resources...pillaging them..as if there is no tomorrow.  Breeding and growing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what you call " people " are like aliens from outer space .
Consuming earth 's resources...pillaging them..as if there is no tomorrow .
Breeding and growing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what you call "people" are like aliens from outer space.
Consuming earth's resources...pillaging them..as if there is no tomorrow.
Breeding and growing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173280</id>
	<title>Re:It's surprising how much power new TV's use.</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1258741260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you have a dark room, or a room without direct sunlight that you watch TV in, I have a 61" DLP with a beautiful picture, awesome contrast, and it uses all of 170W.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a dark room , or a room without direct sunlight that you watch TV in , I have a 61 " DLP with a beautiful picture , awesome contrast , and it uses all of 170W .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a dark room, or a room without direct sunlight that you watch TV in, I have a 61" DLP with a beautiful picture, awesome contrast, and it uses all of 170W.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172232</id>
	<title>Geniuses</title>
	<author>PonyHome</author>
	<datestamp>1258737720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the same stupidity that energy gurus did to ceiling fans.  They decided that, in order to save energy, all ceiling fans would have to go to the candelabra-sized base, from a standard full-size base bulb.  Their thinking (if you can call it that) was that those bulbs are not made in anything over 60 Watts, so that's bound to save power, right?  Okay, so let's see what they did:  They eliminated the possibility of using almost any compact fluorescent bulb in a ceiling fan, because the choices of CFL bulb offered in that size base are extremely limited.  So get rid of those wasteful 100 Watt CFLs (which consume 25 Watts of power) and install the efficient 60 Watt candelabra base bulbs (which actually use 60 Watts).  Way to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same stupidity that energy gurus did to ceiling fans .
They decided that , in order to save energy , all ceiling fans would have to go to the candelabra-sized base , from a standard full-size base bulb .
Their thinking ( if you can call it that ) was that those bulbs are not made in anything over 60 Watts , so that 's bound to save power , right ?
Okay , so let 's see what they did : They eliminated the possibility of using almost any compact fluorescent bulb in a ceiling fan , because the choices of CFL bulb offered in that size base are extremely limited .
So get rid of those wasteful 100 Watt CFLs ( which consume 25 Watts of power ) and install the efficient 60 Watt candelabra base bulbs ( which actually use 60 Watts ) .
Way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same stupidity that energy gurus did to ceiling fans.
They decided that, in order to save energy, all ceiling fans would have to go to the candelabra-sized base, from a standard full-size base bulb.
Their thinking (if you can call it that) was that those bulbs are not made in anything over 60 Watts, so that's bound to save power, right?
Okay, so let's see what they did:  They eliminated the possibility of using almost any compact fluorescent bulb in a ceiling fan, because the choices of CFL bulb offered in that size base are extremely limited.
So get rid of those wasteful 100 Watt CFLs (which consume 25 Watts of power) and install the efficient 60 Watt candelabra base bulbs (which actually use 60 Watts).
Way to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30178324</id>
	<title>Why all energy efficiency regulations are wrong</title>
	<author>lighthouse10</author>
	<datestamp>1258715220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anonymous reader is right....
<p>
<b>Are you guys living in the 'Free America' or are you wannabees to join our
Bureaucratic ban-loving EU?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</b>

</p><p>

<b>Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!</b>

</p><p>
1.  <br>
<b>Taxation</b>, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.  <br>
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives
Governor Schwarzenegger's impoverished California Government income on
the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice. <br>
This also applies generally, <br>
to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc, <br>
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use. <br>
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation
schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions
more than remaining product use raises them. <br>
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making
them cheaper than today. <br>
People are not just hit by taxes, they don't have to buy the higher
taxed products - and at least they CAN still buy them.</p><p>
2.   <br>
Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however <b>unwarranted:</b> <br>
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem!

</p><p>
Energy: there is no energy shortage <br>
 (given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits) <br>
and consumers - not politicians - pay for energy and how they wish to use it.</p><p>
It might sound great to
<i> <b>"Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products"</b> </i>

</p><p>
However: <br>
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance,
appearance and construction advantages <br>
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):<br>
<a href="http://ceolas.net/#cc211x" title="ceolas.net" rel="nofollow">http://ceolas.net/#cc211x</a> [ceolas.net] <br>
For example,  big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.</p><p>
Products using more energy usually cost less, or they'd be more energy
efficient already. <br>
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any
running cost savings either.</p><p>
(continued)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous reader is right... . Are you guys living in the 'Free America ' or are you wannabees to join our Bureaucratic ban-loving EU ?
: - ) Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot !
1 . Taxation , while still wrong , is better than bans for all concerned .
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives Governor Schwarzenegger 's impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales , while consumers keep choice .
This also applies generally , to CARS ( with emission tax or gas tax ) , BUILDINGS , DISHWASHERS , LIGHT BULBS etc , where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or ca n't use .
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation schemes , renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them .
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered , making them cheaper than today .
People are not just hit by taxes , they do n't have to buy the higher taxed products - and at least they CAN still buy them .
2 . Product regulation , bans or taxation , are however unwarranted : Where there is a problem - deal with the problem !
Energy : there is no energy shortage ( given renewable/nuclear development possibilities , with set emission limits ) and consumers - not politicians - pay for energy and how they wish to use it .
It might sound great to " Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products " However : Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance , appearance and construction advantages Examples ( using cars , buildings , dishwashers , TV sets , light bulbs etc ) : http : //ceolas.net/ # cc211x [ ceolas.net ] For example , big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other advantages along with their large image sizes .
Products using more energy usually cost less , or they 'd be more energy efficient already .
Depending on how much they are used , there might therefore not be any running cost savings either .
( continued )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous reader is right....

Are you guys living in the 'Free America' or are you wannabees to join our
Bureaucratic ban-loving EU?
:-)



Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!
1.  
Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives
Governor Schwarzenegger's impoverished California Government income on
the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally, 
to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc, 
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use.
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation
schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions
more than remaining product use raises them.
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making
them cheaper than today.
People are not just hit by taxes, they don't have to buy the higher
taxed products - and at least they CAN still buy them.
2.   
Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however unwarranted: 
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem!
Energy: there is no energy shortage 
 (given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits) 
and consumers - not politicians - pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
It might sound great to
 "Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products" 


However: 
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance,
appearance and construction advantages 
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x [ceolas.net] 
For example,  big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.
Products using more energy usually cost less, or they'd be more energy
efficient already.
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any
running cost savings either.
(continued)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173056</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>LatencyKills</author>
	<datestamp>1258740360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always said that if we could just get everyone to agree not to have children for the next 100 years or so, all the other problems facing the human race would solve themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always said that if we could just get everyone to agree not to have children for the next 100 years or so , all the other problems facing the human race would solve themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always said that if we could just get everyone to agree not to have children for the next 100 years or so, all the other problems facing the human race would solve themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176756</id>
	<title>Ever heard of the internet and</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1258710060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>truck freight?</p><p>No need to do any driving at all.  And you can probably get it cheaper....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>truck freight ? No need to do any driving at all .
And you can probably get it cheaper... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>truck freight?No need to do any driving at all.
And you can probably get it cheaper....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172584</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>New TVs, whether plasma or LCD, consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTs. My TV is one of the old ones, a 42 inch Trinitron that uses over 200 watts of energy, probably over four times as much as an LCD of the same size.</p><p>Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs?</p></div><p>Cash for Clunkers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>New TVs , whether plasma or LCD , consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTs .
My TV is one of the old ones , a 42 inch Trinitron that uses over 200 watts of energy , probably over four times as much as an LCD of the same size.Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs ? Cash for Clunkers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New TVs, whether plasma or LCD, consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTs.
My TV is one of the old ones, a 42 inch Trinitron that uses over 200 watts of energy, probably over four times as much as an LCD of the same size.Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs?Cash for Clunkers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175206</id>
	<title>Re:Suicide State?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258747740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I consider myself green because I don't even own a car</i></p><p>Well, my carbon footprint isn't large so much because of the car, but because I eat a lot of beans.</p><p>Never eat more than 239 beans at a setting. Any more than that and you're 240.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider myself green because I do n't even own a carWell , my carbon footprint is n't large so much because of the car , but because I eat a lot of beans.Never eat more than 239 beans at a setting .
Any more than that and you 're 240 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider myself green because I don't even own a carWell, my carbon footprint isn't large so much because of the car, but because I eat a lot of beans.Never eat more than 239 beans at a setting.
Any more than that and you're 240.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</id>
	<title>Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258736700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone else think that all this conservation, recycling, reduced pollution stuff is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, basically just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? I mean, it's trying to treat the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself. The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else think that all this conservation , recycling , reduced pollution stuff is ... well , basically just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic ?
I mean , it 's trying to treat the symptoms of the disease , not the disease itself .
The disease is overpopulation - there 's just too many people on planet earth , and even if you do cut back energy usage , you ca n't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else think that all this conservation, recycling, reduced pollution stuff is ... well, basically just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic?
I mean, it's trying to treat the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself.
The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174374</id>
	<title>Re:Just cut us off already</title>
	<author>raddan</author>
	<datestamp>1258745100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh?  Parent poster was simply pointing out that if people FEEL the effects of their consumption, they will do something positive about it.  Quotas aren't a terrible idea, but Americans are such a bunch of entitled brats that it would never get anywhere.
<br> <br>
I personally think that energy is too cheap.  When I moved into my current place, I had to option of opting for "wind power only".  This means that, in Massachusetts, every dollar I spend for generation charges must go toward generating power from wind.  The power company said that it would cost me roughly 50-60\% more than the standard generation charge.  My friends gave me dire warnings that this would be prohibitively expensive.  Well, it turns out that 1) not only can I do math, but 2) with a few simple changes (swapping out incandescents), it was even cheaper than I expected.
<br> <br>
All of the bulbs in my apartment are CFL, except the ones in the dimmer in the kitchen.  I don't own a TV, but I do have a fairly large computer monitor (28").  My average cost for power, paying the premium for wind, is about $30 a month.  The month of August was the highest (about $40) because I was running my AC.  But last month was around $25.  As far as costs go, this is a relatively minor one.
<br> <br>
What kills me is that we are, on a daily basis, being bombarded with solar energy.  I was in Las Vegas in September and October, and the amount of electricity used on the AC is just tremendous.  If LV had a building code that required solar panels on all new buildings, can you imagine how far that would go toward reducing that use?  Particularly since the most heavy AC use is during the day, precisely when we're being bombarded with all that energy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
Parent poster was simply pointing out that if people FEEL the effects of their consumption , they will do something positive about it .
Quotas are n't a terrible idea , but Americans are such a bunch of entitled brats that it would never get anywhere .
I personally think that energy is too cheap .
When I moved into my current place , I had to option of opting for " wind power only " .
This means that , in Massachusetts , every dollar I spend for generation charges must go toward generating power from wind .
The power company said that it would cost me roughly 50-60 \ % more than the standard generation charge .
My friends gave me dire warnings that this would be prohibitively expensive .
Well , it turns out that 1 ) not only can I do math , but 2 ) with a few simple changes ( swapping out incandescents ) , it was even cheaper than I expected .
All of the bulbs in my apartment are CFL , except the ones in the dimmer in the kitchen .
I do n't own a TV , but I do have a fairly large computer monitor ( 28 " ) .
My average cost for power , paying the premium for wind , is about $ 30 a month .
The month of August was the highest ( about $ 40 ) because I was running my AC .
But last month was around $ 25 .
As far as costs go , this is a relatively minor one .
What kills me is that we are , on a daily basis , being bombarded with solar energy .
I was in Las Vegas in September and October , and the amount of electricity used on the AC is just tremendous .
If LV had a building code that required solar panels on all new buildings , can you imagine how far that would go toward reducing that use ?
Particularly since the most heavy AC use is during the day , precisely when we 're being bombarded with all that energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
Parent poster was simply pointing out that if people FEEL the effects of their consumption, they will do something positive about it.
Quotas aren't a terrible idea, but Americans are such a bunch of entitled brats that it would never get anywhere.
I personally think that energy is too cheap.
When I moved into my current place, I had to option of opting for "wind power only".
This means that, in Massachusetts, every dollar I spend for generation charges must go toward generating power from wind.
The power company said that it would cost me roughly 50-60\% more than the standard generation charge.
My friends gave me dire warnings that this would be prohibitively expensive.
Well, it turns out that 1) not only can I do math, but 2) with a few simple changes (swapping out incandescents), it was even cheaper than I expected.
All of the bulbs in my apartment are CFL, except the ones in the dimmer in the kitchen.
I don't own a TV, but I do have a fairly large computer monitor (28").
My average cost for power, paying the premium for wind, is about $30 a month.
The month of August was the highest (about $40) because I was running my AC.
But last month was around $25.
As far as costs go, this is a relatively minor one.
What kills me is that we are, on a daily basis, being bombarded with solar energy.
I was in Las Vegas in September and October, and the amount of electricity used on the AC is just tremendous.
If LV had a building code that required solar panels on all new buildings, can you imagine how far that would go toward reducing that use?
Particularly since the most heavy AC use is during the day, precisely when we're being bombarded with all that energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173506</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174630</id>
	<title>Re:Just cut us off already</title>
	<author>iron spartan</author>
	<datestamp>1258745940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So in your opinion, the solution is a totalitarian government that has the power and authority to dictate all resource use to the populace?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So in your opinion , the solution is a totalitarian government that has the power and authority to dictate all resource use to the populace ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in your opinion, the solution is a totalitarian government that has the power and authority to dictate all resource use to the populace?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173066</id>
	<title>Re:It's surprising how much power new TV's use.</title>
	<author>martin\_b1sh0p</author>
	<datestamp>1258740420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As others have already replied, LCDs use a lot less power.  But if you want a flat screen for a decent price with an excellent picture, Plasma is still the way to go (as your research told you obviously).  And Plasmas are getting better / more energy efficient (just not as good as LCDs).
<br> <br>
I did the same thing you did...spent weeks doing my research and looking at TVs in stores, and walk away with a Plasma.  Because picture quality was more important than my electric bill going up by $1 a month.  Granted my Plasma is only 42" and is rated at 286W (with people online claiming they've measured an average of only 200W used).</htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have already replied , LCDs use a lot less power .
But if you want a flat screen for a decent price with an excellent picture , Plasma is still the way to go ( as your research told you obviously ) .
And Plasmas are getting better / more energy efficient ( just not as good as LCDs ) .
I did the same thing you did...spent weeks doing my research and looking at TVs in stores , and walk away with a Plasma .
Because picture quality was more important than my electric bill going up by $ 1 a month .
Granted my Plasma is only 42 " and is rated at 286W ( with people online claiming they 've measured an average of only 200W used ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As others have already replied, LCDs use a lot less power.
But if you want a flat screen for a decent price with an excellent picture, Plasma is still the way to go (as your research told you obviously).
And Plasmas are getting better / more energy efficient (just not as good as LCDs).
I did the same thing you did...spent weeks doing my research and looking at TVs in stores, and walk away with a Plasma.
Because picture quality was more important than my electric bill going up by $1 a month.
Granted my Plasma is only 42" and is rated at 286W (with people online claiming they've measured an average of only 200W used).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172950</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>fireball84513</author>
	<datestamp>1258740000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>um... i don't want to jump to conclusions, but saying that overpopulation is a disease is like saying i am a disease. yes, part of the problem is overpopulation, but "treating the symptoms of the disease" can only mean somehow lessening the population. maybe if you stated what your solution really was, people wouldn't jump to conclusions thinking that you want to kill off the surplus population.</htmltext>
<tokenext>um... i do n't want to jump to conclusions , but saying that overpopulation is a disease is like saying i am a disease .
yes , part of the problem is overpopulation , but " treating the symptoms of the disease " can only mean somehow lessening the population .
maybe if you stated what your solution really was , people would n't jump to conclusions thinking that you want to kill off the surplus population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um... i don't want to jump to conclusions, but saying that overpopulation is a disease is like saying i am a disease.
yes, part of the problem is overpopulation, but "treating the symptoms of the disease" can only mean somehow lessening the population.
maybe if you stated what your solution really was, people wouldn't jump to conclusions thinking that you want to kill off the surplus population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174658</id>
	<title>the old 3rd party payer problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258746000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I made an attempt to reduce the electric bill at my house a couple years ago, but the TV was the least of it.</p><p>My wife runs a rack of networking equipment 24/7 and a runs a 1/2hp stand mixer on weekends.  Plus she likes to leave lights on in the kitchen and hallway at night.</p><p>The babysitter gets lonely during the day and turns on every light switch in the house then turns on the DVD player to play CDs and turns on (a different) TV to see the DVD player's "you're watching a CD so I have no video to show you" screen.  The kid sleeps with a 20W CFL lamp on all night.</p><p>The cable box uses 20W whether it's on or off. There are idle loads from a garage door opener, doorbell circuit, burglar alarm, cheapo video surveillance system, several outdoor lights on motion IR, various clocks, a gas oven and a microwave with displays, 2 laptops and 10 (ten!) phones plugged into chargers.</p><p>If that's not enough, from June through September the wife likes to keep the house at 74F.  So 10 tons of a/c capacity are engaged in a losing war moving entropy from inside to outside.</p><p>I'm willing to try to save money on electricity, in fact I'm highly motivated because I pay for it.  But there are other people that I cannot simply yell at/browbeat/guilt trip into conservation at so in the interest of family harmony our carbon footprint is, well, gigantic really.</p><p>Someone explained to me once that the fundamental problem with healthcare is that the party benefiting from health care and the party paying for the health care were not the same--so the market fails and the resource is wasted to some large and inevitable degree.  The same thing happens with electricity.  So many people use electricity that someone else is paying for that there is a failure of the free market.</p><p>Regulation is inevitable unless each person gets their own ipod-sized electric meter to carry around.  I'm serious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I made an attempt to reduce the electric bill at my house a couple years ago , but the TV was the least of it.My wife runs a rack of networking equipment 24/7 and a runs a 1/2hp stand mixer on weekends .
Plus she likes to leave lights on in the kitchen and hallway at night.The babysitter gets lonely during the day and turns on every light switch in the house then turns on the DVD player to play CDs and turns on ( a different ) TV to see the DVD player 's " you 're watching a CD so I have no video to show you " screen .
The kid sleeps with a 20W CFL lamp on all night.The cable box uses 20W whether it 's on or off .
There are idle loads from a garage door opener , doorbell circuit , burglar alarm , cheapo video surveillance system , several outdoor lights on motion IR , various clocks , a gas oven and a microwave with displays , 2 laptops and 10 ( ten !
) phones plugged into chargers.If that 's not enough , from June through September the wife likes to keep the house at 74F .
So 10 tons of a/c capacity are engaged in a losing war moving entropy from inside to outside.I 'm willing to try to save money on electricity , in fact I 'm highly motivated because I pay for it .
But there are other people that I can not simply yell at/browbeat/guilt trip into conservation at so in the interest of family harmony our carbon footprint is , well , gigantic really.Someone explained to me once that the fundamental problem with healthcare is that the party benefiting from health care and the party paying for the health care were not the same--so the market fails and the resource is wasted to some large and inevitable degree .
The same thing happens with electricity .
So many people use electricity that someone else is paying for that there is a failure of the free market.Regulation is inevitable unless each person gets their own ipod-sized electric meter to carry around .
I 'm serious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made an attempt to reduce the electric bill at my house a couple years ago, but the TV was the least of it.My wife runs a rack of networking equipment 24/7 and a runs a 1/2hp stand mixer on weekends.
Plus she likes to leave lights on in the kitchen and hallway at night.The babysitter gets lonely during the day and turns on every light switch in the house then turns on the DVD player to play CDs and turns on (a different) TV to see the DVD player's "you're watching a CD so I have no video to show you" screen.
The kid sleeps with a 20W CFL lamp on all night.The cable box uses 20W whether it's on or off.
There are idle loads from a garage door opener, doorbell circuit, burglar alarm, cheapo video surveillance system, several outdoor lights on motion IR, various clocks, a gas oven and a microwave with displays, 2 laptops and 10 (ten!
) phones plugged into chargers.If that's not enough, from June through September the wife likes to keep the house at 74F.
So 10 tons of a/c capacity are engaged in a losing war moving entropy from inside to outside.I'm willing to try to save money on electricity, in fact I'm highly motivated because I pay for it.
But there are other people that I cannot simply yell at/browbeat/guilt trip into conservation at so in the interest of family harmony our carbon footprint is, well, gigantic really.Someone explained to me once that the fundamental problem with healthcare is that the party benefiting from health care and the party paying for the health care were not the same--so the market fails and the resource is wasted to some large and inevitable degree.
The same thing happens with electricity.
So many people use electricity that someone else is paying for that there is a failure of the free market.Regulation is inevitable unless each person gets their own ipod-sized electric meter to carry around.
I'm serious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171972</id>
	<title>What is more important</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1258736760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The polar bears or your big screen?<br>
Eco-Fascists unite, we must burn all big screen T.V. and kill the demons the lurk within<br>
This what was prophecy that came from Al Gore through his prophet Nancy Pelosi.<br>
OBEY!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The polar bears or your big screen ?
Eco-Fascists unite , we must burn all big screen T.V .
and kill the demons the lurk within This what was prophecy that came from Al Gore through his prophet Nancy Pelosi .
OBEY !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The polar bears or your big screen?
Eco-Fascists unite, we must burn all big screen T.V.
and kill the demons the lurk within
This what was prophecy that came from Al Gore through his prophet Nancy Pelosi.
OBEY!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173838</id>
	<title>Re:Trying to save the planet</title>
	<author>CarlDenny</author>
	<datestamp>1258743360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cutting our energy usage by X\% is at least as good as swapping x\% of our power plants over from coal.  Switching to flourescent lights, which would cut overall energy usage by something like 15\%, has to be worthwhile.</p><p>Negawatts are real, and if something like this cuts out a power plant or two worth of usage, it's worthwhile on purely economic grounds.</p><p>Power generation won't change much until the economics change there.  If coal is cheaper and carbon/pollution isn't taxed, it doesn't make much sense to switch to anything else, regardless of level of demand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cutting our energy usage by X \ % is at least as good as swapping x \ % of our power plants over from coal .
Switching to flourescent lights , which would cut overall energy usage by something like 15 \ % , has to be worthwhile.Negawatts are real , and if something like this cuts out a power plant or two worth of usage , it 's worthwhile on purely economic grounds.Power generation wo n't change much until the economics change there .
If coal is cheaper and carbon/pollution is n't taxed , it does n't make much sense to switch to anything else , regardless of level of demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cutting our energy usage by X\% is at least as good as swapping x\% of our power plants over from coal.
Switching to flourescent lights, which would cut overall energy usage by something like 15\%, has to be worthwhile.Negawatts are real, and if something like this cuts out a power plant or two worth of usage, it's worthwhile on purely economic grounds.Power generation won't change much until the economics change there.
If coal is cheaper and carbon/pollution isn't taxed, it doesn't make much sense to switch to anything else, regardless of level of demand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173824</id>
	<title>Re:...sadly, still no regulation to require RTFA.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258743360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but he might want to steal a peek at my skivvies</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but he might want to steal a peek at my skivvies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but he might want to steal a peek at my skivvies</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172736</id>
	<title>The Libtard State</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258739340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be California, aka the left coast.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Sure, open door immigration policy and out of control social spending on non citizens and no citizenship verification at the polls, just come on in but dont think about a tv over 22" or you'll have a problem.</p><p>I cant wait till they fall off</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be California , aka the left coast .
    Sure , open door immigration policy and out of control social spending on non citizens and no citizenship verification at the polls , just come on in but dont think about a tv over 22 " or you 'll have a problem.I cant wait till they fall off    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be California, aka the left coast.
    Sure, open door immigration policy and out of control social spending on non citizens and no citizenship verification at the polls, just come on in but dont think about a tv over 22" or you'll have a problem.I cant wait till they fall off
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173076</id>
	<title>Just so ya know:</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1258740480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't Conservatism. Conservatism would never tell you what kind of: light bulb, toilet, or refrigerant you use, food-related fat you eat, or car you drive.  All of these things were brought to you by Democrats, who were first to be seduced by the money of Progressives.</p><p>Losing freedoms like this isn't "progressive". It's tyranny.</p><p>Now they're talking about choosing your payscale (Barney Frank, the guy who was unable to discern the gay brother in his own home) wants to set these numbers.</p><p>Is anyone under the illusion that your pay would go UP? Spread the misery.</p><p>Time to be a citizen! Pay attention! Learn who the Conservatives are; they're neither Republican nor Democrat.</p><p>The failure of the California government and this goofball idea of yankin' people's flat-screens is a Progressive, not Conservative. Progressives aren't your friends; they just own the TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't Conservatism .
Conservatism would never tell you what kind of : light bulb , toilet , or refrigerant you use , food-related fat you eat , or car you drive .
All of these things were brought to you by Democrats , who were first to be seduced by the money of Progressives.Losing freedoms like this is n't " progressive " .
It 's tyranny.Now they 're talking about choosing your payscale ( Barney Frank , the guy who was unable to discern the gay brother in his own home ) wants to set these numbers.Is anyone under the illusion that your pay would go UP ?
Spread the misery.Time to be a citizen !
Pay attention !
Learn who the Conservatives are ; they 're neither Republican nor Democrat.The failure of the California government and this goofball idea of yankin ' people 's flat-screens is a Progressive , not Conservative .
Progressives are n't your friends ; they just own the TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't Conservatism.
Conservatism would never tell you what kind of: light bulb, toilet, or refrigerant you use, food-related fat you eat, or car you drive.
All of these things were brought to you by Democrats, who were first to be seduced by the money of Progressives.Losing freedoms like this isn't "progressive".
It's tyranny.Now they're talking about choosing your payscale (Barney Frank, the guy who was unable to discern the gay brother in his own home) wants to set these numbers.Is anyone under the illusion that your pay would go UP?
Spread the misery.Time to be a citizen!
Pay attention!
Learn who the Conservatives are; they're neither Republican nor Democrat.The failure of the California government and this goofball idea of yankin' people's flat-screens is a Progressive, not Conservative.
Progressives aren't your friends; they just own the TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173500</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic bureaucrats</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1258742100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Err, Oregon has no sales tax, but yeah, otherwise I agree<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Err , Oregon has no sales tax , but yeah , otherwise I agree : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err, Oregon has no sales tax, but yeah, otherwise I agree :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30178266</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258715040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, except you'd be a tax cheat if you don't report and pay Use tax on that purchase come Income tax time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , except you 'd be a tax cheat if you do n't report and pay Use tax on that purchase come Income tax time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, except you'd be a tax cheat if you don't report and pay Use tax on that purchase come Income tax time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172130</id>
	<title>cost != price</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1258737420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. IF THEY COULD MAKE MORE EFFICIENT TVS FOR THE SAME PRICE THEY WOULD. They can't, so the TVs will be more expensive. This is more or less a hidden tax on CA consumers, or worse - a hidden tax on all of us, should manufacturers decide to redistribute costs amongst all of their products.</p></div><p>Why do people still believe that the price most goods are sold at is in any way affected by the cost of the manufacturing? tTere are markets where it is true, but in most it is not. Say it costs TV manufacturers an extra $100 to make high end TVs more energy efficient, but 11\% less people are willing to pay for it, well if the TV is more than $1000 it's not worth it and the $100 will just eat into profit margins, if it was less than $1000 they would have been charging the extra $100 already. There are markets where a cost increase will be parsed onto the customers but high-end TVs is not one of them, it's an entirely demand driven market!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
IF THEY COULD MAKE MORE EFFICIENT TVS FOR THE SAME PRICE THEY WOULD .
They ca n't , so the TVs will be more expensive .
This is more or less a hidden tax on CA consumers , or worse - a hidden tax on all of us , should manufacturers decide to redistribute costs amongst all of their products.Why do people still believe that the price most goods are sold at is in any way affected by the cost of the manufacturing ?
tTere are markets where it is true , but in most it is not .
Say it costs TV manufacturers an extra $ 100 to make high end TVs more energy efficient , but 11 \ % less people are willing to pay for it , well if the TV is more than $ 1000 it 's not worth it and the $ 100 will just eat into profit margins , if it was less than $ 1000 they would have been charging the extra $ 100 already .
There are markets where a cost increase will be parsed onto the customers but high-end TVs is not one of them , it 's an entirely demand driven market !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
IF THEY COULD MAKE MORE EFFICIENT TVS FOR THE SAME PRICE THEY WOULD.
They can't, so the TVs will be more expensive.
This is more or less a hidden tax on CA consumers, or worse - a hidden tax on all of us, should manufacturers decide to redistribute costs amongst all of their products.Why do people still believe that the price most goods are sold at is in any way affected by the cost of the manufacturing?
tTere are markets where it is true, but in most it is not.
Say it costs TV manufacturers an extra $100 to make high end TVs more energy efficient, but 11\% less people are willing to pay for it, well if the TV is more than $1000 it's not worth it and the $100 will just eat into profit margins, if it was less than $1000 they would have been charging the extra $100 already.
There are markets where a cost increase will be parsed onto the customers but high-end TVs is not one of them, it's an entirely demand driven market!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173024</id>
	<title>Re:...sadly, still no regulation to require RTFA.</title>
	<author>sheepofblue</author>
	<datestamp>1258740240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if the two are comparable this is just a bunch of busy body bureaucrats that are increasing the cost of doing business in California while wasting a ton of resources with double enforcement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the two are comparable this is just a bunch of busy body bureaucrats that are increasing the cost of doing business in California while wasting a ton of resources with double enforcement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the two are comparable this is just a bunch of busy body bureaucrats that are increasing the cost of doing business in California while wasting a ton of resources with double enforcement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172294</id>
	<title>Re:It's surprising how much power new TV's use.</title>
	<author>BlackCreek</author>
	<datestamp>1258737900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LCDs (of 50") are nowhere near that. From a nice article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Average plasma: 338 watts</p><p>Average LCD: 176 watts</p></div><p> <a href="http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-power-efficiency/" title="cnet.com">http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-power-efficiency/</a> [cnet.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>LCDs ( of 50 " ) are nowhere near that .
From a nice article : Average plasma : 338 wattsAverage LCD : 176 watts http : //reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-power-efficiency/ [ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LCDs (of 50") are nowhere near that.
From a nice article:Average plasma: 338 wattsAverage LCD: 176 watts http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-power-efficiency/ [cnet.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172316</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a tragic yet inevitable role for epidemics...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a tragic yet inevitable role for epidemics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a tragic yet inevitable role for epidemics...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140</id>
	<title>Trying to save the planet</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1258737420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trying to save the planet by reducing energy usage is like trying to save a river by not drinking.</p><p>We are <b>not</b> going back.</p><p>Reasonable reduction, recycling programs, and common sense are certainly part of the picture, but the answer to the energy problem will be a technological one.  <b>We need to start rolling out more sensible power generation facilities.</b> </p><p>If we pretend we can get by on coal and making TVs dimmer, we <b>will</b> pollute the atmosphere to the point it can't support us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to save the planet by reducing energy usage is like trying to save a river by not drinking.We are not going back.Reasonable reduction , recycling programs , and common sense are certainly part of the picture , but the answer to the energy problem will be a technological one .
We need to start rolling out more sensible power generation facilities .
If we pretend we can get by on coal and making TVs dimmer , we will pollute the atmosphere to the point it ca n't support us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to save the planet by reducing energy usage is like trying to save a river by not drinking.We are not going back.Reasonable reduction, recycling programs, and common sense are certainly part of the picture, but the answer to the energy problem will be a technological one.
We need to start rolling out more sensible power generation facilities.
If we pretend we can get by on coal and making TVs dimmer, we will pollute the atmosphere to the point it can't support us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968</id>
	<title>...sadly, still no regulation to require RTFA.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258736700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In fact, by the time the first wave of CEC regulations enter into effect in 2011, Energy Star 4.0 will be in place."<br>"In short, the differences between the two are not dramatic--the CEC's requirements are ultimately not any more stringent than the Energy Star guidelines."<br>"According to its analysis, many popular HDTV models already meet the CEC's requirements for the year 2011, and some LED models--which have made a selling point of their energy efficiency--already meet the CEC's Tier 2 standard."</p><p>Stay calm, people. The Governator is not coming to steal your teevees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In fact , by the time the first wave of CEC regulations enter into effect in 2011 , Energy Star 4.0 will be in place .
" " In short , the differences between the two are not dramatic--the CEC 's requirements are ultimately not any more stringent than the Energy Star guidelines .
" " According to its analysis , many popular HDTV models already meet the CEC 's requirements for the year 2011 , and some LED models--which have made a selling point of their energy efficiency--already meet the CEC 's Tier 2 standard .
" Stay calm , people .
The Governator is not coming to steal your teevees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In fact, by the time the first wave of CEC regulations enter into effect in 2011, Energy Star 4.0 will be in place.
""In short, the differences between the two are not dramatic--the CEC's requirements are ultimately not any more stringent than the Energy Star guidelines.
""According to its analysis, many popular HDTV models already meet the CEC's requirements for the year 2011, and some LED models--which have made a selling point of their energy efficiency--already meet the CEC's Tier 2 standard.
"Stay calm, people.
The Governator is not coming to steal your teevees.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172178</id>
	<title>LCDs are MUCH less power...</title>
	<author>nweaver</author>
	<datestamp>1258737540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LCDs generally use a lot less power than plasma TVs.</p><p>LCDs with LED backlights are even better...  Those TVs already meet the 2013 california specifications.</p><p>EG, the Vizio 55" LCD tv with LED backlights <a href="http://www.vizio.com/flat-panel-hdtvs/vf551xvt.html" title="vizio.com">draws only 150W average</a> [vizio.com].  So significantly bigger LCD backlit TV (20\% larger area) draws only 20\% of the power of a plasma TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LCDs generally use a lot less power than plasma TVs.LCDs with LED backlights are even better... Those TVs already meet the 2013 california specifications.EG , the Vizio 55 " LCD tv with LED backlights draws only 150W average [ vizio.com ] .
So significantly bigger LCD backlit TV ( 20 \ % larger area ) draws only 20 \ % of the power of a plasma TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LCDs generally use a lot less power than plasma TVs.LCDs with LED backlights are even better...  Those TVs already meet the 2013 california specifications.EG, the Vizio 55" LCD tv with LED backlights draws only 150W average [vizio.com].
So significantly bigger LCD backlit TV (20\% larger area) draws only 20\% of the power of a plasma TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172394</id>
	<title>Re:Why the uproar?</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1258738260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What manufacturers are really worried about has nothing to do with the content of these specific regulations.</p><p>They're concerned about the possibility that individual states can have separate regulatory frameworks from the government.  In that case, they'd be obliged to do testing and demonstrate that their products satisfy the regulations of every state in the Union that passed regulations.  Theoretically they could just make sure they satisfy the most stringent of the state regulations, but if the regulations conflict, that's a problem; if different regulations emphasize different aspects, that's a problem.  If CA mandates that televisions use less than 200 KW, and NY mandates that their manufacturing process not contain any Insidium-A, both those regulations may be achievable individually, but you may not be able to make an energy-efficient TV without Insidium-A, and now the megacorps lose the economies of scale that let them crush any smaller competition.  (Though to be fair, it would be kind of a headache to keep track of all that, which was sort of the idea behind the Interstate Commerce Clause to begin with).</p><p>I don't think it's a terrible thing, particularly when the regulations aren't onerous and no other state really does this -- CA is large enough that it deserves to be its own state (in the poli-sci sense) anyway -- and the manufacturers, like all big businesses, have an immediate knee-jerk reaction against any kind of regulation.  But I can see how the precedent might not be pleasing to manufacturers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What manufacturers are really worried about has nothing to do with the content of these specific regulations.They 're concerned about the possibility that individual states can have separate regulatory frameworks from the government .
In that case , they 'd be obliged to do testing and demonstrate that their products satisfy the regulations of every state in the Union that passed regulations .
Theoretically they could just make sure they satisfy the most stringent of the state regulations , but if the regulations conflict , that 's a problem ; if different regulations emphasize different aspects , that 's a problem .
If CA mandates that televisions use less than 200 KW , and NY mandates that their manufacturing process not contain any Insidium-A , both those regulations may be achievable individually , but you may not be able to make an energy-efficient TV without Insidium-A , and now the megacorps lose the economies of scale that let them crush any smaller competition .
( Though to be fair , it would be kind of a headache to keep track of all that , which was sort of the idea behind the Interstate Commerce Clause to begin with ) .I do n't think it 's a terrible thing , particularly when the regulations are n't onerous and no other state really does this -- CA is large enough that it deserves to be its own state ( in the poli-sci sense ) anyway -- and the manufacturers , like all big businesses , have an immediate knee-jerk reaction against any kind of regulation .
But I can see how the precedent might not be pleasing to manufacturers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What manufacturers are really worried about has nothing to do with the content of these specific regulations.They're concerned about the possibility that individual states can have separate regulatory frameworks from the government.
In that case, they'd be obliged to do testing and demonstrate that their products satisfy the regulations of every state in the Union that passed regulations.
Theoretically they could just make sure they satisfy the most stringent of the state regulations, but if the regulations conflict, that's a problem; if different regulations emphasize different aspects, that's a problem.
If CA mandates that televisions use less than 200 KW, and NY mandates that their manufacturing process not contain any Insidium-A, both those regulations may be achievable individually, but you may not be able to make an energy-efficient TV without Insidium-A, and now the megacorps lose the economies of scale that let them crush any smaller competition.
(Though to be fair, it would be kind of a headache to keep track of all that, which was sort of the idea behind the Interstate Commerce Clause to begin with).I don't think it's a terrible thing, particularly when the regulations aren't onerous and no other state really does this -- CA is large enough that it deserves to be its own state (in the poli-sci sense) anyway -- and the manufacturers, like all big businesses, have an immediate knee-jerk reaction against any kind of regulation.
But I can see how the precedent might not be pleasing to manufacturers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172380</id>
	<title>Idiotic bureaucrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is idiotic; what would stop someone from driving to AZ, NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state?  Ironically, this bureaucratic idiocy will create more pollution as a result of folks driving to buy TVs from another state AND it will cost CA sales taxes, with neighboring states benefiting from the decision.</p><p>And what's next, TV police vans, like the UK has?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is idiotic ; what would stop someone from driving to AZ , NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state ?
Ironically , this bureaucratic idiocy will create more pollution as a result of folks driving to buy TVs from another state AND it will cost CA sales taxes , with neighboring states benefiting from the decision.And what 's next , TV police vans , like the UK has ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is idiotic; what would stop someone from driving to AZ, NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state?
Ironically, this bureaucratic idiocy will create more pollution as a result of folks driving to buy TVs from another state AND it will cost CA sales taxes, with neighboring states benefiting from the decision.And what's next, TV police vans, like the UK has?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172418</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyone else think that all this conservation, recycling, reduced pollution stuff is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, basically just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic? I mean, it's trying to treat the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself. The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.</p></div><p>Citation needed. There is no empirical data on actual maximum sustainable human population on earth. There are theoretical maximums in the 13Billion range. Since we're at roughly half of that theoretical maximum I'd say we're not even close to dealing with the problems of "over" population. Nice try though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else think that all this conservation , recycling , reduced pollution stuff is ... well , basically just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic ?
I mean , it 's trying to treat the symptoms of the disease , not the disease itself .
The disease is overpopulation - there 's just too many people on planet earth , and even if you do cut back energy usage , you ca n't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.Citation needed .
There is no empirical data on actual maximum sustainable human population on earth .
There are theoretical maximums in the 13Billion range .
Since we 're at roughly half of that theoretical maximum I 'd say we 're not even close to dealing with the problems of " over " population .
Nice try though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else think that all this conservation, recycling, reduced pollution stuff is ... well, basically just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic?
I mean, it's trying to treat the symptoms of the disease, not the disease itself.
The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth.Citation needed.
There is no empirical data on actual maximum sustainable human population on earth.
There are theoretical maximums in the 13Billion range.
Since we're at roughly half of that theoretical maximum I'd say we're not even close to dealing with the problems of "over" population.
Nice try though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173794</id>
	<title>Re:Hilarious</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1258743240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My 37" 1080i CRT used 230 watts and I upgraded to a 50" plasma that uses 700 watts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My 37 " 1080i CRT used 230 watts and I upgraded to a 50 " plasma that uses 700 watts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 37" 1080i CRT used 230 watts and I upgraded to a 50" plasma that uses 700 watts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175330</id>
	<title>Re:Trying to save the planet</title>
	<author>budfields</author>
	<datestamp>1258748160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You speak before you think or research.

Current TV tech is ALREADY capable of fully meeting these power restrictions, with no absurd dimming or other measures required. This is a very conservative measure that CA has enacted. There's no need to reflexively freak out about it. Nobody will be inconvenienced in any way by this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You speak before you think or research .
Current TV tech is ALREADY capable of fully meeting these power restrictions , with no absurd dimming or other measures required .
This is a very conservative measure that CA has enacted .
There 's no need to reflexively freak out about it .
Nobody will be inconvenienced in any way by this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You speak before you think or research.
Current TV tech is ALREADY capable of fully meeting these power restrictions, with no absurd dimming or other measures required.
This is a very conservative measure that CA has enacted.
There's no need to reflexively freak out about it.
Nobody will be inconvenienced in any way by this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172508</id>
	<title>Similar urban myth about emissions testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may or may not be an urban myth, but it's germane, so what the hell...</p><p>Back in the day, GM noticed that the EPA would run cars through it's test cell with the door open.<br>So they wired up the ECU to take notice of the door light, and if the door light was on, it would run<br>with a different map than it would if the light was off.</p><p>Any system with predictable rules will be gamed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may or may not be an urban myth , but it 's germane , so what the hell...Back in the day , GM noticed that the EPA would run cars through it 's test cell with the door open.So they wired up the ECU to take notice of the door light , and if the door light was on , it would runwith a different map than it would if the light was off.Any system with predictable rules will be gamed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may or may not be an urban myth, but it's germane, so what the hell...Back in the day, GM noticed that the EPA would run cars through it's test cell with the door open.So they wired up the ECU to take notice of the door light, and if the door light was on, it would runwith a different map than it would if the light was off.Any system with predictable rules will be gamed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172942</id>
	<title>Re:Idiotic bureaucrats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258739940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>California is so big and has such a large consumer market they basically shape the rest of the country.  Manufacturers won't have two designs, one for CA and one for everyone else, they'll just sell the CA version everywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>California is so big and has such a large consumer market they basically shape the rest of the country .
Manufacturers wo n't have two designs , one for CA and one for everyone else , they 'll just sell the CA version everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>California is so big and has such a large consumer market they basically shape the rest of the country.
Manufacturers won't have two designs, one for CA and one for everyone else, they'll just sell the CA version everywhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172496</id>
	<title>Key quote</title>
	<author>Eevee</author>
	<datestamp>1258738620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the third link:<blockquote><div><p>...some industry supporters, such as Vizio, which essentially expressed no opposition because their products are currently meeting the proposed regulations ahead of time...</p></div></blockquote><p>
Or, in other words, not only is this doable, but it's being done right now by the smarter companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the third link : ...some industry supporters , such as Vizio , which essentially expressed no opposition because their products are currently meeting the proposed regulations ahead of time.. . Or , in other words , not only is this doable , but it 's being done right now by the smarter companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the third link:...some industry supporters, such as Vizio, which essentially expressed no opposition because their products are currently meeting the proposed regulations ahead of time...
Or, in other words, not only is this doable, but it's being done right now by the smarter companies.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173506</id>
	<title>Re:Just cut us off already</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1258742100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>God you must live in some socialist hell (yet where the average government employee uses 10x the electricity of the average "social unit").</htmltext>
<tokenext>God you must live in some socialist hell ( yet where the average government employee uses 10x the electricity of the average " social unit " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God you must live in some socialist hell (yet where the average government employee uses 10x the electricity of the average "social unit").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176190</id>
	<title>It's a heater</title>
	<author>Shouldbeworking</author>
	<datestamp>1258708020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I need to heat my living room in the winter, shouldn't I be allowed to use a 600W plasma to do so?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I need to heat my living room in the winter , should n't I be allowed to use a 600W plasma to do so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I need to heat my living room in the winter, shouldn't I be allowed to use a 600W plasma to do so?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173972</id>
	<title>Re:Trying to save the planet</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1258743840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>False dichotomy, as always with these kinds of arguments.<br>Whenever somebody argues "either-or", you need to think of that.</p><p>In this case, we need both - reduction of energy consumption and new, more environmentally friendly energy sources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>False dichotomy , as always with these kinds of arguments.Whenever somebody argues " either-or " , you need to think of that.In this case , we need both - reduction of energy consumption and new , more environmentally friendly energy sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>False dichotomy, as always with these kinds of arguments.Whenever somebody argues "either-or", you need to think of that.In this case, we need both - reduction of energy consumption and new, more environmentally friendly energy sources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173516</id>
	<title>Re:The Fox News crowd is out in force today.</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1258742160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers. All rant, no facts.</p></div></blockquote><p>California has a long history of mandating higher fuel efficiency and lower vehicle emissions for cars sold in the state. In doing so, it's played a positive role in setting national (CAFE) standards.

</p><p>In this case, California is mandating electricity usage instead of mileage and pollution, but the action taken (and anticipated results) are similar enough to be considered analogous.

</p><p>With that in mind, let's re-phrase the comments thus far:

</p><ul>    <li>We should focus on real issues.</li>
    <li>Increasing fuel efficiency is like rearranging deck chairs.</li>
    <li>Overpopulation is the problem, not dwindling petroleum reserves or pollution.</li>
    <li>You can pry my gas-guzzler from my dead hands.</li>
    <li>We should concentrate instead on increasing oil drilling and refining capacity.</li>
    <li>My old car gets better mileage than that new SUV, so leave me alone.</li>
    <li>I don't drive a lot, so I deserve to be left alone.</li>
    <li>Eco-terrorists and burdensome regulations are ruining our way of life.</li>
    <li>If we increase the taxes on gasoline instead, and let the invisible hand of the market do its work, all our problems will be solved.</li> </ul><p>You're right.  Fox News and ill-informed rants it is.  I guess the Sarah Palin book tour is having an effect.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers .
All rant , no facts.California has a long history of mandating higher fuel efficiency and lower vehicle emissions for cars sold in the state .
In doing so , it 's played a positive role in setting national ( CAFE ) standards .
In this case , California is mandating electricity usage instead of mileage and pollution , but the action taken ( and anticipated results ) are similar enough to be considered analogous .
With that in mind , let 's re-phrase the comments thus far : We should focus on real issues .
Increasing fuel efficiency is like rearranging deck chairs .
Overpopulation is the problem , not dwindling petroleum reserves or pollution .
You can pry my gas-guzzler from my dead hands .
We should concentrate instead on increasing oil drilling and refining capacity .
My old car gets better mileage than that new SUV , so leave me alone .
I do n't drive a lot , so I deserve to be left alone .
Eco-terrorists and burdensome regulations are ruining our way of life .
If we increase the taxes on gasoline instead , and let the invisible hand of the market do its work , all our problems will be solved .
You 're right .
Fox News and ill-informed rants it is .
I guess the Sarah Palin book tour is having an effect .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers.
All rant, no facts.California has a long history of mandating higher fuel efficiency and lower vehicle emissions for cars sold in the state.
In doing so, it's played a positive role in setting national (CAFE) standards.
In this case, California is mandating electricity usage instead of mileage and pollution, but the action taken (and anticipated results) are similar enough to be considered analogous.
With that in mind, let's re-phrase the comments thus far:

    We should focus on real issues.
Increasing fuel efficiency is like rearranging deck chairs.
Overpopulation is the problem, not dwindling petroleum reserves or pollution.
You can pry my gas-guzzler from my dead hands.
We should concentrate instead on increasing oil drilling and refining capacity.
My old car gets better mileage than that new SUV, so leave me alone.
I don't drive a lot, so I deserve to be left alone.
Eco-terrorists and burdensome regulations are ruining our way of life.
If we increase the taxes on gasoline instead, and let the invisible hand of the market do its work, all our problems will be solved.
You're right.
Fox News and ill-informed rants it is.
I guess the Sarah Palin book tour is having an effect.
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174620</id>
	<title>Re:Why the uproar?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258745940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>With the price of electricity in California, I know I look for the Energy Star label</i></p><p>Your TV doesn't use a lot of electricity. If you have an electric water heater it uses massive amounts more. Central air TONS more.</p><p>Note to all the free marketers who somehow think the free market has anything whatever to do with utility monopolies: My city (Springfield) has the cheapest and most reliable electricity in Illinois. Electricity is so cheap here that an electric water heater is cheaper to run than a gas one. The city owns the power company, the gas company is a corporate monopoly. What's that you say about how government is always the problem and never the solution?</p><p>Of course, if your government leaders agree with you that government is always the problem, it will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the price of electricity in California , I know I look for the Energy Star labelYour TV does n't use a lot of electricity .
If you have an electric water heater it uses massive amounts more .
Central air TONS more.Note to all the free marketers who somehow think the free market has anything whatever to do with utility monopolies : My city ( Springfield ) has the cheapest and most reliable electricity in Illinois .
Electricity is so cheap here that an electric water heater is cheaper to run than a gas one .
The city owns the power company , the gas company is a corporate monopoly .
What 's that you say about how government is always the problem and never the solution ? Of course , if your government leaders agree with you that government is always the problem , it will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the price of electricity in California, I know I look for the Energy Star labelYour TV doesn't use a lot of electricity.
If you have an electric water heater it uses massive amounts more.
Central air TONS more.Note to all the free marketers who somehow think the free market has anything whatever to do with utility monopolies: My city (Springfield) has the cheapest and most reliable electricity in Illinois.
Electricity is so cheap here that an electric water heater is cheaper to run than a gas one.
The city owns the power company, the gas company is a corporate monopoly.
What's that you say about how government is always the problem and never the solution?Of course, if your government leaders agree with you that government is always the problem, it will be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173006</id>
	<title>Now is not the time.</title>
	<author>jwiegley</author>
	<datestamp>1258740180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I'm all for "green" and the environment when it makes sense. [cents?]</p><p>The problem with "green" is that it is not always the right time to do it. California's economy is in serious trouble. (Not the serious like.. Oh my, we need a new governor; I mean serious like in a few years we may not have a higher education system or any small businesses left. I'm employed in what's left of our higher education system and I see federal receivership as a real possible end.)</p><p>But what does this have to do with television regulation? I'm renovating a house. I want to improve my home, my neighborhood and California. But we have a piece of regulation called "Title 24" that is a lot like the Television regulation proposed. What does this mean for my renovation... Lighting costs 500\% of what it should. You must have high efficacy lighting. This means compact fluorescent and, no, you can't get cheap Type A incandescent fixtures and screw in a retrofit CFL bulb. You have to use the plug socketed CFL fixtures.  So "green" lighting for my house costs $6000 while older incandescent would have cost $1000.</p><p>This is a serious impediment to purchasing these lights. The same is going to be true for the televisions. They will be more expensive because they will have to be built with more sophisticated technology. People will balk at buying them. Oh.. wait... they don't have a choice because it's a draconian state law; so the only choice is not to buy a TV... or move to where you can. More people will move to any other state to avoid this crap (we are currently having a mass exodus of talented, skilled people and families). Manufacturers will move their manufacturing and marketing to areas more conducive to sales (again... already happening without, yet another, regulation).</p><p>And the end result is that California's economy and culture will slip into an even deeper disaster.</p><p>"Green" regulation gets myopic... "Since it's better for the environment it MUST be done, at all costs." Well, other factors of equal and greater importance, such as "will we be able to educate our children", exist and should be considered first. It might be the right time to regulate the banking industry but it is certainly not the time to regulate, yet another, consumer oriented product that in the last decade has already seen leaps and bounds of improvements in efficiency just based on natural evolution of the product's technology. Remember tube TVs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I 'm all for " green " and the environment when it makes sense .
[ cents ? ] The problem with " green " is that it is not always the right time to do it .
California 's economy is in serious trouble .
( Not the serious like.. Oh my , we need a new governor ; I mean serious like in a few years we may not have a higher education system or any small businesses left .
I 'm employed in what 's left of our higher education system and I see federal receivership as a real possible end .
) But what does this have to do with television regulation ?
I 'm renovating a house .
I want to improve my home , my neighborhood and California .
But we have a piece of regulation called " Title 24 " that is a lot like the Television regulation proposed .
What does this mean for my renovation... Lighting costs 500 \ % of what it should .
You must have high efficacy lighting .
This means compact fluorescent and , no , you ca n't get cheap Type A incandescent fixtures and screw in a retrofit CFL bulb .
You have to use the plug socketed CFL fixtures .
So " green " lighting for my house costs $ 6000 while older incandescent would have cost $ 1000.This is a serious impediment to purchasing these lights .
The same is going to be true for the televisions .
They will be more expensive because they will have to be built with more sophisticated technology .
People will balk at buying them .
Oh.. wait... they do n't have a choice because it 's a draconian state law ; so the only choice is not to buy a TV... or move to where you can .
More people will move to any other state to avoid this crap ( we are currently having a mass exodus of talented , skilled people and families ) .
Manufacturers will move their manufacturing and marketing to areas more conducive to sales ( again... already happening without , yet another , regulation ) .And the end result is that California 's economy and culture will slip into an even deeper disaster .
" Green " regulation gets myopic... " Since it 's better for the environment it MUST be done , at all costs .
" Well , other factors of equal and greater importance , such as " will we be able to educate our children " , exist and should be considered first .
It might be the right time to regulate the banking industry but it is certainly not the time to regulate , yet another , consumer oriented product that in the last decade has already seen leaps and bounds of improvements in efficiency just based on natural evolution of the product 's technology .
Remember tube TVs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I'm all for "green" and the environment when it makes sense.
[cents?]The problem with "green" is that it is not always the right time to do it.
California's economy is in serious trouble.
(Not the serious like.. Oh my, we need a new governor; I mean serious like in a few years we may not have a higher education system or any small businesses left.
I'm employed in what's left of our higher education system and I see federal receivership as a real possible end.
)But what does this have to do with television regulation?
I'm renovating a house.
I want to improve my home, my neighborhood and California.
But we have a piece of regulation called "Title 24" that is a lot like the Television regulation proposed.
What does this mean for my renovation... Lighting costs 500\% of what it should.
You must have high efficacy lighting.
This means compact fluorescent and, no, you can't get cheap Type A incandescent fixtures and screw in a retrofit CFL bulb.
You have to use the plug socketed CFL fixtures.
So "green" lighting for my house costs $6000 while older incandescent would have cost $1000.This is a serious impediment to purchasing these lights.
The same is going to be true for the televisions.
They will be more expensive because they will have to be built with more sophisticated technology.
People will balk at buying them.
Oh.. wait... they don't have a choice because it's a draconian state law; so the only choice is not to buy a TV... or move to where you can.
More people will move to any other state to avoid this crap (we are currently having a mass exodus of talented, skilled people and families).
Manufacturers will move their manufacturing and marketing to areas more conducive to sales (again... already happening without, yet another, regulation).And the end result is that California's economy and culture will slip into an even deeper disaster.
"Green" regulation gets myopic... "Since it's better for the environment it MUST be done, at all costs.
" Well, other factors of equal and greater importance, such as "will we be able to educate our children", exist and should be considered first.
It might be the right time to regulate the banking industry but it is certainly not the time to regulate, yet another, consumer oriented product that in the last decade has already seen leaps and bounds of improvements in efficiency just based on natural evolution of the product's technology.
Remember tube TVs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172206</id>
	<title>Ludacris</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1258737660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shut the hell up, all you fat asses with your ludakris-size TVs.  Fat ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shut the hell up , all you fat asses with your ludakris-size TVs .
Fat ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shut the hell up, all you fat asses with your ludakris-size TVs.
Fat ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174640</id>
	<title>Proposed Solution to the Energy Crisis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258746000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suppose that we create a big ball of energy out in space, and harvest the power from that. No, wait, hear me out...</p><p>We could make it really big: as big as the earth, or even bigger. We could power it with nuclear energy: like some weird sort of massive fusion reaction, or something.</p><p>Suppose make our giant ball of energy 100 times bigger than the diameter of the earth itself! We'd have more energy than we could ever use! It would literally last for hundreds of millions of years, perhaps billions, before burning out! Our biggest problem would be trying to find a use for all that energy; not the horrible energy crisis that haunts us today.</p><p>We'd place it nearby our planet, but not so close that it melts the entire Earth, 'cause that would be crazy bad. We'll keep it far enough away that at worst, some of the polar icecaps might melt a bit.</p><p>Anyway, that's my plan. Call me crazy, but I'm thinking we might just be able to make it happen one day. If it happens, remember I told you.</p><p>I'm going to call my invention: "the big blazing ball of nuclear fire in the sky".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suppose that we create a big ball of energy out in space , and harvest the power from that .
No , wait , hear me out...We could make it really big : as big as the earth , or even bigger .
We could power it with nuclear energy : like some weird sort of massive fusion reaction , or something.Suppose make our giant ball of energy 100 times bigger than the diameter of the earth itself !
We 'd have more energy than we could ever use !
It would literally last for hundreds of millions of years , perhaps billions , before burning out !
Our biggest problem would be trying to find a use for all that energy ; not the horrible energy crisis that haunts us today.We 'd place it nearby our planet , but not so close that it melts the entire Earth , 'cause that would be crazy bad .
We 'll keep it far enough away that at worst , some of the polar icecaps might melt a bit.Anyway , that 's my plan .
Call me crazy , but I 'm thinking we might just be able to make it happen one day .
If it happens , remember I told you.I 'm going to call my invention : " the big blazing ball of nuclear fire in the sky " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suppose that we create a big ball of energy out in space, and harvest the power from that.
No, wait, hear me out...We could make it really big: as big as the earth, or even bigger.
We could power it with nuclear energy: like some weird sort of massive fusion reaction, or something.Suppose make our giant ball of energy 100 times bigger than the diameter of the earth itself!
We'd have more energy than we could ever use!
It would literally last for hundreds of millions of years, perhaps billions, before burning out!
Our biggest problem would be trying to find a use for all that energy; not the horrible energy crisis that haunts us today.We'd place it nearby our planet, but not so close that it melts the entire Earth, 'cause that would be crazy bad.
We'll keep it far enough away that at worst, some of the polar icecaps might melt a bit.Anyway, that's my plan.
Call me crazy, but I'm thinking we might just be able to make it happen one day.
If it happens, remember I told you.I'm going to call my invention: "the big blazing ball of nuclear fire in the sky".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173756</id>
	<title>Re:Just cut us off already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258743120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No way, too much of a nanny state. Shouldn't the government work \_for\_ me instead of telling me what I can and can't do? I work hard to pay the bills for whatever energy I feel like using.</p><p>I wouldn't mind seeing a solution where energy companies are responsible for the cleanup of their pollution. If there were no subsidies, the cleaner companies should be able to provide cheaper alternatives and consumers would ensure they succeed. Ideally, this would also cover the cost of the environmental impact of the production of the materials to generate the energy: the mining of the uranium or the manufacturing of the solar cells or the smelting of the metal for the windmill blades.</p><p>Such regulation should also seek a five-nines level of availability from the energy producers, or else we'll see an explosion in unreliable wind and solar energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No way , too much of a nanny state .
Should n't the government work \ _for \ _ me instead of telling me what I can and ca n't do ?
I work hard to pay the bills for whatever energy I feel like using.I would n't mind seeing a solution where energy companies are responsible for the cleanup of their pollution .
If there were no subsidies , the cleaner companies should be able to provide cheaper alternatives and consumers would ensure they succeed .
Ideally , this would also cover the cost of the environmental impact of the production of the materials to generate the energy : the mining of the uranium or the manufacturing of the solar cells or the smelting of the metal for the windmill blades.Such regulation should also seek a five-nines level of availability from the energy producers , or else we 'll see an explosion in unreliable wind and solar energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No way, too much of a nanny state.
Shouldn't the government work \_for\_ me instead of telling me what I can and can't do?
I work hard to pay the bills for whatever energy I feel like using.I wouldn't mind seeing a solution where energy companies are responsible for the cleanup of their pollution.
If there were no subsidies, the cleaner companies should be able to provide cheaper alternatives and consumers would ensure they succeed.
Ideally, this would also cover the cost of the environmental impact of the production of the materials to generate the energy: the mining of the uranium or the manufacturing of the solar cells or the smelting of the metal for the windmill blades.Such regulation should also seek a five-nines level of availability from the energy producers, or else we'll see an explosion in unreliable wind and solar energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172696</id>
	<title>Great policy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258739220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just another of a series of energy conservation policies put in place by California over the last 40 years.  As a result while economic activity and population have soared over this time period, energy use in the state has stayed CONSTANT.  You heard GE bitching about the same thing for refrigerators and dryers many years ago when California introduced efficiency regulation for them. Those markets are functioning just fine.  In fact California is such a powerful economic force it actually drives trends nationally and internationally in efficiency standards.  The bottom line is that efficiency standards are the easiest and cheapest way to reduce energy consumption.  They work and they do not have significant adverse effects on the market they target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just another of a series of energy conservation policies put in place by California over the last 40 years .
As a result while economic activity and population have soared over this time period , energy use in the state has stayed CONSTANT .
You heard GE bitching about the same thing for refrigerators and dryers many years ago when California introduced efficiency regulation for them .
Those markets are functioning just fine .
In fact California is such a powerful economic force it actually drives trends nationally and internationally in efficiency standards .
The bottom line is that efficiency standards are the easiest and cheapest way to reduce energy consumption .
They work and they do not have significant adverse effects on the market they target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just another of a series of energy conservation policies put in place by California over the last 40 years.
As a result while economic activity and population have soared over this time period, energy use in the state has stayed CONSTANT.
You heard GE bitching about the same thing for refrigerators and dryers many years ago when California introduced efficiency regulation for them.
Those markets are functioning just fine.
In fact California is such a powerful economic force it actually drives trends nationally and internationally in efficiency standards.
The bottom line is that efficiency standards are the easiest and cheapest way to reduce energy consumption.
They work and they do not have significant adverse effects on the market they target.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173062</id>
	<title>Re:What's the big deal?</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1258740420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well if you're the only one watching it and don't mind squinting, that's fine.  But I'd like to be able to see all the detail, while watching TV with my family.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well if you 're the only one watching it and do n't mind squinting , that 's fine .
But I 'd like to be able to see all the detail , while watching TV with my family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well if you're the only one watching it and don't mind squinting, that's fine.
But I'd like to be able to see all the detail, while watching TV with my family.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172216</id>
	<title>Re:Why the uproar?</title>
	<author>cmiller173</author>
	<datestamp>1258737660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about?</p></div><p>Probably the expense of testing their products to prove they meet the regulations.  Energy star is voluntary and probably less bureaucratic to get.  To have to do it all over again to prove to a state that they meet the regs (even if it is just the time of a staffer to submit the paperwork) is viewed as a un-necessary expense.  What if multiple states start doing this kind of thing? Pretty soon is a whole department of people needed to keep up with the paperwork.  Which makes your TV more expensive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about ? Probably the expense of testing their products to prove they meet the regulations .
Energy star is voluntary and probably less bureaucratic to get .
To have to do it all over again to prove to a state that they meet the regs ( even if it is just the time of a staffer to submit the paperwork ) is viewed as a un-necessary expense .
What if multiple states start doing this kind of thing ?
Pretty soon is a whole department of people needed to keep up with the paperwork .
Which makes your TV more expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about?Probably the expense of testing their products to prove they meet the regulations.
Energy star is voluntary and probably less bureaucratic to get.
To have to do it all over again to prove to a state that they meet the regs (even if it is just the time of a staffer to submit the paperwork) is viewed as a un-necessary expense.
What if multiple states start doing this kind of thing?
Pretty soon is a whole department of people needed to keep up with the paperwork.
Which makes your TV more expensive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173820</id>
	<title>Re:Just cut us off already</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1258743300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is clearly the direction the US is headed in.  Another thing you are going to see is that electric power is available for offices and factories OR homes, not both.  So during the day your power is off at home while you work.</p><p>You know, there is another solution.  It doesn't seem to be very popular in California or really anywhere else in the US, but it is a completely viable solution.  Someone, somewhere might get it into their heads that building a large-scale power plant is a good idea.  You could run it off all sorts of different things - nuclear, geothermal, solar heating, etc.  It doesn't have to be coal fired.  But it is impossible to get a permit to build such a thing today.  So for the last 30-40 years the only generating plants that have been built have been natural-gas fired "peaker" plants that were (ha ha ha) intended to only run during periods of peak load.  Of course, they are running at maximum capacity 24x7 now.</p><p>And we are about out of capacity.  So we can either learn to get along in an environment where electric power is unreliable, inconsistent and unpredictable, OR we can build some new large scale plants.</p><p>Personally, I am counting on no new plants being built anytime soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is clearly the direction the US is headed in .
Another thing you are going to see is that electric power is available for offices and factories OR homes , not both .
So during the day your power is off at home while you work.You know , there is another solution .
It does n't seem to be very popular in California or really anywhere else in the US , but it is a completely viable solution .
Someone , somewhere might get it into their heads that building a large-scale power plant is a good idea .
You could run it off all sorts of different things - nuclear , geothermal , solar heating , etc .
It does n't have to be coal fired .
But it is impossible to get a permit to build such a thing today .
So for the last 30-40 years the only generating plants that have been built have been natural-gas fired " peaker " plants that were ( ha ha ha ) intended to only run during periods of peak load .
Of course , they are running at maximum capacity 24x7 now.And we are about out of capacity .
So we can either learn to get along in an environment where electric power is unreliable , inconsistent and unpredictable , OR we can build some new large scale plants.Personally , I am counting on no new plants being built anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is clearly the direction the US is headed in.
Another thing you are going to see is that electric power is available for offices and factories OR homes, not both.
So during the day your power is off at home while you work.You know, there is another solution.
It doesn't seem to be very popular in California or really anywhere else in the US, but it is a completely viable solution.
Someone, somewhere might get it into their heads that building a large-scale power plant is a good idea.
You could run it off all sorts of different things - nuclear, geothermal, solar heating, etc.
It doesn't have to be coal fired.
But it is impossible to get a permit to build such a thing today.
So for the last 30-40 years the only generating plants that have been built have been natural-gas fired "peaker" plants that were (ha ha ha) intended to only run during periods of peak load.
Of course, they are running at maximum capacity 24x7 now.And we are about out of capacity.
So we can either learn to get along in an environment where electric power is unreliable, inconsistent and unpredictable, OR we can build some new large scale plants.Personally, I am counting on no new plants being built anytime soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174088</id>
	<title>Re:This whole thing is BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258744260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?\_ob=ArticleURL&amp;\_udi=B6VSS-41JM9R6-8&amp;\_user=10&amp;\_rdoc=1&amp;\_fmt=&amp;\_orig=search&amp;\_sort=d&amp;\_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;\_searchStrId=1102590390&amp;\_rerunOrigin=google&amp;\_acct=C000050221&amp;\_version=1&amp;\_urlVersion=0&amp;\_userid=10&amp;md5=cc995f6d180cea621e1eb53dc0bc5666" title="sciencedirect.com" rel="nofollow">elasticity of demand for electricity in California is high</a> [sciencedirect.com], increasing the overall efficiency of electronic appliances <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons\_paradox" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">will lead to an increase in demand for electricity</a> [wikipedia.org], not a decrease.</p><p>If they were trying to <i>decrease</i> demand for electricity, they would do better to mandate that all televisions use ten times as much energy as the least efficient of them do today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since elasticity of demand for electricity in California is high [ sciencedirect.com ] , increasing the overall efficiency of electronic appliances will lead to an increase in demand for electricity [ wikipedia.org ] , not a decrease.If they were trying to decrease demand for electricity , they would do better to mandate that all televisions use ten times as much energy as the least efficient of them do today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since elasticity of demand for electricity in California is high [sciencedirect.com], increasing the overall efficiency of electronic appliances will lead to an increase in demand for electricity [wikipedia.org], not a decrease.If they were trying to decrease demand for electricity, they would do better to mandate that all televisions use ten times as much energy as the least efficient of them do today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172308</id>
	<title>Damn gummint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like screen resolution:  why did the govt step in and foist 525 lines on us when 441 was good enough for industry?   So I'm going back a bit (1941); so what.  We could have had 60 years of inexpensive 400 line TVs instead of the almost impossible to make, expensive, high resolution 525 line sets.</p><p>Nosy government do-gooders have forced us to pay for seat belts, air bags, crumple zones in cars.</p><p>Clean air standards have caused untold hardships for industry and employees.</p><p>We'd all have better lives if the idiots would just stop with these stupid regulations.  Higher energy consumption means more work in the energy industry, better profits, and prosperity for a</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like screen resolution : why did the govt step in and foist 525 lines on us when 441 was good enough for industry ?
So I 'm going back a bit ( 1941 ) ; so what .
We could have had 60 years of inexpensive 400 line TVs instead of the almost impossible to make , expensive , high resolution 525 line sets.Nosy government do-gooders have forced us to pay for seat belts , air bags , crumple zones in cars.Clean air standards have caused untold hardships for industry and employees.We 'd all have better lives if the idiots would just stop with these stupid regulations .
Higher energy consumption means more work in the energy industry , better profits , and prosperity for a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like screen resolution:  why did the govt step in and foist 525 lines on us when 441 was good enough for industry?
So I'm going back a bit (1941); so what.
We could have had 60 years of inexpensive 400 line TVs instead of the almost impossible to make, expensive, high resolution 525 line sets.Nosy government do-gooders have forced us to pay for seat belts, air bags, crumple zones in cars.Clean air standards have caused untold hardships for industry and employees.We'd all have better lives if the idiots would just stop with these stupid regulations.
Higher energy consumption means more work in the energy industry, better profits, and prosperity for a</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172386</id>
	<title>A better solution than SCAM mode?</title>
	<author>DingerX</author>
	<datestamp>1258738200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ship any offending models to California with some cheap, heavy batteries to supply power above the maximum wattage. They can take their charge during the "passive drain" when the television is turned off. Since these are residential TVs we're talking about, the regulator should be cool with the notion that they're only on for 8 hours a day, and the excess voltage after that period (when the batteries run out) is from abuse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ship any offending models to California with some cheap , heavy batteries to supply power above the maximum wattage .
They can take their charge during the " passive drain " when the television is turned off .
Since these are residential TVs we 're talking about , the regulator should be cool with the notion that they 're only on for 8 hours a day , and the excess voltage after that period ( when the batteries run out ) is from abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ship any offending models to California with some cheap, heavy batteries to supply power above the maximum wattage.
They can take their charge during the "passive drain" when the television is turned off.
Since these are residential TVs we're talking about, the regulator should be cool with the notion that they're only on for 8 hours a day, and the excess voltage after that period (when the batteries run out) is from abuse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173920</id>
	<title>I wish these green zealots were as fanatical about</title>
	<author>MyFirstNameIsPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1258743660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ending wars.  Imagine how much the environment stands to benefit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ending wars .
Imagine how much the environment stands to benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ending wars.
Imagine how much the environment stands to benefit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172466</id>
	<title>Here's an interesting take on the subject</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.projectorreviews.com/blog/2009/11/20/the-plasma-tv-is-dead-long-live-the-projector-california-bureaucrats-have-decided/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.projectorreviews.com/blog/2009/11/20/the-plasma-tv-is-dead-long-live-the-projector-california-bureaucrats-have-decided/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.projectorreviews.com/blog/2009/11/20/the-plasma-tv-is-dead-long-live-the-projector-california-bureaucrats-have-decided/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175246</id>
	<title>Fradulent Summay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258747860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone, please read the article. The summary is a deliberate prevarication (three dollar word for "lie"). There is no plan or proposal to " target your big-screen TVs for elimination". Under the proposed California regulations anyone can sell or buy and size TV they like now and in the future. In fact the proposed regulations are unremarkable: they are essentially the same as the voluntary Energy Star program, considered to be well within reach by the industry. The CEC mandate simply makes them mandatory instead of voluntary. The better TV manufacturers (e.g. Visio) are in full compliance, and fully support both the standards, and making them mandatory. The only whiners here are companies that wish to hawk cheap inefficient TVs, and ideologues who feel that any government regulation is inherently evil in principle. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone , please read the article .
The summary is a deliberate prevarication ( three dollar word for " lie " ) .
There is no plan or proposal to " target your big-screen TVs for elimination " .
Under the proposed California regulations anyone can sell or buy and size TV they like now and in the future .
In fact the proposed regulations are unremarkable : they are essentially the same as the voluntary Energy Star program , considered to be well within reach by the industry .
The CEC mandate simply makes them mandatory instead of voluntary .
The better TV manufacturers ( e.g .
Visio ) are in full compliance , and fully support both the standards , and making them mandatory .
The only whiners here are companies that wish to hawk cheap inefficient TVs , and ideologues who feel that any government regulation is inherently evil in principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone, please read the article.
The summary is a deliberate prevarication (three dollar word for "lie").
There is no plan or proposal to " target your big-screen TVs for elimination".
Under the proposed California regulations anyone can sell or buy and size TV they like now and in the future.
In fact the proposed regulations are unremarkable: they are essentially the same as the voluntary Energy Star program, considered to be well within reach by the industry.
The CEC mandate simply makes them mandatory instead of voluntary.
The better TV manufacturers (e.g.
Visio) are in full compliance, and fully support both the standards, and making them mandatory.
The only whiners here are companies that wish to hawk cheap inefficient TVs, and ideologues who feel that any government regulation is inherently evil in principle. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173612</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>lobiusmoop</author>
	<datestamp>1258742520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_California#Population" title="wikipedia.org">population in California</a> [wikipedia.org] is particularly striking to me. I'm from Scotland, where the population has gone up <a href="http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/sct/population.html" title="genuki.org.uk">roughly 3-fold</a> [genuki.org.uk] since the industrial revolution. California's population went up by a factor of 350 in the same period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The population in California [ wikipedia.org ] is particularly striking to me .
I 'm from Scotland , where the population has gone up roughly 3-fold [ genuki.org.uk ] since the industrial revolution .
California 's population went up by a factor of 350 in the same period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The population in California [wikipedia.org] is particularly striking to me.
I'm from Scotland, where the population has gone up roughly 3-fold [genuki.org.uk] since the industrial revolution.
California's population went up by a factor of 350 in the same period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173272</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258741200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone know how to moderate a post to TLDR?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know how to moderate a post to TLDR ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know how to moderate a post to TLDR?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172542</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258738800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"geometric" population growth?  In urbanized countries, population growth slows and sometimes reverses.  World population is expected to peak at less than half of what it is now.   It's people like you that are only rearranging the chairs while the rest of us are building life boats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" geometric " population growth ?
In urbanized countries , population growth slows and sometimes reverses .
World population is expected to peak at less than half of what it is now .
It 's people like you that are only rearranging the chairs while the rest of us are building life boats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"geometric" population growth?
In urbanized countries, population growth slows and sometimes reverses.
World population is expected to peak at less than half of what it is now.
It's people like you that are only rearranging the chairs while the rest of us are building life boats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173296</id>
	<title>Every problem is also an opportunity</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1258741320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi there Californians! I live in your neighboring state of Oregon, where not only can we buy any television we damn well please, but also there is no sales tax. For a nominal fee equivalent to the CA sales tax, I would be more than happy to purchase an energy guzzling television for you and deliver it to you. Just one question -- will the fruit check stations on the border now also ask me to declare if I'm carrying any large screen TVs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi there Californians !
I live in your neighboring state of Oregon , where not only can we buy any television we damn well please , but also there is no sales tax .
For a nominal fee equivalent to the CA sales tax , I would be more than happy to purchase an energy guzzling television for you and deliver it to you .
Just one question -- will the fruit check stations on the border now also ask me to declare if I 'm carrying any large screen TVs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi there Californians!
I live in your neighboring state of Oregon, where not only can we buy any television we damn well please, but also there is no sales tax.
For a nominal fee equivalent to the CA sales tax, I would be more than happy to purchase an energy guzzling television for you and deliver it to you.
Just one question -- will the fruit check stations on the border now also ask me to declare if I'm carrying any large screen TVs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172238</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, LCDs contain harmful chemicals that us (in Canada) are already being charged for with 'Disposal Fees'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , LCDs contain harmful chemicals that us ( in Canada ) are already being charged for with 'Disposal Fees' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, LCDs contain harmful chemicals that us (in Canada) are already being charged for with 'Disposal Fees'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172566</id>
	<title>Energy Efficiency standards...</title>
	<author>joelja</author>
	<datestamp>1258738860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong frankly with holding displays to more stringent energy standards then they meet today? It doesn't appear to be a particularly hard benchmark to meet which leaves me wondering what the big deal is?</p><p>Looking around the house both the samsung lcd panels including the 2 year old one meet the 2011 target... The projector uses ~200w to throw a 7' x4' image and the 36" crt nobody should be using anymore but it's hard to recycle a 200lb television..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong frankly with holding displays to more stringent energy standards then they meet today ?
It does n't appear to be a particularly hard benchmark to meet which leaves me wondering what the big deal is ? Looking around the house both the samsung lcd panels including the 2 year old one meet the 2011 target... The projector uses ~ 200w to throw a 7 ' x4 ' image and the 36 " crt nobody should be using anymore but it 's hard to recycle a 200lb television. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong frankly with holding displays to more stringent energy standards then they meet today?
It doesn't appear to be a particularly hard benchmark to meet which leaves me wondering what the big deal is?Looking around the house both the samsung lcd panels including the 2 year old one meet the 2011 target... The projector uses ~200w to throw a 7' x4' image and the 36" crt nobody should be using anymore but it's hard to recycle a 200lb television..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172234</id>
	<title>People will just buy their TV's out of state</title>
	<author>WCMI92</author>
	<datestamp>1258737720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only people this is going to hurt are people who sell large screen TV's in California, and the moronic government that will now miss out on the revenue from it.</p><p>Unless they are prepared to guard the borders to check Californians for "illegal" large screen TV's people will still get what they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people this is going to hurt are people who sell large screen TV 's in California , and the moronic government that will now miss out on the revenue from it.Unless they are prepared to guard the borders to check Californians for " illegal " large screen TV 's people will still get what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people this is going to hurt are people who sell large screen TV's in California, and the moronic government that will now miss out on the revenue from it.Unless they are prepared to guard the borders to check Californians for "illegal" large screen TV's people will still get what they want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30206306</id>
	<title>Re:the old 3rd party payer problem</title>
	<author>Rakarra</author>
	<datestamp>1258972260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Regulation is inevitable unless each person gets their own ipod-sized electric meter to carry around.  I'm serious.</p></div><p>But... in your case, don't you already know how much energy you're using? You get the power bill, you can read your meters. From your post it sounded like your family knows how much energy they use, but just don't care.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regulation is inevitable unless each person gets their own ipod-sized electric meter to carry around .
I 'm serious.But... in your case , do n't you already know how much energy you 're using ?
You get the power bill , you can read your meters .
From your post it sounded like your family knows how much energy they use , but just do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regulation is inevitable unless each person gets their own ipod-sized electric meter to carry around.
I'm serious.But... in your case, don't you already know how much energy you're using?
You get the power bill, you can read your meters.
From your post it sounded like your family knows how much energy they use, but just don't care.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172312</id>
	<title>Re:Deckchairs?</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1258737960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's more over consumption. <p>We, in the US to use an often cited stat, use 25\% of the World's oil - and we're what? 4\% of the World's population?</p><p>The reason why the consumption around the World is increasing is because people in developing countries want to live like US. If 300 million people are using 25\% of the oil, then that would mean that only 1.2 billion can use oil like we do. </p><p>I say, we here in the USofA lead by example. If folks want to live like US, let's show them how to live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more over consumption .
We , in the US to use an often cited stat , use 25 \ % of the World 's oil - and we 're what ?
4 \ % of the World 's population ? The reason why the consumption around the World is increasing is because people in developing countries want to live like US .
If 300 million people are using 25 \ % of the oil , then that would mean that only 1.2 billion can use oil like we do .
I say , we here in the USofA lead by example .
If folks want to live like US , let 's show them how to live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more over consumption.
We, in the US to use an often cited stat, use 25\% of the World's oil - and we're what?
4\% of the World's population?The reason why the consumption around the World is increasing is because people in developing countries want to live like US.
If 300 million people are using 25\% of the oil, then that would mean that only 1.2 billion can use oil like we do.
I say, we here in the USofA lead by example.
If folks want to live like US, let's show them how to live.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173222</id>
	<title>Re:Article is BS...</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1258741020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have a vehicle that gets 30mpg and can fit a 50" TV in it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a vehicle that gets 30mpg and can fit a 50 " TV in it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a vehicle that gets 30mpg and can fit a 50" TV in it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30177084</id>
	<title>Surprise, surprise!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258711020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The planet is going down the toilet and all Americans can worry about is the size of their tv screens?</p><p>You just don't get it, do you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The planet is going down the toilet and all Americans can worry about is the size of their tv screens ? You just do n't get it , do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The planet is going down the toilet and all Americans can worry about is the size of their tv screens?You just don't get it, do you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30177262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30206436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30188648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30178266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30177128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30180336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30178208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30180990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30177970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30180664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30178254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30188456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30206326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30206306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1341256_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30180310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173024
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30180990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30178324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30206306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172306
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174842
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30206436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30206326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30177262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30178266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30178208
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174132
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173222
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175468
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30188456
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30178254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30180310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30180336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30188648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30177128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30177970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30171966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30180664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30176124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1341256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30172640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30174374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30173756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1341256.30175476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
