<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_01_226250</id>
	<title>Typewriters, Computers, and Creating?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1259670900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>saddleupsancho writes <i>"Today's NY Times reports that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cormac\_McCarthy">Cormac McCarthy</a> is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/books/01typewriter.html">auctioning the 45-year-old Olivetti manual typewriter</a> on which all his novels, screenplays, plays, short stories, and much of his correspondence were written, to benefit the Sante Fe Institute where he is a Research Fellow. What would happen decades from now if, say, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard\_Powers">Richard Powers</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal\_Stephenson">Neal Stephenson</a> attempted to auction their desktops or laptops? Setting aside completely any comparison among the three authors, is there something more intrinsically interesting and valuable, less ephemeral and interchangeable, about a typewriter vs. a computer as an instrument of literary creation? Or is the current generation just as sentimental about their computer-based devices as McCarthy's generation is about his Olivetti? Would you offer as much for McCarthy's input device if it were a generic PC, Mac, or Linux box as you would for his Olivetti?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>saddleupsancho writes " Today 's NY Times reports that Cormac McCarthy is auctioning the 45-year-old Olivetti manual typewriter on which all his novels , screenplays , plays , short stories , and much of his correspondence were written , to benefit the Sante Fe Institute where he is a Research Fellow .
What would happen decades from now if , say , Richard Powers or Neal Stephenson attempted to auction their desktops or laptops ?
Setting aside completely any comparison among the three authors , is there something more intrinsically interesting and valuable , less ephemeral and interchangeable , about a typewriter vs. a computer as an instrument of literary creation ?
Or is the current generation just as sentimental about their computer-based devices as McCarthy 's generation is about his Olivetti ?
Would you offer as much for McCarthy 's input device if it were a generic PC , Mac , or Linux box as you would for his Olivetti ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>saddleupsancho writes "Today's NY Times reports that Cormac McCarthy is auctioning the 45-year-old Olivetti manual typewriter on which all his novels, screenplays, plays, short stories, and much of his correspondence were written, to benefit the Sante Fe Institute where he is a Research Fellow.
What would happen decades from now if, say, Richard Powers or Neal Stephenson attempted to auction their desktops or laptops?
Setting aside completely any comparison among the three authors, is there something more intrinsically interesting and valuable, less ephemeral and interchangeable, about a typewriter vs. a computer as an instrument of literary creation?
Or is the current generation just as sentimental about their computer-based devices as McCarthy's generation is about his Olivetti?
Would you offer as much for McCarthy's input device if it were a generic PC, Mac, or Linux box as you would for his Olivetti?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292882</id>
	<title>typewriters and the Kaypro</title>
	<author>cyberry</author>
	<datestamp>1259683020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>funny - without knowing what the topic was, when I saw the mention of the Olivetti typewriter I had warm memories of the Olivetti portable typewriter I used to pay my way through college by typing other students' term papers.</p><p>I don't think the emotional response is limited to typewriters. I remember fondly my first computer - a Kaypro - a portable computer at only 26 pounds! Back then (1983) home computers were unusual and did unusual things. Now they are pretty routine, and many people don't use them for much more than one could do with a high-end smartphone. (Play some music, display some pictures, connect to the internet, check out Twitter...)</p><p>And I don't think the issue is just about whether the item works. I'd pay money to get my old Kaypro back, even if it weren't working (not much money, but some). On the other hand, I wouldn't pay anything for its successor, which if i remember correctly was a Fountain XT computer (a cheap IBM knockoff).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>funny - without knowing what the topic was , when I saw the mention of the Olivetti typewriter I had warm memories of the Olivetti portable typewriter I used to pay my way through college by typing other students ' term papers.I do n't think the emotional response is limited to typewriters .
I remember fondly my first computer - a Kaypro - a portable computer at only 26 pounds !
Back then ( 1983 ) home computers were unusual and did unusual things .
Now they are pretty routine , and many people do n't use them for much more than one could do with a high-end smartphone .
( Play some music , display some pictures , connect to the internet , check out Twitter... ) And I do n't think the issue is just about whether the item works .
I 'd pay money to get my old Kaypro back , even if it were n't working ( not much money , but some ) .
On the other hand , I would n't pay anything for its successor , which if i remember correctly was a Fountain XT computer ( a cheap IBM knockoff ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>funny - without knowing what the topic was, when I saw the mention of the Olivetti typewriter I had warm memories of the Olivetti portable typewriter I used to pay my way through college by typing other students' term papers.I don't think the emotional response is limited to typewriters.
I remember fondly my first computer - a Kaypro - a portable computer at only 26 pounds!
Back then (1983) home computers were unusual and did unusual things.
Now they are pretty routine, and many people don't use them for much more than one could do with a high-end smartphone.
(Play some music, display some pictures, connect to the internet, check out Twitter...)And I don't think the issue is just about whether the item works.
I'd pay money to get my old Kaypro back, even if it weren't working (not much money, but some).
On the other hand, I wouldn't pay anything for its successor, which if i remember correctly was a Fountain XT computer (a cheap IBM knockoff).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30322046</id>
	<title>Got One</title>
	<author>cyclomedia</author>
	<datestamp>1259922060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heh, I have this exact model typewriter (Olivetti Lettera 32) in my loft, in pristine condition (i check on it a couple times a year, wouldnt want it to get rusty/moldy), works fine. Had planned to write a novel on it but turns out my writing skills suck. Wander how much it'd ebay for? Hmz</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , I have this exact model typewriter ( Olivetti Lettera 32 ) in my loft , in pristine condition ( i check on it a couple times a year , wouldnt want it to get rusty/moldy ) , works fine .
Had planned to write a novel on it but turns out my writing skills suck .
Wander how much it 'd ebay for ?
Hmz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, I have this exact model typewriter (Olivetti Lettera 32) in my loft, in pristine condition (i check on it a couple times a year, wouldnt want it to get rusty/moldy), works fine.
Had planned to write a novel on it but turns out my writing skills suck.
Wander how much it'd ebay for?
Hmz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292690</id>
	<title>Mechanical things die from neglect</title>
	<author>NixieBunny</author>
	<datestamp>1259681460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It will keep working as long as it's used regularly. A typewriter will seize up if left alone a few years as the oil/grease dries out - especially the 45-year-old oil this machine has (according to the letter of authenticity the author wrote on it, it has never been serviced).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will keep working as long as it 's used regularly .
A typewriter will seize up if left alone a few years as the oil/grease dries out - especially the 45-year-old oil this machine has ( according to the letter of authenticity the author wrote on it , it has never been serviced ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will keep working as long as it's used regularly.
A typewriter will seize up if left alone a few years as the oil/grease dries out - especially the 45-year-old oil this machine has (according to the letter of authenticity the author wrote on it, it has never been serviced).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291674</id>
	<title>Re:Let's put this in perspective</title>
	<author>overbaud</author>
	<datestamp>1259675040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ummm... given that he has used numerous machines compared to a single typewriter nothing. Further a greater awareness of Cormac McCarthys work exists within the general public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm... given that he has used numerous machines compared to a single typewriter nothing .
Further a greater awareness of Cormac McCarthys work exists within the general public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm... given that he has used numerous machines compared to a single typewriter nothing.
Further a greater awareness of Cormac McCarthys work exists within the general public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295392</id>
	<title>Re:Not less valuable; possibly more.</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1259580420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(snip</p><p>I would say that this is mostly a personal aesthetic thing.  It's sort of related to the reverence people who hate "digital books" hold for paper copies; they'll give you loads of ultimately irrational excuses down to the smell of the paper as to why they prefer to read a "real book."  I've been reading novels on a screen for years, and I've discovered that I quite like the ability to zoom in on small-font text or to hold thousands of books in the footprint of one on my desk (it's really a coffee table but shhh!).</p></div><p>You're right, it is an personal aesthetic thing - different people value different things.  To some people, owning many watches is enjoyable because they like watches, while someone else thinks a cell phone is fine because all they want to know is the time.  Same thing with writing with a fine pen on quality paper vs. cheap stick pen and notebook filler paper.  Neither is wrong, they just have differing tastes.</p><p>More to your point, reading a real book is more than simply looking at words on a page; if that is what someone enjoys their reasons, like yours for liking an e-reader,  are neither irrational nor excuses, they simply are personal preferences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( snipI would say that this is mostly a personal aesthetic thing .
It 's sort of related to the reverence people who hate " digital books " hold for paper copies ; they 'll give you loads of ultimately irrational excuses down to the smell of the paper as to why they prefer to read a " real book .
" I 've been reading novels on a screen for years , and I 've discovered that I quite like the ability to zoom in on small-font text or to hold thousands of books in the footprint of one on my desk ( it 's really a coffee table but shhh !
) .You 're right , it is an personal aesthetic thing - different people value different things .
To some people , owning many watches is enjoyable because they like watches , while someone else thinks a cell phone is fine because all they want to know is the time .
Same thing with writing with a fine pen on quality paper vs. cheap stick pen and notebook filler paper .
Neither is wrong , they just have differing tastes.More to your point , reading a real book is more than simply looking at words on a page ; if that is what someone enjoys their reasons , like yours for liking an e-reader , are neither irrational nor excuses , they simply are personal preferences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(snipI would say that this is mostly a personal aesthetic thing.
It's sort of related to the reverence people who hate "digital books" hold for paper copies; they'll give you loads of ultimately irrational excuses down to the smell of the paper as to why they prefer to read a "real book.
"  I've been reading novels on a screen for years, and I've discovered that I quite like the ability to zoom in on small-font text or to hold thousands of books in the footprint of one on my desk (it's really a coffee table but shhh!
).You're right, it is an personal aesthetic thing - different people value different things.
To some people, owning many watches is enjoyable because they like watches, while someone else thinks a cell phone is fine because all they want to know is the time.
Same thing with writing with a fine pen on quality paper vs. cheap stick pen and notebook filler paper.
Neither is wrong, they just have differing tastes.More to your point, reading a real book is more than simply looking at words on a page; if that is what someone enjoys their reasons, like yours for liking an e-reader,  are neither irrational nor excuses, they simply are personal preferences.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30326560</id>
	<title>Re:Underwood and Jar Jar Binks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259954460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Roddenberry?  Maybe.  I'd place my bets on Charles Schultz and Bill Waterson more than I do on Neal Stephenson.  -George Lucas, too, if he'd had the good grace to die before Phantom Menace.  (Sorry, George, but it's true.)</p></div><p>Schulz (note: no T) already has a museum running in central California.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Roddenberry ?
Maybe. I 'd place my bets on Charles Schultz and Bill Waterson more than I do on Neal Stephenson .
-George Lucas , too , if he 'd had the good grace to die before Phantom Menace .
( Sorry , George , but it 's true .
) Schulz ( note : no T ) already has a museum running in central California .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roddenberry?
Maybe.  I'd place my bets on Charles Schultz and Bill Waterson more than I do on Neal Stephenson.
-George Lucas, too, if he'd had the good grace to die before Phantom Menace.
(Sorry, George, but it's true.
)Schulz (note: no T) already has a museum running in central California.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295270</id>
	<title>Oh goodness....</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1259579160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you people still out there, living in the 18th century?</p><p>Writing is hard graft, hard work, sweat ant tears, discipline and method.</p><p>Any tool that makes the job easier is a good thing.</p><p>Handwriting and typewriters just make the full process of writing a nightmare (the process of writing does not end with the writer himself, unless he just wants to bask in the glory of his forever unknown "talent").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you people still out there , living in the 18th century ? Writing is hard graft , hard work , sweat ant tears , discipline and method.Any tool that makes the job easier is a good thing.Handwriting and typewriters just make the full process of writing a nightmare ( the process of writing does not end with the writer himself , unless he just wants to bask in the glory of his forever unknown " talent " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you people still out there, living in the 18th century?Writing is hard graft, hard work, sweat ant tears, discipline and method.Any tool that makes the job easier is a good thing.Handwriting and typewriters just make the full process of writing a nightmare (the process of writing does not end with the writer himself, unless he just wants to bask in the glory of his forever unknown "talent").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293392</id>
	<title>No it's really just a question of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259688060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really just a question of whether it's a Apple or PC.  One lasts till Kingdom Come, the other doesn't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  ok totally just joking !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really just a question of whether it 's a Apple or PC .
One lasts till Kingdom Come , the other does n't ; ) ok totally just joking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really just a question of whether it's a Apple or PC.
One lasts till Kingdom Come, the other doesn't ;)  ok totally just joking !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293302</id>
	<title>Re:Let's put this in perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259687160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although I have a 486 Prolinea with FreeBSD-4.3 that's a lot of fun, what I cherish are a couple Nikon Fs. Both equally mass produced, equally obsolete, equally still usable. But it's those cameras I'd miss; they're sooo Newtonian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although I have a 486 Prolinea with FreeBSD-4.3 that 's a lot of fun , what I cherish are a couple Nikon Fs .
Both equally mass produced , equally obsolete , equally still usable .
But it 's those cameras I 'd miss ; they 're sooo Newtonian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although I have a 486 Prolinea with FreeBSD-4.3 that's a lot of fun, what I cherish are a couple Nikon Fs.
Both equally mass produced, equally obsolete, equally still usable.
But it's those cameras I'd miss; they're sooo Newtonian.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296260</id>
	<title>BeBox</title>
	<author>zoeblade</author>
	<datestamp>1259590200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, according to his book <a href="http://www.cryptonomicon.com/command.zip" title="cryptonomicon.com">In The Beginning... Was the Command Line</a> [cryptonomicon.com], Neal Stephenson said he used a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeBox" title="wikipedia.org">BeBox</a> [wikipedia.org] for a while.</p><p>He's also used emacs.  Personally, I like the idea that anyone can download it for free and be on an equal footing with someone who's used it to write such great novels.  Isn't that inspiring?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , according to his book In The Beginning... Was the Command Line [ cryptonomicon.com ] , Neal Stephenson said he used a BeBox [ wikipedia.org ] for a while.He 's also used emacs .
Personally , I like the idea that anyone can download it for free and be on an equal footing with someone who 's used it to write such great novels .
Is n't that inspiring ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, according to his book In The Beginning... Was the Command Line [cryptonomicon.com], Neal Stephenson said he used a BeBox [wikipedia.org] for a while.He's also used emacs.
Personally, I like the idea that anyone can download it for free and be on an equal footing with someone who's used it to write such great novels.
Isn't that inspiring?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30300458</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1259611140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is a different experience, and I think produces a different type of writing. One thing I'e noticed is that since the computer era, many people edit only in 25 line chunks, never thinking in terms of whole pages. You can really see this when a typing author first switches to the computer.</p><p>From the writing end, I find it's a different experience. You tend to be slower and more careful when you have no quick way to correct stuff; OTOH things that really need rewriting are more likely to get it when it's easier to do. So there are plus and minus points for both methods.</p><p>I found that I was most productive with my old 286, which had all the editing capability of any modern computer, but hardly more smarts than a typewriter, thus no distractions. Best of both worlds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a different experience , and I think produces a different type of writing .
One thing I'e noticed is that since the computer era , many people edit only in 25 line chunks , never thinking in terms of whole pages .
You can really see this when a typing author first switches to the computer.From the writing end , I find it 's a different experience .
You tend to be slower and more careful when you have no quick way to correct stuff ; OTOH things that really need rewriting are more likely to get it when it 's easier to do .
So there are plus and minus points for both methods.I found that I was most productive with my old 286 , which had all the editing capability of any modern computer , but hardly more smarts than a typewriter , thus no distractions .
Best of both worlds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a different experience, and I think produces a different type of writing.
One thing I'e noticed is that since the computer era, many people edit only in 25 line chunks, never thinking in terms of whole pages.
You can really see this when a typing author first switches to the computer.From the writing end, I find it's a different experience.
You tend to be slower and more careful when you have no quick way to correct stuff; OTOH things that really need rewriting are more likely to get it when it's easier to do.
So there are plus and minus points for both methods.I found that I was most productive with my old 286, which had all the editing capability of any modern computer, but hardly more smarts than a typewriter, thus no distractions.
Best of both worlds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292416</id>
	<title>So what's the question?</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1259679480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it "Cormac McCarthy [link to article on author and his work] is auctioning the 45-year-old Olivetti manual typewriter, on which all his novels, screenplays, plays, short stories, and much of his correspondence were written; is there something<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... intrinsically interesting and valuable", based on the entirety or on a portion thereof?</p><p>Or is it "a guy is selling a thing he wrote stuff with; think it's worth something"?</p><p>I'd buy Isaac Asimov's word processor, typewriter or chalk board. I wouldn't buy kdawson's Beowulf cluster of Soviet Russian Overlords running 6 flavors of *nix, and a direct neural-to-keyboard port interface.</p><p>I think it's safe to assume the guy is selling his history, not the tech. And certainly not the brand, because (speaking as a past office equipment repairer) Vettis suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it " Cormac McCarthy [ link to article on author and his work ] is auctioning the 45-year-old Olivetti manual typewriter , on which all his novels , screenplays , plays , short stories , and much of his correspondence were written ; is there something ... intrinsically interesting and valuable " , based on the entirety or on a portion thereof ? Or is it " a guy is selling a thing he wrote stuff with ; think it 's worth something " ? I 'd buy Isaac Asimov 's word processor , typewriter or chalk board .
I would n't buy kdawson 's Beowulf cluster of Soviet Russian Overlords running 6 flavors of * nix , and a direct neural-to-keyboard port interface.I think it 's safe to assume the guy is selling his history , not the tech .
And certainly not the brand , because ( speaking as a past office equipment repairer ) Vettis suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it "Cormac McCarthy [link to article on author and his work] is auctioning the 45-year-old Olivetti manual typewriter, on which all his novels, screenplays, plays, short stories, and much of his correspondence were written; is there something ... intrinsically interesting and valuable", based on the entirety or on a portion thereof?Or is it "a guy is selling a thing he wrote stuff with; think it's worth something"?I'd buy Isaac Asimov's word processor, typewriter or chalk board.
I wouldn't buy kdawson's Beowulf cluster of Soviet Russian Overlords running 6 flavors of *nix, and a direct neural-to-keyboard port interface.I think it's safe to assume the guy is selling his history, not the tech.
And certainly not the brand, because (speaking as a past office equipment repairer) Vettis suck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292930</id>
	<title>Re:Neal Stephenson uses a fountain pen</title>
	<author>rmcd</author>
	<datestamp>1259683500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you go to the <a href="http://www.empsfm.org/" title="empsfm.org">Science Fiction Museum</a> [empsfm.org] in Seattle (attached to the Experience Music Project), they have the pens Stephenson used to write (I seem to recall) the Baroque Cycle along with the original manuscript. It's quite a stack of paper!</p><p>A cool museum, especially for the Slashdot crowd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go to the Science Fiction Museum [ empsfm.org ] in Seattle ( attached to the Experience Music Project ) , they have the pens Stephenson used to write ( I seem to recall ) the Baroque Cycle along with the original manuscript .
It 's quite a stack of paper ! A cool museum , especially for the Slashdot crowd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go to the Science Fiction Museum [empsfm.org] in Seattle (attached to the Experience Music Project), they have the pens Stephenson used to write (I seem to recall) the Baroque Cycle along with the original manuscript.
It's quite a stack of paper!A cool museum, especially for the Slashdot crowd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30307548</id>
	<title>It's about history</title>
	<author>jaegerkp</author>
	<datestamp>1259603040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the real appeal of this item is that Cormac McCarthy wrote all of his novels on it.  If your a Cormac fan that's very cool.  You're buying a piece of history.


I'm a big fan of Neal Stephenson, I'd probably pay a lot for the computer on which he wrote all of his novels.  Oh wait, there is no such thing. I don't know if he writes on a computer or not but if he does he's probably had at least half a dozen by now.  I might be able to get the one he wrote Snow Crash on, but that's nowhere near a cool as Cormac's typewriter.


So the real difference is the length of association and all that that implies.  That the machine lasted that long; that the writer liked it that well; that there is only one as opposed to a dozen or two.  There's some appeal to the tool itself but the real value is in the association with the author.  If Neal writes all his stories with the same cheap Mont Blanc pen (unlikely, but hey!) then there's some serious value to that pen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the real appeal of this item is that Cormac McCarthy wrote all of his novels on it .
If your a Cormac fan that 's very cool .
You 're buying a piece of history .
I 'm a big fan of Neal Stephenson , I 'd probably pay a lot for the computer on which he wrote all of his novels .
Oh wait , there is no such thing .
I do n't know if he writes on a computer or not but if he does he 's probably had at least half a dozen by now .
I might be able to get the one he wrote Snow Crash on , but that 's nowhere near a cool as Cormac 's typewriter .
So the real difference is the length of association and all that that implies .
That the machine lasted that long ; that the writer liked it that well ; that there is only one as opposed to a dozen or two .
There 's some appeal to the tool itself but the real value is in the association with the author .
If Neal writes all his stories with the same cheap Mont Blanc pen ( unlikely , but hey !
) then there 's some serious value to that pen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the real appeal of this item is that Cormac McCarthy wrote all of his novels on it.
If your a Cormac fan that's very cool.
You're buying a piece of history.
I'm a big fan of Neal Stephenson, I'd probably pay a lot for the computer on which he wrote all of his novels.
Oh wait, there is no such thing.
I don't know if he writes on a computer or not but if he does he's probably had at least half a dozen by now.
I might be able to get the one he wrote Snow Crash on, but that's nowhere near a cool as Cormac's typewriter.
So the real difference is the length of association and all that that implies.
That the machine lasted that long; that the writer liked it that well; that there is only one as opposed to a dozen or two.
There's some appeal to the tool itself but the real value is in the association with the author.
If Neal writes all his stories with the same cheap Mont Blanc pen (unlikely, but hey!
) then there's some serious value to that pen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295236</id>
	<title>Nothing.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1259578800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would buy a computer to satisfy my needs, I really dislike this personality cult bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would buy a computer to satisfy my needs , I really dislike this personality cult bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would buy a computer to satisfy my needs, I really dislike this personality cult bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>DreamsAreOkToo</author>
	<datestamp>1259674980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there is something different.  A typewriter is a durable device that lasts many years. It will build character as it wears. On the other hand, a computer grows viruses as it ages. In addition, they aren't very durable at all (I've had 7 computers/laptops.  Only one of them still works... the one I'm using now) and they don't last very many years at all.  In 45 years, Neil Gaiman's last 12 computers are going to be sitting in a dump or recycled into new computers.</p><p>Also, typewriters are very classy. A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I've heard.  They like the satisfying sounds it makes. You can't go back and edit things you've just written. It separates you from technology. It separates you from office work. You can haul it anywhere it work without worrying about battery life.  You can't get distracted and browse slashdot...</p><p>speaking of which, I should get back to my writing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there is something different .
A typewriter is a durable device that lasts many years .
It will build character as it wears .
On the other hand , a computer grows viruses as it ages .
In addition , they are n't very durable at all ( I 've had 7 computers/laptops .
Only one of them still works... the one I 'm using now ) and they do n't last very many years at all .
In 45 years , Neil Gaiman 's last 12 computers are going to be sitting in a dump or recycled into new computers.Also , typewriters are very classy .
A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I 've heard .
They like the satisfying sounds it makes .
You ca n't go back and edit things you 've just written .
It separates you from technology .
It separates you from office work .
You can haul it anywhere it work without worrying about battery life .
You ca n't get distracted and browse slashdot...speaking of which , I should get back to my writing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there is something different.
A typewriter is a durable device that lasts many years.
It will build character as it wears.
On the other hand, a computer grows viruses as it ages.
In addition, they aren't very durable at all (I've had 7 computers/laptops.
Only one of them still works... the one I'm using now) and they don't last very many years at all.
In 45 years, Neil Gaiman's last 12 computers are going to be sitting in a dump or recycled into new computers.Also, typewriters are very classy.
A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I've heard.
They like the satisfying sounds it makes.
You can't go back and edit things you've just written.
It separates you from technology.
It separates you from office work.
You can haul it anywhere it work without worrying about battery life.
You can't get distracted and browse slashdot...speaking of which, I should get back to my writing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292234</id>
	<title>OOO320\_m6</title>
	<author>Ragica</author>
	<datestamp>1259678220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someday, when my literary genius is finally recognized, they'll auction off my OpenOffice 3.2 Milestone 6. Fans will cherish my toolbar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someday , when my literary genius is finally recognized , they 'll auction off my OpenOffice 3.2 Milestone 6 .
Fans will cherish my toolbar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someday, when my literary genius is finally recognized, they'll auction off my OpenOffice 3.2 Milestone 6.
Fans will cherish my toolbar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30335320</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1260031920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I actually remember having to use a typewriter in middle school. There's no way you could drag me back to those days. They jam, run out of ink, are unforgiving, etc. Plus the obvious - once a letter is typed, it's typed.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I'm very sorry that you didn't get a chance to work with an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM\_Selectric" title="wikipedia.org">IBM Selectric</a> [wikipedia.org].  It never jammed -- it was physically impossible.  Sure it may run out of ink every now and then, but with an erase ink too, mistakes can be undone.  Certainly an entire page is done, but that teaches one to write with distinct purpose.  I love my computer, but I'm a little sorry my kids will never know the difference between a cheap $50 typewriter and a beautiful IBM Selectric.  If anything teaches the value of an investment, that does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually remember having to use a typewriter in middle school .
There 's no way you could drag me back to those days .
They jam , run out of ink , are unforgiving , etc .
Plus the obvious - once a letter is typed , it 's typed .
I 'm very sorry that you did n't get a chance to work with an IBM Selectric [ wikipedia.org ] .
It never jammed -- it was physically impossible .
Sure it may run out of ink every now and then , but with an erase ink too , mistakes can be undone .
Certainly an entire page is done , but that teaches one to write with distinct purpose .
I love my computer , but I 'm a little sorry my kids will never know the difference between a cheap $ 50 typewriter and a beautiful IBM Selectric .
If anything teaches the value of an investment , that does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually remember having to use a typewriter in middle school.
There's no way you could drag me back to those days.
They jam, run out of ink, are unforgiving, etc.
Plus the obvious - once a letter is typed, it's typed.
I'm very sorry that you didn't get a chance to work with an IBM Selectric [wikipedia.org].
It never jammed -- it was physically impossible.
Sure it may run out of ink every now and then, but with an erase ink too, mistakes can be undone.
Certainly an entire page is done, but that teaches one to write with distinct purpose.
I love my computer, but I'm a little sorry my kids will never know the difference between a cheap $50 typewriter and a beautiful IBM Selectric.
If anything teaches the value of an investment, that does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292406</id>
	<title>Re:Decades from now...</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1259679360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Decades later, the PC or laptop auction winner would be lucky to get the device to do anything worthwhile compared to modern systems.</p></div><p>Compared to modern systems, Typewritters suck even moreso. That's why we stopped using them, remember?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Decades later , the PC or laptop auction winner would be lucky to get the device to do anything worthwhile compared to modern systems.Compared to modern systems , Typewritters suck even moreso .
That 's why we stopped using them , remember ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Decades later, the PC or laptop auction winner would be lucky to get the device to do anything worthwhile compared to modern systems.Compared to modern systems, Typewritters suck even moreso.
That's why we stopped using them, remember?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291614</id>
	<title>Cormac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The link goes to "Cormac McCarthyl" whereas it should go to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cormac\_mccarthy" title="wikipedia.org">Cormac McCarthy</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The link goes to " Cormac McCarthyl " whereas it should go to Cormac McCarthy [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The link goes to "Cormac McCarthyl" whereas it should go to Cormac McCarthy [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291778</id>
	<title>Personally?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259675520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no use for a typewriter, even if it was owned by a famous person. If you gave me his computer, I'd probably throw away the keyboard and mouse. And since it's probably an old piece of shit computer, it's probably not worth more than ten dollars to me.</p><p>So let's see: Typewriter: $0.00. Computer: $10.00. Computer wins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no use for a typewriter , even if it was owned by a famous person .
If you gave me his computer , I 'd probably throw away the keyboard and mouse .
And since it 's probably an old piece of shit computer , it 's probably not worth more than ten dollars to me.So let 's see : Typewriter : $ 0.00 .
Computer : $ 10.00 .
Computer wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no use for a typewriter, even if it was owned by a famous person.
If you gave me his computer, I'd probably throw away the keyboard and mouse.
And since it's probably an old piece of shit computer, it's probably not worth more than ten dollars to me.So let's see: Typewriter: $0.00.
Computer: $10.00.
Computer wins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293366</id>
	<title>Re:Let's put this in perspective</title>
	<author>doi</author>
	<datestamp>1259687820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck the computer, I want his security blanket.<p>And I'll sell my unborn children for Schroeder's piano.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the computer , I want his security blanket.And I 'll sell my unborn children for Schroeder 's piano .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the computer, I want his security blanket.And I'll sell my unborn children for Schroeder's piano.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295442</id>
	<title>Not merely almost...</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1259580960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact there are almost infinite uses for a computer.</p></div><p>Consider that computers are (in some sense) universal turing machines, and the set of all turing machines is countably infinite.</p><p>Computers don't have "almost infinite uses", they have exactly (countably) infinite uses.</p><p>&lt;/pedant&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact there are almost infinite uses for a computer.Consider that computers are ( in some sense ) universal turing machines , and the set of all turing machines is countably infinite.Computers do n't have " almost infinite uses " , they have exactly ( countably ) infinite uses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact there are almost infinite uses for a computer.Consider that computers are (in some sense) universal turing machines, and the set of all turing machines is countably infinite.Computers don't have "almost infinite uses", they have exactly (countably) infinite uses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293666</id>
	<title>A better perspective</title>
	<author>hannson</author>
	<datestamp>1259690340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much would a collector pay for a (possibly still working) 45 year old computer used by someone semi-notable?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much would a collector pay for a ( possibly still working ) 45 year old computer used by someone semi-notable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much would a collector pay for a (possibly still working) 45 year old computer used by someone semi-notable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292052</id>
	<title>And 100 years ago</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1259677200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A real writing instrument isn't mechanical. It requires the human hand to function, it lives and breathes the soul of a person, revealing their character and mood with every stroke.</p><p>Typewriters are machines. They separate you from the page, making each letter exactly the same. They jam. They're too heavy. Sometimes they break.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/postmodern wit</p><p>But for real, use what works for you. Writers fall in love with the tools that let them write, not matter how new or old.</p><p>I'd like something in between -- an e-ink screen with a super basic word processor and a USB port for my clicky keyboard, as God intended. Hook up the flash drive, dump it to a laptop to do the final drafts. No distractions, and few limitations for moving text around. I don't care who says what, I can write far faster on a computer than I can with any other method. There's just no comparison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A real writing instrument is n't mechanical .
It requires the human hand to function , it lives and breathes the soul of a person , revealing their character and mood with every stroke.Typewriters are machines .
They separate you from the page , making each letter exactly the same .
They jam .
They 're too heavy .
Sometimes they break .
/postmodern witBut for real , use what works for you .
Writers fall in love with the tools that let them write , not matter how new or old.I 'd like something in between -- an e-ink screen with a super basic word processor and a USB port for my clicky keyboard , as God intended .
Hook up the flash drive , dump it to a laptop to do the final drafts .
No distractions , and few limitations for moving text around .
I do n't care who says what , I can write far faster on a computer than I can with any other method .
There 's just no comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A real writing instrument isn't mechanical.
It requires the human hand to function, it lives and breathes the soul of a person, revealing their character and mood with every stroke.Typewriters are machines.
They separate you from the page, making each letter exactly the same.
They jam.
They're too heavy.
Sometimes they break.
/postmodern witBut for real, use what works for you.
Writers fall in love with the tools that let them write, not matter how new or old.I'd like something in between -- an e-ink screen with a super basic word processor and a USB port for my clicky keyboard, as God intended.
Hook up the flash drive, dump it to a laptop to do the final drafts.
No distractions, and few limitations for moving text around.
I don't care who says what, I can write far faster on a computer than I can with any other method.
There's just no comparison.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291968</id>
	<title>Probably not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259676660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I wouldn't be offering much for the type-writer, either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I would n't be offering much for the type-writer , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I wouldn't be offering much for the type-writer, either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295244</id>
	<title>Computer Displays...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Computer displays are light emiiting devices. This  causes eye strain, which harms writer's performance.<br>What we really need is a pseudo-typewriter, with mechanics and clicks, with a screen made of e-ink (like in e-books) to "print" into. Possible with an additional real paper print output.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer displays are light emiiting devices .
This causes eye strain , which harms writer 's performance.What we really need is a pseudo-typewriter , with mechanics and clicks , with a screen made of e-ink ( like in e-books ) to " print " into .
Possible with an additional real paper print output .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computer displays are light emiiting devices.
This  causes eye strain, which harms writer's performance.What we really need is a pseudo-typewriter, with mechanics and clicks, with a screen made of e-ink (like in e-books) to "print" into.
Possible with an additional real paper print output.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293422</id>
	<title>I firmly answer "maybe."</title>
	<author>ThousandStars</author>
	<datestamp>1259688480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Setting aside completely any comparison among the three authors, is there something more intrinsically interesting and valuable, less ephemeral and interchangeable, about a typewriter vs. a computer as an instrument of literary creation? </i> <p>

Who knows? I suspect the answer to be no: we like the physical manifestations and possessions of the famous, as if we'll gain their powers or knowledge by proximity. And for writers, <a href="http://jseliger.com/2009/11/11/the-computer-operating-system-or-word-processor-a-writer/" title="jseliger.com">I don't think it matters what OS you use</a> [jseliger.com], although I like OS X; it probably doesn't even matter if you use a computer, a typewriter, or a pen: what matters most is your imagination and the power of expression. Everything else is secondary. </p><p>That being said, I can see the computers of famous authors one day being of value. For one thing, check out <em>The Guardian's</em> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/series/writersrooms" title="guardian.co.uk">series on writers' rooms</a> [guardian.co.uk]. If we're interested in the rooms, I bet we'll be interested in the tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Setting aside completely any comparison among the three authors , is there something more intrinsically interesting and valuable , less ephemeral and interchangeable , about a typewriter vs. a computer as an instrument of literary creation ?
Who knows ?
I suspect the answer to be no : we like the physical manifestations and possessions of the famous , as if we 'll gain their powers or knowledge by proximity .
And for writers , I do n't think it matters what OS you use [ jseliger.com ] , although I like OS X ; it probably does n't even matter if you use a computer , a typewriter , or a pen : what matters most is your imagination and the power of expression .
Everything else is secondary .
That being said , I can see the computers of famous authors one day being of value .
For one thing , check out The Guardian 's series on writers ' rooms [ guardian.co.uk ] .
If we 're interested in the rooms , I bet we 'll be interested in the tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Setting aside completely any comparison among the three authors, is there something more intrinsically interesting and valuable, less ephemeral and interchangeable, about a typewriter vs. a computer as an instrument of literary creation?
Who knows?
I suspect the answer to be no: we like the physical manifestations and possessions of the famous, as if we'll gain their powers or knowledge by proximity.
And for writers, I don't think it matters what OS you use [jseliger.com], although I like OS X; it probably doesn't even matter if you use a computer, a typewriter, or a pen: what matters most is your imagination and the power of expression.
Everything else is secondary.
That being said, I can see the computers of famous authors one day being of value.
For one thing, check out The Guardian's series on writers' rooms [guardian.co.uk].
If we're interested in the rooms, I bet we'll be interested in the tools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291944</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Potor</author>
	<datestamp>1259676420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually write (words, not code), partially for a living. I do all of my writing longhand at first. Then when I fire up the computer, I am already in my second of countless drafts, all edited on paper first by hand.

</p><p>I actually remember having to use a typewriter in middle school. There's no way you could drag me back to those days. They jam, run out of ink, are unforgiving, etc. Plus the obvious - once a letter is typed, it's typed.

</p><p>There's no point in idealizing the creative process, or in claiming typewriters - pure technology, if only mechanical - are superior. They're tools, and in good hands, good things result. In bad hands, bad things result.

</p><p>That said, I'd buy one of Burroughs's typewriters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually write ( words , not code ) , partially for a living .
I do all of my writing longhand at first .
Then when I fire up the computer , I am already in my second of countless drafts , all edited on paper first by hand .
I actually remember having to use a typewriter in middle school .
There 's no way you could drag me back to those days .
They jam , run out of ink , are unforgiving , etc .
Plus the obvious - once a letter is typed , it 's typed .
There 's no point in idealizing the creative process , or in claiming typewriters - pure technology , if only mechanical - are superior .
They 're tools , and in good hands , good things result .
In bad hands , bad things result .
That said , I 'd buy one of Burroughs 's typewriters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually write (words, not code), partially for a living.
I do all of my writing longhand at first.
Then when I fire up the computer, I am already in my second of countless drafts, all edited on paper first by hand.
I actually remember having to use a typewriter in middle school.
There's no way you could drag me back to those days.
They jam, run out of ink, are unforgiving, etc.
Plus the obvious - once a letter is typed, it's typed.
There's no point in idealizing the creative process, or in claiming typewriters - pure technology, if only mechanical - are superior.
They're tools, and in good hands, good things result.
In bad hands, bad things result.
That said, I'd buy one of Burroughs's typewriters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292818</id>
	<title>Durability, nothing more.</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1259682540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Technology is technology; the more modern, the more ephemeral.  People get attached to things that have durability.</p><p>My grandmother was a minor author, with five books or pamphlets under her belt.  She wrote them all, in addition to her personal correspondence, on an Underwood manual typewriter from the 1890s.  I've had it cleaned and serviced, and expect that it will continue to work just fine for another 120 years, assuming we can still get the ribbons (and if not, making them doesn't seem that daunting).  Every letter that I type on it, every journal entry, connects me to her because she used it for so long.</p><p>In contrast, since my first laptop purchase in 1992 or 1993, I've had eight or nine of them.  They don't last.  There's only one that I remember fondly (and still have a working model) but the likelihood that it will work in 20 years is quite low.  The battery certainly will no longer hold any appreciable charge.  My current laptop could disappear and be replaced with a newer model and I'd not really blink.</p><p>My grandmother's typewriter has a cast iron frame and steel parts.  My best laptops have had cast magnesium frames and mostly plastic parts.  In the 50 years that my grandmother used her typewriter, some of the letters started to show wear.  My laptops have universally shown keyboard wear in under 2 years, most in under 1 year.</p><p>If computers had an appreciable lifetime beyond two or three years, then quite possibly, we might find the same attachment, but we don't.  The only real attachment that people have are to some keyboards, most notably the IBM Model M, which is built like an old-style typewriter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Technology is technology ; the more modern , the more ephemeral .
People get attached to things that have durability.My grandmother was a minor author , with five books or pamphlets under her belt .
She wrote them all , in addition to her personal correspondence , on an Underwood manual typewriter from the 1890s .
I 've had it cleaned and serviced , and expect that it will continue to work just fine for another 120 years , assuming we can still get the ribbons ( and if not , making them does n't seem that daunting ) .
Every letter that I type on it , every journal entry , connects me to her because she used it for so long.In contrast , since my first laptop purchase in 1992 or 1993 , I 've had eight or nine of them .
They do n't last .
There 's only one that I remember fondly ( and still have a working model ) but the likelihood that it will work in 20 years is quite low .
The battery certainly will no longer hold any appreciable charge .
My current laptop could disappear and be replaced with a newer model and I 'd not really blink.My grandmother 's typewriter has a cast iron frame and steel parts .
My best laptops have had cast magnesium frames and mostly plastic parts .
In the 50 years that my grandmother used her typewriter , some of the letters started to show wear .
My laptops have universally shown keyboard wear in under 2 years , most in under 1 year.If computers had an appreciable lifetime beyond two or three years , then quite possibly , we might find the same attachment , but we do n't .
The only real attachment that people have are to some keyboards , most notably the IBM Model M , which is built like an old-style typewriter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technology is technology; the more modern, the more ephemeral.
People get attached to things that have durability.My grandmother was a minor author, with five books or pamphlets under her belt.
She wrote them all, in addition to her personal correspondence, on an Underwood manual typewriter from the 1890s.
I've had it cleaned and serviced, and expect that it will continue to work just fine for another 120 years, assuming we can still get the ribbons (and if not, making them doesn't seem that daunting).
Every letter that I type on it, every journal entry, connects me to her because she used it for so long.In contrast, since my first laptop purchase in 1992 or 1993, I've had eight or nine of them.
They don't last.
There's only one that I remember fondly (and still have a working model) but the likelihood that it will work in 20 years is quite low.
The battery certainly will no longer hold any appreciable charge.
My current laptop could disappear and be replaced with a newer model and I'd not really blink.My grandmother's typewriter has a cast iron frame and steel parts.
My best laptops have had cast magnesium frames and mostly plastic parts.
In the 50 years that my grandmother used her typewriter, some of the letters started to show wear.
My laptops have universally shown keyboard wear in under 2 years, most in under 1 year.If computers had an appreciable lifetime beyond two or three years, then quite possibly, we might find the same attachment, but we don't.
The only real attachment that people have are to some keyboards, most notably the IBM Model M, which is built like an old-style typewriter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295048</id>
	<title>Douglas Adams</title>
	<author>Peregr1n</author>
	<datestamp>1259576100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can think of plenty of (perfectly sane) people who would happily bid for Douglas Adam's Mac. Especially if the files were left intact - some of them were used in constructing the Salmon of Doubt, the novel he was outlining at the time.</p><p>A collector's item only needs to be unique - it doesn't matter what it is, physically. Charlie Chaplin's bowler hat is just the same as any other bowler hat - but worth a lot more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of plenty of ( perfectly sane ) people who would happily bid for Douglas Adam 's Mac .
Especially if the files were left intact - some of them were used in constructing the Salmon of Doubt , the novel he was outlining at the time.A collector 's item only needs to be unique - it does n't matter what it is , physically .
Charlie Chaplin 's bowler hat is just the same as any other bowler hat - but worth a lot more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of plenty of (perfectly sane) people who would happily bid for Douglas Adam's Mac.
Especially if the files were left intact - some of them were used in constructing the Salmon of Doubt, the novel he was outlining at the time.A collector's item only needs to be unique - it doesn't matter what it is, physically.
Charlie Chaplin's bowler hat is just the same as any other bowler hat - but worth a lot more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292054</id>
	<title>Difference is a matter of perspective</title>
	<author>dogbertsd</author>
	<datestamp>1259677200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typewriters have a leg up on computers in that some are used for the entire career of an author, but the sentiment is not for the thing, but the person who owned it.  For example, I'm not a Apple fan per se (they make good stuff--I just don't have the bug), but I would appreciate the chance to see and fiddle with any Apple computer used by Douglas Adams to write a HHGTTG novel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typewriters have a leg up on computers in that some are used for the entire career of an author , but the sentiment is not for the thing , but the person who owned it .
For example , I 'm not a Apple fan per se ( they make good stuff--I just do n't have the bug ) , but I would appreciate the chance to see and fiddle with any Apple computer used by Douglas Adams to write a HHGTTG novel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typewriters have a leg up on computers in that some are used for the entire career of an author, but the sentiment is not for the thing, but the person who owned it.
For example, I'm not a Apple fan per se (they make good stuff--I just don't have the bug), but I would appreciate the chance to see and fiddle with any Apple computer used by Douglas Adams to write a HHGTTG novel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30300322</id>
	<title>I'd prefer to have an Industrial Age relic any day</title>
	<author>Rexdude</author>
	<datestamp>1259610480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the nostalgia for typewriters has loads in common with that for certain other artifacts - steam locomotives, vacuum tube radios, classic/vintage cars etc. Basically, stuff made before around 1970, what I call the culmination of the Industrial Age (man on the moon in '69 was its greatest achievement).<br>Back then, things were built to last- out of iron and steel, glass and wood. Way before plastics and cheap semiconductor electronics and Moore's law. Take a typewriter, or a rotary telephone or a valve radio- they feel solid and rugged and reliable compared to a laptop, cellphone or mp3 player of today. And they gather value over time as antiques.<br>Modern technology and miniaturization just doesn't have the same appeal, and thanks to engineered obsolescence, your shiny cellphones, laptops and music players won't last beyond 3-4 years.</p><p>Can you imagine, for example,  keeping a laptop or an iPod to show your grandkids?  We live in the time of super short attention spans, the internet has compounded it further. This will have a continuing impact on our collective culture going forward, as we rely more on electronic devices to produce/store our creative works. Simple case- imagine how hard it is to keep track of your digital life over the years- say old<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. or Usenet posts.<br>So antique typewriters owned by famous writers will definitely have value...no telling whether the laptops or digital tablets of today's creative people will be relevant 30 years hence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the nostalgia for typewriters has loads in common with that for certain other artifacts - steam locomotives , vacuum tube radios , classic/vintage cars etc .
Basically , stuff made before around 1970 , what I call the culmination of the Industrial Age ( man on the moon in '69 was its greatest achievement ) .Back then , things were built to last- out of iron and steel , glass and wood .
Way before plastics and cheap semiconductor electronics and Moore 's law .
Take a typewriter , or a rotary telephone or a valve radio- they feel solid and rugged and reliable compared to a laptop , cellphone or mp3 player of today .
And they gather value over time as antiques.Modern technology and miniaturization just does n't have the same appeal , and thanks to engineered obsolescence , your shiny cellphones , laptops and music players wo n't last beyond 3-4 years.Can you imagine , for example , keeping a laptop or an iPod to show your grandkids ?
We live in the time of super short attention spans , the internet has compounded it further .
This will have a continuing impact on our collective culture going forward , as we rely more on electronic devices to produce/store our creative works .
Simple case- imagine how hard it is to keep track of your digital life over the years- say old / .
or Usenet posts.So antique typewriters owned by famous writers will definitely have value...no telling whether the laptops or digital tablets of today 's creative people will be relevant 30 years hence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the nostalgia for typewriters has loads in common with that for certain other artifacts - steam locomotives, vacuum tube radios, classic/vintage cars etc.
Basically, stuff made before around 1970, what I call the culmination of the Industrial Age (man on the moon in '69 was its greatest achievement).Back then, things were built to last- out of iron and steel, glass and wood.
Way before plastics and cheap semiconductor electronics and Moore's law.
Take a typewriter, or a rotary telephone or a valve radio- they feel solid and rugged and reliable compared to a laptop, cellphone or mp3 player of today.
And they gather value over time as antiques.Modern technology and miniaturization just doesn't have the same appeal, and thanks to engineered obsolescence, your shiny cellphones, laptops and music players won't last beyond 3-4 years.Can you imagine, for example,  keeping a laptop or an iPod to show your grandkids?
We live in the time of super short attention spans, the internet has compounded it further.
This will have a continuing impact on our collective culture going forward, as we rely more on electronic devices to produce/store our creative works.
Simple case- imagine how hard it is to keep track of your digital life over the years- say old /.
or Usenet posts.So antique typewriters owned by famous writers will definitely have value...no telling whether the laptops or digital tablets of today's creative people will be relevant 30 years hence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291646</id>
	<title>I have too many computers already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259674920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But no typewriters.</p><p>Plus, wouldn't the keyboard be what you would want from someone famous?  Not the box (assuredly wiped) that stored the bits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But no typewriters.Plus , would n't the keyboard be what you would want from someone famous ?
Not the box ( assuredly wiped ) that stored the bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no typewriters.Plus, wouldn't the keyboard be what you would want from someone famous?
Not the box (assuredly wiped) that stored the bits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296500</id>
	<title>Re:Let's put this in perspective</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259592120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two differences between creating on a typewriter and a computer. First, it's a hell of a lot easier to edit on a computer; no retyping.</p><p>But most importantly, <i>no two typewriters leave exactly the same typeface on the paper</i>. Back in the typewriter's day, cops could prove that a (for instance) ransom note was typed on a particular typewriter. Anything written on Cormac McCarthy's typewriter will match the typeface of his original manuscript.</p><p>I wouldn't buy the PC Linus used at all; there would be no way to authenticate the machine unless he recorded the serial number or wrote his name on it with a sharpie, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two differences between creating on a typewriter and a computer .
First , it 's a hell of a lot easier to edit on a computer ; no retyping.But most importantly , no two typewriters leave exactly the same typeface on the paper .
Back in the typewriter 's day , cops could prove that a ( for instance ) ransom note was typed on a particular typewriter .
Anything written on Cormac McCarthy 's typewriter will match the typeface of his original manuscript.I would n't buy the PC Linus used at all ; there would be no way to authenticate the machine unless he recorded the serial number or wrote his name on it with a sharpie , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two differences between creating on a typewriter and a computer.
First, it's a hell of a lot easier to edit on a computer; no retyping.But most importantly, no two typewriters leave exactly the same typeface on the paper.
Back in the typewriter's day, cops could prove that a (for instance) ransom note was typed on a particular typewriter.
Anything written on Cormac McCarthy's typewriter will match the typeface of his original manuscript.I wouldn't buy the PC Linus used at all; there would be no way to authenticate the machine unless he recorded the serial number or wrote his name on it with a sharpie, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291822</id>
	<title>Mechanical Marvels</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1259675640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard quite a few reasons for using typewriters, especially manual. You have to think our your sentences first, since there is no real correction. On my computer I can type and type and type and edit later, but you can't do that on a typewriter (unless you want to retype everything 40 times). This forces you to put much more thought into your words and thoughts.
</p><p>The force required on the keys (if you have a manual) makes the words feel... costlier... and the sound really is great. I'd imagine that when you really get going the noise helps keep you in the groove. Actually, a good IBM Model M day do the same.
</p><p>Then there is the fiddle factor. If you gave a 12 or 14 year old a typewriter and say "write a story", all they can do is write the story. Give them a copy of Word (or any other word processor) and they can write, choose a font, a color, edit the spacing.... With a typewriter, you get words and nothing else. No fonts to change. No sizes. All the decisions are made for you.
</p><p>I'm not much of a writer. I don't own a typewriter (although my brother has beautiful one from the 40s). I can easily say that the thing I like most about this is something that probably resonates with other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers: they're <b>really mechanically complex</b>. They weigh a ton and are crammed with tons of little levers and cams and such. A seemingly almost solid block of metal articulates 30 (or so) little hammers and moves the type head perfectly, even at 120 WPM. They are little mechanical marvels. Imagine what seeing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank\_Edward\_McGurrin" title="wikipedia.org">Frank McGurrin</a> [wikipedia.org] type 90 WPM must have been like for people, raised on writing longhand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard quite a few reasons for using typewriters , especially manual .
You have to think our your sentences first , since there is no real correction .
On my computer I can type and type and type and edit later , but you ca n't do that on a typewriter ( unless you want to retype everything 40 times ) .
This forces you to put much more thought into your words and thoughts .
The force required on the keys ( if you have a manual ) makes the words feel... costlier... and the sound really is great .
I 'd imagine that when you really get going the noise helps keep you in the groove .
Actually , a good IBM Model M day do the same .
Then there is the fiddle factor .
If you gave a 12 or 14 year old a typewriter and say " write a story " , all they can do is write the story .
Give them a copy of Word ( or any other word processor ) and they can write , choose a font , a color , edit the spacing.... With a typewriter , you get words and nothing else .
No fonts to change .
No sizes .
All the decisions are made for you .
I 'm not much of a writer .
I do n't own a typewriter ( although my brother has beautiful one from the 40s ) .
I can easily say that the thing I like most about this is something that probably resonates with other /.ers : they 're really mechanically complex .
They weigh a ton and are crammed with tons of little levers and cams and such .
A seemingly almost solid block of metal articulates 30 ( or so ) little hammers and moves the type head perfectly , even at 120 WPM .
They are little mechanical marvels .
Imagine what seeing the Frank McGurrin [ wikipedia.org ] type 90 WPM must have been like for people , raised on writing longhand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard quite a few reasons for using typewriters, especially manual.
You have to think our your sentences first, since there is no real correction.
On my computer I can type and type and type and edit later, but you can't do that on a typewriter (unless you want to retype everything 40 times).
This forces you to put much more thought into your words and thoughts.
The force required on the keys (if you have a manual) makes the words feel... costlier... and the sound really is great.
I'd imagine that when you really get going the noise helps keep you in the groove.
Actually, a good IBM Model M day do the same.
Then there is the fiddle factor.
If you gave a 12 or 14 year old a typewriter and say "write a story", all they can do is write the story.
Give them a copy of Word (or any other word processor) and they can write, choose a font, a color, edit the spacing.... With a typewriter, you get words and nothing else.
No fonts to change.
No sizes.
All the decisions are made for you.
I'm not much of a writer.
I don't own a typewriter (although my brother has beautiful one from the 40s).
I can easily say that the thing I like most about this is something that probably resonates with other /.ers: they're really mechanically complex.
They weigh a ton and are crammed with tons of little levers and cams and such.
A seemingly almost solid block of metal articulates 30 (or so) little hammers and moves the type head perfectly, even at 120 WPM.
They are little mechanical marvels.
Imagine what seeing the Frank McGurrin [wikipedia.org] type 90 WPM must have been like for people, raised on writing longhand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292730</id>
	<title>Re:Underwood and Jar Jar Binks</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1259681820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just as a side note: Twain was the first known writer to submit a work typewritten... Life on the Mississippi. 1883.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as a side note : Twain was the first known writer to submit a work typewritten... Life on the Mississippi .
1883 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as a side note: Twain was the first known writer to submit a work typewritten... Life on the Mississippi.
1883.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30297152</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>DrMaurer</author>
	<datestamp>1259596080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a pair of older mechanical typewriters. I don't use them to write (which I do professionally, albeit technically). I could see using them for pre-printed forms not available in PDF, but they're there mostly because I like the idea of having them more than they are useful (free/cheap garage sale fare). I might bring one with when I move; but I haven't ever even changed the ribbon in either of them.</p><p>I write mostly on the computer, but have written stories and drafts on paper even recently. Hell, if it's a line or two or an idea, I'll SMS it (with an old crappy cell phone, not iPhone/Blackberry/etc.) to my e-mail address. It's just a matter of what is available at the time. Words are words, regardless of how they are put in the particular order you put them in.</p><p>Also, if it's a long doc, I'll print it out and edit it by hand by scribbling on the page, then make the changes in the electronic file.</p><p>That being said, I like reading from paper, not an LCD screen, but I have been eyeing an e-book reader for a while now; too bad they all seem to have pesky DRM. It's just a matter of which one is the least evil.</p><p>&gt;That said, I'd buy one of Burroughs's typewriters.</p><p>I would agree. And his stash of magazines he used for his cut-ups, too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a pair of older mechanical typewriters .
I do n't use them to write ( which I do professionally , albeit technically ) .
I could see using them for pre-printed forms not available in PDF , but they 're there mostly because I like the idea of having them more than they are useful ( free/cheap garage sale fare ) .
I might bring one with when I move ; but I have n't ever even changed the ribbon in either of them.I write mostly on the computer , but have written stories and drafts on paper even recently .
Hell , if it 's a line or two or an idea , I 'll SMS it ( with an old crappy cell phone , not iPhone/Blackberry/etc .
) to my e-mail address .
It 's just a matter of what is available at the time .
Words are words , regardless of how they are put in the particular order you put them in.Also , if it 's a long doc , I 'll print it out and edit it by hand by scribbling on the page , then make the changes in the electronic file.That being said , I like reading from paper , not an LCD screen , but I have been eyeing an e-book reader for a while now ; too bad they all seem to have pesky DRM .
It 's just a matter of which one is the least evil. &gt; That said , I 'd buy one of Burroughs 's typewriters.I would agree .
And his stash of magazines he used for his cut-ups , too .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a pair of older mechanical typewriters.
I don't use them to write (which I do professionally, albeit technically).
I could see using them for pre-printed forms not available in PDF, but they're there mostly because I like the idea of having them more than they are useful (free/cheap garage sale fare).
I might bring one with when I move; but I haven't ever even changed the ribbon in either of them.I write mostly on the computer, but have written stories and drafts on paper even recently.
Hell, if it's a line or two or an idea, I'll SMS it (with an old crappy cell phone, not iPhone/Blackberry/etc.
) to my e-mail address.
It's just a matter of what is available at the time.
Words are words, regardless of how they are put in the particular order you put them in.Also, if it's a long doc, I'll print it out and edit it by hand by scribbling on the page, then make the changes in the electronic file.That being said, I like reading from paper, not an LCD screen, but I have been eyeing an e-book reader for a while now; too bad they all seem to have pesky DRM.
It's just a matter of which one is the least evil.&gt;That said, I'd buy one of Burroughs's typewriters.I would agree.
And his stash of magazines he used for his cut-ups, too.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292316</id>
	<title>It's all about the personal value</title>
	<author>adosch</author>
	<datestamp>1259678820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think regardless of it's a typewriter, computer, laptop or whatever tool was used to create some literary genius's art simply comes down to obsession, personal value and inspiration at limitless cost.  It's kind of a no-brainer that if there's enough followers to anyone's beloved work, regardless of what it is, there's always going to be the biggest fan with the deepest pocket book that is going to snatch it up because it fills some void in them, aspires them to do something similar, goes along with with their fanatic obsession of other collected items to or it's just a good damn conversation piece.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think regardless of it 's a typewriter , computer , laptop or whatever tool was used to create some literary genius 's art simply comes down to obsession , personal value and inspiration at limitless cost .
It 's kind of a no-brainer that if there 's enough followers to anyone 's beloved work , regardless of what it is , there 's always going to be the biggest fan with the deepest pocket book that is going to snatch it up because it fills some void in them , aspires them to do something similar , goes along with with their fanatic obsession of other collected items to or it 's just a good damn conversation piece .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think regardless of it's a typewriter, computer, laptop or whatever tool was used to create some literary genius's art simply comes down to obsession, personal value and inspiration at limitless cost.
It's kind of a no-brainer that if there's enough followers to anyone's beloved work, regardless of what it is, there's always going to be the biggest fan with the deepest pocket book that is going to snatch it up because it fills some void in them, aspires them to do something similar, goes along with with their fanatic obsession of other collected items to or it's just a good damn conversation piece.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292646</id>
	<title>Underwood and Jar Jar Binks</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1259681100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of my ex-girlfriends had this gorgeous Underwood typewriter which she was given as a gift and she displays in her livingroom.  It has a nice aesthetic quality which engages the imagination.  --If it had been owned by a famous writer from its age, then it would send thrill-chills down my spine just being near it.  --Imagine Mark Twain's fountain pen (or whatever he used) on your desk.</p><p>Perhaps when enough time has passed that computers and keyboards are irrelevant, out-moded technology, where few enough still exist that they are museum pieces from a past age, then I imagine they will hold a similar aesthetic quality for people.  Especially if you happened to own one which belonged to a famous, culture-shaping individual.</p><p>But I suspect we'll have to wait another century or so before we know who will be remembered and revered and who will be lost in time.</p><p>Roddenberry?  Maybe.  I'd place my bets on Charles Schultz and Bill Waterson more than I do on Neal Stephenson.  -George Lucas, too, if he'd had the good grace to die before Phantom Menace.  (Sorry, George, but it's true.)</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my ex-girlfriends had this gorgeous Underwood typewriter which she was given as a gift and she displays in her livingroom .
It has a nice aesthetic quality which engages the imagination .
--If it had been owned by a famous writer from its age , then it would send thrill-chills down my spine just being near it .
--Imagine Mark Twain 's fountain pen ( or whatever he used ) on your desk.Perhaps when enough time has passed that computers and keyboards are irrelevant , out-moded technology , where few enough still exist that they are museum pieces from a past age , then I imagine they will hold a similar aesthetic quality for people .
Especially if you happened to own one which belonged to a famous , culture-shaping individual.But I suspect we 'll have to wait another century or so before we know who will be remembered and revered and who will be lost in time.Roddenberry ?
Maybe. I 'd place my bets on Charles Schultz and Bill Waterson more than I do on Neal Stephenson .
-George Lucas , too , if he 'd had the good grace to die before Phantom Menace .
( Sorry , George , but it 's true .
) -FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my ex-girlfriends had this gorgeous Underwood typewriter which she was given as a gift and she displays in her livingroom.
It has a nice aesthetic quality which engages the imagination.
--If it had been owned by a famous writer from its age, then it would send thrill-chills down my spine just being near it.
--Imagine Mark Twain's fountain pen (or whatever he used) on your desk.Perhaps when enough time has passed that computers and keyboards are irrelevant, out-moded technology, where few enough still exist that they are museum pieces from a past age, then I imagine they will hold a similar aesthetic quality for people.
Especially if you happened to own one which belonged to a famous, culture-shaping individual.But I suspect we'll have to wait another century or so before we know who will be remembered and revered and who will be lost in time.Roddenberry?
Maybe.  I'd place my bets on Charles Schultz and Bill Waterson more than I do on Neal Stephenson.
-George Lucas, too, if he'd had the good grace to die before Phantom Menace.
(Sorry, George, but it's true.
)-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292084</id>
	<title>Re:Let's put this in perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259677440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BeBox from Neal Stephenson would also be worse something<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if only for being a BeBox<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BeBox from Neal Stephenson would also be worse something ... if only for being a BeBox : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BeBox from Neal Stephenson would also be worse something ... if only for being a BeBox :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292124</id>
	<title>I have one of RMS's old laptops</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259677680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in my storage locker, a 386-based piece of crap from the 1990's if I remember correctly.  Maybe I'll ask him if I should auction it off to benefit the FSF.  I wonder if anyone would bid more than a couple of bucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in my storage locker , a 386-based piece of crap from the 1990 's if I remember correctly .
Maybe I 'll ask him if I should auction it off to benefit the FSF .
I wonder if anyone would bid more than a couple of bucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in my storage locker, a 386-based piece of crap from the 1990's if I remember correctly.
Maybe I'll ask him if I should auction it off to benefit the FSF.
I wonder if anyone would bid more than a couple of bucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291752</id>
	<title>Still valuable...</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1259675460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just as a typewriter's mechanism is kind of worn uniquely by the Author's use having bashed the words tangibly into the paper, I suppose the laptop hinge would be worn, or the power button the PC chassis.
<br> <br>
Maybe just sell me the the hard drive, I can marvel the was authors work briefly held by the platters as they spun.
<br> <br>
How does that not hold the same romance as the type writer? What? No, I dont need to get out more..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as a typewriter 's mechanism is kind of worn uniquely by the Author 's use having bashed the words tangibly into the paper , I suppose the laptop hinge would be worn , or the power button the PC chassis .
Maybe just sell me the the hard drive , I can marvel the was authors work briefly held by the platters as they spun .
How does that not hold the same romance as the type writer ?
What ? No , I dont need to get out more. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as a typewriter's mechanism is kind of worn uniquely by the Author's use having bashed the words tangibly into the paper, I suppose the laptop hinge would be worn, or the power button the PC chassis.
Maybe just sell me the the hard drive, I can marvel the was authors work briefly held by the platters as they spun.
How does that not hold the same romance as the type writer?
What? No, I dont need to get out more..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293542</id>
	<title>Re:Let's put this in perspective</title>
	<author>fooslacker</author>
	<datestamp>1259689440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually I think you do make an excellent point.  Even as a Linux user with an interest in computing history I'm completely uninterested in actually owning the computer Linus used and yet the typewriter is somehow more interesting.  It's mechanical and somehow more connected to the works written on it.  It's stupid and irrational but before I read your comment I would have said that there was no difference but there is something more intrinsically interesting about mechanical machines as far as having them as collectors pieces goes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I think you do make an excellent point .
Even as a Linux user with an interest in computing history I 'm completely uninterested in actually owning the computer Linus used and yet the typewriter is somehow more interesting .
It 's mechanical and somehow more connected to the works written on it .
It 's stupid and irrational but before I read your comment I would have said that there was no difference but there is something more intrinsically interesting about mechanical machines as far as having them as collectors pieces goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I think you do make an excellent point.
Even as a Linux user with an interest in computing history I'm completely uninterested in actually owning the computer Linus used and yet the typewriter is somehow more interesting.
It's mechanical and somehow more connected to the works written on it.
It's stupid and irrational but before I read your comment I would have said that there was no difference but there is something more intrinsically interesting about mechanical machines as far as having them as collectors pieces goes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292050</id>
	<title>if i were famous</title>
	<author>Ruede</author>
	<datestamp>1259677200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i would collect old used condoms and sell them on ebay.</p><p>just to laugh at the stupid masses that think they have some sort connection to me with the help of said condoms...</p><p>ridiculous this world is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i would collect old used condoms and sell them on ebay.just to laugh at the stupid masses that think they have some sort connection to me with the help of said condoms...ridiculous this world is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i would collect old used condoms and sell them on ebay.just to laugh at the stupid masses that think they have some sort connection to me with the help of said condoms...ridiculous this world is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291766</id>
	<title>Roddenberry's Mac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259675520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone remembers this right?</p><p><a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/09/18/0056220/Gene-Roddenberrys-Mac-Plus-Is-Coming-Up-For-Auction?from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Link </a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>So I think the digital material will go well in the future, but I would agree that the typewrite is timeless.  it will always work, so it has a bit of intrinsic value in addition to being a machine that produced wonderful things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone remembers this right ? Link [ slashdot.org ] So I think the digital material will go well in the future , but I would agree that the typewrite is timeless .
it will always work , so it has a bit of intrinsic value in addition to being a machine that produced wonderful things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone remembers this right?Link  [slashdot.org]So I think the digital material will go well in the future, but I would agree that the typewrite is timeless.
it will always work, so it has a bit of intrinsic value in addition to being a machine that produced wonderful things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294040</id>
	<title>Re:Neal Stephenson uses a fountain pen</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1259693520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it finally make him a decent author?<br>
<br>
The man has great ideas... but his sense of plot and wrapping up loose ends leaves a lot to be desired.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it finally make him a decent author ?
The man has great ideas... but his sense of plot and wrapping up loose ends leaves a lot to be desired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it finally make him a decent author?
The man has great ideas... but his sense of plot and wrapping up loose ends leaves a lot to be desired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292296</id>
	<title>Analog</title>
	<author>His Nastiness</author>
	<datestamp>1259678580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though mechanical, typewriters are also analog and as such have character. From the hammers to the action of the keys there is something unique about each typewriter and there is an appeal. Some typewriters have very smooth action on the keys, some are like typing with a mallet. A letter is askew, the ribbon is running out. It all marks a unique moment in time. A Word file has a date stamp. Maybe built in history but no handwritten note or edit. No XXXX through a word. No inherent mistakes.

A computer doesn't age well. I am not sure how many of these machines will be working in 50 years. There is also something definite about a typewriter. You sit down to it and there you are; no playing solitaire for hours while procrastinating. You write. You can XXXX something out or throw it away, but it can't be undone.

I can see how a keyboard might be a collectible in future years but whether it is a model M or a Das Keyboard it probably wont have the inherent appeal either aesthetic or historical that a typewriter will have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though mechanical , typewriters are also analog and as such have character .
From the hammers to the action of the keys there is something unique about each typewriter and there is an appeal .
Some typewriters have very smooth action on the keys , some are like typing with a mallet .
A letter is askew , the ribbon is running out .
It all marks a unique moment in time .
A Word file has a date stamp .
Maybe built in history but no handwritten note or edit .
No XXXX through a word .
No inherent mistakes .
A computer does n't age well .
I am not sure how many of these machines will be working in 50 years .
There is also something definite about a typewriter .
You sit down to it and there you are ; no playing solitaire for hours while procrastinating .
You write .
You can XXXX something out or throw it away , but it ca n't be undone .
I can see how a keyboard might be a collectible in future years but whether it is a model M or a Das Keyboard it probably wont have the inherent appeal either aesthetic or historical that a typewriter will have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though mechanical, typewriters are also analog and as such have character.
From the hammers to the action of the keys there is something unique about each typewriter and there is an appeal.
Some typewriters have very smooth action on the keys, some are like typing with a mallet.
A letter is askew, the ribbon is running out.
It all marks a unique moment in time.
A Word file has a date stamp.
Maybe built in history but no handwritten note or edit.
No XXXX through a word.
No inherent mistakes.
A computer doesn't age well.
I am not sure how many of these machines will be working in 50 years.
There is also something definite about a typewriter.
You sit down to it and there you are; no playing solitaire for hours while procrastinating.
You write.
You can XXXX something out or throw it away, but it can't be undone.
I can see how a keyboard might be a collectible in future years but whether it is a model M or a Das Keyboard it probably wont have the inherent appeal either aesthetic or historical that a typewriter will have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295320</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1259579760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, typewriters are very classy. A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I've heard.  They like the satisfying sounds it makes. You can't go back and edit things you've just written. It separates you from technology. It separates you from office work. You can haul it anywhere it work without worrying about battery life.  You can't get distracted and browse slashdot...</p><p>speaking of which, I should get back to my writing.</p></div><p>Actually, there were Selectrics that allowed editing - you hit an erase key and it lifted teh ink with an erasing ribbon by retyping the letter.  It did, however, require power to run.  Selectrics were a joy to use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , typewriters are very classy .
A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I 've heard .
They like the satisfying sounds it makes .
You ca n't go back and edit things you 've just written .
It separates you from technology .
It separates you from office work .
You can haul it anywhere it work without worrying about battery life .
You ca n't get distracted and browse slashdot...speaking of which , I should get back to my writing.Actually , there were Selectrics that allowed editing - you hit an erase key and it lifted teh ink with an erasing ribbon by retyping the letter .
It did , however , require power to run .
Selectrics were a joy to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, typewriters are very classy.
A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I've heard.
They like the satisfying sounds it makes.
You can't go back and edit things you've just written.
It separates you from technology.
It separates you from office work.
You can haul it anywhere it work without worrying about battery life.
You can't get distracted and browse slashdot...speaking of which, I should get back to my writing.Actually, there were Selectrics that allowed editing - you hit an erase key and it lifted teh ink with an erasing ribbon by retyping the letter.
It did, however, require power to run.
Selectrics were a joy to use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30299554</id>
	<title>Re:Neal Stephenson uses a fountain pen</title>
	<author>Ratface</author>
	<datestamp>1259606880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe you are the only commentor who picked up on this. It was the first thing I thought of when I read the post.</p><p>What is Slashdot coming to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe you are the only commentor who picked up on this .
It was the first thing I thought of when I read the post.What is Slashdot coming to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe you are the only commentor who picked up on this.
It was the first thing I thought of when I read the post.What is Slashdot coming to?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292350</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>RedWizzard</author>
	<datestamp>1259679000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, there is something different. A typewriter is a durable device that lasts many years. It will build character as it wears. On the other hand, a computer grows viruses as it ages. In addition, they aren't very durable at all (I've had 7 computers/laptops. Only one of them still works... the one I'm using now) and they don't last very many years at all.</p></div><p>I see your anecdote and raise you an anecdote: I have two Amigas from the early 90s that both still work fine (or at least did the last time I tried them a couple of years ago). I keep them purely for sentimental reasons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there is something different .
A typewriter is a durable device that lasts many years .
It will build character as it wears .
On the other hand , a computer grows viruses as it ages .
In addition , they are n't very durable at all ( I 've had 7 computers/laptops .
Only one of them still works... the one I 'm using now ) and they do n't last very many years at all.I see your anecdote and raise you an anecdote : I have two Amigas from the early 90s that both still work fine ( or at least did the last time I tried them a couple of years ago ) .
I keep them purely for sentimental reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there is something different.
A typewriter is a durable device that lasts many years.
It will build character as it wears.
On the other hand, a computer grows viruses as it ages.
In addition, they aren't very durable at all (I've had 7 computers/laptops.
Only one of them still works... the one I'm using now) and they don't last very many years at all.I see your anecdote and raise you an anecdote: I have two Amigas from the early 90s that both still work fine (or at least did the last time I tried them a couple of years ago).
I keep them purely for sentimental reasons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295694</id>
	<title>Re:Mechanical Marvels</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1259584380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you could probably make a good argument that a word processor enables writing to be more thoughtful, not less (primarily because there is no need to respect the manual effort that went into the first several pages of writing...).</p><p>Of course, a drafting and editing cycle is probably a good idea regardless of the medium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you could probably make a good argument that a word processor enables writing to be more thoughtful , not less ( primarily because there is no need to respect the manual effort that went into the first several pages of writing... ) .Of course , a drafting and editing cycle is probably a good idea regardless of the medium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you could probably make a good argument that a word processor enables writing to be more thoughtful, not less (primarily because there is no need to respect the manual effort that went into the first several pages of writing...).Of course, a drafting and editing cycle is probably a good idea regardless of the medium.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292852</id>
	<title>Re:And 100 years ago</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1259682780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A real writing instrument isn't mechanical. It requires the human hand to function, it lives and breathes the soul of a person, revealing their character and mood with every stroke.</i></p><p>I agree with your point 100\%.  Cormac McCarthy should be auctioning off his hand!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A real writing instrument is n't mechanical .
It requires the human hand to function , it lives and breathes the soul of a person , revealing their character and mood with every stroke.I agree with your point 100 \ % .
Cormac McCarthy should be auctioning off his hand !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A real writing instrument isn't mechanical.
It requires the human hand to function, it lives and breathes the soul of a person, revealing their character and mood with every stroke.I agree with your point 100\%.
Cormac McCarthy should be auctioning off his hand!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292286</id>
	<title>Re:Let's put this in perspective</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1259678520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or, How much was raised whrn Slashdot auctioned off one of its original servers a few years ago?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , How much was raised whrn Slashdot auctioned off one of its original servers a few years ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, How much was raised whrn Slashdot auctioned off one of its original servers a few years ago?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294746</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259571780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, not all of us are virgins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , not all of us are virgins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, not all of us are virgins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294338</id>
	<title>Re:What will happen is plastic in landfill</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1259696760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A 45 year old typewriter looks good on display and most probably still types perfectly well.</p></div></blockquote><p>Almost certainly the 45 year old typewriters is nothing but a brick.  Dust has settled deep into it's innards, clogging and slowing the mechanism.  The lubricants have either evaporated or dried, further gumming up the works.  The remnants of ink on the heads attracts dust too... slowly turning them into Q-tips.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Seriously, it appears that few if any of the posters here have ever actually spent much time around typewriters... And thus don't appreciate that they are mechanical devices, not magical ones.  Like all mechanical devices, typewriters (especially heavily used ones) require regular cleaning, lubrication, and adjustment to remain functional.  Without all that, they slowly but steadily become useless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A 45 year old typewriter looks good on display and most probably still types perfectly well.Almost certainly the 45 year old typewriters is nothing but a brick .
Dust has settled deep into it 's innards , clogging and slowing the mechanism .
The lubricants have either evaporated or dried , further gumming up the works .
The remnants of ink on the heads attracts dust too... slowly turning them into Q-tips .
  Seriously , it appears that few if any of the posters here have ever actually spent much time around typewriters... And thus do n't appreciate that they are mechanical devices , not magical ones .
Like all mechanical devices , typewriters ( especially heavily used ones ) require regular cleaning , lubrication , and adjustment to remain functional .
Without all that , they slowly but steadily become useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 45 year old typewriter looks good on display and most probably still types perfectly well.Almost certainly the 45 year old typewriters is nothing but a brick.
Dust has settled deep into it's innards, clogging and slowing the mechanism.
The lubricants have either evaporated or dried, further gumming up the works.
The remnants of ink on the heads attracts dust too... slowly turning them into Q-tips.
  Seriously, it appears that few if any of the posters here have ever actually spent much time around typewriters... And thus don't appreciate that they are mechanical devices, not magical ones.
Like all mechanical devices, typewriters (especially heavily used ones) require regular cleaning, lubrication, and adjustment to remain functional.
Without all that, they slowly but steadily become useless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294928</id>
	<title>A computer is more valuble!</title>
	<author>Sam Lowry</author>
	<datestamp>1259574660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would actually pay more for a computer that for a typewriter, provided that it contains the software and data the author used, except probably some sensitive personal data.</p><p>A computer can tell about a person far more than a typewriter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would actually pay more for a computer that for a typewriter , provided that it contains the software and data the author used , except probably some sensitive personal data.A computer can tell about a person far more than a typewriter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would actually pay more for a computer that for a typewriter, provided that it contains the software and data the author used, except probably some sensitive personal data.A computer can tell about a person far more than a typewriter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292348</id>
	<title>other equipment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm... I have assorted computer equipment known to have been used by Jerry Pournelle...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... I have assorted computer equipment known to have been used by Jerry Pournelle.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... I have assorted computer equipment known to have been used by Jerry Pournelle...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292092</id>
	<title>obligatory reference</title>
	<author>DavMz</author>
	<datestamp>1259677440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30307618</id>
	<title>No true fan . . .</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1259604120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What would happen decades from now if, say, Richard Powers or Neal Stephenson attempted to auction their desktops or laptops?</p></div></blockquote><p>Considering that <a href="http://www.cryptonomicon.com/chat.html" title="cryptonomicon.com">Stephenson has written more than a couple of his longer books using a fountain pen</a> [cryptonomicon.com], I don't think his desktop or laptop would go for much.  Thanks for not even bothering to look that up, though, and just throwing out his name to try and get geek cred.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would happen decades from now if , say , Richard Powers or Neal Stephenson attempted to auction their desktops or laptops ? Considering that Stephenson has written more than a couple of his longer books using a fountain pen [ cryptonomicon.com ] , I do n't think his desktop or laptop would go for much .
Thanks for not even bothering to look that up , though , and just throwing out his name to try and get geek cred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would happen decades from now if, say, Richard Powers or Neal Stephenson attempted to auction their desktops or laptops?Considering that Stephenson has written more than a couple of his longer books using a fountain pen [cryptonomicon.com], I don't think his desktop or laptop would go for much.
Thanks for not even bothering to look that up, though, and just throwing out his name to try and get geek cred.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292982</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Selfbain</author>
	<datestamp>1259683980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's also zero chance of a typewriter accidentally revealing to the world what you did on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's also zero chance of a typewriter accidentally revealing to the world what you did on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's also zero chance of a typewriter accidentally revealing to the world what you did on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296912</id>
	<title>antiquity</title>
	<author>tisch</author>
	<datestamp>1259594640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>some people place value on older-mechanically operated things, ie watches, musicboxes, pianos, etc. this typewriter falls in the same mechanical-antiquity. this is probably because mechanical objects of this sort never change.
<br> <br>
that's all i got.</htmltext>
<tokenext>some people place value on older-mechanically operated things , ie watches , musicboxes , pianos , etc .
this typewriter falls in the same mechanical-antiquity .
this is probably because mechanical objects of this sort never change .
that 's all i got .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some people place value on older-mechanically operated things, ie watches, musicboxes, pianos, etc.
this typewriter falls in the same mechanical-antiquity.
this is probably because mechanical objects of this sort never change.
that's all i got.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291692</id>
	<title>don't think it's mechanical v. digital</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1259675100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the distinguishing characteristics are more a matter of interesting v. cookie-cutter device, and durable v. throw-away. I would pay money for an interesting, well-designed, durable computer with historical value. But I'm not going to shell out for a generic PC with an expected lifespan of less than 10 years, just because someone famous used it.</p><p>In short, the Olivetti has some style, and it will likely continue to work, or can be serviced if not. That may be true of some computers, also--- older Apple products, especially the Apple ][ line and classic Macs, are already becoming collectors' items to some extent. But nobody is going to be shelling out for a 1996 Packard Bell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the distinguishing characteristics are more a matter of interesting v. cookie-cutter device , and durable v. throw-away. I would pay money for an interesting , well-designed , durable computer with historical value .
But I 'm not going to shell out for a generic PC with an expected lifespan of less than 10 years , just because someone famous used it.In short , the Olivetti has some style , and it will likely continue to work , or can be serviced if not .
That may be true of some computers , also--- older Apple products , especially the Apple ] [ line and classic Macs , are already becoming collectors ' items to some extent .
But nobody is going to be shelling out for a 1996 Packard Bell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the distinguishing characteristics are more a matter of interesting v. cookie-cutter device, and durable v. throw-away. I would pay money for an interesting, well-designed, durable computer with historical value.
But I'm not going to shell out for a generic PC with an expected lifespan of less than 10 years, just because someone famous used it.In short, the Olivetti has some style, and it will likely continue to work, or can be serviced if not.
That may be true of some computers, also--- older Apple products, especially the Apple ][ line and classic Macs, are already becoming collectors' items to some extent.
But nobody is going to be shelling out for a 1996 Packard Bell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30304106</id>
	<title>Re:Underwood and Jar Jar Binks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259580660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charles \_Schulz\_<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...not Schultz...</p><p>you've been staring at it your whole life and adding the "t", haven't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charles \ _Schulz \ _ ...not Schultz...you 've been staring at it your whole life and adding the " t " , have n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charles \_Schulz\_ ...not Schultz...you've been staring at it your whole life and adding the "t", haven't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292082</id>
	<title>We don't use typewriters anymore</title>
	<author>Garble Snarky</author>
	<datestamp>1259677380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we still used typewriters every day, nobody would pay anywhere near as much for this. Similarly, when we eventually stop using what we now know as PCs, people will pay much more for a famous PC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we still used typewriters every day , nobody would pay anywhere near as much for this .
Similarly , when we eventually stop using what we now know as PCs , people will pay much more for a famous PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we still used typewriters every day, nobody would pay anywhere near as much for this.
Similarly, when we eventually stop using what we now know as PCs, people will pay much more for a famous PC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292282</id>
	<title>Its about the mechanical system.</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1259678520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From a purely utilitarian standpoint, both devices serve their purpose, but rarity is a key factor in determining value.

The line of delineation between using a computer to generate content versus using a typewriter to generate content falls in a distinct areas.

Computers run facsimile copies of software used for utilitarian output.
Typewriters 'run' a unique hardware, the hardware defining the output, not the software.

It is the uniqueness in the typewritter's 'software', the individual nuts and bolds and keys and whatnot that make it unique.

You can reformat a computer, change its keyboard, mouse, monitor, practically everything, and the essence of that computer is lost much more easily through this ease of replacement. The typewriter is generally more impervious to this component interchangeability conformism.
<br> <br>
Also creative process dynamics come into play, the fact that you can produce a literary classic with a purely mechanical system is almost whimsical, while computers lose their uniqueness factor with most software just being a literal copy.
<br> <br>
Pedants will mod me down saying that this is just the progression of technology, but would you rather own a Ford Taurus owned by Richard Stallman or a horse carriage owned by a lesser known person of history?
<br> <br>
Then again, people offered thousands of dollars for Michael Jackson's white glove, nullifying my argument perhaps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a purely utilitarian standpoint , both devices serve their purpose , but rarity is a key factor in determining value .
The line of delineation between using a computer to generate content versus using a typewriter to generate content falls in a distinct areas .
Computers run facsimile copies of software used for utilitarian output .
Typewriters 'run ' a unique hardware , the hardware defining the output , not the software .
It is the uniqueness in the typewritter 's 'software ' , the individual nuts and bolds and keys and whatnot that make it unique .
You can reformat a computer , change its keyboard , mouse , monitor , practically everything , and the essence of that computer is lost much more easily through this ease of replacement .
The typewriter is generally more impervious to this component interchangeability conformism .
Also creative process dynamics come into play , the fact that you can produce a literary classic with a purely mechanical system is almost whimsical , while computers lose their uniqueness factor with most software just being a literal copy .
Pedants will mod me down saying that this is just the progression of technology , but would you rather own a Ford Taurus owned by Richard Stallman or a horse carriage owned by a lesser known person of history ?
Then again , people offered thousands of dollars for Michael Jackson 's white glove , nullifying my argument perhaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a purely utilitarian standpoint, both devices serve their purpose, but rarity is a key factor in determining value.
The line of delineation between using a computer to generate content versus using a typewriter to generate content falls in a distinct areas.
Computers run facsimile copies of software used for utilitarian output.
Typewriters 'run' a unique hardware, the hardware defining the output, not the software.
It is the uniqueness in the typewritter's 'software', the individual nuts and bolds and keys and whatnot that make it unique.
You can reformat a computer, change its keyboard, mouse, monitor, practically everything, and the essence of that computer is lost much more easily through this ease of replacement.
The typewriter is generally more impervious to this component interchangeability conformism.
Also creative process dynamics come into play, the fact that you can produce a literary classic with a purely mechanical system is almost whimsical, while computers lose their uniqueness factor with most software just being a literal copy.
Pedants will mod me down saying that this is just the progression of technology, but would you rather own a Ford Taurus owned by Richard Stallman or a horse carriage owned by a lesser known person of history?
Then again, people offered thousands of dollars for Michael Jackson's white glove, nullifying my argument perhaps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291764</id>
	<title>No obligatory Pattern Recognition reference?</title>
	<author>Finni</author>
	<datestamp>1259675460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing about Steven King's Wang?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing about Steven King 's Wang ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing about Steven King's Wang?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293350</id>
	<title>Computers are crap for writing.</title>
	<author>jamiethehutt</author>
	<datestamp>1259687700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've started indulging in a life long fantasy of writing and in my writing I've found it almost impossible to write on a (standard) computer. They have FAR too many distractions, even the option of being able to change you font size for me is a distraction ("oh, would it be easier to read on this screen in size 11, no, size 10 it is..."). To have something that you just sit at and fire your thoughts onto, complete with spelling mistakes, missing punctuation and shit sentences and paragraphs, is really liberating. It's what I was wanting to do all along, I didn't want to check spelling, I wanted to tell a story.<br> <br>

When writing I now use a Tandy WP-2 word processor, or "Electronic typewriter" as it's 1989 marketing called it. It cost me &pound;12 (US&pound;20). It's got a daylight reflective 8 by 80 character screen, runs for more than 24 hours on 4xAA batteries and stores around 70 pages with the 128Kb memory upgrade I got it. With it's 5Mhz Z80 processor all you can do with it is type. It works brilliantly, it's so slow that it actually cant insert text at the rate I can type. It drives me to write more and then only when the creative part is done, so it never interrupts, comes the boring part of the editing and spell checking on a full computer.<br> <br>

Before I remembered about the existence of devices like the WP-2 I was quite tempted by the idea of a type writer,  with a scanner and OCR software it's not even hard to upload your work to a computer for editing. However on portability alone the A4 sized WP-2 wins, but just encase, I do own an Olivetti as well...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've started indulging in a life long fantasy of writing and in my writing I 've found it almost impossible to write on a ( standard ) computer .
They have FAR too many distractions , even the option of being able to change you font size for me is a distraction ( " oh , would it be easier to read on this screen in size 11 , no , size 10 it is... " ) .
To have something that you just sit at and fire your thoughts onto , complete with spelling mistakes , missing punctuation and shit sentences and paragraphs , is really liberating .
It 's what I was wanting to do all along , I did n't want to check spelling , I wanted to tell a story .
When writing I now use a Tandy WP-2 word processor , or " Electronic typewriter " as it 's 1989 marketing called it .
It cost me   12 ( US   20 ) .
It 's got a daylight reflective 8 by 80 character screen , runs for more than 24 hours on 4xAA batteries and stores around 70 pages with the 128Kb memory upgrade I got it .
With it 's 5Mhz Z80 processor all you can do with it is type .
It works brilliantly , it 's so slow that it actually cant insert text at the rate I can type .
It drives me to write more and then only when the creative part is done , so it never interrupts , comes the boring part of the editing and spell checking on a full computer .
Before I remembered about the existence of devices like the WP-2 I was quite tempted by the idea of a type writer , with a scanner and OCR software it 's not even hard to upload your work to a computer for editing .
However on portability alone the A4 sized WP-2 wins , but just encase , I do own an Olivetti as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've started indulging in a life long fantasy of writing and in my writing I've found it almost impossible to write on a (standard) computer.
They have FAR too many distractions, even the option of being able to change you font size for me is a distraction ("oh, would it be easier to read on this screen in size 11, no, size 10 it is...").
To have something that you just sit at and fire your thoughts onto, complete with spelling mistakes, missing punctuation and shit sentences and paragraphs, is really liberating.
It's what I was wanting to do all along, I didn't want to check spelling, I wanted to tell a story.
When writing I now use a Tandy WP-2 word processor, or "Electronic typewriter" as it's 1989 marketing called it.
It cost me £12 (US£20).
It's got a daylight reflective 8 by 80 character screen, runs for more than 24 hours on 4xAA batteries and stores around 70 pages with the 128Kb memory upgrade I got it.
With it's 5Mhz Z80 processor all you can do with it is type.
It works brilliantly, it's so slow that it actually cant insert text at the rate I can type.
It drives me to write more and then only when the creative part is done, so it never interrupts, comes the boring part of the editing and spell checking on a full computer.
Before I remembered about the existence of devices like the WP-2 I was quite tempted by the idea of a type writer,  with a scanner and OCR software it's not even hard to upload your work to a computer for editing.
However on portability alone the A4 sized WP-2 wins, but just encase, I do own an Olivetti as well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291904</id>
	<title>Generic?</title>
	<author>perko</author>
	<datestamp>1259676180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...a generic PC, Mac, or Linux box..</p></div><p>
I am defined by my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.emacs and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bashrc, so the computer might be generic in the sense that it is mass produced, but you can find out more about me than you can about Macarthy from his Olivetti.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...a generic PC , Mac , or Linux box. . I am defined by my .emacs and .bashrc , so the computer might be generic in the sense that it is mass produced , but you can find out more about me than you can about Macarthy from his Olivetti .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...a generic PC, Mac, or Linux box..
I am defined by my .emacs and .bashrc, so the computer might be generic in the sense that it is mass produced, but you can find out more about me than you can about Macarthy from his Olivetti.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295154</id>
	<title>Neal Stephenson writes with a pen</title>
	<author>orin</author>
	<datestamp>1259577900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Neal Stephenson writes with a pen. Why would anyone want to buy his computer? <a href="http://www.inkygirl.com/neal-stephenson-writing-and-editing-with-a-fountain-pen/" title="inkygirl.com">http://www.inkygirl.com/neal-stephenson-writing-and-editing-with-a-fountain-pen/</a> [inkygirl.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neal Stephenson writes with a pen .
Why would anyone want to buy his computer ?
http : //www.inkygirl.com/neal-stephenson-writing-and-editing-with-a-fountain-pen/ [ inkygirl.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neal Stephenson writes with a pen.
Why would anyone want to buy his computer?
http://www.inkygirl.com/neal-stephenson-writing-and-editing-with-a-fountain-pen/ [inkygirl.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30307688</id>
	<title>Re:What will happen is plastic in landfill</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1259604960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>On the other hand, I have a Teletype Model 15, designed in 1930 and built during WWII, working. I've even interfaced it to RSS and SMS feeds. <b>Those machines were very well designed, overbuilt</b>, and can run for decades if properly maintained. All mine needed was a thorough cleaning and oiling. <b>All the metal is high quality steel</b>. <b>The main frame parts are steel castings, and all stamped parts are from stock at least 1/16 thick</b>.</p></div></blockquote><p>Point the first: by your own admission, this is a quality machine.  How many computers are (or ever were) designed that well?  My wife just recently threw out a plastic vacuum cleaner, and all I could think is "what a waste" as I carted it to the curb, but that thought was quickly followed by "so what? it was a cheap plastic piece of crap. maybe if it had been designed better, using higher quality materials . . . then she probably never would have bought it because it was too expensive".  Almost nothing is built to last these days; everything is built to be cheap and disposable (even high price items like cars!), and the only way to get something that will last is to be rich enough to commission it.</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>Don't overrate mechanical nostalgia, though. Most consumer mechanical devices of that period were not very good. Many contain "pot metal", with a composition so awful that parts shatter if dropped, or simply with age. Early low-end wiring materials didn't last. Early plastics became brittle with age. Those gadgets were discarded long ago. The ones still around are the good ones.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>Point the second: again, by your own admission, the reason you still *have* the teletype is not because everything from that time period was built better, it's because the <b>teletype</b> was built better.  Much like how many people believe classical music is better because all they hear is the good stuff because everyone has forgotten the bad stuff.  Also reminds me of a joke:</p><blockquote><div><p>Certain old men prefer to rise at dawn, taking a cold bath and a long<br>walk with an empty stomach and otherwise mortifying the flesh.  They<br>then point with pride to these practices as the cause of their sturdy<br>health and ripe years; the truth being that they are hearty and old,<br>not because of their habits, but in spite of them.  The reason we find<br>only robust persons doing this thing is that it has killed all the<br>others who have tried it.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , I have a Teletype Model 15 , designed in 1930 and built during WWII , working .
I 've even interfaced it to RSS and SMS feeds .
Those machines were very well designed , overbuilt , and can run for decades if properly maintained .
All mine needed was a thorough cleaning and oiling .
All the metal is high quality steel .
The main frame parts are steel castings , and all stamped parts are from stock at least 1/16 thick.Point the first : by your own admission , this is a quality machine .
How many computers are ( or ever were ) designed that well ?
My wife just recently threw out a plastic vacuum cleaner , and all I could think is " what a waste " as I carted it to the curb , but that thought was quickly followed by " so what ?
it was a cheap plastic piece of crap .
maybe if it had been designed better , using higher quality materials .
. .
then she probably never would have bought it because it was too expensive " .
Almost nothing is built to last these days ; everything is built to be cheap and disposable ( even high price items like cars !
) , and the only way to get something that will last is to be rich enough to commission it .
Do n't overrate mechanical nostalgia , though .
Most consumer mechanical devices of that period were not very good .
Many contain " pot metal " , with a composition so awful that parts shatter if dropped , or simply with age .
Early low-end wiring materials did n't last .
Early plastics became brittle with age .
Those gadgets were discarded long ago .
The ones still around are the good ones .
Point the second : again , by your own admission , the reason you still * have * the teletype is not because everything from that time period was built better , it 's because the teletype was built better .
Much like how many people believe classical music is better because all they hear is the good stuff because everyone has forgotten the bad stuff .
Also reminds me of a joke : Certain old men prefer to rise at dawn , taking a cold bath and a longwalk with an empty stomach and otherwise mortifying the flesh .
Theythen point with pride to these practices as the cause of their sturdyhealth and ripe years ; the truth being that they are hearty and old,not because of their habits , but in spite of them .
The reason we findonly robust persons doing this thing is that it has killed all theothers who have tried it .
                                -- Ambrose Bierce , " The Devil 's Dictionary "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, I have a Teletype Model 15, designed in 1930 and built during WWII, working.
I've even interfaced it to RSS and SMS feeds.
Those machines were very well designed, overbuilt, and can run for decades if properly maintained.
All mine needed was a thorough cleaning and oiling.
All the metal is high quality steel.
The main frame parts are steel castings, and all stamped parts are from stock at least 1/16 thick.Point the first: by your own admission, this is a quality machine.
How many computers are (or ever were) designed that well?
My wife just recently threw out a plastic vacuum cleaner, and all I could think is "what a waste" as I carted it to the curb, but that thought was quickly followed by "so what?
it was a cheap plastic piece of crap.
maybe if it had been designed better, using higher quality materials .
. .
then she probably never would have bought it because it was too expensive".
Almost nothing is built to last these days; everything is built to be cheap and disposable (even high price items like cars!
), and the only way to get something that will last is to be rich enough to commission it.
Don't overrate mechanical nostalgia, though.
Most consumer mechanical devices of that period were not very good.
Many contain "pot metal", with a composition so awful that parts shatter if dropped, or simply with age.
Early low-end wiring materials didn't last.
Early plastics became brittle with age.
Those gadgets were discarded long ago.
The ones still around are the good ones.
Point the second: again, by your own admission, the reason you still *have* the teletype is not because everything from that time period was built better, it's because the teletype was built better.
Much like how many people believe classical music is better because all they hear is the good stuff because everyone has forgotten the bad stuff.
Also reminds me of a joke:Certain old men prefer to rise at dawn, taking a cold bath and a longwalk with an empty stomach and otherwise mortifying the flesh.
Theythen point with pride to these practices as the cause of their sturdyhealth and ripe years; the truth being that they are hearty and old,not because of their habits, but in spite of them.
The reason we findonly robust persons doing this thing is that it has killed all theothers who have tried it.
                                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30297762</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1259598960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, there is something different.  A computer is a durable device that lasts many years.  It will build character as it wears.  On the other hand, neural implants tend to have synaptic interface fuzziness as it ages.  They aren't very durable at all, and are currently locked into a yearly upgrade cycle.  Most of us have gotten to the point where we replace them during our yearly medical checkups to a model with better pseudointelligence and more capacity.
</p><p>
Also, computers are very classy.  A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I've heard.  They like the satisfying sounds it makes.  They like having to think linearly about a story, and seeing the displayed text.  It separates you from the novel.  It forces you to sit down at one location and prepare before writing.  With the additional preparation needed, one feels more justified in denying an incoming neural call from the office, or checking the latest news headlines...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there is something different .
A computer is a durable device that lasts many years .
It will build character as it wears .
On the other hand , neural implants tend to have synaptic interface fuzziness as it ages .
They are n't very durable at all , and are currently locked into a yearly upgrade cycle .
Most of us have gotten to the point where we replace them during our yearly medical checkups to a model with better pseudointelligence and more capacity .
Also , computers are very classy .
A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I 've heard .
They like the satisfying sounds it makes .
They like having to think linearly about a story , and seeing the displayed text .
It separates you from the novel .
It forces you to sit down at one location and prepare before writing .
With the additional preparation needed , one feels more justified in denying an incoming neural call from the office , or checking the latest news headlines.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there is something different.
A computer is a durable device that lasts many years.
It will build character as it wears.
On the other hand, neural implants tend to have synaptic interface fuzziness as it ages.
They aren't very durable at all, and are currently locked into a yearly upgrade cycle.
Most of us have gotten to the point where we replace them during our yearly medical checkups to a model with better pseudointelligence and more capacity.
Also, computers are very classy.
A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I've heard.
They like the satisfying sounds it makes.
They like having to think linearly about a story, and seeing the displayed text.
It separates you from the novel.
It forces you to sit down at one location and prepare before writing.
With the additional preparation needed, one feels more justified in denying an incoming neural call from the office, or checking the latest news headlines...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292160</id>
	<title>Santa Fe Institute</title>
	<author>Jennifer3000</author>
	<datestamp>1259677860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's Santa Fe, not "Sante" Fe!  Here in Santa Fe, we mock idiots who can't type properly, but that commonplace error is beyond my understanding...

The letters "a" and "e" aren't even next to each other on a qwerty keyboard, so I can't figure out why that error occurs at least one out of 20 times when someone types "Santa Fe".  I must see it once a day...  credit card receipts from the ultra-crappy Best Buy here have stated "Sante Fe" since they opened -- eight years ago!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Santa Fe , not " Sante " Fe !
Here in Santa Fe , we mock idiots who ca n't type properly , but that commonplace error is beyond my understanding.. . The letters " a " and " e " are n't even next to each other on a qwerty keyboard , so I ca n't figure out why that error occurs at least one out of 20 times when someone types " Santa Fe " .
I must see it once a day... credit card receipts from the ultra-crappy Best Buy here have stated " Sante Fe " since they opened -- eight years ago !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Santa Fe, not "Sante" Fe!
Here in Santa Fe, we mock idiots who can't type properly, but that commonplace error is beyond my understanding...

The letters "a" and "e" aren't even next to each other on a qwerty keyboard, so I can't figure out why that error occurs at least one out of 20 times when someone types "Santa Fe".
I must see it once a day...  credit card receipts from the ultra-crappy Best Buy here have stated "Sante Fe" since they opened -- eight years ago!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292342</id>
	<title>Re:don't think it's mechanical v. digital</title>
	<author>notarockstar1979</author>
	<datestamp>1259679000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But no one wants my TI-99/4a</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But no one wants my TI-99/4a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But no one wants my TI-99/4a</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291688</id>
	<title>What will happen is plastic in landfill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259675040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A 45 year old typewriter looks good on display and most probably still types perfectly well. A 45 year old Dell will be a pile of plastic dust with an exploded lithium battery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A 45 year old typewriter looks good on display and most probably still types perfectly well .
A 45 year old Dell will be a pile of plastic dust with an exploded lithium battery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 45 year old typewriter looks good on display and most probably still types perfectly well.
A 45 year old Dell will be a pile of plastic dust with an exploded lithium battery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30298744</id>
	<title>Re:What will happen is plastic in landfill</title>
	<author>troll8901</author>
	<datestamp>1259603520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have a Teletype Model 15, designed in 1930 and built during WWII<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... All mine needed was a <a href="http://www.aetherltd.com/refurbishing.html" title="aetherltd.com" rel="nofollow">thorough cleaning and oiling.</a> [aetherltd.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... And the machine has over 500 oiling points<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>I've read through the two links, and I'm amazed at the level of attention spent on the work.</p><p>You also built the ragdoll physics engine?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Teletype Model 15 , designed in 1930 and built during WWII ... All mine needed was a thorough cleaning and oiling .
[ aetherltd.com ] ... And the machine has over 500 oiling points ...I 've read through the two links , and I 'm amazed at the level of attention spent on the work.You also built the ragdoll physics engine ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Teletype Model 15, designed in 1930 and built during WWII ... All mine needed was a thorough cleaning and oiling.
[aetherltd.com] ... And the machine has over 500 oiling points ...I've read through the two links, and I'm amazed at the level of attention spent on the work.You also built the ragdoll physics engine?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291832</id>
	<title>In 40 years I plan on donating...</title>
	<author>tw45</author>
	<datestamp>1259675700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... my google docs login and my direct neural interface.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... my google docs login and my direct neural interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... my google docs login and my direct neural interface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292008</id>
	<title>Writing has gone downhill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259676900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since we stopped using the stylus on clay tablets.</p><p>I blame those quill users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since we stopped using the stylus on clay tablets.I blame those quill users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since we stopped using the stylus on clay tablets.I blame those quill users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296482</id>
	<title>Re:Not less valuable; possibly more.</title>
	<author>zoeblade</author>
	<datestamp>1259591940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anyway, as for writing, it's like anything else on a computer.  I don't think of it as "using a computer" - it's just a tool that lets me do what I want.</p></div><p>I think Dave Gorman's quote about trying to write a novel is quite apt:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"My computer is attached to the Internet. The Internet contains everything in the whole wide world ever. I don't know about you, but I sometimes find everything in the whole wide world ever to be a bit distracting."</p></div><p>I'd love to hear how other people work around this.  Personally, I get almost all my fiction writing done using an eee PC while I commute to work and back by train.  Using text mode only (vim in FreeDOS), my text editor takes up the full screen so there are no distractions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyway , as for writing , it 's like anything else on a computer .
I do n't think of it as " using a computer " - it 's just a tool that lets me do what I want.I think Dave Gorman 's quote about trying to write a novel is quite apt : " My computer is attached to the Internet .
The Internet contains everything in the whole wide world ever .
I do n't know about you , but I sometimes find everything in the whole wide world ever to be a bit distracting .
" I 'd love to hear how other people work around this .
Personally , I get almost all my fiction writing done using an eee PC while I commute to work and back by train .
Using text mode only ( vim in FreeDOS ) , my text editor takes up the full screen so there are no distractions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyway, as for writing, it's like anything else on a computer.
I don't think of it as "using a computer" - it's just a tool that lets me do what I want.I think Dave Gorman's quote about trying to write a novel is quite apt:"My computer is attached to the Internet.
The Internet contains everything in the whole wide world ever.
I don't know about you, but I sometimes find everything in the whole wide world ever to be a bit distracting.
"I'd love to hear how other people work around this.
Personally, I get almost all my fiction writing done using an eee PC while I commute to work and back by train.
Using text mode only (vim in FreeDOS), my text editor takes up the full screen so there are no distractions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296714</id>
	<title>Stephenson writes by hand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stephenson wrote his Baroque cycle on paper long-hand. Most of the early additions had pictures of the reams of paper stacked up next to him. Something like 3 feet tall. <a href="http://www.nealstephenson.com/photos.htm" title="nealstephenson.com" rel="nofollow">Pictures Here</a> [nealstephenson.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stephenson wrote his Baroque cycle on paper long-hand .
Most of the early additions had pictures of the reams of paper stacked up next to him .
Something like 3 feet tall .
Pictures Here [ nealstephenson.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stephenson wrote his Baroque cycle on paper long-hand.
Most of the early additions had pictures of the reams of paper stacked up next to him.
Something like 3 feet tall.
Pictures Here [nealstephenson.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291912</id>
	<title>"Settling aside"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259676240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what would be valuable? Less asking stupid questions on slashdot, more learning English.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what would be valuable ?
Less asking stupid questions on slashdot , more learning English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what would be valuable?
Less asking stupid questions on slashdot, more learning English.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291712</id>
	<title>Decades from now...</title>
	<author>Crudely\_Indecent</author>
	<datestamp>1259675220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The McCarthy typewriter will still be a functional typewriter (assuming it's taken care of by the auction winner)</p><p>A PC or laptop decades later would be more useful as a paperweight and would have only nostalgic value, and only to those to whom it held meaning.</p><p>Perhaps the typewriter auction winner will author something that gains acclaim.  Decades later, the PC or laptop auction winner would be lucky to get the device to do anything worthwhile compared to modern systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The McCarthy typewriter will still be a functional typewriter ( assuming it 's taken care of by the auction winner ) A PC or laptop decades later would be more useful as a paperweight and would have only nostalgic value , and only to those to whom it held meaning.Perhaps the typewriter auction winner will author something that gains acclaim .
Decades later , the PC or laptop auction winner would be lucky to get the device to do anything worthwhile compared to modern systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The McCarthy typewriter will still be a functional typewriter (assuming it's taken care of by the auction winner)A PC or laptop decades later would be more useful as a paperweight and would have only nostalgic value, and only to those to whom it held meaning.Perhaps the typewriter auction winner will author something that gains acclaim.
Decades later, the PC or laptop auction winner would be lucky to get the device to do anything worthwhile compared to modern systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291786</id>
	<title>Roddenberry&rsquo;s Mac</title>
	<author>stressclq</author>
	<datestamp>1259675520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering Gene Roddenberry&rsquo;s Mac was auctioned for $8,260 back in October which was also discussed <a href="http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/18/0056220" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [slashdot.org], I'll have to say yes, it would make some money, though the number would probably depend on the owners popularity.

For example I am no crazy fan of Cormac McCarthy, but just imagine what the Ubuntu box of someone in the likes of Elvis or Marilyn Monroe or Linus Torvalds (as mentioned above) would fetch if it was to be auctioned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering Gene Roddenberry    s Mac was auctioned for $ 8,260 back in October which was also discussed here [ slashdot.org ] , I 'll have to say yes , it would make some money , though the number would probably depend on the owners popularity .
For example I am no crazy fan of Cormac McCarthy , but just imagine what the Ubuntu box of someone in the likes of Elvis or Marilyn Monroe or Linus Torvalds ( as mentioned above ) would fetch if it was to be auctioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering Gene Roddenberry’s Mac was auctioned for $8,260 back in October which was also discussed here [slashdot.org], I'll have to say yes, it would make some money, though the number would probably depend on the owners popularity.
For example I am no crazy fan of Cormac McCarthy, but just imagine what the Ubuntu box of someone in the likes of Elvis or Marilyn Monroe or Linus Torvalds (as mentioned above) would fetch if it was to be auctioned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292588</id>
	<title>You're thinking too materialistic (was Re:Yes)</title>
	<author>fedxone-v86</author>
	<datestamp>1259680680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I'm famous I'll be auctioning my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. account. See how well it fares:</p><p>Yes, there is something different. A<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. account is a durable device that lasts many years. It will build character as it wears.</p><p>[rambling about computers redacted]</p><p>Also,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. accounts are very classy. A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I've heard. They like the satisfying sounds it makes. You can't go back and edit things you've just written. It separates you from technology. It separates you from office work. You can haul it anywhere it work without worrying about battery life. You can't get distracted and browse slashdot...</p><p>Sorry about the last sentence, I was browsing slashdot while typing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I 'm famous I 'll be auctioning my / .
account. See how well it fares : Yes , there is something different .
A / .
account is a durable device that lasts many years .
It will build character as it wears .
[ rambling about computers redacted ] Also , / .
accounts are very classy .
A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I 've heard .
They like the satisfying sounds it makes .
You ca n't go back and edit things you 've just written .
It separates you from technology .
It separates you from office work .
You can haul it anywhere it work without worrying about battery life .
You ca n't get distracted and browse slashdot...Sorry about the last sentence , I was browsing slashdot while typing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I'm famous I'll be auctioning my /.
account. See how well it fares:Yes, there is something different.
A /.
account is a durable device that lasts many years.
It will build character as it wears.
[rambling about computers redacted]Also, /.
accounts are very classy.
A lot of writers still use them for many reasons I've heard.
They like the satisfying sounds it makes.
You can't go back and edit things you've just written.
It separates you from technology.
It separates you from office work.
You can haul it anywhere it work without worrying about battery life.
You can't get distracted and browse slashdot...Sorry about the last sentence, I was browsing slashdot while typing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291884</id>
	<title>Symbolism for Writing</title>
	<author>Taur0</author>
	<datestamp>1259676000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Note that a typewriter is synonymous with writing, there is nothing else you can do on it. A type writer which has written a great piece of writing is like a sword used at a famous battle or the hockey stick that belonged to a famous hockey player. It is symbolic.

A computer is not so in the same way, because it is not exclusive to writing. While you can write on a computer, it's not just limited to that. In fact there are almost infinite uses for a computer. However they are especially associated with coding and programming.  So while you might expect that Linus's original computer would fetch a handsome price, you would not, for example, expect his telephone too. It's just not symbolic of what he does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that a typewriter is synonymous with writing , there is nothing else you can do on it .
A type writer which has written a great piece of writing is like a sword used at a famous battle or the hockey stick that belonged to a famous hockey player .
It is symbolic .
A computer is not so in the same way , because it is not exclusive to writing .
While you can write on a computer , it 's not just limited to that .
In fact there are almost infinite uses for a computer .
However they are especially associated with coding and programming .
So while you might expect that Linus 's original computer would fetch a handsome price , you would not , for example , expect his telephone too .
It 's just not symbolic of what he does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that a typewriter is synonymous with writing, there is nothing else you can do on it.
A type writer which has written a great piece of writing is like a sword used at a famous battle or the hockey stick that belonged to a famous hockey player.
It is symbolic.
A computer is not so in the same way, because it is not exclusive to writing.
While you can write on a computer, it's not just limited to that.
In fact there are almost infinite uses for a computer.
However they are especially associated with coding and programming.
So while you might expect that Linus's original computer would fetch a handsome price, you would not, for example, expect his telephone too.
It's just not symbolic of what he does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293328</id>
	<title>Stevenson writes with a pen on paper</title>
	<author>alex\_guy\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1259687460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Neil Stevenson doesn't write with a computer. He writes with pen and paper. Apparently, the first drafts of his novels are as tall as a person.

<p>
How do I know this? My best friend worked with Stevenson at Bezos's space venture Blue. (Neither of them are still there.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neil Stevenson does n't write with a computer .
He writes with pen and paper .
Apparently , the first drafts of his novels are as tall as a person .
How do I know this ?
My best friend worked with Stevenson at Bezos 's space venture Blue .
( Neither of them are still there .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neil Stevenson doesn't write with a computer.
He writes with pen and paper.
Apparently, the first drafts of his novels are as tall as a person.
How do I know this?
My best friend worked with Stevenson at Bezos's space venture Blue.
(Neither of them are still there.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30298564</id>
	<title>Re:No obligatory Pattern Recognition reference?</title>
	<author>Xunker</author>
	<datestamp>1259602740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>obligatory explanation:</p><p>In William Gibson's novel "Pattern Recognition", one of the incidental characters is an antique trader who specializes in famous technological pieces.  At one point of the story he is in negotiation to buy the Wang word processor that Steven King used early in his career.</p><blockquote><div><p>"Yes," says Ngemi, with quiet pride, "but now I am negotiating to buy Stephen King's Wang."</p><p>Cayce stares at him.</p><p>"The provenance," Ngemi assures her, "is immaculate, the price high, but, I believe, reasonable. A huge thing,<br>one of the early dedicated word processors. Shipping alone will require the funds I had earmarked for the<br>scaffolding, and more."</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>obligatory explanation : In William Gibson 's novel " Pattern Recognition " , one of the incidental characters is an antique trader who specializes in famous technological pieces .
At one point of the story he is in negotiation to buy the Wang word processor that Steven King used early in his career .
" Yes , " says Ngemi , with quiet pride , " but now I am negotiating to buy Stephen King 's Wang .
" Cayce stares at him .
" The provenance , " Ngemi assures her , " is immaculate , the price high , but , I believe , reasonable .
A huge thing,one of the early dedicated word processors .
Shipping alone will require the funds I had earmarked for thescaffolding , and more .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>obligatory explanation:In William Gibson's novel "Pattern Recognition", one of the incidental characters is an antique trader who specializes in famous technological pieces.
At one point of the story he is in negotiation to buy the Wang word processor that Steven King used early in his career.
"Yes," says Ngemi, with quiet pride, "but now I am negotiating to buy Stephen King's Wang.
"Cayce stares at him.
"The provenance," Ngemi assures her, "is immaculate, the price high, but, I believe, reasonable.
A huge thing,one of the early dedicated word processors.
Shipping alone will require the funds I had earmarked for thescaffolding, and more.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293162</id>
	<title>Re:Not less valuable; possibly more.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ideally the hard disks of any auctioned computers by renown authors would be removed and destroyed or at least securely erased. Ideally...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideally the hard disks of any auctioned computers by renown authors would be removed and destroyed or at least securely erased .
Ideally.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideally the hard disks of any auctioned computers by renown authors would be removed and destroyed or at least securely erased.
Ideally...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291828</id>
	<title>A PC has no soul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259675700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its just a box, as bland as the next guys.</p><p>Now, real honest to god typewriter has character, every one is unique.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its just a box , as bland as the next guys.Now , real honest to god typewriter has character , every one is unique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its just a box, as bland as the next guys.Now, real honest to god typewriter has character, every one is unique.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292214</id>
	<title>Modern software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259678160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's harder when a computer is only 7 or less years old to you, as it may feel slow or "old" and you may be sick of it wanting a new device. But if you were to take what you have now, and board it up for 10 years, your opinion will change.<br>What you have now, won't be able to run programs created 10 years from now. You won't feel like you HAVE to update the device, and in fact because of this you may look at what it's still GOOD at rather than what it may be POOR at.</p><p>I have an Atari portfolio. It only has a serial connection, and a telephone connection. The text editor is no more fancy than notepad. The entire thing runs on a mini version of DOS. However it easier to type on than modern devices of it's size. The 3AAA batteries can really last. It fits right in my pocket, with a full keyboard. Between this and my Palm Centro, I don't need a laptop for road trips.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's harder when a computer is only 7 or less years old to you , as it may feel slow or " old " and you may be sick of it wanting a new device .
But if you were to take what you have now , and board it up for 10 years , your opinion will change.What you have now , wo n't be able to run programs created 10 years from now .
You wo n't feel like you HAVE to update the device , and in fact because of this you may look at what it 's still GOOD at rather than what it may be POOR at.I have an Atari portfolio .
It only has a serial connection , and a telephone connection .
The text editor is no more fancy than notepad .
The entire thing runs on a mini version of DOS .
However it easier to type on than modern devices of it 's size .
The 3AAA batteries can really last .
It fits right in my pocket , with a full keyboard .
Between this and my Palm Centro , I do n't need a laptop for road trips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's harder when a computer is only 7 or less years old to you, as it may feel slow or "old" and you may be sick of it wanting a new device.
But if you were to take what you have now, and board it up for 10 years, your opinion will change.What you have now, won't be able to run programs created 10 years from now.
You won't feel like you HAVE to update the device, and in fact because of this you may look at what it's still GOOD at rather than what it may be POOR at.I have an Atari portfolio.
It only has a serial connection, and a telephone connection.
The text editor is no more fancy than notepad.
The entire thing runs on a mini version of DOS.
However it easier to type on than modern devices of it's size.
The 3AAA batteries can really last.
It fits right in my pocket, with a full keyboard.
Between this and my Palm Centro, I don't need a laptop for road trips.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294648</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>garynuman</author>
	<datestamp>1259613720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>why on slashdot is someone who has owned 7 laptops, of which only one (1) still works modded +5, seriously? who doesn't keep their old lappies alive for weekend project fun? build a new LAMP server, yes please, add a usb hub for a NAS, why not! home media server, sure! unnecessarily challenging hackintosh? why not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... i know this is off topic, but still, one needs to, i dunno, be green... and if David Foster Wallace wrote Infinite Jest on a computer i would pay a hell of alot for it, just my 2 cents....</htmltext>
<tokenext>why on slashdot is someone who has owned 7 laptops , of which only one ( 1 ) still works modded + 5 , seriously ?
who does n't keep their old lappies alive for weekend project fun ?
build a new LAMP server , yes please , add a usb hub for a NAS , why not !
home media server , sure !
unnecessarily challenging hackintosh ?
why not .... i know this is off topic , but still , one needs to , i dunno , be green... and if David Foster Wallace wrote Infinite Jest on a computer i would pay a hell of alot for it , just my 2 cents... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why on slashdot is someone who has owned 7 laptops, of which only one (1) still works modded +5, seriously?
who doesn't keep their old lappies alive for weekend project fun?
build a new LAMP server, yes please, add a usb hub for a NAS, why not!
home media server, sure!
unnecessarily challenging hackintosh?
why not .... i know this is off topic, but still, one needs to, i dunno, be green... and if David Foster Wallace wrote Infinite Jest on a computer i would pay a hell of alot for it, just my 2 cents....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292138</id>
	<title>Physicality</title>
	<author>adoarns</author>
	<datestamp>1259677800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Olivetti has worth because of its link to a physical product. I wouldn't value the PC or Mac of an author as much because it was only a general-purpose machine that happened to be used as a literary tool by virtue of the software on it. And I wouldn't pay anything for a decades-old binary image of Emacs. When writing on computer, the text becomes its own thing, it transcends the physical. In some ways, I dislike it because of that. I really enjoy  the physical link with the text I get when writing with pen, when clacking on a manual typewriter, or otherwise. The advantages of text sublimated from the physical are great--better storage and search, versioning, editing, independent control of presentation, logical layout, etc. But it makes the tool used to make it less interesting, more mundane, more merely processing. The Olivetti, like my Pelikan, are precision tools purposely made for writing. In this way they become the paraphernalia of the writer, the adjutants of his talent. You pay for that connection. With stuff like this it's always the connection that's important. Beige boxes--even flashy Macs--don't have it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Olivetti has worth because of its link to a physical product .
I would n't value the PC or Mac of an author as much because it was only a general-purpose machine that happened to be used as a literary tool by virtue of the software on it .
And I would n't pay anything for a decades-old binary image of Emacs .
When writing on computer , the text becomes its own thing , it transcends the physical .
In some ways , I dislike it because of that .
I really enjoy the physical link with the text I get when writing with pen , when clacking on a manual typewriter , or otherwise .
The advantages of text sublimated from the physical are great--better storage and search , versioning , editing , independent control of presentation , logical layout , etc .
But it makes the tool used to make it less interesting , more mundane , more merely processing .
The Olivetti , like my Pelikan , are precision tools purposely made for writing .
In this way they become the paraphernalia of the writer , the adjutants of his talent .
You pay for that connection .
With stuff like this it 's always the connection that 's important .
Beige boxes--even flashy Macs--do n't have it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Olivetti has worth because of its link to a physical product.
I wouldn't value the PC or Mac of an author as much because it was only a general-purpose machine that happened to be used as a literary tool by virtue of the software on it.
And I wouldn't pay anything for a decades-old binary image of Emacs.
When writing on computer, the text becomes its own thing, it transcends the physical.
In some ways, I dislike it because of that.
I really enjoy  the physical link with the text I get when writing with pen, when clacking on a manual typewriter, or otherwise.
The advantages of text sublimated from the physical are great--better storage and search, versioning, editing, independent control of presentation, logical layout, etc.
But it makes the tool used to make it less interesting, more mundane, more merely processing.
The Olivetti, like my Pelikan, are precision tools purposely made for writing.
In this way they become the paraphernalia of the writer, the adjutants of his talent.
You pay for that connection.
With stuff like this it's always the connection that's important.
Beige boxes--even flashy Macs--don't have it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30308440</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259833680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, a computer grows viruses as it ages.</p></div><p>You use Windows, don't you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , a computer grows viruses as it ages.You use Windows , do n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, a computer grows viruses as it ages.You use Windows, don't you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292196</id>
	<title>Re:Decades from now...</title>
	<author>the phantom</author>
	<datestamp>1259678040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it interesting that you implicitly assume that the winner of the auction might intend to use the typewriter to produce something.  I'm sorry, but you don't shell out the kind of money that this typewriter might be expected to go for in order to buy a tool for writing.  You shell out that money in order to have an object whose value is greater than its utility because it has been involved in some kind of event or process of significance.  If a person wanted to buy a typewriter for typing, there are many of them still running around, and they can often be found relatively cheaply at estate sales, or on eBay (they seem to be going for $50-$500).<br> <br>

In the same way, there are plenty of collectors out there who would almost certainly be willing to spend a fair chunk of change to get their hands on an Apple 1, a signed Mac II, or something similar.  They don't want a tool---they want a piece of history.  The functionality of the object is secondary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it interesting that you implicitly assume that the winner of the auction might intend to use the typewriter to produce something .
I 'm sorry , but you do n't shell out the kind of money that this typewriter might be expected to go for in order to buy a tool for writing .
You shell out that money in order to have an object whose value is greater than its utility because it has been involved in some kind of event or process of significance .
If a person wanted to buy a typewriter for typing , there are many of them still running around , and they can often be found relatively cheaply at estate sales , or on eBay ( they seem to be going for $ 50- $ 500 ) .
In the same way , there are plenty of collectors out there who would almost certainly be willing to spend a fair chunk of change to get their hands on an Apple 1 , a signed Mac II , or something similar .
They do n't want a tool---they want a piece of history .
The functionality of the object is secondary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it interesting that you implicitly assume that the winner of the auction might intend to use the typewriter to produce something.
I'm sorry, but you don't shell out the kind of money that this typewriter might be expected to go for in order to buy a tool for writing.
You shell out that money in order to have an object whose value is greater than its utility because it has been involved in some kind of event or process of significance.
If a person wanted to buy a typewriter for typing, there are many of them still running around, and they can often be found relatively cheaply at estate sales, or on eBay (they seem to be going for $50-$500).
In the same way, there are plenty of collectors out there who would almost certainly be willing to spend a fair chunk of change to get their hands on an Apple 1, a signed Mac II, or something similar.
They don't want a tool---they want a piece of history.
The functionality of the object is secondary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30298000</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259600040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know the difference between $0.02 and 0.02 cents, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know the difference between $ 0.02 and 0.02 cents , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know the difference between $0.02 and 0.02 cents, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292204</id>
	<title>Not less valuable; possibly more.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259678040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a writer (or at least, I've written a couple of novels and a few hundred thousand spare words that are lying around waiting to be turned into novels, plus assorted other writing), and I have always written exclusively on a computer.</p><p>I should be clear that I'm not trying to compare myself with Stephenson or McCarthy; I'm fully in the amateur rank, but I would say that this is mostly a personal aesthetic thing.  It's sort of related to the reverence people who hate "digital books" hold for paper copies; they'll give you loads of ultimately irrational excuses down to the smell of the paper as to why they prefer to read a "real book."  I've been reading novels on a screen for years, and I've discovered that I quite like the ability to zoom in on small-font text or to hold thousands of books in the footprint of one on my desk (it's really a coffee table but shhh!).</p><p>Anyway, as for writing, it's like anything else on a computer.  I don't think of it as "using a computer" - it's just a tool that lets me do what I want.  Personally, I'd think that the ability to get a peek into how these guys organized their lives would be quite interesting (stumbling over their porn stashes, probably not so much, but undoubtedly revealing (hah!)).  Think about all of the incidental stuff you could learn; art preferences (screensavers and so on), unfinished and aborted works, etc...  I'd buy one from an author I liked, if I wasn't guaranteed to die poor by virtue of trying to be an artist myself.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a writer ( or at least , I 've written a couple of novels and a few hundred thousand spare words that are lying around waiting to be turned into novels , plus assorted other writing ) , and I have always written exclusively on a computer.I should be clear that I 'm not trying to compare myself with Stephenson or McCarthy ; I 'm fully in the amateur rank , but I would say that this is mostly a personal aesthetic thing .
It 's sort of related to the reverence people who hate " digital books " hold for paper copies ; they 'll give you loads of ultimately irrational excuses down to the smell of the paper as to why they prefer to read a " real book .
" I 've been reading novels on a screen for years , and I 've discovered that I quite like the ability to zoom in on small-font text or to hold thousands of books in the footprint of one on my desk ( it 's really a coffee table but shhh !
) .Anyway , as for writing , it 's like anything else on a computer .
I do n't think of it as " using a computer " - it 's just a tool that lets me do what I want .
Personally , I 'd think that the ability to get a peek into how these guys organized their lives would be quite interesting ( stumbling over their porn stashes , probably not so much , but undoubtedly revealing ( hah ! ) ) .
Think about all of the incidental stuff you could learn ; art preferences ( screensavers and so on ) , unfinished and aborted works , etc... I 'd buy one from an author I liked , if I was n't guaranteed to die poor by virtue of trying to be an artist myself .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a writer (or at least, I've written a couple of novels and a few hundred thousand spare words that are lying around waiting to be turned into novels, plus assorted other writing), and I have always written exclusively on a computer.I should be clear that I'm not trying to compare myself with Stephenson or McCarthy; I'm fully in the amateur rank, but I would say that this is mostly a personal aesthetic thing.
It's sort of related to the reverence people who hate "digital books" hold for paper copies; they'll give you loads of ultimately irrational excuses down to the smell of the paper as to why they prefer to read a "real book.
"  I've been reading novels on a screen for years, and I've discovered that I quite like the ability to zoom in on small-font text or to hold thousands of books in the footprint of one on my desk (it's really a coffee table but shhh!
).Anyway, as for writing, it's like anything else on a computer.
I don't think of it as "using a computer" - it's just a tool that lets me do what I want.
Personally, I'd think that the ability to get a peek into how these guys organized their lives would be quite interesting (stumbling over their porn stashes, probably not so much, but undoubtedly revealing (hah!)).
Think about all of the incidental stuff you could learn; art preferences (screensavers and so on), unfinished and aborted works, etc...  I'd buy one from an author I liked, if I wasn't guaranteed to die poor by virtue of trying to be an artist myself.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291686</id>
	<title>typewriter $$$  PC</title>
	<author>jfb2252</author>
	<datestamp>1259675040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would offer more for the typewriter simply because it can be kept functional longer than any PC/OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would offer more for the typewriter simply because it can be kept functional longer than any PC/OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would offer more for the typewriter simply because it can be kept functional longer than any PC/OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292870</id>
	<title>Re:Let's put this in perspective</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1259682960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How much would you pay for the computer Linus used?</p></div></blockquote><p>That's an interesting thought.</p><p>But let's keep this on authors.  A typewriter is a mechanical tool, the good ones were expensive and of good quality, and once you had one, there was no real reason to "upgrade."  OTOH, authors today may go through a computer every 2-5 years on average, and may have more than one at a time.  I don't see an author in the nearterm future only having one computer their entire career, unless it's a really short career.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much would you pay for the computer Linus used ? That 's an interesting thought.But let 's keep this on authors .
A typewriter is a mechanical tool , the good ones were expensive and of good quality , and once you had one , there was no real reason to " upgrade .
" OTOH , authors today may go through a computer every 2-5 years on average , and may have more than one at a time .
I do n't see an author in the nearterm future only having one computer their entire career , unless it 's a really short career .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much would you pay for the computer Linus used?That's an interesting thought.But let's keep this on authors.
A typewriter is a mechanical tool, the good ones were expensive and of good quality, and once you had one, there was no real reason to "upgrade.
"  OTOH, authors today may go through a computer every 2-5 years on average, and may have more than one at a time.
I don't see an author in the nearterm future only having one computer their entire career, unless it's a really short career.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292368</id>
	<title>My two cents worth.</title>
	<author>Nabeel\_co</author>
	<datestamp>1259679120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the big difference between a computer and a typewriter is that a typewriter is much closer to handwriting. With a typewriter you are actually physically placing the characters on the page, where as on a computer you are simply interfacing with an electronic device.<br>A typewriter is much more natural, and the user is physically connected to each character typed.</p><p>It's also, IMHO much more satisfying to use, from a tactile perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the big difference between a computer and a typewriter is that a typewriter is much closer to handwriting .
With a typewriter you are actually physically placing the characters on the page , where as on a computer you are simply interfacing with an electronic device.A typewriter is much more natural , and the user is physically connected to each character typed.It 's also , IMHO much more satisfying to use , from a tactile perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the big difference between a computer and a typewriter is that a typewriter is much closer to handwriting.
With a typewriter you are actually physically placing the characters on the page, where as on a computer you are simply interfacing with an electronic device.A typewriter is much more natural, and the user is physically connected to each character typed.It's also, IMHO much more satisfying to use, from a tactile perspective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292172</id>
	<title>Re:Decades from now...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1259677920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know, I have a power book that some of GW Bush's gubernatorial run speeches were written on.
It's still got value even if I can't find the power supply</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , I have a power book that some of GW Bush 's gubernatorial run speeches were written on .
It 's still got value even if I ca n't find the power supply</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, I have a power book that some of GW Bush's gubernatorial run speeches were written on.
It's still got value even if I can't find the power supply</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292354</id>
	<title>This one's easy</title>
	<author>shovas</author>
	<datestamp>1259679000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think about the 80s generation growing up with computers and especially their experience with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model\_M\_keyboard" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">IBM Model M Clicky keyboards</a> [wikipedia.org] (still available <a href="http://www.clickykeyboards.com/" title="clickykeyboards.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [clickykeyboards.com] and <a href="http://www.pckeyboard.com/" title="pckeyboard.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [pckeyboard.com]!).</p><p>So many people already feel so sentimental of our clicky keyboards that we're buying them up on ebay and stock piling a couple "just in case".</p><p>So, yeah, you better believe 20, 30, 40 years from now people will look at certain iconic computer products and think real nostalgically about them. They already do and like a good wine age makes them only more desirable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about the 80s generation growing up with computers and especially their experience with IBM Model M Clicky keyboards [ wikipedia.org ] ( still available here [ clickykeyboards.com ] and here [ pckeyboard.com ] !
) .So many people already feel so sentimental of our clicky keyboards that we 're buying them up on ebay and stock piling a couple " just in case " .So , yeah , you better believe 20 , 30 , 40 years from now people will look at certain iconic computer products and think real nostalgically about them .
They already do and like a good wine age makes them only more desirable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about the 80s generation growing up with computers and especially their experience with IBM Model M Clicky keyboards [wikipedia.org] (still available here [clickykeyboards.com] and here [pckeyboard.com]!
).So many people already feel so sentimental of our clicky keyboards that we're buying them up on ebay and stock piling a couple "just in case".So, yeah, you better believe 20, 30, 40 years from now people will look at certain iconic computer products and think real nostalgically about them.
They already do and like a good wine age makes them only more desirable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291662</id>
	<title>Neal Stephenson uses a fountain pen</title>
	<author>habbakuk</author>
	<datestamp>1259674980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As per the interview below, he did at one point use a word processor, but Neal Stephenson's recent work comes via fountain pen.
<a href="http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Interview/Neal-Stephenson-Anathem/ba-p/678" title="barnesandnoble.com" rel="nofollow">http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Interview/Neal-Stephenson-Anathem/ba-p/678</a> [barnesandnoble.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>As per the interview below , he did at one point use a word processor , but Neal Stephenson 's recent work comes via fountain pen .
http : //bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Interview/Neal-Stephenson-Anathem/ba-p/678 [ barnesandnoble.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As per the interview below, he did at one point use a word processor, but Neal Stephenson's recent work comes via fountain pen.
http://bnreview.barnesandnoble.com/t5/Interview/Neal-Stephenson-Anathem/ba-p/678 [barnesandnoble.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292516</id>
	<title>For writers, typewriters have advantages</title>
	<author>Xamusk</author>
	<datestamp>1259680200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The biggest advantage of the typewriter over a computer is exactly for writers: it makes him/her think much more before writing.
<br> <br>
--<br>
PS: this post was writtent without thinking</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest advantage of the typewriter over a computer is exactly for writers : it makes him/her think much more before writing .
-- PS : this post was writtent without thinking</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest advantage of the typewriter over a computer is exactly for writers: it makes him/her think much more before writing.
--
PS: this post was writtent without thinking</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293082</id>
	<title>Re:typewriter still works?</title>
	<author>michaelmuffin</author>
	<datestamp>1259684880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>you can get ribbons at any office supple store. if not for typewriters, than definitely for dot matrix printers. i just pull the ribbon out of the cartridge and wrap it onto the spool</htmltext>
<tokenext>you can get ribbons at any office supple store .
if not for typewriters , than definitely for dot matrix printers .
i just pull the ribbon out of the cartridge and wrap it onto the spool</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can get ribbons at any office supple store.
if not for typewriters, than definitely for dot matrix printers.
i just pull the ribbon out of the cartridge and wrap it onto the spool</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293706</id>
	<title>keyboard!</title>
	<author>Jessta</author>
	<datestamp>1259690700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who cares about the computer, it's all about the keyboard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who cares about the computer , it 's all about the keyboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who cares about the computer, it's all about the keyboard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291934</id>
	<title>Just FYI</title>
	<author>peacefinder</author>
	<datestamp>1259676420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neal Stephenson's laptop is not really relevant, because the last several books from him were written with a fountain pen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neal Stephenson 's laptop is not really relevant , because the last several books from him were written with a fountain pen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neal Stephenson's laptop is not really relevant, because the last several books from him were written with a fountain pen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292232</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Raptor851</author>
	<datestamp>1259678220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm, I'd say that's more of a recent phenomena though. While it's true the working life of my recent computers is 4-5 years at most. (lower if it ever had HP, Compaq, or Sony, written on it),  my Commodore, one of my friend's mac classics, and other older machines never died, just stopped being used as much. (mostly brought out just to mess with now), hell, as a more recent example, my Thinkpad was built in 2000 and is still my primary laptop today, and gets used more than any other computer I own.  Works as well as the day it was built. (though thinkpads were a long standing exception, most everything was cheap throwaway junk by around 1995).  This is irrelevant to my main point however<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
<br> <br>
Junk or not though, whether it works is generally irrelevant for a collector of such things. Your points about a typewriter are just as valid to a well built computer, and the durability issue pointed out just as relevant to a cheap typewriter. (I'm old enough to have written school papers on typewriters, and yes, a lot of them were junk that broke after 3-4 years). The only real value is who owned it previously,  it doesn't matter if it's a $0.02 BIC pen used to write a popular book, it still gains that perceived value.
<br> <br>
just my 0.02 cents</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , I 'd say that 's more of a recent phenomena though .
While it 's true the working life of my recent computers is 4-5 years at most .
( lower if it ever had HP , Compaq , or Sony , written on it ) , my Commodore , one of my friend 's mac classics , and other older machines never died , just stopped being used as much .
( mostly brought out just to mess with now ) , hell , as a more recent example , my Thinkpad was built in 2000 and is still my primary laptop today , and gets used more than any other computer I own .
Works as well as the day it was built .
( though thinkpads were a long standing exception , most everything was cheap throwaway junk by around 1995 ) .
This is irrelevant to my main point however : ) Junk or not though , whether it works is generally irrelevant for a collector of such things .
Your points about a typewriter are just as valid to a well built computer , and the durability issue pointed out just as relevant to a cheap typewriter .
( I 'm old enough to have written school papers on typewriters , and yes , a lot of them were junk that broke after 3-4 years ) .
The only real value is who owned it previously , it does n't matter if it 's a $ 0.02 BIC pen used to write a popular book , it still gains that perceived value .
just my 0.02 cents</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, I'd say that's more of a recent phenomena though.
While it's true the working life of my recent computers is 4-5 years at most.
(lower if it ever had HP, Compaq, or Sony, written on it),  my Commodore, one of my friend's mac classics, and other older machines never died, just stopped being used as much.
(mostly brought out just to mess with now), hell, as a more recent example, my Thinkpad was built in 2000 and is still my primary laptop today, and gets used more than any other computer I own.
Works as well as the day it was built.
(though thinkpads were a long standing exception, most everything was cheap throwaway junk by around 1995).
This is irrelevant to my main point however :)
 
Junk or not though, whether it works is generally irrelevant for a collector of such things.
Your points about a typewriter are just as valid to a well built computer, and the durability issue pointed out just as relevant to a cheap typewriter.
(I'm old enough to have written school papers on typewriters, and yes, a lot of them were junk that broke after 3-4 years).
The only real value is who owned it previously,  it doesn't matter if it's a $0.02 BIC pen used to write a popular book, it still gains that perceived value.
just my 0.02 cents</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296848</id>
	<title>typewriters are a fetish</title>
	<author>agentultra</author>
	<datestamp>1259594220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty simple: Typewriters have become a fetish. They are unique, durable, and built for a singular purpose. There isn't anything that makes them superior as a writing instrument. People have just idealized and idolized them.</p><p>Myself, I prefer my typewriter for writing.</p><ol><li>No distractions or temptation to distraction. No browser window sitting in the background or messaging service waiting to pop up a message at me.</li><li>Reduced dissonance. I sit in front of a typewriter to write and nothing else. No thoughts about who emailed me or what else I was working on (or at least those thoughts fade as I begin to write).</li><li>Automatic process documentation. I can see every single word I typed, every sentence I scratched out, and every note I took. I can physically see the evolution of my drafts. Sure I could use a VCS and some sort of key-logging solution in my editor, but why bother futzing around. The typewriter and a pencil do it with the least amount of effort... and won't ever require any software to use to read it.</li><li>It works even when the power is out. Sometimes I turn it out for the mood.</li><li>I don't edit as much when I'm typing. Sometimes I can't help myself and I rip out a piece of paper mid-paragraph, but that's far more rare than hitting the backspace or going back and correcting typos, editing grammar, and copying and pasting and everything else.</li><li>I get a more visceral and primitive connection to my work when I see it take physical form. I can eyeball my progress and see it take shape. There is no temptation to run wc on my text file after every few paragraphs. When I get mad at it I have something physical I can throw around and take my anger out on without regretting the damage it will do to my wallet.</li><li>Paper has a proven track-record as an easy to preserve archival medium.</li></ol><p>This isn't to say that I <em>never</em> use a computer. I much prefer to edit my work on a computer. Scanning in my drafts and using OCR to convert them to plain-text files is a bit tedious but worth it I think. Emacs is a fantastic editing tool. That is the stage in which I indulge in fussing around with the order of things, correcting typos, and touching up grammar. Computers make that easy and its the part I least enjoy so any tool that makes it easier is okay with me (and bonus if it lets me distract myself with a slashdot break).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty simple : Typewriters have become a fetish .
They are unique , durable , and built for a singular purpose .
There is n't anything that makes them superior as a writing instrument .
People have just idealized and idolized them.Myself , I prefer my typewriter for writing.No distractions or temptation to distraction .
No browser window sitting in the background or messaging service waiting to pop up a message at me.Reduced dissonance .
I sit in front of a typewriter to write and nothing else .
No thoughts about who emailed me or what else I was working on ( or at least those thoughts fade as I begin to write ) .Automatic process documentation .
I can see every single word I typed , every sentence I scratched out , and every note I took .
I can physically see the evolution of my drafts .
Sure I could use a VCS and some sort of key-logging solution in my editor , but why bother futzing around .
The typewriter and a pencil do it with the least amount of effort... and wo n't ever require any software to use to read it.It works even when the power is out .
Sometimes I turn it out for the mood.I do n't edit as much when I 'm typing .
Sometimes I ca n't help myself and I rip out a piece of paper mid-paragraph , but that 's far more rare than hitting the backspace or going back and correcting typos , editing grammar , and copying and pasting and everything else.I get a more visceral and primitive connection to my work when I see it take physical form .
I can eyeball my progress and see it take shape .
There is no temptation to run wc on my text file after every few paragraphs .
When I get mad at it I have something physical I can throw around and take my anger out on without regretting the damage it will do to my wallet.Paper has a proven track-record as an easy to preserve archival medium.This is n't to say that I never use a computer .
I much prefer to edit my work on a computer .
Scanning in my drafts and using OCR to convert them to plain-text files is a bit tedious but worth it I think .
Emacs is a fantastic editing tool .
That is the stage in which I indulge in fussing around with the order of things , correcting typos , and touching up grammar .
Computers make that easy and its the part I least enjoy so any tool that makes it easier is okay with me ( and bonus if it lets me distract myself with a slashdot break ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty simple: Typewriters have become a fetish.
They are unique, durable, and built for a singular purpose.
There isn't anything that makes them superior as a writing instrument.
People have just idealized and idolized them.Myself, I prefer my typewriter for writing.No distractions or temptation to distraction.
No browser window sitting in the background or messaging service waiting to pop up a message at me.Reduced dissonance.
I sit in front of a typewriter to write and nothing else.
No thoughts about who emailed me or what else I was working on (or at least those thoughts fade as I begin to write).Automatic process documentation.
I can see every single word I typed, every sentence I scratched out, and every note I took.
I can physically see the evolution of my drafts.
Sure I could use a VCS and some sort of key-logging solution in my editor, but why bother futzing around.
The typewriter and a pencil do it with the least amount of effort... and won't ever require any software to use to read it.It works even when the power is out.
Sometimes I turn it out for the mood.I don't edit as much when I'm typing.
Sometimes I can't help myself and I rip out a piece of paper mid-paragraph, but that's far more rare than hitting the backspace or going back and correcting typos, editing grammar, and copying and pasting and everything else.I get a more visceral and primitive connection to my work when I see it take physical form.
I can eyeball my progress and see it take shape.
There is no temptation to run wc on my text file after every few paragraphs.
When I get mad at it I have something physical I can throw around and take my anger out on without regretting the damage it will do to my wallet.Paper has a proven track-record as an easy to preserve archival medium.This isn't to say that I never use a computer.
I much prefer to edit my work on a computer.
Scanning in my drafts and using OCR to convert them to plain-text files is a bit tedious but worth it I think.
Emacs is a fantastic editing tool.
That is the stage in which I indulge in fussing around with the order of things, correcting typos, and touching up grammar.
Computers make that easy and its the part I least enjoy so any tool that makes it easier is okay with me (and bonus if it lets me distract myself with a slashdot break).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292956</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259683680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not durable? I happen to have a 286 that still runs perfectly</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not durable ?
I happen to have a 286 that still runs perfectly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not durable?
I happen to have a 286 that still runs perfectly</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296870</id>
	<title>Not likely</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1259594340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is highly improbable that an author would keep and use the same computer for 20 years. The problem is that a typewriter has a single purpose while computers are general purpose.</p><p>Most people who use computers will upgrade their computers after a few years to take advantage of newer technology and capabilities. The odds are very much against an author, especially a successful author, using the same computer for more than two novels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is highly improbable that an author would keep and use the same computer for 20 years .
The problem is that a typewriter has a single purpose while computers are general purpose.Most people who use computers will upgrade their computers after a few years to take advantage of newer technology and capabilities .
The odds are very much against an author , especially a successful author , using the same computer for more than two novels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is highly improbable that an author would keep and use the same computer for 20 years.
The problem is that a typewriter has a single purpose while computers are general purpose.Most people who use computers will upgrade their computers after a few years to take advantage of newer technology and capabilities.
The odds are very much against an author, especially a successful author, using the same computer for more than two novels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293580</id>
	<title>Re:Not less valuable; possibly more.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I'd think that the ability to get a peek into how these guys organized their lives would be quite interesting (stumbling over their porn stashes, probably not so much, but undoubtedly revealing (hah!)).  Think about all of the incidental stuff you could learn; art preferences (screensavers and so on), unfinished and aborted works, etc...  I'd buy one from an author I liked, if I wasn't guaranteed to die poor by virtue of trying to be an artist myself.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div><p>What gives you the idea that you'd get their data?  For legal reasons alone, I can imagine any such computer coming wiped, possibly even with the hard drives replaced.</p><p>So then is the hardware that the author touched still of value to you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I 'd think that the ability to get a peek into how these guys organized their lives would be quite interesting ( stumbling over their porn stashes , probably not so much , but undoubtedly revealing ( hah ! ) ) .
Think about all of the incidental stuff you could learn ; art preferences ( screensavers and so on ) , unfinished and aborted works , etc... I 'd buy one from an author I liked , if I was n't guaranteed to die poor by virtue of trying to be an artist myself .
; ) What gives you the idea that you 'd get their data ?
For legal reasons alone , I can imagine any such computer coming wiped , possibly even with the hard drives replaced.So then is the hardware that the author touched still of value to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I'd think that the ability to get a peek into how these guys organized their lives would be quite interesting (stumbling over their porn stashes, probably not so much, but undoubtedly revealing (hah!)).
Think about all of the incidental stuff you could learn; art preferences (screensavers and so on), unfinished and aborted works, etc...  I'd buy one from an author I liked, if I wasn't guaranteed to die poor by virtue of trying to be an artist myself.
;)What gives you the idea that you'd get their data?
For legal reasons alone, I can imagine any such computer coming wiped, possibly even with the hard drives replaced.So then is the hardware that the author touched still of value to you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292758</id>
	<title>The REAL perspective on value</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1259682060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much would you pay for the computer Linus used?



I rest my case.</p></div><p>How much would I pay?  That's easy.  What <i>I</i> am willing to pay for it.  Value is relative to the individual, not the object.  If you want to pay $10,000 for the shit-stained underwear of Steve-O, then so be it.</p><p> <i>Anything</i> is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.</p><p>'Nuff said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much would you pay for the computer Linus used ?
I rest my case.How much would I pay ?
That 's easy .
What I am willing to pay for it .
Value is relative to the individual , not the object .
If you want to pay $ 10,000 for the shit-stained underwear of Steve-O , then so be it .
Anything is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it .
'Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much would you pay for the computer Linus used?
I rest my case.How much would I pay?
That's easy.
What I am willing to pay for it.
Value is relative to the individual, not the object.
If you want to pay $10,000 for the shit-stained underwear of Steve-O, then so be it.
Anything is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
'Nuff said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293038</id>
	<title>Too Late for Roddenberry's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259684520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His Mac 128k was already put on for auction, see this slashdot link:<br>http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/09/18/0056220/Gene-Roddenberrys-Mac-Plus-Is-Coming-Up-For-Auction?from=rss</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His Mac 128k was already put on for auction , see this slashdot link : http : //apple.slashdot.org/story/09/09/18/0056220/Gene-Roddenberrys-Mac-Plus-Is-Coming-Up-For-Auction ? from = rss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His Mac 128k was already put on for auction, see this slashdot link:http://apple.slashdot.org/story/09/09/18/0056220/Gene-Roddenberrys-Mac-Plus-Is-Coming-Up-For-Auction?from=rss</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30302838</id>
	<title>Re:Let's put this in perspective</title>
	<author>laddiebuck</author>
	<datestamp>1259576640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bugger all. But hey, if you would, I've got some linoleum here Richard Stallman once trod on, if you're interested in buying...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bugger all .
But hey , if you would , I 've got some linoleum here Richard Stallman once trod on , if you 're interested in buying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bugger all.
But hey, if you would, I've got some linoleum here Richard Stallman once trod on, if you're interested in buying...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292236</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259678220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd put my built-from-scratch multi-core steam machine, with a translucent RaidMax case with cool blue lights, development platform up against any dusty relic any day of the week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd put my built-from-scratch multi-core steam machine , with a translucent RaidMax case with cool blue lights , development platform up against any dusty relic any day of the week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd put my built-from-scratch multi-core steam machine, with a translucent RaidMax case with cool blue lights, development platform up against any dusty relic any day of the week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292834</id>
	<title>Re:What will happen is plastic in landfill</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1259682660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>
A 45 year old typewriter looks good on display and most probably still types perfectly well. A 45 year old Dell will be a pile of plastic dust with an exploded lithium battery.</i>
</p><p>
Painfully true.  Restoring old computers is incredibly difficult. The sad thing about the Computer Museum in Silicon Valley is that almost nothing works.  They've succeeded in restoring two IBM 1401 computers, but they had several of the original design team available.  None of the their early personal computers are displayed as working devices.
</p><p>
On the other hand, I have a Teletype Model 15, designed in 1930 and built during WWII, <a href="http://www.aetherltd.com/" title="aetherltd.com">working.</a> [aetherltd.com]  I've even interfaced it to RSS and SMS feeds.  Those machines were very well designed, overbuilt, and can run for decades if properly maintained.  All mine needed was a <a href="http://www.aetherltd.com/refurbishing.html" title="aetherltd.com">thorough cleaning and oiling.</a> [aetherltd.com] All the metal is high quality steel.  The main frame parts are steel castings, and all stamped parts are from stock at least 1/16 thick.  And the machine has over 500 oiling points, ranging from a dozen oil reservoirs with spring-loaded caps to hundreds of points that just need a drop of oil.
</p><p>
Don't overrate mechanical nostalgia, though.
Most consumer mechanical devices of that period were not very good.  Many contain "pot metal", with a composition so awful that parts shatter if dropped, or simply with age.  Early low-end wiring materials didn't last. Early plastics became brittle with age.  Those gadgets were discarded long ago. The ones still around are the good ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A 45 year old typewriter looks good on display and most probably still types perfectly well .
A 45 year old Dell will be a pile of plastic dust with an exploded lithium battery .
Painfully true .
Restoring old computers is incredibly difficult .
The sad thing about the Computer Museum in Silicon Valley is that almost nothing works .
They 've succeeded in restoring two IBM 1401 computers , but they had several of the original design team available .
None of the their early personal computers are displayed as working devices .
On the other hand , I have a Teletype Model 15 , designed in 1930 and built during WWII , working .
[ aetherltd.com ] I 've even interfaced it to RSS and SMS feeds .
Those machines were very well designed , overbuilt , and can run for decades if properly maintained .
All mine needed was a thorough cleaning and oiling .
[ aetherltd.com ] All the metal is high quality steel .
The main frame parts are steel castings , and all stamped parts are from stock at least 1/16 thick .
And the machine has over 500 oiling points , ranging from a dozen oil reservoirs with spring-loaded caps to hundreds of points that just need a drop of oil .
Do n't overrate mechanical nostalgia , though .
Most consumer mechanical devices of that period were not very good .
Many contain " pot metal " , with a composition so awful that parts shatter if dropped , or simply with age .
Early low-end wiring materials did n't last .
Early plastics became brittle with age .
Those gadgets were discarded long ago .
The ones still around are the good ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

A 45 year old typewriter looks good on display and most probably still types perfectly well.
A 45 year old Dell will be a pile of plastic dust with an exploded lithium battery.
Painfully true.
Restoring old computers is incredibly difficult.
The sad thing about the Computer Museum in Silicon Valley is that almost nothing works.
They've succeeded in restoring two IBM 1401 computers, but they had several of the original design team available.
None of the their early personal computers are displayed as working devices.
On the other hand, I have a Teletype Model 15, designed in 1930 and built during WWII, working.
[aetherltd.com]  I've even interfaced it to RSS and SMS feeds.
Those machines were very well designed, overbuilt, and can run for decades if properly maintained.
All mine needed was a thorough cleaning and oiling.
[aetherltd.com] All the metal is high quality steel.
The main frame parts are steel castings, and all stamped parts are from stock at least 1/16 thick.
And the machine has over 500 oiling points, ranging from a dozen oil reservoirs with spring-loaded caps to hundreds of points that just need a drop of oil.
Don't overrate mechanical nostalgia, though.
Most consumer mechanical devices of that period were not very good.
Many contain "pot metal", with a composition so awful that parts shatter if dropped, or simply with age.
Early low-end wiring materials didn't last.
Early plastics became brittle with age.
Those gadgets were discarded long ago.
The ones still around are the good ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296188</id>
	<title>All about an object constantly used by a celebrity</title>
	<author>pbooktebo</author>
	<datestamp>1259589540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The person who buys this is unlikely to use it, but having a typewriter that was an instrument of creation for famous works is like having a guitar played by Hendrix at Woodstock or a pen used to sign the Declaration of Independence.</p><p>This typewriter was used for every single book by the author. Pretty amazing!</p><p>Computer/typewriter/inkwell/chisel&mdash;it's not what it is, it is who used it and for making what and for how long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The person who buys this is unlikely to use it , but having a typewriter that was an instrument of creation for famous works is like having a guitar played by Hendrix at Woodstock or a pen used to sign the Declaration of Independence.This typewriter was used for every single book by the author .
Pretty amazing ! Computer/typewriter/inkwell/chisel    it 's not what it is , it is who used it and for making what and for how long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The person who buys this is unlikely to use it, but having a typewriter that was an instrument of creation for famous works is like having a guitar played by Hendrix at Woodstock or a pen used to sign the Declaration of Independence.This typewriter was used for every single book by the author.
Pretty amazing!Computer/typewriter/inkwell/chisel—it's not what it is, it is who used it and for making what and for how long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30297304</id>
	<title>Re:Not less valuable; possibly more.</title>
	<author>orange47</author>
	<datestamp>1259596680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but there are some quite rational excuses for preferring real paper over ebook: printers have much higher resolution than your monitor and you usually get better contrast.

also the fact we can have thousands  of books (or mp3s, mkvs..) somehow lowers their value to me. the things that are rare/hard2get usually seem more important. maybe something to do with competition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but there are some quite rational excuses for preferring real paper over ebook : printers have much higher resolution than your monitor and you usually get better contrast .
also the fact we can have thousands of books ( or mp3s , mkvs.. ) somehow lowers their value to me .
the things that are rare/hard2get usually seem more important .
maybe something to do with competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but there are some quite rational excuses for preferring real paper over ebook: printers have much higher resolution than your monitor and you usually get better contrast.
also the fact we can have thousands  of books (or mp3s, mkvs..) somehow lowers their value to me.
the things that are rare/hard2get usually seem more important.
maybe something to do with competition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292680</id>
	<title>Maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259681340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>maybe now he'll in complete sentences</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe now he 'll in complete sentences</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe now he'll in complete sentences</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294106</id>
	<title>Re:Let's put this in perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259694180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291872</id>
	<title>typewriter still works?</title>
	<author>SteveWoz</author>
	<datestamp>1259675940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you could get the ink ribbons...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you could get the ink ribbons.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you could get the ink ribbons...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292362</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259679060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, a computer grows viruses as it ages.</p></div><p>Figuratively speaking, turn in your geek card on your way out.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You can haul it anywhere without worrying about battery life.</p></div><p>Yeah, "haul" is a fitting word. Carrying a years worth of exra ink is moot compared to the typewriter's weight.</p><p>Personally, I've never seen the appeal of any modern writing methods. I'd rather use a quill pen. I can go anywhere, pluck a bird, skin some animal, make ink and I'm all set to write the sequel to the Necronomicon. Do you get that experience with your Buck Rogers typing machines?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , a computer grows viruses as it ages.Figuratively speaking , turn in your geek card on your way out.You can haul it anywhere without worrying about battery life.Yeah , " haul " is a fitting word .
Carrying a years worth of exra ink is moot compared to the typewriter 's weight.Personally , I 've never seen the appeal of any modern writing methods .
I 'd rather use a quill pen .
I can go anywhere , pluck a bird , skin some animal , make ink and I 'm all set to write the sequel to the Necronomicon .
Do you get that experience with your Buck Rogers typing machines ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, a computer grows viruses as it ages.Figuratively speaking, turn in your geek card on your way out.You can haul it anywhere without worrying about battery life.Yeah, "haul" is a fitting word.
Carrying a years worth of exra ink is moot compared to the typewriter's weight.Personally, I've never seen the appeal of any modern writing methods.
I'd rather use a quill pen.
I can go anywhere, pluck a bird, skin some animal, make ink and I'm all set to write the sequel to the Necronomicon.
Do you get that experience with your Buck Rogers typing machines?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293178</id>
	<title>Data recovery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259685840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I imagine doing some data recovery on the hard drive would yield some pretty interesting results for whoever got the computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I imagine doing some data recovery on the hard drive would yield some pretty interesting results for whoever got the computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I imagine doing some data recovery on the hard drive would yield some pretty interesting results for whoever got the computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291684</id>
	<title>Does longevity matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259675040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be plausible that his typewriter is still functioning, and possibly still as usable as the day it was made. Thus the reason he was able to use it for "all" of his works, which arguably is the main reason it achieves such high value.</p><p>Most computers, on the other hand, last at most 10 years or so, after which the writer necessarily has to purchase another computer, on which they continue producing their works. The fact that the works are split amongst machines, some of which may have produced more popular works, might contribute to lessening their respective intrinsic values.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be plausible that his typewriter is still functioning , and possibly still as usable as the day it was made .
Thus the reason he was able to use it for " all " of his works , which arguably is the main reason it achieves such high value.Most computers , on the other hand , last at most 10 years or so , after which the writer necessarily has to purchase another computer , on which they continue producing their works .
The fact that the works are split amongst machines , some of which may have produced more popular works , might contribute to lessening their respective intrinsic values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be plausible that his typewriter is still functioning, and possibly still as usable as the day it was made.
Thus the reason he was able to use it for "all" of his works, which arguably is the main reason it achieves such high value.Most computers, on the other hand, last at most 10 years or so, after which the writer necessarily has to purchase another computer, on which they continue producing their works.
The fact that the works are split amongst machines, some of which may have produced more popular works, might contribute to lessening their respective intrinsic values.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616</id>
	<title>Let's put this in perspective</title>
	<author>coppro</author>
	<datestamp>1259674740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much would you pay for the computer Linus used?<br> <br>

I rest my case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much would you pay for the computer Linus used ?
I rest my case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much would you pay for the computer Linus used?
I rest my case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30298998</id>
	<title>Re:Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also, typewriters are very classy.</p></div></blockquote><p>So's the model M.</p><blockquote><div><p>They like the satisfying sounds it makes. [...] It separates you from office work.</p></div></blockquote><p>The classy sound of a model M also separates you from your colleagues who have to work in the same office<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , typewriters are very classy.So 's the model M.They like the satisfying sounds it makes .
[ ... ] It separates you from office work.The classy sound of a model M also separates you from your colleagues who have to work in the same office .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, typewriters are very classy.So's the model M.They like the satisfying sounds it makes.
[...] It separates you from office work.The classy sound of a model M also separates you from your colleagues who have to work in the same office ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296918</id>
	<title>Re:Neal Stephenson uses a fountain pen</title>
	<author>necro81</author>
	<datestamp>1259594640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the end of the Baroque trilogy, there are a few pages devoted to the actual crafting of the manuscript.  I was first written out in longhand, then transcribed onto a computer (emacs, I think) for manipulation and editing, then sent off to the publisher for everything the publisher does (typesetting, page boundaries, etc.).  That section also contained a picture of the entire longhand manuscript - it stood about a foot high - several reams of 8.5x11 paper.  It made my hand cramp just thinking about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the end of the Baroque trilogy , there are a few pages devoted to the actual crafting of the manuscript .
I was first written out in longhand , then transcribed onto a computer ( emacs , I think ) for manipulation and editing , then sent off to the publisher for everything the publisher does ( typesetting , page boundaries , etc. ) .
That section also contained a picture of the entire longhand manuscript - it stood about a foot high - several reams of 8.5x11 paper .
It made my hand cramp just thinking about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the end of the Baroque trilogy, there are a few pages devoted to the actual crafting of the manuscript.
I was first written out in longhand, then transcribed onto a computer (emacs, I think) for manipulation and editing, then sent off to the publisher for everything the publisher does (typesetting, page boundaries, etc.).
That section also contained a picture of the entire longhand manuscript - it stood about a foot high - several reams of 8.5x11 paper.
It made my hand cramp just thinking about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291662</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30304106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30308440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30307688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30326560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30298744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30298000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30300458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30297304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30297762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30298564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30297152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30335320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30302838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30322046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30299554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30298998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_01_226250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30302838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30335320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30297152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30300458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30298998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30308440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30297762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30298000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30295392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30297304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296482
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30298564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30326560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30304106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30299554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30296918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30293082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_01_226250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30291688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30322046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30294338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30292834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30307688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_01_226250.30298744
</commentlist>
</conversation>
