<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_09_1643237</id>
	<title>Each American Consumed 34 Gigabytes Per Day In '08</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1260378720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Metrics can get really strange &mdash; especially on the scale of national consumption.  Information consumption is one such area that has a lot of strange metrics to offer.  A <a href="http://hmi.ucsd.edu/pdf/HMI\_2009\_ConsumerReport\_Dec9\_2009.pdf">new report</a> from the University of California, San Diego entitled 'How Much Information?' reveals that in 2008 <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/the-american-diet-34-gigabytes-a-day/">your average American consumed 34 gigabytes per day</a>.  These values are entirely estimates of the  flows of data delivered to consumers as bytes, words and hours of consumer information.  From the executive summary: 'In 2008, Americans consumed information for about 1.3 trillion hours, an average of almost 12 hours per day. Consumption totaled 3.6 zettabytes and 10,845 trillion words, corresponding to 100,500 words and 34 gigabytes for an average person on an average day. A zettabyte is 10 to the 21st power bytes, a million million gigabytes. These estimates are from an analysis of more than 20 different sources of information, from very old (newspapers and books) to very new (portable computer games, satellite radio, and Internet video). Information at work is not included.'  Has the flow and importance of information really become this prolific in our daily lives?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Metrics can get really strange    especially on the scale of national consumption .
Information consumption is one such area that has a lot of strange metrics to offer .
A new report from the University of California , San Diego entitled 'How Much Information ?
' reveals that in 2008 your average American consumed 34 gigabytes per day .
These values are entirely estimates of the flows of data delivered to consumers as bytes , words and hours of consumer information .
From the executive summary : 'In 2008 , Americans consumed information for about 1.3 trillion hours , an average of almost 12 hours per day .
Consumption totaled 3.6 zettabytes and 10,845 trillion words , corresponding to 100,500 words and 34 gigabytes for an average person on an average day .
A zettabyte is 10 to the 21st power bytes , a million million gigabytes .
These estimates are from an analysis of more than 20 different sources of information , from very old ( newspapers and books ) to very new ( portable computer games , satellite radio , and Internet video ) .
Information at work is not included .
' Has the flow and importance of information really become this prolific in our daily lives ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Metrics can get really strange — especially on the scale of national consumption.
Information consumption is one such area that has a lot of strange metrics to offer.
A new report from the University of California, San Diego entitled 'How Much Information?
' reveals that in 2008 your average American consumed 34 gigabytes per day.
These values are entirely estimates of the  flows of data delivered to consumers as bytes, words and hours of consumer information.
From the executive summary: 'In 2008, Americans consumed information for about 1.3 trillion hours, an average of almost 12 hours per day.
Consumption totaled 3.6 zettabytes and 10,845 trillion words, corresponding to 100,500 words and 34 gigabytes for an average person on an average day.
A zettabyte is 10 to the 21st power bytes, a million million gigabytes.
These estimates are from an analysis of more than 20 different sources of information, from very old (newspapers and books) to very new (portable computer games, satellite radio, and Internet video).
Information at work is not included.
'  Has the flow and importance of information really become this prolific in our daily lives?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379254</id>
	<title>Damn and blast</title>
	<author>Gogogoch</author>
	<datestamp>1259609340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bugger - I only have a 56K modem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bugger - I only have a 56K modem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bugger - I only have a 56K modem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382610</id>
	<title>Re:Or reposts of the same story everywhere...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259583540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly;</p><p>I for one welcome our original content generating overlords.</p><p>In Russia, content originates you.</p><p>Does the original content run Linux?</p><p>1) Generate Original Content<br>2) ?????<br>3) Profit</p><p>etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly ; I for one welcome our original content generating overlords.In Russia , content originates you.Does the original content run Linux ? 1 ) Generate Original Content2 ) ? ? ? ?
? 3 ) Profitetc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly;I for one welcome our original content generating overlords.In Russia, content originates you.Does the original content run Linux?1) Generate Original Content2) ????
?3) Profitetc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378708</id>
	<title>Re:Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>Jay Maynard</author>
	<datestamp>1259606340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me, I just find it ironic they felt compelled to ask the question on Slashdot, home of the biggest information junkies around...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me , I just find it ironic they felt compelled to ask the question on Slashdot , home of the biggest information junkies around.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me, I just find it ironic they felt compelled to ask the question on Slashdot, home of the biggest information junkies around...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378440</id>
	<title>broadband</title>
	<author>mehrotra.akash</author>
	<datestamp>1259605140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is really fast there!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is really fast there !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is really fast there!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30395682</id>
	<title>Re:Consumed...?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260445200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mmmmhh... Christmas trees... *drool*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mmmmhh... Christmas trees... * drool *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mmmmhh... Christmas trees... *drool*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380342</id>
	<title>Re:This number is meaningless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From that reasoning we should conclude that typical television contains about 1 Bit/s of information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From that reasoning we should conclude that typical television contains about 1 Bit/s of information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From that reasoning we should conclude that typical television contains about 1 Bit/s of information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378982</id>
	<title>Re:Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1259607900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Consider how many "gigabytes" you "consume" just by watching TV for a few hours. Nothing new here...</p></div><p>It's totally meaningless, too, since it depends on the particular compression algorithms used. (For example, it's probably theoretically possible to get much better video compression than current block-based DCT technologies by better understanding and modeling how the human brain processes images.)</p><p>Back in the 1970s before MPEG was invented, measuring video data rates would have required about 720*480*30*2 = 20 Mbytes/sec. So someone who averaged 2 hours of daily TV would have "consumed" about 150 GB per day. Thus, using this logic, I conclude that the amount of information we absorb is plummeting!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider how many " gigabytes " you " consume " just by watching TV for a few hours .
Nothing new here...It 's totally meaningless , too , since it depends on the particular compression algorithms used .
( For example , it 's probably theoretically possible to get much better video compression than current block-based DCT technologies by better understanding and modeling how the human brain processes images .
) Back in the 1970s before MPEG was invented , measuring video data rates would have required about 720 * 480 * 30 * 2 = 20 Mbytes/sec .
So someone who averaged 2 hours of daily TV would have " consumed " about 150 GB per day .
Thus , using this logic , I conclude that the amount of information we absorb is plummeting !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider how many "gigabytes" you "consume" just by watching TV for a few hours.
Nothing new here...It's totally meaningless, too, since it depends on the particular compression algorithms used.
(For example, it's probably theoretically possible to get much better video compression than current block-based DCT technologies by better understanding and modeling how the human brain processes images.
)Back in the 1970s before MPEG was invented, measuring video data rates would have required about 720*480*30*2 = 20 Mbytes/sec.
So someone who averaged 2 hours of daily TV would have "consumed" about 150 GB per day.
Thus, using this logic, I conclude that the amount of information we absorb is plummeting!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378542</id>
	<title>Outdated Americans?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1259605560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the average American gets 44.8\% of their information from the TV, per day. Something is wrong with the MPAA/RIAA's facts. Also odd seems to be the 10.59\% of radio that the average American listens to. And also strange is the 1.11\% of recorded music that the average American listens to. That means that 55.44\% of words that Americans listen to is controlled by many factors, including the government and private (think RIAA/MPAA) interests. This study should more or less prove that the RIAA is in no danger, as user created and RIAA/MPAA uncontrolled mediums only add up to 28.28\% of what an average American is exposed to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the average American gets 44.8 \ % of their information from the TV , per day .
Something is wrong with the MPAA/RIAA 's facts .
Also odd seems to be the 10.59 \ % of radio that the average American listens to .
And also strange is the 1.11 \ % of recorded music that the average American listens to .
That means that 55.44 \ % of words that Americans listen to is controlled by many factors , including the government and private ( think RIAA/MPAA ) interests .
This study should more or less prove that the RIAA is in no danger , as user created and RIAA/MPAA uncontrolled mediums only add up to 28.28 \ % of what an average American is exposed to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the average American gets 44.8\% of their information from the TV, per day.
Something is wrong with the MPAA/RIAA's facts.
Also odd seems to be the 10.59\% of radio that the average American listens to.
And also strange is the 1.11\% of recorded music that the average American listens to.
That means that 55.44\% of words that Americans listen to is controlled by many factors, including the government and private (think RIAA/MPAA) interests.
This study should more or less prove that the RIAA is in no danger, as user created and RIAA/MPAA uncontrolled mediums only add up to 28.28\% of what an average American is exposed to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30381490</id>
	<title>Re:This number is meaningless</title>
	<author>DigitalCrackPipe</author>
	<datestamp>1259578080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I consume many terabytes of data an hour, once you consider visual, audio, and sensory perception.  If you're going with raw data, you just only really need to know the number of hours awake to figure out the data rate per year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I consume many terabytes of data an hour , once you consider visual , audio , and sensory perception .
If you 're going with raw data , you just only really need to know the number of hours awake to figure out the data rate per year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consume many terabytes of data an hour, once you consider visual, audio, and sensory perception.
If you're going with raw data, you just only really need to know the number of hours awake to figure out the data rate per year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379288</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but...</title>
	<author>feardiagh</author>
	<datestamp>1259609580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  Reminds me of the old quote: "There are three types of lies in the world: lies, damned lies, and statistics."</p><p>

Define what you mean by "consume" in this case.  If we look at the definitions easily available on the internet, say <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consume" title="thefreedictionary.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [thefreedictionary.com], we have several definitions that do not quite fit.</p><p>

If we assume they mean "To expend; use up", I ask... how does one use up data?</p><p>

How about "To purchase (goods or services) for direct use or ownership."?  I don't know how many of you pay for all the data that comes at you... I certainly do not.  This does not seem to fit.</p><p>

Ah. Here is one that makes a bit more sense: "To waste; squander."  I know that I certainly do not make good use of nearly all the data that I take in, and not nearly all of the data that I have access to.  But this one isn't what they mean, or if it is they are even more cynical than I.</p><p>

And then, how is the size measured.  Information is difficult to quantify.  How is it stored?  Is it compressed somehow.  Why are books ignored in that graph? (I think I know... but the idea that the average American doesn't read enough to count is depressing)  A word on a page in a book is information, how does it relate to how many bits or bytes?  How about a picture on the same page, is it worth 1000 of those words?</p><p>

Statements like "Each American Consumed 34 Gigabytes Per Day In '08" are totally meaningless in the way that statement is delivered.  It is devoid of context or content.  It definitely fits the definition of "To waste; squander".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Reminds me of the old quote : " There are three types of lies in the world : lies , damned lies , and statistics .
" Define what you mean by " consume " in this case .
If we look at the definitions easily available on the internet , say here [ thefreedictionary.com ] , we have several definitions that do not quite fit .
If we assume they mean " To expend ; use up " , I ask... how does one use up data ?
How about " To purchase ( goods or services ) for direct use or ownership. " ?
I do n't know how many of you pay for all the data that comes at you... I certainly do not .
This does not seem to fit .
Ah. Here is one that makes a bit more sense : " To waste ; squander .
" I know that I certainly do not make good use of nearly all the data that I take in , and not nearly all of the data that I have access to .
But this one is n't what they mean , or if it is they are even more cynical than I . And then , how is the size measured .
Information is difficult to quantify .
How is it stored ?
Is it compressed somehow .
Why are books ignored in that graph ?
( I think I know... but the idea that the average American does n't read enough to count is depressing ) A word on a page in a book is information , how does it relate to how many bits or bytes ?
How about a picture on the same page , is it worth 1000 of those words ?
Statements like " Each American Consumed 34 Gigabytes Per Day In '08 " are totally meaningless in the way that statement is delivered .
It is devoid of context or content .
It definitely fits the definition of " To waste ; squander " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Reminds me of the old quote: "There are three types of lies in the world: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
"

Define what you mean by "consume" in this case.
If we look at the definitions easily available on the internet, say here [thefreedictionary.com], we have several definitions that do not quite fit.
If we assume they mean "To expend; use up", I ask... how does one use up data?
How about "To purchase (goods or services) for direct use or ownership."?
I don't know how many of you pay for all the data that comes at you... I certainly do not.
This does not seem to fit.
Ah. Here is one that makes a bit more sense: "To waste; squander.
"  I know that I certainly do not make good use of nearly all the data that I take in, and not nearly all of the data that I have access to.
But this one isn't what they mean, or if it is they are even more cynical than I.

And then, how is the size measured.
Information is difficult to quantify.
How is it stored?
Is it compressed somehow.
Why are books ignored in that graph?
(I think I know... but the idea that the average American doesn't read enough to count is depressing)  A word on a page in a book is information, how does it relate to how many bits or bytes?
How about a picture on the same page, is it worth 1000 of those words?
Statements like "Each American Consumed 34 Gigabytes Per Day In '08" are totally meaningless in the way that statement is delivered.
It is devoid of context or content.
It definitely fits the definition of "To waste; squander".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380244</id>
	<title>total garbage</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1259572200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>meaningless I don't think is a strong enough word. Stupid comes to mind.</p><p>Other examples might be me consuming information by say looking at a tree for 10min. That's like better than 1080p man!</p><p>Perhaps doing anything in life I am gathering "information", though like my senses, like touching or hearing things... not to mention my extra sensory perceptions!</p><p>Also to add an additional level of stupidity/complexity are those 34GB compressed or not? If so all those memories in photo or video format could be totally reduced (and to be honest they likely are).</p><p>Anyway I have already spent 10 minutes too many writing about this ridiculous topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>meaningless I do n't think is a strong enough word .
Stupid comes to mind.Other examples might be me consuming information by say looking at a tree for 10min .
That 's like better than 1080p man ! Perhaps doing anything in life I am gathering " information " , though like my senses , like touching or hearing things... not to mention my extra sensory perceptions ! Also to add an additional level of stupidity/complexity are those 34GB compressed or not ?
If so all those memories in photo or video format could be totally reduced ( and to be honest they likely are ) .Anyway I have already spent 10 minutes too many writing about this ridiculous topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>meaningless I don't think is a strong enough word.
Stupid comes to mind.Other examples might be me consuming information by say looking at a tree for 10min.
That's like better than 1080p man!Perhaps doing anything in life I am gathering "information", though like my senses, like touching or hearing things... not to mention my extra sensory perceptions!Also to add an additional level of stupidity/complexity are those 34GB compressed or not?
If so all those memories in photo or video format could be totally reduced (and to be honest they likely are).Anyway I have already spent 10 minutes too many writing about this ridiculous topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30381332</id>
	<title>Only 1/3 more data than in 1981!</title>
	<author>shking</author>
	<datestamp>1259577480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These data suggest that <strong>consumption has only increaded by 1/3 in 30 years!</strong>. If you factor in the fact that the internet has displaced a significant amount of TV viewing and book reading, then growth in data consumtion is even less.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These data suggest that consumption has only increaded by 1/3 in 30 years ! .
If you factor in the fact that the internet has displaced a significant amount of TV viewing and book reading , then growth in data consumtion is even less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These data suggest that consumption has only increaded by 1/3 in 30 years!.
If you factor in the fact that the internet has displaced a significant amount of TV viewing and book reading, then growth in data consumtion is even less.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382384</id>
	<title>Bandwidth of the human eye...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1259582340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...times 2 times 2/3 times 300 million and you've got it.</p><p>Notes:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Other senses are negligible in data rate compareed to the eye<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2 eyes<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; assume people are awake two-thirds of the time<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; US population is about 300 million</p><p>Of course we still have the question of what it means to "consume" information, but hey, we're all "consumers", right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...times 2 times 2/3 times 300 million and you 've got it.Notes :     Other senses are negligible in data rate compareed to the eye     2 eyes     assume people are awake two-thirds of the time     US population is about 300 millionOf course we still have the question of what it means to " consume " information , but hey , we 're all " consumers " , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...times 2 times 2/3 times 300 million and you've got it.Notes:
    Other senses are negligible in data rate compareed to the eye
    2 eyes
    assume people are awake two-thirds of the time
    US population is about 300 millionOf course we still have the question of what it means to "consume" information, but hey, we're all "consumers", right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379658</id>
	<title>Data-consumption-hours intensity of GDP?</title>
	<author>tee-rav</author>
	<datestamp>1259611680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's use these numbers constructively:
1.3 trillion hours consuming data, $14 trillion GDP.
America produced $10.76/hour of data consumption by Americans.
If we slow our connections down by 50\%, we halve content, double the hours of data consumption, and thereby double GDP overnight, without mandating the consumption of one bit of additional data!
Clearly a win-win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's use these numbers constructively : 1.3 trillion hours consuming data , $ 14 trillion GDP .
America produced $ 10.76/hour of data consumption by Americans .
If we slow our connections down by 50 \ % , we halve content , double the hours of data consumption , and thereby double GDP overnight , without mandating the consumption of one bit of additional data !
Clearly a win-win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's use these numbers constructively:
1.3 trillion hours consuming data, $14 trillion GDP.
America produced $10.76/hour of data consumption by Americans.
If we slow our connections down by 50\%, we halve content, double the hours of data consumption, and thereby double GDP overnight, without mandating the consumption of one bit of additional data!
Clearly a win-win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30383592</id>
	<title>Wonder if they took into account</title>
	<author>teknosapien</author>
	<datestamp>1259589420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Spam.
After all hasn't it been stated that 90\% of all traffic on the net is do to spam?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spam .
After all has n't it been stated that 90 \ % of all traffic on the net is do to spam ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spam.
After all hasn't it been stated that 90\% of all traffic on the net is do to spam?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30386382</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but...</title>
	<author>the\_other\_chewey</author>
	<datestamp>1260444600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I could make the outrageous claim that I am currently consuming 12 gigabytes of data per second, based on my monitor's resolution and refresh rate.</p></div><p>
I <i>highly</i> doubt that.<br>
<br>
12GB/s = 103 079 215 104 (assuming binary GB).<br>
Also assuming an outrageously advanced display using 16bit per color channel and a refresh rate of 120Hz,<br>
(which I'm not sure even exists) this gives us 17 895 697 (.1) pixel, or the equivalent of more than four<br>
30" displays with 2560x1600 pixel. What kind of display are you using exactly?<br>
<br>
Also, dual link DVI carries a maximum of 1.2GB/s.<br>
So maybe all my math was useless and you just forgot a decimal point...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could make the outrageous claim that I am currently consuming 12 gigabytes of data per second , based on my monitor 's resolution and refresh rate .
I highly doubt that .
12GB/s = 103 079 215 104 ( assuming binary GB ) .
Also assuming an outrageously advanced display using 16bit per color channel and a refresh rate of 120Hz , ( which I 'm not sure even exists ) this gives us 17 895 697 ( .1 ) pixel , or the equivalent of more than four 30 " displays with 2560x1600 pixel .
What kind of display are you using exactly ?
Also , dual link DVI carries a maximum of 1.2GB/s .
So maybe all my math was useless and you just forgot a decimal point.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could make the outrageous claim that I am currently consuming 12 gigabytes of data per second, based on my monitor's resolution and refresh rate.
I highly doubt that.
12GB/s = 103 079 215 104 (assuming binary GB).
Also assuming an outrageously advanced display using 16bit per color channel and a refresh rate of 120Hz,
(which I'm not sure even exists) this gives us 17 895 697 (.1) pixel, or the equivalent of more than four
30" displays with 2560x1600 pixel.
What kind of display are you using exactly?
Also, dual link DVI carries a maximum of 1.2GB/s.
So maybe all my math was useless and you just forgot a decimal point...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379670</id>
	<title>That's Impossible because of my ISP...</title>
	<author>socz</author>
	<datestamp>1259611740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My ISP caps me at 100GB a month! NO WAY I could do 32 a day!!!!!!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>My ISP caps me at 100GB a month !
NO WAY I could do 32 a day ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My ISP caps me at 100GB a month!
NO WAY I could do 32 a day!!!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379398</id>
	<title>Re:Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1259610240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> Has the flow and importance of information really become this prolific in our daily lives?</p></div><p>
No, they're just making up big numbers to get attention.  Apparently, it's working.
</p></div><p>I would say that yes the flow of information is important, it has been for a long time. The flow of entertainment on the other hand is almost a river of piss.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has the flow and importance of information really become this prolific in our daily lives ?
No , they 're just making up big numbers to get attention .
Apparently , it 's working .
I would say that yes the flow of information is important , it has been for a long time .
The flow of entertainment on the other hand is almost a river of piss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Has the flow and importance of information really become this prolific in our daily lives?
No, they're just making up big numbers to get attention.
Apparently, it's working.
I would say that yes the flow of information is important, it has been for a long time.
The flow of entertainment on the other hand is almost a river of piss.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378784</id>
	<title>Re:Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>/dev/joe</author>
	<datestamp>1259606760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since it is counted by bytes, the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words is a bit of an understatement. Digital cameras these days put out 2 MB jpgs, compared with the average word taking about 6 bytes. So a picture is actually worth about 300,000 words.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since it is counted by bytes , the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words is a bit of an understatement .
Digital cameras these days put out 2 MB jpgs , compared with the average word taking about 6 bytes .
So a picture is actually worth about 300,000 words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since it is counted by bytes, the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words is a bit of an understatement.
Digital cameras these days put out 2 MB jpgs, compared with the average word taking about 6 bytes.
So a picture is actually worth about 300,000 words.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378364</id>
	<title>How is that excreted?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and does it need wiping?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and does it need wiping ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and does it need wiping?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379374</id>
	<title>Re:Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>tgv</author>
	<datestamp>1259610060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, you're trolling! I easily memorize 34Gb per day. That's only 4 to 5 DVDs, pixel by pixel, with a few sound tracks, just over 1500 per year. No problem at all, you Thomas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , you 're trolling !
I easily memorize 34Gb per day .
That 's only 4 to 5 DVDs , pixel by pixel , with a few sound tracks , just over 1500 per year .
No problem at all , you Thomas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, you're trolling!
I easily memorize 34Gb per day.
That's only 4 to 5 DVDs, pixel by pixel, with a few sound tracks, just over 1500 per year.
No problem at all, you Thomas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382262</id>
	<title>Re:We are fat.</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259581680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Typical, I get my 15min of fame and the photographer cuts my head off!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical , I get my 15min of fame and the photographer cuts my head off !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical, I get my 15min of fame and the photographer cuts my head off!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379482</id>
	<title>Eat?</title>
	<author>AnotherBlackHat</author>
	<datestamp>1259610720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today I ate a carrot, which is estimated at over 1*10^9 cells, each cell has over 4*10^8 worth of DNA base pairs, at 2 bits each, that's over 100 quadrillion bytes.<br>I suspect the average American eats more than one carrot a day...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today I ate a carrot , which is estimated at over 1 * 10 ^ 9 cells , each cell has over 4 * 10 ^ 8 worth of DNA base pairs , at 2 bits each , that 's over 100 quadrillion bytes.I suspect the average American eats more than one carrot a day.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today I ate a carrot, which is estimated at over 1*10^9 cells, each cell has over 4*10^8 worth of DNA base pairs, at 2 bits each, that's over 100 quadrillion bytes.I suspect the average American eats more than one carrot a day...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379034</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to say:</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1259608200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Bwwwuuuuuuurrrrrp!</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bwwwuuuuuuurrrrrp !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bwwwuuuuuuurrrrrp!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379350</id>
	<title>Re:Or reposts of the same story everywhere...</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1259610000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's only original until it gets a +5. Then it's repeated over and over...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only original until it gets a + 5 .
Then it 's repeated over and over.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only original until it gets a +5.
Then it's repeated over and over...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379172</id>
	<title>Re:This number is meaningless</title>
	<author>xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D</author>
	<datestamp>1259608920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It <i>shouldn't</i> be entirely meaningless. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude\_Shannon" title="wikipedia.org">Claude Shannon</a> [wikipedia.org] showed that no matter how you represent something, it contains the same amount of information. If I remember right, he did a study early on that showed that each letter in English text carries, on average, about 1 bit of information (in the information theory sense of "information"). You can store it in ASCII or UCS-4 or as a JPEG and even though the different representations require different amounts of data, they all contain the same amount of <i>information</i>: some representations just have more redundancy than others. (Sadly it's undecidable to determine how much information something contains; otherwise compression would be a lot easier).
</p><p>Unfortunately this study seems to have ignored all of that good research and ignored the whole field of "information theory" in general. The numbers they're using on page 8 are totally exaggerated and seem to have no basis in information theory. There's no way a "small picture" contains 8 million bits of information, and even if it did there's no way a person could actually appreciate all that information unless they were staring at it for hours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It should n't be entirely meaningless .
Claude Shannon [ wikipedia.org ] showed that no matter how you represent something , it contains the same amount of information .
If I remember right , he did a study early on that showed that each letter in English text carries , on average , about 1 bit of information ( in the information theory sense of " information " ) .
You can store it in ASCII or UCS-4 or as a JPEG and even though the different representations require different amounts of data , they all contain the same amount of information : some representations just have more redundancy than others .
( Sadly it 's undecidable to determine how much information something contains ; otherwise compression would be a lot easier ) .
Unfortunately this study seems to have ignored all of that good research and ignored the whole field of " information theory " in general .
The numbers they 're using on page 8 are totally exaggerated and seem to have no basis in information theory .
There 's no way a " small picture " contains 8 million bits of information , and even if it did there 's no way a person could actually appreciate all that information unless they were staring at it for hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It shouldn't be entirely meaningless.
Claude Shannon [wikipedia.org] showed that no matter how you represent something, it contains the same amount of information.
If I remember right, he did a study early on that showed that each letter in English text carries, on average, about 1 bit of information (in the information theory sense of "information").
You can store it in ASCII or UCS-4 or as a JPEG and even though the different representations require different amounts of data, they all contain the same amount of information: some representations just have more redundancy than others.
(Sadly it's undecidable to determine how much information something contains; otherwise compression would be a lot easier).
Unfortunately this study seems to have ignored all of that good research and ignored the whole field of "information theory" in general.
The numbers they're using on page 8 are totally exaggerated and seem to have no basis in information theory.
There's no way a "small picture" contains 8 million bits of information, and even if it did there's no way a person could actually appreciate all that information unless they were staring at it for hours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380398</id>
	<title>TFS and TFA grossly underestimate the data stream</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1259573280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFS and TFA grossly underestimate the data stream, at least for people who are not blind. The whole time our eyes are open, you and I are consuming terabytes' worth of high definition "video" per hour, and it is all processed in realtime.  What is the resolution of the human eye equivalent to in terms of pixels at a given viewing distance, what would the color depth be, and what would that stream be uncompressed?  That doesn't take into account the equivalent data produced by your other four senses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFS and TFA grossly underestimate the data stream , at least for people who are not blind .
The whole time our eyes are open , you and I are consuming terabytes ' worth of high definition " video " per hour , and it is all processed in realtime .
What is the resolution of the human eye equivalent to in terms of pixels at a given viewing distance , what would the color depth be , and what would that stream be uncompressed ?
That does n't take into account the equivalent data produced by your other four senses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFS and TFA grossly underestimate the data stream, at least for people who are not blind.
The whole time our eyes are open, you and I are consuming terabytes' worth of high definition "video" per hour, and it is all processed in realtime.
What is the resolution of the human eye equivalent to in terms of pixels at a given viewing distance, what would the color depth be, and what would that stream be uncompressed?
That doesn't take into account the equivalent data produced by your other four senses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380242</id>
	<title>But my laptop only has 4 MB of RAM</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1259572200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and it hardly ever writes to disk, so you guys better stop using up all the Gigabytes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and it hardly ever writes to disk , so you guys better stop using up all the Gigabytes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and it hardly ever writes to disk, so you guys better stop using up all the Gigabytes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380270</id>
	<title>Re:Or reposts of the same story everywhere...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content.  Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing.</p></div><p>The original content appears in the comments.</p></div><p>I, for one, welcome our comment-based original content overlords.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content .
Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing.The original content appears in the comments.I , for one , welcome our comment-based original content overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content.
Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing.The original content appears in the comments.I, for one, welcome our comment-based original content overlords.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379778</id>
	<title>It sounds like a lot consumed</title>
	<author>dilvish\_the\_damned</author>
	<datestamp>1259612460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>however it was mostly catabolic data, consuming more information that it provided.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>however it was mostly catabolic data , consuming more information that it provided .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>however it was mostly catabolic data, consuming more information that it provided.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378470</id>
	<title>Channel capacity?</title>
	<author>1zenerdiode</author>
	<datestamp>1259605320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But, most humans only have a channel capacity of a few *bits* per decision.  Means most of this consumption is not even considered; it just gets dumped.
(an advertiser would tell you that getting a few of those bits is worth it, though).</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , most humans only have a channel capacity of a few * bits * per decision .
Means most of this consumption is not even considered ; it just gets dumped .
( an advertiser would tell you that getting a few of those bits is worth it , though ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, most humans only have a channel capacity of a few *bits* per decision.
Means most of this consumption is not even considered; it just gets dumped.
(an advertiser would tell you that getting a few of those bits is worth it, though).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378414</id>
	<title>and thats just my porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you should see how much i consume in illegal MP3 / MOVIES</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you should see how much i consume in illegal MP3 / MOVIES</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you should see how much i consume in illegal MP3 / MOVIES</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379314</id>
	<title>Huh...</title>
	<author>Thorkull</author>
	<datestamp>1259609700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many calories is that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many calories is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many calories is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379622</id>
	<title>Umm. but what about what we see...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and hear etc..?</p><p>A quick googling states the the "pixel" resolution of a human eye is  576 megapixels. And lets give a conservative estimate for the refresh rate of a human eye: 30Hz. If your eyes are open for just 12 hours a day you see 76 * (10^6) * 16 * 30 * 60^2 * 12 bits =  1390457.15 GB of visual data.</p><p>These statistics are stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and hear etc.. ? A quick googling states the the " pixel " resolution of a human eye is 576 megapixels .
And lets give a conservative estimate for the refresh rate of a human eye : 30Hz .
If your eyes are open for just 12 hours a day you see 76 * ( 10 ^ 6 ) * 16 * 30 * 60 ^ 2 * 12 bits = 1390457.15 GB of visual data.These statistics are stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and hear etc..?A quick googling states the the "pixel" resolution of a human eye is  576 megapixels.
And lets give a conservative estimate for the refresh rate of a human eye: 30Hz.
If your eyes are open for just 12 hours a day you see 76 * (10^6) * 16 * 30 * 60^2 * 12 bits =  1390457.15 GB of visual data.These statistics are stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378914</id>
	<title>What about our eyes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did they forget to account that my eyes see at a higher quality than blue ray with a much wider camera angle.<br>Figure a blu ray movie is equal to 10 gb per hour and im awake for about 16 hours each day so thats like 160 GB of video data I consume.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they forget to account that my eyes see at a higher quality than blue ray with a much wider camera angle.Figure a blu ray movie is equal to 10 gb per hour and im awake for about 16 hours each day so thats like 160 GB of video data I consume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they forget to account that my eyes see at a higher quality than blue ray with a much wider camera angle.Figure a blu ray movie is equal to 10 gb per hour and im awake for about 16 hours each day so thats like 160 GB of video data I consume.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380500</id>
	<title>SPAM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>99.98\% of the 34 Gigabytes per Day is spam!</htmltext>
<tokenext>99.98 \ % of the 34 Gigabytes per Day is spam !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>99.98\% of the 34 Gigabytes per Day is spam!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30384938</id>
	<title>Where is their common sense?</title>
	<author>The Old One 666</author>
	<datestamp>1259602260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I was a university professor, I reserved the right to subtract more than 100\% of the value of an exam question if the student gave with a ridiculous answer (for example answering that the current in a circuit with a 12V power supply and resistors with values of Kohms was so many mega amps).
I fear that the authors of this work need a similar "wake up" slap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a university professor , I reserved the right to subtract more than 100 \ % of the value of an exam question if the student gave with a ridiculous answer ( for example answering that the current in a circuit with a 12V power supply and resistors with values of Kohms was so many mega amps ) .
I fear that the authors of this work need a similar " wake up " slap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a university professor, I reserved the right to subtract more than 100\% of the value of an exam question if the student gave with a ridiculous answer (for example answering that the current in a circuit with a 12V power supply and resistors with values of Kohms was so many mega amps).
I fear that the authors of this work need a similar "wake up" slap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379590</id>
	<title>Fox News is not subtracted.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though liberals hate all truth, Fox is just counted as data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though liberals hate all truth , Fox is just counted as data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though liberals hate all truth, Fox is just counted as data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379056</id>
	<title>34GB...</title>
	<author>WidgetGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1259608320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Per day?  Hell, I do that before breakfast.  Above average again!  Damn, life is sweet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Per day ?
Hell , I do that before breakfast .
Above average again !
Damn , life is sweet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Per day?
Hell, I do that before breakfast.
Above average again!
Damn, life is sweet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380304</id>
	<title>Re:Or reposts of the same story everywhere...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what people always say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what people always say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what people always say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379436</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty impressive</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1259610480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Especially considering 10\% of US internet users are still on dial up.</em>

<br> <br>

Why yes, yes I am (for various technical and economic reasons)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially considering 10 \ % of US internet users are still on dial up .
Why yes , yes I am ( for various technical and economic reasons )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially considering 10\% of US internet users are still on dial up.
Why yes, yes I am (for various technical and economic reasons)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378460</id>
	<title>Pretty impressive</title>
	<author>dingen</author>
	<datestamp>1259605260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Especially considering 10\% of US internet users are still on dial up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially considering 10 \ % of US internet users are still on dial up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially considering 10\% of US internet users are still on dial up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379154</id>
	<title>Data, not Information</title>
	<author>Exanon</author>
	<datestamp>1259608800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having taken "Informatics" (which I still consider a useless course as this is the first time I have had a chance to use it in everyday life) at the university I studied at, I feel obligated to point out the fact that "information" only exists when you take "data" and put it together with a "frame of reference". Hence, the "recievers" are getting so and so many gigabytes of "data" as opposed to information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having taken " Informatics " ( which I still consider a useless course as this is the first time I have had a chance to use it in everyday life ) at the university I studied at , I feel obligated to point out the fact that " information " only exists when you take " data " and put it together with a " frame of reference " .
Hence , the " recievers " are getting so and so many gigabytes of " data " as opposed to information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having taken "Informatics" (which I still consider a useless course as this is the first time I have had a chance to use it in everyday life) at the university I studied at, I feel obligated to point out the fact that "information" only exists when you take "data" and put it together with a "frame of reference".
Hence, the "recievers" are getting so and so many gigabytes of "data" as opposed to information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379032</id>
	<title>Is there value in 34 gigabytes?</title>
	<author>box330</author>
	<datestamp>1259608200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not everything that counts, can be counted / Not everything that can be counted, counts.

Does 34 gigabytes per day have any value?  That depends on whether or not you are a bureaucrat in a recession.

What would be the value of 34 gigabytes per day be if you were a bereacrat? That depends on whether you are a red bureacrat or blue bureacrat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everything that counts , can be counted / Not everything that can be counted , counts .
Does 34 gigabytes per day have any value ?
That depends on whether or not you are a bureaucrat in a recession .
What would be the value of 34 gigabytes per day be if you were a bereacrat ?
That depends on whether you are a red bureacrat or blue bureacrat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everything that counts, can be counted / Not everything that can be counted, counts.
Does 34 gigabytes per day have any value?
That depends on whether or not you are a bureaucrat in a recession.
What would be the value of 34 gigabytes per day be if you were a bereacrat?
That depends on whether you are a red bureacrat or blue bureacrat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378966</id>
	<title>Re:According to comcast</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1259607780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot the porn. Once you factor that in, it makes perfect sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the porn .
Once you factor that in , it makes perfect sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the porn.
Once you factor that in, it makes perfect sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379326</id>
	<title>Re:Or reposts of the same story everywhere...</title>
	<author>halcyon1234</author>
	<datestamp>1259609820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>halcyon1234 notes that 'the original content appears <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1472660&amp;cid=30379026" title="slashdot.org">in the comments</a> [slashdot.org]', says tech site Salshdot regular <b>SomeJoel</b>.</p><p> <b>Update:</b> as several readers have pointed out, the name of the site in question is "Slashdot" and not "Salshdot".</p><p>tags: yes no maybe fuckyouhalcyon1234 micro$oft !dupe dupe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>halcyon1234 notes that 'the original content appears in the comments [ slashdot.org ] ' , says tech site Salshdot regular SomeJoel .
Update : as several readers have pointed out , the name of the site in question is " Slashdot " and not " Salshdot " .tags : yes no maybe fuckyouhalcyon1234 micro $ oft ! dupe dupe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>halcyon1234 notes that 'the original content appears in the comments [slashdot.org]', says tech site Salshdot regular SomeJoel.
Update: as several readers have pointed out, the name of the site in question is "Slashdot" and not "Salshdot".tags: yes no maybe fuckyouhalcyon1234 micro$oft !dupe dupe</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378942</id>
	<title>ADVERTS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i wonder how much of that is advertisements</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i wonder how much of that is advertisements</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wonder how much of that is advertisements</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378868</id>
	<title>Broadband definition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why the US definition for Broadband need to be at least 1Mbps, preferrably higher!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why the US definition for Broadband need to be at least 1Mbps , preferrably higher !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why the US definition for Broadband need to be at least 1Mbps, preferrably higher!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379144</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but...</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1259608740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the\_mod\_points\_i\_was\_going\_to\_give\_you &gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null
<br> <br>
Now rm -rf * off my lawn!</htmltext>
<tokenext>the \ _mod \ _points \ _i \ _was \ _going \ _to \ _give \ _you &gt; /dev/null Now rm -rf * off my lawn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the\_mod\_points\_i\_was\_going\_to\_give\_you &gt; /dev/null
 
Now rm -rf * off my lawn!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379926</id>
	<title>34 GB a day?</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1259613480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets see what's skewed that average:<br>p2p compulsive downloaders stealing music, movies, software and porn 24x7 60\% avg: 350GB a day<br>windows malware sending spam 28\% avg 15GB a day<br>users downloading netflix and other legitimate media they paid for 8\% avg 4GB a day<br>median user using internet for news and email 4\% avg<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.01 GB a day</p><p>Look ma, I can make up statistics too! Mine are probably more accurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets see what 's skewed that average : p2p compulsive downloaders stealing music , movies , software and porn 24x7 60 \ % avg : 350GB a daywindows malware sending spam 28 \ % avg 15GB a dayusers downloading netflix and other legitimate media they paid for 8 \ % avg 4GB a daymedian user using internet for news and email 4 \ % avg .01 GB a dayLook ma , I can make up statistics too !
Mine are probably more accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets see what's skewed that average:p2p compulsive downloaders stealing music, movies, software and porn 24x7 60\% avg: 350GB a daywindows malware sending spam 28\% avg 15GB a dayusers downloading netflix and other legitimate media they paid for 8\% avg 4GB a daymedian user using internet for news and email 4\% avg .01 GB a dayLook ma, I can make up statistics too!
Mine are probably more accurate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352</id>
	<title>Yes, but...</title>
	<author>tool462</author>
	<datestamp>1259604780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much of that is redirected to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of that is redirected to /dev/null ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of that is redirected to /dev/null?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379170</id>
	<title>Re:Consumed...?</title>
	<author>a whoabot</author>
	<datestamp>1259608920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what is your argument exactly?</p><p>That they are using the word "consumed" in the way you are using it when you say "I consumed a Christmas tree" and that that use is sensationalist?  And the way you are using it is to claim that you are in the process of consuming it, but it is not wholly consumed yet?  So your argument is that it is sensationalist because the wording makes it seem like the thing which is said to be "consumed" has become wholly consumed when in reality it is only being consumed and not yet wholly consumed?</p><p>But why do you assume they are using it in that way?  Maybe they are actually talking about information which has been wholly consumed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is your argument exactly ? That they are using the word " consumed " in the way you are using it when you say " I consumed a Christmas tree " and that that use is sensationalist ?
And the way you are using it is to claim that you are in the process of consuming it , but it is not wholly consumed yet ?
So your argument is that it is sensationalist because the wording makes it seem like the thing which is said to be " consumed " has become wholly consumed when in reality it is only being consumed and not yet wholly consumed ? But why do you assume they are using it in that way ?
Maybe they are actually talking about information which has been wholly consumed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is your argument exactly?That they are using the word "consumed" in the way you are using it when you say "I consumed a Christmas tree" and that that use is sensationalist?
And the way you are using it is to claim that you are in the process of consuming it, but it is not wholly consumed yet?
So your argument is that it is sensationalist because the wording makes it seem like the thing which is said to be "consumed" has become wholly consumed when in reality it is only being consumed and not yet wholly consumed?But why do you assume they are using it in that way?
Maybe they are actually talking about information which has been wholly consumed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379948</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but...</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1259613540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is this even possible with a Comcast account? Between the 250GB monthly cap and the switching from PBE to BE if you have 70\% sustained use of download bandwidth, I don't think so. Max is like 8.3 GB per day over 30 days.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Dont think its possible for AT&amp;T DSL either. I think this 34GB/day number is inflated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is this even possible with a Comcast account ?
Between the 250GB monthly cap and the switching from PBE to BE if you have 70 \ % sustained use of download bandwidth , I do n't think so .
Max is like 8.3 GB per day over 30 days .
...Dont think its possible for AT&amp;T DSL either .
I think this 34GB/day number is inflated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is this even possible with a Comcast account?
Between the 250GB monthly cap and the switching from PBE to BE if you have 70\% sustained use of download bandwidth, I don't think so.
Max is like 8.3 GB per day over 30 days.
...Dont think its possible for AT&amp;T DSL either.
I think this 34GB/day number is inflated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30383044</id>
	<title>Re:Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Consider how many "gigabytes" you "consume" just by watching TV for a few hours. Nothing new here..."</p><p>Why wouldn't TV count? It's not an exaggeration, it's just a measurement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Consider how many " gigabytes " you " consume " just by watching TV for a few hours .
Nothing new here... " Why would n't TV count ?
It 's not an exaggeration , it 's just a measurement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Consider how many "gigabytes" you "consume" just by watching TV for a few hours.
Nothing new here..."Why wouldn't TV count?
It's not an exaggeration, it's just a measurement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378456</id>
	<title>According to comcast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>only the bandwidth hogs using P2P are responsible for almost all of that. The rest of  "normal" American users only read a couple emails a day...</htmltext>
<tokenext>only the bandwidth hogs using P2P are responsible for almost all of that .
The rest of " normal " American users only read a couple emails a day.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only the bandwidth hogs using P2P are responsible for almost all of that.
The rest of  "normal" American users only read a couple emails a day...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378936</id>
	<title>Or is "TMZ" type crap</title>
	<author>crovira</author>
	<datestamp>1259607660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>where even the original is content-less, never mind all of the repros and repeats.</p><p>There is an awful lot of crap on the tube, in print and in the movies which is just more-of-the-same.</p><p>Still, with the internet, the population of the western world and Europe has never been so educated nor have had they has such opportunity to drink so deeply from the fount of knowledge.</p><p>I blame "The System" for teaching these unwashed masses to read.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>where even the original is content-less , never mind all of the repros and repeats.There is an awful lot of crap on the tube , in print and in the movies which is just more-of-the-same.Still , with the internet , the population of the western world and Europe has never been so educated nor have had they has such opportunity to drink so deeply from the fount of knowledge.I blame " The System " for teaching these unwashed masses to read .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>where even the original is content-less, never mind all of the repros and repeats.There is an awful lot of crap on the tube, in print and in the movies which is just more-of-the-same.Still, with the internet, the population of the western world and Europe has never been so educated nor have had they has such opportunity to drink so deeply from the fount of knowledge.I blame "The System" for teaching these unwashed masses to read.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378768</id>
	<title>Or reposts of the same story everywhere...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm only half joking.
<p>
If you visit any sort of tech site, you see the same stories/pictures/videos on many, many sites (this is from a blog, but I read the same story over on Gizmodo this morning).
</p><p>
I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content.  Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm only half joking .
If you visit any sort of tech site , you see the same stories/pictures/videos on many , many sites ( this is from a blog , but I read the same story over on Gizmodo this morning ) .
I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content .
Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm only half joking.
If you visit any sort of tech site, you see the same stories/pictures/videos on many, many sites (this is from a blog, but I read the same story over on Gizmodo this morning).
I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content.
Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378568</id>
	<title>Re:Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>kainino</author>
	<datestamp>1259605680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is all kind of silly. You could see it as an exaggeration or a gross understatement. You could fit your results to your ulterior motives. If you recorded all of the input to your eyes, ears, touch, pain, temperature, taste, smell, etc in full detail 24 hours per day, that would probably be measured in petabytes. If you're at a real theater instead of a cinema, that doesn't mean that you're not taking in an equal amount of information via your senses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all kind of silly .
You could see it as an exaggeration or a gross understatement .
You could fit your results to your ulterior motives .
If you recorded all of the input to your eyes , ears , touch , pain , temperature , taste , smell , etc in full detail 24 hours per day , that would probably be measured in petabytes .
If you 're at a real theater instead of a cinema , that does n't mean that you 're not taking in an equal amount of information via your senses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all kind of silly.
You could see it as an exaggeration or a gross understatement.
You could fit your results to your ulterior motives.
If you recorded all of the input to your eyes, ears, touch, pain, temperature, taste, smell, etc in full detail 24 hours per day, that would probably be measured in petabytes.
If you're at a real theater instead of a cinema, that doesn't mean that you're not taking in an equal amount of information via your senses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378412</id>
	<title>obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>how many of <a href="http://www.loc.gov/" title="loc.gov">these</a> [loc.gov] is that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>how many of these [ loc.gov ] is that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how many of these [loc.gov] is that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378800</id>
	<title>Statistics...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lies,</p><p>Damn Lies,</p><p>Statistics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lies,Damn Lies,Statistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lies,Damn Lies,Statistics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378426</id>
	<title>Data Hogs</title>
	<author>Reason58</author>
	<datestamp>1259605140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The study found that the top 5\% would digest over 70 GiB a day. Upon reading this Comcast, for the purpose of easing traffic, has installed horse blinders on them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The study found that the top 5 \ % would digest over 70 GiB a day .
Upon reading this Comcast , for the purpose of easing traffic , has installed horse blinders on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The study found that the top 5\% would digest over 70 GiB a day.
Upon reading this Comcast, for the purpose of easing traffic, has installed horse blinders on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378758</id>
	<title>Do not disturb, idiots at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fish I caught was at least thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big. Cuz biggar R bettar, u kno.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fish I caught was at least thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big .
Cuz biggar R bettar , u kno .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fish I caught was at least thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis big.
Cuz biggar R bettar, u kno.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382186</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but...</title>
	<author>aj50</author>
	<datestamp>1259581380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Data, sure, but the summary did at least specify information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Data , sure , but the summary did at least specify information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data, sure, but the summary did at least specify information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379610</id>
	<title>/dev/null</title>
	<author>Singularity42</author>
	<datestamp>1259611380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you are intelligent, by your use of "/dev/null".  You are also signalling your intelligence.  Others who understand this are probably intelligent as well (those who replied for example).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are intelligent , by your use of " /dev/null " .
You are also signalling your intelligence .
Others who understand this are probably intelligent as well ( those who replied for example ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are intelligent, by your use of "/dev/null".
You are also signalling your intelligence.
Others who understand this are probably intelligent as well (those who replied for example).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378770</id>
	<title>National Broadband Plan a Success!</title>
	<author>Neuroelectronic</author>
	<datestamp>1259606700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see that the last mile problem has been solved.  This is great! We have solved all the major issues with America including the depression, spiraling medical costs, outsourcing of jobs and crime simply with better reports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see that the last mile problem has been solved .
This is great !
We have solved all the major issues with America including the depression , spiraling medical costs , outsourcing of jobs and crime simply with better reports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see that the last mile problem has been solved.
This is great!
We have solved all the major issues with America including the depression, spiraling medical costs, outsourcing of jobs and crime simply with better reports.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378570</id>
	<title>12 hours per day? I call shenanigans.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't include information at work. -8 hours. The average person doesn't consume information while sleeping. -8 hours (OK, not a full 8, but add in a shower and a shave, brushing teeth, etc. and call it 8). So how, exactly, do I consume 12 hours worth of information in my 8 waking, non-working hours?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't include information at work .
-8 hours .
The average person does n't consume information while sleeping .
-8 hours ( OK , not a full 8 , but add in a shower and a shave , brushing teeth , etc .
and call it 8 ) .
So how , exactly , do I consume 12 hours worth of information in my 8 waking , non-working hours ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't include information at work.
-8 hours.
The average person doesn't consume information while sleeping.
-8 hours (OK, not a full 8, but add in a shower and a shave, brushing teeth, etc.
and call it 8).
So how, exactly, do I consume 12 hours worth of information in my 8 waking, non-working hours?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379686</id>
	<title>I wonder what the median is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THe median would be a better measure here since it's highly unlikely bandwidth consumption is a normal random variable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THe median would be a better measure here since it 's highly unlikely bandwidth consumption is a normal random variable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THe median would be a better measure here since it's highly unlikely bandwidth consumption is a normal random variable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379114</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but...</title>
	<author>Medieval\_Gnome</author>
	<datestamp>1259608620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  I could make the outrageous claim that I am currently consuming 12 gigabytes of data per second, based on my monitor's resolution and refresh rate.  And since it's hooked up over DVI-D, this is, strictly speaking, digital information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I could make the outrageous claim that I am currently consuming 12 gigabytes of data per second , based on my monitor 's resolution and refresh rate .
And since it 's hooked up over DVI-D , this is , strictly speaking , digital information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I could make the outrageous claim that I am currently consuming 12 gigabytes of data per second, based on my monitor's resolution and refresh rate.
And since it's hooked up over DVI-D, this is, strictly speaking, digital information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30385306</id>
	<title>Re:Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1259607000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For one thing, all data isn't information. A book is less in bytes, but could be more informative than video, which requires exponentially larger throughput. Bytes measures data, not information.</p><p>Another thing is this study doesn't answer its own question. I assume this is some media study, but it doesn't say so.</p><p>The real answer would be a biological one. Humans consume information through data obtained from its senses, and the senses are constantly on. Eyesight alone is the brain's FPS x sight resolution x hours awake - the time blinking. Add hearing, touch, smell, taste, and an active imagination, and zettabytes will not cut it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For one thing , all data is n't information .
A book is less in bytes , but could be more informative than video , which requires exponentially larger throughput .
Bytes measures data , not information.Another thing is this study does n't answer its own question .
I assume this is some media study , but it does n't say so.The real answer would be a biological one .
Humans consume information through data obtained from its senses , and the senses are constantly on .
Eyesight alone is the brain 's FPS x sight resolution x hours awake - the time blinking .
Add hearing , touch , smell , taste , and an active imagination , and zettabytes will not cut it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For one thing, all data isn't information.
A book is less in bytes, but could be more informative than video, which requires exponentially larger throughput.
Bytes measures data, not information.Another thing is this study doesn't answer its own question.
I assume this is some media study, but it doesn't say so.The real answer would be a biological one.
Humans consume information through data obtained from its senses, and the senses are constantly on.
Eyesight alone is the brain's FPS x sight resolution x hours awake - the time blinking.
Add hearing, touch, smell, taste, and an active imagination, and zettabytes will not cut it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379128</id>
	<title>Re:Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1259608680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well even the computer portion seems to be a huge overestimate.  26.97\% of 34GB/day = 9.1GB/day, or 3.3TB/year.  It's also -- and this is key -- 275GB per month, which is 25GB over the cap on Comcast's "unlimited" service.</p><p>I've *seen* usage charts for my ISP (not Comcast) and 275GB/mo would place you squarely in the top 2\%, and after the top 5\% there's a very long and shallow tail.  Either these numbers were simply pulled out of somebody's rectum, or if they did an actual study with very flawed methodology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well even the computer portion seems to be a huge overestimate .
26.97 \ % of 34GB/day = 9.1GB/day , or 3.3TB/year .
It 's also -- and this is key -- 275GB per month , which is 25GB over the cap on Comcast 's " unlimited " service.I 've * seen * usage charts for my ISP ( not Comcast ) and 275GB/mo would place you squarely in the top 2 \ % , and after the top 5 \ % there 's a very long and shallow tail .
Either these numbers were simply pulled out of somebody 's rectum , or if they did an actual study with very flawed methodology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well even the computer portion seems to be a huge overestimate.
26.97\% of 34GB/day = 9.1GB/day, or 3.3TB/year.
It's also -- and this is key -- 275GB per month, which is 25GB over the cap on Comcast's "unlimited" service.I've *seen* usage charts for my ISP (not Comcast) and 275GB/mo would place you squarely in the top 2\%, and after the top 5\% there's a very long and shallow tail.
Either these numbers were simply pulled out of somebody's rectum, or if they did an actual study with very flawed methodology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380068</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but...</title>
	<author>bpsbr\_ernie</author>
	<datestamp>1259614200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being it's American consumption, I'd have to guess, that 100\% went to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being it 's American consumption , I 'd have to guess , that 100 \ % went to /dev/null</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being it's American consumption, I'd have to guess, that 100\% went to /dev/null</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378396</id>
	<title>We are fat.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we Americans are FAT, we get it!  Just leave us, our couches, and potato chips (I mean Pringles) alone already!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we Americans are FAT , we get it !
Just leave us , our couches , and potato chips ( I mean Pringles ) alone already !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we Americans are FAT, we get it!
Just leave us, our couches, and potato chips (I mean Pringles) alone already!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382352</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but...</title>
	<author>IdleTime</author>
	<datestamp>1259582220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of the 34Gb consumed, 33.9Gb was porn!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of the 34Gb consumed , 33.9Gb was porn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of the 34Gb consumed, 33.9Gb was porn!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378842</id>
	<title>Prolific</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1259607240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What has become prolific is the amount of <i>useless</i> (read advertising) information consumed each day. And, ironically, we consume more paper (in our paperless society) than ever to print all this crap out. The bean counting business has never been better. Just another day in a bureaucrat's paradise...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What has become prolific is the amount of useless ( read advertising ) information consumed each day .
And , ironically , we consume more paper ( in our paperless society ) than ever to print all this crap out .
The bean counting business has never been better .
Just another day in a bureaucrat 's paradise.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What has become prolific is the amount of useless (read advertising) information consumed each day.
And, ironically, we consume more paper (in our paperless society) than ever to print all this crap out.
The bean counting business has never been better.
Just another day in a bureaucrat's paradise...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379896</id>
	<title>I just had a salmon sandwich</title>
	<author>aynoknman</author>
	<datestamp>1259613240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was doubtless some human DNA in the sandwich. As well, sock-eye salmon, margarine (that's got whey which implies bovine and probably soya and/or canola), wheat, yeast. I wonder how many hundreds of different kinds of bacteria.
<p>
The human genome is about 800 megabytes. I'll bet that with the one sandwich I consumed far more than my daily 34 gigabytes. This doesn't include the information processes involved in bringing that food in its current form into my kitchen, or the dustmites and mold spores and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was doubtless some human DNA in the sandwich .
As well , sock-eye salmon , margarine ( that 's got whey which implies bovine and probably soya and/or canola ) , wheat , yeast .
I wonder how many hundreds of different kinds of bacteria .
The human genome is about 800 megabytes .
I 'll bet that with the one sandwich I consumed far more than my daily 34 gigabytes .
This does n't include the information processes involved in bringing that food in its current form into my kitchen , or the dustmites and mold spores and .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was doubtless some human DNA in the sandwich.
As well, sock-eye salmon, margarine (that's got whey which implies bovine and probably soya and/or canola), wheat, yeast.
I wonder how many hundreds of different kinds of bacteria.
The human genome is about 800 megabytes.
I'll bet that with the one sandwich I consumed far more than my daily 34 gigabytes.
This doesn't include the information processes involved in bringing that food in its current form into my kitchen, or the dustmites and mold spores and ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379182</id>
	<title>double counting</title>
	<author>bugi</author>
	<datestamp>1259609040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be more interested in how much information was processed overall, as in without counting each tv show separately for each person watching it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be more interested in how much information was processed overall , as in without counting each tv show separately for each person watching it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be more interested in how much information was processed overall, as in without counting each tv show separately for each person watching it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378958</id>
	<title>Yes and...</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1259607720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>any ISP peak bandwidth caps should be required by the fcc to use this as a baseline. Caps below the consumption of the average american are obviously anti-consumer.</p><p>This includes cell phone data plans of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>any ISP peak bandwidth caps should be required by the fcc to use this as a baseline .
Caps below the consumption of the average american are obviously anti-consumer.This includes cell phone data plans of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>any ISP peak bandwidth caps should be required by the fcc to use this as a baseline.
Caps below the consumption of the average american are obviously anti-consumer.This includes cell phone data plans of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379026</id>
	<title>Re:Or reposts of the same story everywhere...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content.  Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing.</p></div><p>The original content appears in the comments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content .
Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing.The original content appears in the comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content.
Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing.The original content appears in the comments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379406</id>
	<title>Wot, no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259610300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nomnomnom tag?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nomnomnom tag ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nomnomnom tag?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378468</id>
	<title>I can believe it</title>
	<author>alop</author>
	<datestamp>1259605260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just think of ALL the information... Pandora in the background, HDTV at home... pr0n.... SMS messages. I guess this includes things like the Newspaper you'd pick up in the morning, or the leaflet you grab in a lobby of a building. It can all be considered data.</p><p>I would be interested in how much *information* we consume also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just think of ALL the information... Pandora in the background , HDTV at home... pr0n.... SMS messages .
I guess this includes things like the Newspaper you 'd pick up in the morning , or the leaflet you grab in a lobby of a building .
It can all be considered data.I would be interested in how much * information * we consume also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just think of ALL the information... Pandora in the background, HDTV at home... pr0n.... SMS messages.
I guess this includes things like the Newspaper you'd pick up in the morning, or the leaflet you grab in a lobby of a building.
It can all be considered data.I would be interested in how much *information* we consume also.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379060</id>
	<title>Re:and thats just my porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, no kidding, I thought the amount was a bit low too.  My Azureus stats alone approx. 200GB/year, both ways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , no kidding , I thought the amount was a bit low too .
My Azureus stats alone approx .
200GB/year , both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, no kidding, I thought the amount was a bit low too.
My Azureus stats alone approx.
200GB/year, both ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30392778</id>
	<title>Re:Or reposts of the same story everywhere...</title>
	<author>acheron12</author>
	<datestamp>1260477420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content.  Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing.</p></div><p> <a href="http://dilbert.com/2009-11-17/" title="dilbert.com" rel="nofollow">Obligatory Dilbert</a> [dilbert.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content .
Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing .
Obligatory Dilbert [ dilbert.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when you could come to slashdot and truly read original content.
Now all these sites just seem to regurgitate the same thing.
Obligatory Dilbert [dilbert.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378910</id>
	<title>Each American Consumed 34 Gigabytes Per Day In '08</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ohs nos, Think of the children. What will they ever do? What kind of future is there when all the bits are consumed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ohs nos , Think of the children .
What will they ever do ?
What kind of future is there when all the bits are consumed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ohs nos, Think of the children.
What will they ever do?
What kind of future is there when all the bits are consumed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</id>
	<title>Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>14erCleaner</author>
	<datestamp>1259605140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Has the flow and importance of information really become this prolific in our daily lives?</p></div><p>
No, they're just making up big numbers to get attention.  Apparently, it's working.
</p><p>
Consider how many "gigabytes" you "consume" just by watching TV for a few hours.  Nothing new here...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has the flow and importance of information really become this prolific in our daily lives ?
No , they 're just making up big numbers to get attention .
Apparently , it 's working .
Consider how many " gigabytes " you " consume " just by watching TV for a few hours .
Nothing new here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Has the flow and importance of information really become this prolific in our daily lives?
No, they're just making up big numbers to get attention.
Apparently, it's working.
Consider how many "gigabytes" you "consume" just by watching TV for a few hours.
Nothing new here...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379432</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259610420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much of that is redirected to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null?</p></div><p>And how much is pR0n?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of that is redirected to /dev/null ? And how much is pR0n ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of that is redirected to /dev/null?And how much is pR0n?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30381518</id>
	<title>TV and BluRay shouldn't count</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259578200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Useful data is very different from "data" like TV and movies.</p><p>I was a TV-a-holic and have a movie collection with almost 1 thousand DVDs. I haven't jumped to BluRay - not a sports or pron fan, so anything better than DVD seems a waste of money to me.</p><p>Isn't the average BluRay disk 35GB?  Then add the 10GB of stuff they make you watch that you don't want to watch on that disk. No thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Useful data is very different from " data " like TV and movies.I was a TV-a-holic and have a movie collection with almost 1 thousand DVDs .
I have n't jumped to BluRay - not a sports or pron fan , so anything better than DVD seems a waste of money to me.Is n't the average BluRay disk 35GB ?
Then add the 10GB of stuff they make you watch that you do n't want to watch on that disk .
No thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Useful data is very different from "data" like TV and movies.I was a TV-a-holic and have a movie collection with almost 1 thousand DVDs.
I haven't jumped to BluRay - not a sports or pron fan, so anything better than DVD seems a waste of money to me.Isn't the average BluRay disk 35GB?
Then add the 10GB of stuff they make you watch that you don't want to watch on that disk.
No thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380382</id>
	<title>Re:Or reposts of the same story everywhere...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259573160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And that is all I read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And that is all I read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that is all I read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378592</id>
	<title>Re:We are fat.</title>
	<author>anss123</author>
	<datestamp>1259605740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, you have been dethroned by the <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080619121714.l4my6v8z&amp;show\_article=1" title="breitbart.com">australians</a> [breitbart.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , you have been dethroned by the australians [ breitbart.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, you have been dethroned by the australians [breitbart.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379346</id>
	<title>Re:This number is meaningless</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1259609940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A phone conversation would be a 64 kbps audio file (on PSTN, or less than that on a cellphone).  You get more than just the text from listening to someone speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A phone conversation would be a 64 kbps audio file ( on PSTN , or less than that on a cellphone ) .
You get more than just the text from listening to someone speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A phone conversation would be a 64 kbps audio file (on PSTN, or less than that on a cellphone).
You get more than just the text from listening to someone speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378896</id>
	<title>Re:Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259607480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that much actually. Digital SD-TV is about 1-3GB per hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that much actually .
Digital SD-TV is about 1-3GB per hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that much actually.
Digital SD-TV is about 1-3GB per hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379796</id>
	<title>Re:This number is meaningless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259612580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree their evaluation of consumption seems completely fair and meaningful in terms of what our ISPs get to look foward to.  I believe their goal is to reflect what our internet consumption would be if we were to recieve all our daily information from the internet, as that is the trend we are heading toward.  We've begun to seek our entertainment needs previously fulfilled by TV on sites like hulu, youtube, etc., our news from online websites, our movies on demand, our music through streaming online radio.  This is all causing panic amongst our ISPs who are not prepared for the increase in data consumption.<br>My guess is that they probably based all the data as if it were transmitted over the internet, ie: phone conversation as if it were a VOIP call with compression that yields a quality similar to the phone conversation.  Your twitter tweets would be counted by the total data your computer recieved when it sent the request to download the page, your radio usage would be counted with data rates like internet radio, and tv watching as if you were watching a streaming video of broadcast quality.<br>If they were to attempt to measure your consumption, they would likely assume that you had all your data stored on a server you were linked to through the internet (think Google Docs and FTP).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree their evaluation of consumption seems completely fair and meaningful in terms of what our ISPs get to look foward to .
I believe their goal is to reflect what our internet consumption would be if we were to recieve all our daily information from the internet , as that is the trend we are heading toward .
We 've begun to seek our entertainment needs previously fulfilled by TV on sites like hulu , youtube , etc. , our news from online websites , our movies on demand , our music through streaming online radio .
This is all causing panic amongst our ISPs who are not prepared for the increase in data consumption.My guess is that they probably based all the data as if it were transmitted over the internet , ie : phone conversation as if it were a VOIP call with compression that yields a quality similar to the phone conversation .
Your twitter tweets would be counted by the total data your computer recieved when it sent the request to download the page , your radio usage would be counted with data rates like internet radio , and tv watching as if you were watching a streaming video of broadcast quality.If they were to attempt to measure your consumption , they would likely assume that you had all your data stored on a server you were linked to through the internet ( think Google Docs and FTP ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree their evaluation of consumption seems completely fair and meaningful in terms of what our ISPs get to look foward to.
I believe their goal is to reflect what our internet consumption would be if we were to recieve all our daily information from the internet, as that is the trend we are heading toward.
We've begun to seek our entertainment needs previously fulfilled by TV on sites like hulu, youtube, etc., our news from online websites, our movies on demand, our music through streaming online radio.
This is all causing panic amongst our ISPs who are not prepared for the increase in data consumption.My guess is that they probably based all the data as if it were transmitted over the internet, ie: phone conversation as if it were a VOIP call with compression that yields a quality similar to the phone conversation.
Your twitter tweets would be counted by the total data your computer recieved when it sent the request to download the page, your radio usage would be counted with data rates like internet radio, and tv watching as if you were watching a streaming video of broadcast quality.If they were to attempt to measure your consumption, they would likely assume that you had all your data stored on a server you were linked to through the internet (think Google Docs and FTP).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379638</id>
	<title>2500 calories</title>
	<author>hmar</author>
	<datestamp>1259611560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>your average American consumed 34 gigabytes per day. <p>
What is my daily allotment based on a 2500 calorie diet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your average American consumed 34 gigabytes per day .
What is my daily allotment based on a 2500 calorie diet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your average American consumed 34 gigabytes per day.
What is my daily allotment based on a 2500 calorie diet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378452</id>
	<title>slow internets</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>36507222016 / 24 / 60 / 60 = 422,537.292</p><p>thats aprox. 3.4 mbits/s</p><p>time to upgrade America...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>36507222016 / 24 / 60 / 60 = 422,537.292thats aprox .
3.4 mbits/stime to upgrade America.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>36507222016 / 24 / 60 / 60 = 422,537.292thats aprox.
3.4 mbits/stime to upgrade America...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30381750</id>
	<title>All I can say is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*Buuuuuuurrrrrppp*</p><p>Ahhh, feel better now....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Buuuuuuurrrrrppp * Ahhh , feel better now... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Buuuuuuurrrrrppp*Ahhh, feel better now....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379242</id>
	<title>Re:Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1259609280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>An hour of standard television is 90gb of raw data approximatley, this varies with PAL/NTSC and HD standards would be a factor of 2x 4x and more. I would hope this was ignored, but I somehow doubt that. They likely considered a compressed stream of data rather than raw images.
<br> <br>
The actual bitrate of information content of TV is lower of course, and varies greatly. In some cases a negative bitrate: reality TV can actually suck information out of your head.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An hour of standard television is 90gb of raw data approximatley , this varies with PAL/NTSC and HD standards would be a factor of 2x 4x and more .
I would hope this was ignored , but I somehow doubt that .
They likely considered a compressed stream of data rather than raw images .
The actual bitrate of information content of TV is lower of course , and varies greatly .
In some cases a negative bitrate : reality TV can actually suck information out of your head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An hour of standard television is 90gb of raw data approximatley, this varies with PAL/NTSC and HD standards would be a factor of 2x 4x and more.
I would hope this was ignored, but I somehow doubt that.
They likely considered a compressed stream of data rather than raw images.
The actual bitrate of information content of TV is lower of course, and varies greatly.
In some cases a negative bitrate: reality TV can actually suck information out of your head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382636</id>
	<title>Re:This number is meaningless</title>
	<author>shadowbearer</author>
	<datestamp>1259583720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; Take any X number of people in a random sample, show them a visual scene, or play an audio sequence for them, printed word, whatever, and the amount of data they actually "consume" (ie, actively or passively notice and/or act upon) will vary widely between the subjects.</p><p>
&nbsp; As just one example of this, look at automobiles and drivers and the witnesses to accidents.</p><p>
&nbsp; Information is useless if it isn't actually noticed by the processes in the brain, and I doubt there's any way to find out just how much is actually utilized even as an average. It's simply too complicated.</p><p>
&nbsp; So while one can say, as you do, that representation of information has a basic fundamental metric, the actual USE of such information varies so widely as not be something we can estimate. The use of information is what is being discussed here, not information itself (and even there one can go lots further - one could say that an article in a piece of newsprint contains information that can be represented on the atomic, subatomic or quantum levels in addition to what's directly usable by the human brain, although for the most part that's also meaningless when it comes general understanding of it - and physicists and chemists may argue that point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
&nbsp; Not to mention that the word "consumption" hardly applies to information in most of it's forms, except perhaps material items such as newsprint and books.  To "consume" means to use up, ie, we consume food. Nobody in their right mind says that we consume a radio broadcast, or a tv show, or a piece of music. Infinitely replicable data such as TV broadcasts, radio, internet, etc, cannot be considered to be limited in supply (unless you listen to the RIAA).</p><p>
&nbsp; So yeah, basically, this article is meaningless bullshit meant to sell useless, bogus information to ignorant consumers. Hah<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>
&nbsp; Personally, I find the whole concept of statistics as applied to human behavior and mental states a silly endeavor.  It makes some of those people a lot of money, tho.</p><p>SB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  Take any X number of people in a random sample , show them a visual scene , or play an audio sequence for them , printed word , whatever , and the amount of data they actually " consume " ( ie , actively or passively notice and/or act upon ) will vary widely between the subjects .
  As just one example of this , look at automobiles and drivers and the witnesses to accidents .
  Information is useless if it is n't actually noticed by the processes in the brain , and I doubt there 's any way to find out just how much is actually utilized even as an average .
It 's simply too complicated .
  So while one can say , as you do , that representation of information has a basic fundamental metric , the actual USE of such information varies so widely as not be something we can estimate .
The use of information is what is being discussed here , not information itself ( and even there one can go lots further - one could say that an article in a piece of newsprint contains information that can be represented on the atomic , subatomic or quantum levels in addition to what 's directly usable by the human brain , although for the most part that 's also meaningless when it comes general understanding of it - and physicists and chemists may argue that point : )   Not to mention that the word " consumption " hardly applies to information in most of it 's forms , except perhaps material items such as newsprint and books .
To " consume " means to use up , ie , we consume food .
Nobody in their right mind says that we consume a radio broadcast , or a tv show , or a piece of music .
Infinitely replicable data such as TV broadcasts , radio , internet , etc , can not be considered to be limited in supply ( unless you listen to the RIAA ) .
  So yeah , basically , this article is meaningless bullshit meant to sell useless , bogus information to ignorant consumers .
Hah : )   Personally , I find the whole concept of statistics as applied to human behavior and mental states a silly endeavor .
It makes some of those people a lot of money , tho.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Take any X number of people in a random sample, show them a visual scene, or play an audio sequence for them, printed word, whatever, and the amount of data they actually "consume" (ie, actively or passively notice and/or act upon) will vary widely between the subjects.
  As just one example of this, look at automobiles and drivers and the witnesses to accidents.
  Information is useless if it isn't actually noticed by the processes in the brain, and I doubt there's any way to find out just how much is actually utilized even as an average.
It's simply too complicated.
  So while one can say, as you do, that representation of information has a basic fundamental metric, the actual USE of such information varies so widely as not be something we can estimate.
The use of information is what is being discussed here, not information itself (and even there one can go lots further - one could say that an article in a piece of newsprint contains information that can be represented on the atomic, subatomic or quantum levels in addition to what's directly usable by the human brain, although for the most part that's also meaningless when it comes general understanding of it - and physicists and chemists may argue that point :)
  Not to mention that the word "consumption" hardly applies to information in most of it's forms, except perhaps material items such as newsprint and books.
To "consume" means to use up, ie, we consume food.
Nobody in their right mind says that we consume a radio broadcast, or a tv show, or a piece of music.
Infinitely replicable data such as TV broadcasts, radio, internet, etc, cannot be considered to be limited in supply (unless you listen to the RIAA).
  So yeah, basically, this article is meaningless bullshit meant to sell useless, bogus information to ignorant consumers.
Hah :)
  Personally, I find the whole concept of statistics as applied to human behavior and mental states a silly endeavor.
It makes some of those people a lot of money, tho.SB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378466</id>
	<title>What's this information business?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't it be parsed out further into [A: something close to Truth, and B: Lies]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't it be parsed out further into [ A : something close to Truth , and B : Lies ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't it be parsed out further into [A: something close to Truth, and B: Lies]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378564</id>
	<title>"consumed"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and expelled as ejaculate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and expelled as ejaculate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and expelled as ejaculate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378764</id>
	<title>Shameful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259606700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Shameful.
</p><p>
Shameful that the 'researchers' thought this information worthy of release - anyone with brain cells would revise their metrics after their data showed results like this.
</p><p>
Shameful that the NY Times didn't discard it as self-promotional garbage from UCSD.
</p><p>
Shameful that it made it to the front page of Slashdot.
</p><p>
Shameful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shameful .
Shameful that the 'researchers ' thought this information worthy of release - anyone with brain cells would revise their metrics after their data showed results like this .
Shameful that the NY Times did n't discard it as self-promotional garbage from UCSD .
Shameful that it made it to the front page of Slashdot .
Shameful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Shameful.
Shameful that the 'researchers' thought this information worthy of release - anyone with brain cells would revise their metrics after their data showed results like this.
Shameful that the NY Times didn't discard it as self-promotional garbage from UCSD.
Shameful that it made it to the front page of Slashdot.
Shameful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30406536</id>
	<title>Re:This number is meaningless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260524160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We used a specific definition of "information," and based on that used the actual transmission rates when they existed, whatever they were. This is not the same as a Shannon number because nobody uses optimal compression; but it's in the same ballpark. For example:<br>SDTV 4 Mbps<br>Cellular voice 10kbps (heavily compressed)<br>Landline voice 64kbps<br>Books 1.3kbps (based on a reading speed of 250 wpm and 2 bytes per character e.g. Unicode)<br>IMO these are defensible within a factor of 2 or 3 (Of course I'm the lead author, so I have to think that or I would have come up with different numbers!)</p><p><div class="quote"><p> There's no way a "small picture" contains 8 million bits of information, and even if it did there's no way a person could actually appreciate all that information unless they were staring at it for hours.</p></div><p>Regarding the "small picture" you must be thinking of the Internet; I was thinking of something you shoot yourself. My camera spits out 1 MB jpg all the time. In any case, we did not use the numbers on page 8; look on page 32.</p><p>The hardest to figure is a reasonable bit rate for computer games. They are hardware dependent, but also depend on type of game, style of play, video settings, etc. Suggestions welcome; hard data is even more welcome. I've hired a grad student to try to pin this down a little closer.</p><p>(I'm going to cross post this on my blog Art2science.org.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We used a specific definition of " information , " and based on that used the actual transmission rates when they existed , whatever they were .
This is not the same as a Shannon number because nobody uses optimal compression ; but it 's in the same ballpark .
For example : SDTV 4 MbpsCellular voice 10kbps ( heavily compressed ) Landline voice 64kbpsBooks 1.3kbps ( based on a reading speed of 250 wpm and 2 bytes per character e.g .
Unicode ) IMO these are defensible within a factor of 2 or 3 ( Of course I 'm the lead author , so I have to think that or I would have come up with different numbers !
) There 's no way a " small picture " contains 8 million bits of information , and even if it did there 's no way a person could actually appreciate all that information unless they were staring at it for hours.Regarding the " small picture " you must be thinking of the Internet ; I was thinking of something you shoot yourself .
My camera spits out 1 MB jpg all the time .
In any case , we did not use the numbers on page 8 ; look on page 32.The hardest to figure is a reasonable bit rate for computer games .
They are hardware dependent , but also depend on type of game , style of play , video settings , etc .
Suggestions welcome ; hard data is even more welcome .
I 've hired a grad student to try to pin this down a little closer .
( I 'm going to cross post this on my blog Art2science.org .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We used a specific definition of "information," and based on that used the actual transmission rates when they existed, whatever they were.
This is not the same as a Shannon number because nobody uses optimal compression; but it's in the same ballpark.
For example:SDTV 4 MbpsCellular voice 10kbps (heavily compressed)Landline voice 64kbpsBooks 1.3kbps (based on a reading speed of 250 wpm and 2 bytes per character e.g.
Unicode)IMO these are defensible within a factor of 2 or 3 (Of course I'm the lead author, so I have to think that or I would have come up with different numbers!
) There's no way a "small picture" contains 8 million bits of information, and even if it did there's no way a person could actually appreciate all that information unless they were staring at it for hours.Regarding the "small picture" you must be thinking of the Internet; I was thinking of something you shoot yourself.
My camera spits out 1 MB jpg all the time.
In any case, we did not use the numbers on page 8; look on page 32.The hardest to figure is a reasonable bit rate for computer games.
They are hardware dependent, but also depend on type of game, style of play, video settings, etc.
Suggestions welcome; hard data is even more welcome.
I've hired a grad student to try to pin this down a little closer.
(I'm going to cross post this on my blog Art2science.org.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30381344</id>
	<title>Work not included?</title>
	<author>RobVB</author>
	<datestamp>1259577540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From the executive summary: 'In 2008, Americans consumed information for about 1.3 trillion hours, <b>an average of almost 12 hours per day.</b> Consumption totaled 3.6 zettabytes and 10,845 trillion words, corresponding to 100,500 words and 34 gigabytes for an average person on an average day. A zettabyte is 10 to the 21st power bytes, a million million gigabytes. These estimates are from an analysis of more than 20 different sources of information, from very old (newspapers and books) to very new (portable computer games, satellite radio, and Internet video). <b>Information at work is not included.</b>'</p></div><p>12 hours a day of data consumption, work not included? Either you Americans don't sleep, or we've just found a possible cause of the economic crisis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the executive summary : 'In 2008 , Americans consumed information for about 1.3 trillion hours , an average of almost 12 hours per day .
Consumption totaled 3.6 zettabytes and 10,845 trillion words , corresponding to 100,500 words and 34 gigabytes for an average person on an average day .
A zettabyte is 10 to the 21st power bytes , a million million gigabytes .
These estimates are from an analysis of more than 20 different sources of information , from very old ( newspapers and books ) to very new ( portable computer games , satellite radio , and Internet video ) .
Information at work is not included .
'12 hours a day of data consumption , work not included ?
Either you Americans do n't sleep , or we 've just found a possible cause of the economic crisis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the executive summary: 'In 2008, Americans consumed information for about 1.3 trillion hours, an average of almost 12 hours per day.
Consumption totaled 3.6 zettabytes and 10,845 trillion words, corresponding to 100,500 words and 34 gigabytes for an average person on an average day.
A zettabyte is 10 to the 21st power bytes, a million million gigabytes.
These estimates are from an analysis of more than 20 different sources of information, from very old (newspapers and books) to very new (portable computer games, satellite radio, and Internet video).
Information at work is not included.
'12 hours a day of data consumption, work not included?
Either you Americans don't sleep, or we've just found a possible cause of the economic crisis.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380260</id>
	<title>Odd...</title>
	<author>PirateBlis</author>
	<datestamp>1259572320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The title of this makes me feel like I should be a yellow circle and running from ghosts...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The title of this makes me feel like I should be a yellow circle and running from ghosts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The title of this makes me feel like I should be a yellow circle and running from ghosts...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378558</id>
	<title>Consumed...?</title>
	<author>eepok</author>
	<datestamp>1259605620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ya... I consumed 64GB per day. That's right. I also consumed a couch last night. And I consumed an apartment. And I consumed a 2009 Mazda MP3. And I consumed a Christmas tree.<br> <br>

Sensationalist weasel words...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya... I consumed 64GB per day .
That 's right .
I also consumed a couch last night .
And I consumed an apartment .
And I consumed a 2009 Mazda MP3 .
And I consumed a Christmas tree .
Sensationalist weasel words.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya... I consumed 64GB per day.
That's right.
I also consumed a couch last night.
And I consumed an apartment.
And I consumed a 2009 Mazda MP3.
And I consumed a Christmas tree.
Sensationalist weasel words...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378480</id>
	<title>Definitions so broad as to be pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their definitions almost allow grandma to count time sitting in a rocking chair on the porch watching the outside world as "consuming information". Lots of bits of data comming into those eyeballs. Or maybe even if she closes her eyes and starts daydreaming, those dreams count too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>When a "report" spends a substantial amount of time explaining the notations for large numbers, it is a pretty clear sign that it isn't a very serious work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their definitions almost allow grandma to count time sitting in a rocking chair on the porch watching the outside world as " consuming information " .
Lots of bits of data comming into those eyeballs .
Or maybe even if she closes her eyes and starts daydreaming , those dreams count too .
: - ) When a " report " spends a substantial amount of time explaining the notations for large numbers , it is a pretty clear sign that it is n't a very serious work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their definitions almost allow grandma to count time sitting in a rocking chair on the porch watching the outside world as "consuming information".
Lots of bits of data comming into those eyeballs.
Or maybe even if she closes her eyes and starts daydreaming, those dreams count too.
:-)When a "report" spends a substantial amount of time explaining the notations for large numbers, it is a pretty clear sign that it isn't a very serious work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379800</id>
	<title>Re:This number is meaningless</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1259612580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agree.  This is a statistic I've thought about a lot, and eventually come to the conclusion that it can't really be measured.</p><p>In addition to your points, other signs that this report is useless:</p><p>* Byte count depends on compression.  If I watch the same video stream using a new high-tech encoding that halves the bytecount without affecting quality, am I consuming less information?  Of course not.  If I listen to a CD and then listen to the same album on MP3, am I consuming less information?  No.</p><p>* Data is not compared apples-to-apples in the report.  Computer gaming is supposedly the vast majority of data use by bytecount, but that's only because it's measured by uncompressed video card throughput, while TV is measured by the size of the compressed video stream.</p><p>Interesting topic, useless conclusions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree .
This is a statistic I 've thought about a lot , and eventually come to the conclusion that it ca n't really be measured.In addition to your points , other signs that this report is useless : * Byte count depends on compression .
If I watch the same video stream using a new high-tech encoding that halves the bytecount without affecting quality , am I consuming less information ?
Of course not .
If I listen to a CD and then listen to the same album on MP3 , am I consuming less information ?
No. * Data is not compared apples-to-apples in the report .
Computer gaming is supposedly the vast majority of data use by bytecount , but that 's only because it 's measured by uncompressed video card throughput , while TV is measured by the size of the compressed video stream.Interesting topic , useless conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree.
This is a statistic I've thought about a lot, and eventually come to the conclusion that it can't really be measured.In addition to your points, other signs that this report is useless:* Byte count depends on compression.
If I watch the same video stream using a new high-tech encoding that halves the bytecount without affecting quality, am I consuming less information?
Of course not.
If I listen to a CD and then listen to the same album on MP3, am I consuming less information?
No.* Data is not compared apples-to-apples in the report.
Computer gaming is supposedly the vast majority of data use by bytecount, but that's only because it's measured by uncompressed video card throughput, while TV is measured by the size of the compressed video stream.Interesting topic, useless conclusions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378870</id>
	<title>Re:Definitions so broad as to be pointless</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1259607360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since all the visual information has nearly-infinite resolution and analog color depth is infinitely-nuanced, your grandma is consuming +infinity bits of information at any given time. Sound and smell data...who knows.</p><p>Someone should throttle her connection, she's hogging all the bandwidths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since all the visual information has nearly-infinite resolution and analog color depth is infinitely-nuanced , your grandma is consuming + infinity bits of information at any given time .
Sound and smell data...who knows.Someone should throttle her connection , she 's hogging all the bandwidths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since all the visual information has nearly-infinite resolution and analog color depth is infinitely-nuanced, your grandma is consuming +infinity bits of information at any given time.
Sound and smell data...who knows.Someone should throttle her connection, she's hogging all the bandwidths.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378534</id>
	<title>Re:Massive exaggeration</title>
	<author>Tired and Emotional</author>
	<datestamp>1259605560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>But they said information, so not much TV counts. (do they subtract for Fox news?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>But they said information , so not much TV counts .
( do they subtract for Fox news ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they said information, so not much TV counts.
(do they subtract for Fox news?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378510</id>
	<title>Oh man</title>
	<author>thelonious</author>
	<datestamp>1259605500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was just scanning the auction house, jeeze!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just scanning the auction house , jeeze !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just scanning the auction house, jeeze!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586</id>
	<title>This number is meaningless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This number is entirely meaningless.</p><p>Is a phone conversation "consumed" as its transcript (a few hundred bytes) or as an audio file (a few hundred kb) or a really well sampled audio file that conveys nuance perfectly (a few Mb)?</p><p>A tweet is 140 characters, but if I were to take a screenshot of a screen with Twitter (and about 20 tweets) that could be a couple of Mb.</p><p>And much of that "data" could be compressed in a meaningful way.  I spend most of my day in my cubicle staring at my monitor.  Does all of the visual data that my eyes are receiving (about eight hours' worth of grey walls and a small computer monitor's contents) count?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This number is entirely meaningless.Is a phone conversation " consumed " as its transcript ( a few hundred bytes ) or as an audio file ( a few hundred kb ) or a really well sampled audio file that conveys nuance perfectly ( a few Mb ) ? A tweet is 140 characters , but if I were to take a screenshot of a screen with Twitter ( and about 20 tweets ) that could be a couple of Mb.And much of that " data " could be compressed in a meaningful way .
I spend most of my day in my cubicle staring at my monitor .
Does all of the visual data that my eyes are receiving ( about eight hours ' worth of grey walls and a small computer monitor 's contents ) count ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This number is entirely meaningless.Is a phone conversation "consumed" as its transcript (a few hundred bytes) or as an audio file (a few hundred kb) or a really well sampled audio file that conveys nuance perfectly (a few Mb)?A tweet is 140 characters, but if I were to take a screenshot of a screen with Twitter (and about 20 tweets) that could be a couple of Mb.And much of that "data" could be compressed in a meaningful way.
I spend most of my day in my cubicle staring at my monitor.
Does all of the visual data that my eyes are receiving (about eight hours' worth of grey walls and a small computer monitor's contents) count?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379402</id>
	<title>median != mean</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259610240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First off, "your average person" implies the median person. The statistic to which this is referring is a per capita consumption, which is a mean. With such a skewed distribution (VERY large outliers), median != mean != mode, or probably anywhere close. Only with a normal distribution (or similar) does mean = median. Therefore, assuming "the average person" implies the median person, or even the mode person, the comment by the submitter is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First off , " your average person " implies the median person .
The statistic to which this is referring is a per capita consumption , which is a mean .
With such a skewed distribution ( VERY large outliers ) , median ! = mean ! = mode , or probably anywhere close .
Only with a normal distribution ( or similar ) does mean = median .
Therefore , assuming " the average person " implies the median person , or even the mode person , the comment by the submitter is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First off, "your average person" implies the median person.
The statistic to which this is referring is a per capita consumption, which is a mean.
With such a skewed distribution (VERY large outliers), median != mean != mode, or probably anywhere close.
Only with a normal distribution (or similar) does mean = median.
Therefore, assuming "the average person" implies the median person, or even the mode person, the comment by the submitter is wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30386382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30392778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30406536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30383044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30381490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30395682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30385306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_09_1643237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30406536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30381490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30395682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378470
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30383044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30385306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379026
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382610
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380304
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380270
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30380382
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30392778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30382186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30386382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30379144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_09_1643237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_09_1643237.30378452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
